George Sawtelle

Jason "Firing Dulles does not cause Dulles to think the electric chair is a reasonable risk." Your speculation or do you have documentation?

Jason Why is Gen Walker or any other radical right leader not afraid of the electric chair but CIA agents are? IOWs, your rational that the CIA did not do it is because they had too much to lose and did not want to die in the electric chair but when it comes to the radical right they did it but apparently they had nothing to lose and were not afraid of the electric chair.

Jason Where do you want me to look? Normally I wouldn't instruct anyone on what to do, what research to do, what to study, etc., but you asked so here it is. It seems you have some resources. With that in mind I suggest you look into the following ... 1) Travel, appointments, phone records, and correspondance of Allen Dulles and D. Eisenhower starting in June 1963 and ending Nov 22, 1963 2) Travel and phone record of Bill Harvey for the same period 3) Phone record of David Atlee Phillips for the same period 4) Find out if Dulles met with David Atlee Phillips when Phillips visited Wash DC in summer of 1963 Any info would be very helpfull. Good luck

Jason You won't solve the case relying on testimony from the Warren Report or FBI documents.

Jason Your true colors are coming out. I guess you believe the SBT and the lone gunman theory are viable alternatives since you apparently believe they are not inventions. If you planned an operation, any operation, wouldn't you plan it down to the last detail. This goes without saying. No documentation is needed. Filming Kennedy's limo from the time it made the turn onto Elm from Houston is not the same as taking photos of the presidential limo. Kennedy humiliated Dulles first by not backing him at the Bay of Pigs then dismissing him as CIA director. He returned the favor in Dealey Plaza. By the way, have you solved the Kennedy murder yet. That's what I thought. What good are all the documents you've posted when you still keep going around in circles.

Jason The killers of Kennedy wanted to humiliate him and his family (the family of mom and dad and his brothers and sisters, not his family with Jackie). They wanted to shoot him down like a dog in the street. They hated Kennedy with a passion for what he had done to them. That little Kennedy he thought he was a god. A poison pill wouldn't do. They had everything planned to the last detail but they couldn't control everything. They couldn't keep Zapruder from filming. They didn't plan on a missed shot that caused the injury to Tague. Those two unforeseen events caused the CIA to scamble to save their lone gunman theory. They invented the SBT which of course is ridiculous. But they were able to plant enough plausible deniability which still stands today.

Jason I agree the CIA wouldn't use anti-Castro Cubans for an operation in which success was important. That is why I've always believed the plotters would not involve anti-Castro Cubans in a plan to kill Kennedy except in a very limited capacity. Some were trusted, i.e., Antonio Veciana, but the majority ... no. The CEO of the assassination plot employed professionals to kill Kennedy. Although success is not 100% insured no matter who is employed, the success rate is the highest if professionals are used. And no one entity could employ pros to kill Kennedy except the CIA.

Paul Che died in 1967. Why didn't Castro slowly roll back Che's communist agenda in Cuba after Che died if Castro was not communist and was coerced by Che to implement communist policy in Cuba? Che was probably more radical than was Castro but the rift between them had more to do with exporting communist revolution to Latin America and not communist agenda for Cuba. Castro believed the best method of uplifting the poor of Cuba was through communist policy in Cuba. When he took steps to implement communist policies he effectively became a communist. In early 1960 the US began to train Cuban guerrillas to invade Cuba. This was the start of what eventually became the Bay of Pigs invasion. By early 1960 Eisenhower realized Castro must be removed from power.

Harry Would Russia spend millions and risk nuclear war to protect a revolution that was not communist? The historical record indicates Cuba's domestic policies are rooted in communism. Many of those policies were instituted after Che was killed. In Mar 1960 the US begin training guerrillas in the canal zone of Panama to invade Cuba.The US could not accept a communist government 90 miles from it's shore and Cuba exporting communist revolution to Latin America. The US believed it was dealing with a communist regime in Cuba.

