Jump to content
The Education Forum

Jon G. Tidd

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,404

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Jon G. Tidd

  1. Jon G. Tidd
    Paul Trejo, By "amateur" I mean an individual not having requisite training and experience and competence.. By "professional" I mean an individual having requisite training and experience and competence. IMO, the JFK kill-team plotters and executioners included professional assassins and professional assassination planners. Edwin Walker was an amateur when it came to assassinations. So was Guy Bannister. Neither had training or experience in planning and carrying out high-level political assassinations. You maintain, as have others, that Oswald was "sheep dipped" in New Orleans in the spring and summer of 1963. Is yours a professional or an amateur opinion? I admit that professionals can and do make mistakes. It happens all the time in my field. That goes to competence, not to training and experience. I admit that amateurs sometime hit the nail on the head. If I need a delicate and important operation performed, I'll go with a professional, a professional I deem competent, every time. Maybe, as you argue, Walker and his buds, amateurs at high-level political assassination, got things just right. That's not a bet I'd place, however; the odds are too poor. Your theory, IMO, flounders on the rocks of probability. I can't say it's wrong; it's just not compelling or even slightly persuasive to the informed audience at Education Forum. But do keep up the struggle.
  2. Jon G. Tidd
    Jim Hargrove, IMO, the FBI was trying to frame Oswald, but it had a problem. The problem was connecting a Mannlicher-Carcano to Oswald. In history, Oswald bought the murder weapon, a Mannlicher-Carcano purchased from Klein's. The press bought the story Oswald purchased the murder weapon. And buys it today.
  3. Jon G. Tidd
    Paul T., You may be correct. In which case I believe the plotters were amateurs who couldn't anticipate the reactions of LBJ. Hoover, McCone. I don't believe the plotters were amateurs.
  4. Jon G. Tidd
    Paul Trejo, I believe the plotters anticipated correctly the response of the U.S. Government to [1] JFK's murder, and Oswald's designation as patsy. Those in positions of power, including RFK, in the U.S. Government had zero interest in a full investigation into JFK's murder. Zero. The plotters knew this in advance. There's no need to assume LHO had been recruited as an intelligence agent. He was being observed by U.S. intelligence agencies, no doubt. But so what?
  5. Jon G. Tidd
    Ron Ecker, I'm fairly described as conservative and have not been a big fan of Obama's. Nonetheless, I applaud some of his foreign policy decisions; in particular, those pertaining to Cuba and Iran. Neither of those countries need be an enemy of the U.S. I wonder also about Obama. My take is he is listening to some individuals, not aligned with Israel, above my pay grade. Obama is a complex critter.
  6. Jon G. Tidd
    Paul, without doubt I believe the CIA is protecting itself, from unwanted investigations that might uncover all kinds of misdeeds. I go back to the assassination weekend, during which John McCone received two sets of Z-film briefing boards, one prepared by Dino Brugioni's team, the other prepared by Homer McMahon's team; one the real deal, the other based on fabrications. McCone buried the real-deal set. Why? IMO it's because the U.S. Government game plan was to pin JFK's murder solely on LHO, and because McCone knew very well he better play the game to avoid intolerable public demands for a full and un-fettered investigation that might uncover all kinds of stuff. Stuff ranging from private scandals to appalling government actions. McCone in my estimation was uninvolved in JFK's killing but surely saw the advantage of going with the flow and not fighting against the designated patsy. Today the CIA would surely want to conceal such behavior on the part of one of its directors.
  7. Jon G. Tidd
    If there were two Oswalds, and I believe there were based on photos, that's interesting. But the existence of two Oswalds does not prove the CIA had a hand in JFK's assassination. The CIA may have used Oswald or his identity. That's unremarkable. It's interesting but unremarkable. Would the CIA want, even today, to conceal its use of doubles? You bet. But the doubling goes to the cover-up. The question is not, what role did the CIA play in JFK's assassination? The question is, why has the CIA played cover-up in the JFK assassination?
  8. Jon G. Tidd
    Paul B, As Deep Throat said, follow the money. The Bush money ostensibly is from oil (and as I understand, banking). A deeper look at the Bush money comes from examining the drug trade. An even deeper look is at the Franklin Bank. A prediction: If Donald Trump is elected president, he will serve at the Bush family's pleasure.
  9. Jon G. Tidd
    Michael Baden said that if the SBT was false, JFK was shot at least six times from three different directions. I have a low opinion of Baden but do believe many more than two bullets pierced JFK's body. The killers were firing at a distance, in a first for a political assassination I believe. They wanted JFK dead, not simply wounded. They would have preferred redundancy in wounding, therefore. I suspect, but this is merely a suspicion, that JFK's skull was so shot to pieces that Humes and Boswell didn't know what to do. Perhaps even a Cyril Wecht would have been perplexed by the condition of the skull.
  10. Jon G. Tidd
    I am not on a mission to absolve the CIA of anything. I don't think either the CIA or its non-contract employees had a hand in killing JFK. Just my opinion. The facts, not opinions or unsupported hearsay, show that the CIA and its non-contract employees have played a major role in covering up the truth relating to the assassination. Exhibit A is the George Joannides deception. There are many more such exhibits. Along with facts there is lots of "noise." It's the job of everyone here, IMO, to identify the noise so that it can be filtered out. I believe, for the reasons I've given, that the Hunt, Morales, and DAP confessions are noise. Anyone who believes the confessions are not noise should give reasons why not.
  11. Jon G. Tidd