Jason In Apr 1959 Castro visits the US and meets with VP Nixon. After the meeting, Nixon says in so many words that Castro in either incredibly naive about communism or is under communist discipline. In Mar 1960 the US begins training guerrillas in the canal zone of Panama and subsequently Guatemala for an invasion of Cuba. (Chronology of Bay of Pigs) It had become apparent that in early 1960 the US was planning an invasion of Cuba. The US government realized Castro was a communist and that he was to be "sawed off", in the words of Eisenhower. In July 1960, based on the letter addressed to Kennedy written by Harry Dean that you posted on pg 15, was elected Secretary of the FPCC. In July 1961, one year after he is elected Secretary of the FPCC, the letter you posted is sent and in it Dean says he found communist documents in the packet of information that he was given when he was elected. Based on the communist literature he found and concern for our country Dean decides to inform the government that the FPCC was under communist influence. It certainly appears then that Dean is anti-communist. Therefore it is clear that before Dean became Secretary of the FPCC the sentiment within US government circles and throughout the US is that Castro is a communist . Yet Dean believes in Castro and his revolution (he indicated that he was a friend of the Cuban revolution) and only came forward when he found communist documents a year earlier. So there seems to be a conflict with Dean's belief system. On one hand he admires Castro who he should know is a communist and on the other he is anti-communist who desires to inform on the organization that he believes is communist inspired. Maybe you can unravel the apparent discrepancy or maybe Dean can.

Yes Pam, we are on the same page.

Paul You think???? You are entitled to your opinion. I believe there were four gunmen in Dealey Plaza who fired at Kennedy. Two of the gunmen wounded him, in the back and in the throat, and a third fired the shot that hit him in the head`and killed him. A fourth gunman fired three shots, one shot hit Connally in the back, two shots missed the limo but one missed shot caused the nick on James Tague's cheek. A total of six shots were fired at Kennedy. I believe three of the gunmen were sent to Dealey Plaza by the american mafia and the fourth was the Oswald look-alike placed on the sixth floor by David Atlee Phillips. The above, the wounds and the number of shots, is based on my conclusion after studying the forensic evidence of the case given in D.B. Thomas's book "Hear No Evil".

Paul The corsican assassin is more sexy and intriguing than the boring american mafia assassin. The Dinkin story reads like a Hollywood movie script. A lone pfc fighting against all odds to get the story out that JFK will be killed. He goes AWOL to spread the word about the assassination but returns willfully and is not put into the brig for going AWOL (the article doesn't mention consequences for going AWOL). Pure Hollywood right out of the CIA playbook.

Paul I'm going by the original post. I don't know his source. This is typical CIA modus operandi. They spread lies to keep people in line. With the Dinkin affair it's the US military. They try to keep us in line by calling us conspiracy theorists, basically a bunch of kooks. They are looking for plausible deniability, that's all. And that is why they have been coming out with all their garbage lately and why they released documents early. They feel the heat.

Jason Secret military communication, no matter how crypted it may be, would not be the form of communication used by the plotters of the assassination. Information like the assassination of the US president would be imparted by face to face communication. Assuming the US military wanted to inform NATO about the assassination. According to V Palamara, the messages, one intercepted in mid-October and one intercepted on 2 Nov, came from Western Europe. Now if the messages had come from the USA, I wouldn't have thought twice about it, but from Western Europe. Someone doctored the information provided in the Dinkin story. That is why I don't believe the story. I doubt anyone will find documentation that refutes the story. Only the person/s who planted the story know the truth and he/they aren't talking.

Dinkin story is disinformation. Takes the heat off of the CIA. Typical.

David The OP implies that both the Holocaust and a conspiracy to kill the president are true. There is a mountain of evidence that prove they are true. The big problem is that many in the research community do not believe in the evidence of a conspiracy to kill the president. That has led to all kinds of weird theories. Many here on this forum don't believe the Zap film was altered. Many here don't understand the blur analysis and thus don't believe in it. And the same goes for the acoustical analysis. If the evidence was understood many would know the CIA altered the Zapruder Film. Many would know beyond a reasonable doubt that there was more than three shots fired at Kennedy in Dealey Plaza. The problem is ignorance on the part of many within the research community.