    The confessions of Hunt, Morales, and Phillips signify nothing to me. Hunt, for all I know, was bequeathing something St. John that St. John could use to make money. Morales made his confession after drinking heavily; drinking heavily is no guarantee of truthfulness. DAP may have been in Dallas, who knows, but surely he wasn't part of the kill team; his expertise was disinformation campaigns.
  12. Jon G. Tidd
    Ray, I have no inkling as to the size or cause of the skull bone defect Humes closed with the rubber dam.
  13. Jon G. Tidd
    Ken, Everyone who comments on the JFK assassination has an agenda. My agenda is to dispel the idea that the CIA had a hand in the assassination, to establish LHO was set up to take the fall, that Oswald wasn't an intelligence agent, that the cover-up took on a life of its own.
  14. Jon G. Tidd
    Scott, Are you saying Castro had something to do with JFK's murder? Or that because Castro wasn't killed, it was necessary to kill JFK and pin the murder on Oswald, a public supporter of Castro?
  15. Jon G. Tidd
    By "matter today" I mean "have consequences playing out today". The assassination clearly has consequences playing out today for those who debate aspects of the assassination. For me, the only part of the assassination that matters to me today is the cover-up. For me, if the mafia did it, so what? For me, if the Cubans did it, so what? For me, even if the CIA did it, so what? I don't really care who did it. I want the full and complete truth as to why our government and its many employees have fought so hard over the years to keep the American people from knowing the truth of the assassination.
  16. Jon G. Tidd
    Dissenting view: JFK knew the BOP operation was going forward. JFK knew the Saigon coup was going forward. If you were JFK, what would you expect of the BOP operation or the Saigon coup? At the time, I was an ignorant, uninformed teenager. I know now I would have said, hold back. Why? Because I was opposed to war and conflict. JFK was wonderful for teens in the first few years of the 1960s. He fueled so much. He fueled so much. Yet I believed the BOP and the Saigon coup to be disastrous and to be laid at JFK's doorstep.
  17. Jon G. Tidd
    JFK conceivably could have died on 11-22-63 for many different reasons. Such as an accident, a heart attack or stroke, a gunshot fired by LHO provably acting alone. In any one of these events, LBJ would have become president, and the 1960s would have unfolded pretty much the same. The reason JFK's death is important today, IMO, is that the cover-up as to the exact nature of his wounds has fueled suspicion of the U.S. Government that will not abate. As was said during the Watergate affair, the cover-up is worse than the crime.
  18. Jon G. Tidd
    Greg, JFK was boss once he became president. In the 1,000 days JFK was president, he was the boss. At the time, JFK relied on the "best and the brightest". JFK had faith in guys like McGeorge Bundy, the Rostows, Rusk, McNamara. JFK was boss but he relied upon advisers who were the "best and the brightest". JFK bears fault for the mistakes made during his presidency. He also bears fault, IMO, for relying upon Ivy League advisers.
  19. Jon G. Tidd
    Jim Di @ post #26: I believe JFK bears the blame for the BOP disaster. Yes, there was a contingency plan. Yes, CIA officers misled JFK. JFK knew of the plan to invade Cuba. Yes, he may have been misled by the CIA as to the chances of success. JFK was the boss. He could have said, stop it. Instead he played wait and see. Nixon, IMO, would have insisted on a sure bet. JFK did not insist on a sure bet. What does all of this have to do with the JFK assassination? IMO, nothing. JFK, it's clear, wasn't killed over Cuba. Paul Trejo is correct that the CIA wasn't involved in the killing. James Douglass is appealing. But JFK wasn't killed over a losing bet. JFK was killed because he stood against history.
  20. Jon G. Tidd
    I can't prove where bullets entered or exited JFK, but I can accept the possibility a bullet entered the low rear part of JFK's skull based upon Hume's statement that a low entry wound was discovered by placing a bone fragment adjacent to bone that had not been blown out. Humes also said at the end of the autopsy, a hole remained in the skull that he helped cover with a rubber dam. Humes lied multiple times, I believe; but I also believe his medical training compelled him to tell the truth to the extent he thought the truth wouldn't get him in trouble. Just an opinion.
  21. Jon G. Tidd
    David G. Healy @ post #477: I'd bet the 2017 disclosures will add to the sense of cover-up but provide nothing new on the assassination itself. Allowing the MSM to yawn once again.
  22. Jon G. Tidd
    Martin, I remember the good old days, having been born in late 1945. In retrospect, the food, music, and public education were far superior. None of those are coming back in an across-the-board way. U.S. politics haven't changed, in my view. It's all self-serving. Unlike some, I'm optimistic about the U.S. Its charter, the Constitution, is largely un-flawed. Largely. Voters still get to vote. Still get to make history. For me personally, having grown up in Illinois, JFK's death hasn't had a big impact except psychologically. The biggest impact for me was the Illinois law in the mid-1950s that outlawed firecrackers and other July 4th fireworks. I've always been an assume-the-risk person.
  23. Jon G. Tidd
    Thanks, Pat. I'm in the body-alteration camp and the forged-autopsy photos and x-rays camp, but I like to read your arguments. There are several reasons I'm in the two camps. The main one is that I believe the principal reason for the JFK debate today is the fact that there is widespread disagreement over the nature and extent of JFK's wounds. That fact is, I believe, indicative of a deliberate effort to obfuscate the nature and extent of the wounds in order to promulgate a false picture of the causes of JFK's wounding and death.
  24. Jon G. Tidd
    Pat, It strikes me you have a concept. That the autopsy photos are genuine. And that the autopsy x-rays are genuine. If I'm wrong, please correct me.
  25. Jon G. Tidd
    I don't know how it's possible to prove any conclusion about JFK's wounds. All the conclusions I've read are opinions based on unproven assumptions. If a genie gave me one wish as to the assassination, I would wish to see complete photographs of JFK's head and upper body taken at Parkland.
×
×
  • Create New...