I think what Cliff is trying to point out is that Kennedy was shot in the back and that the wound has nothing to do with the SBT. Many people don't believe he was shot in the back because they believe the loud sound that occurred at the intersection when Kennedy's limo made the turn was a back fire from a motorcycle. Now it seems many want us to forget about the loud noise. I see no mention of it in any of the threads or any JFK forum. The extant Zap film shows Kennedy oblivious to the loud sound ... he waves and smiles throughout as the limo makes the turn. There are photos which show the crowd turning toward the intersection of Elm and Houston looking for the origin of the sound. Yet Kennedy doesn't flinch in response to the sound. It's as if someone wants to erase the sound too.

Steve The original cover-up was simple. Blame it on the patsy. Three shots with one rifle, lone gunman working for Castro. Now we have our pretext for invading Cuba and ridding ourselves of Castro forever. But the plotters did not plan on the Zapruder Film. The Zap film changed a simple cover-up into a complicated one that had to be worked by the seat of their pants. Why are so many people convinced of a cover-up? Because it wasn't well thought out it had to be done on the fly. This is a cover-up that relies on the single bullet theory ... that should tell you something about the planning of the cover-up. The plotters planned and executed the assassination and conducted the cover-up. However the cover-up wasn't all their doing. They had help.

Joe I would be on solid ground by saying the CIA is right wing. I would even consider some agents to be radical right. And maybe some belong to radical right groups. It's possible Milteer received information on the Kennedy's assassination from those folks. But I doubt the CIA would stick it's neck out to cover for radical right groups.

MILTEER They wouldn't leave any stone unturned there no way. They will pick up somebody within hours `afterwards, if anything like that would happen just to throw the public off. Milteer`wasn't sure the assassination would happen. He was passing along information he had heard. He had no first hand knowledge about the assassination and wasn't involved in the planning. IMO it wasn't a radical right plan.

One can narrow down the list of usual suspects to one. Has the CIA stonewalled to protect the radical right, LBJ, the mafia, the Cubans? It's ludicrous to think that the CIA would cover-up the crime of the century to protect anyone other than itself. It's self preservation, one of God's given instincts. We can narrow down the suspects to individuals by answering the following question ... who has a history of working on CIA projects for regime change? Which agents have a history of working on regime change in Guatemala, in Chile, Cuba, Vietnam, Indonesia. Make no mistake, the Kennedy assassination was a coup d-etat, regime change.

Joe Many people knew Kennedy was going to be hit. Look to the cover-up. Who or what entity is protected by the cover-up? Why protect someone who is dead? Why not accept it and move on. But that is not what we have seen. The cover-up endures 50 plus years after the assassination. You can rest assured that who or whatever entity that lives is still being protected.

Mathias The fact that there were three planned attempts on Kennedy's life, one of course which was successful, destroys the lone nut theory. That is what is important about this information. Oswald was not a lone nut. He was part of one of three plots to kill Kennedy in Nov 1963. Also, a very interesting side note to all of this is the following If the Cuban had been successful and had been captured, would there have been a cover-up? If Vallee had been successful and had been captured, would there have been a cover-up? I think the answer to the two questions above is yes. The three plots led to Castro and LBJ didn't/wouldn't want a confrontation with Russia which could result in a nuclear exchange. It was LBJ who changed the plans of the plotters by pushing the lone nut theory in his eagerness not to confront Russia that caused the plotters to undo much of the fake Castro did it scenario which opened them up to scrutiny that led to the huge cover-up.

What are the odds that these three attempts on Kennedy were not related? Three attempts within the same month or even within the same year. IMHO, there is probably a 0.1% chance that the three are not related and thus a 99.9% chance that they are related. And when one thinks about it seriously it's probably a DNA type percentage for a match, like one in 200 million. One of the lone nut assassins was a Cuban (revenge for the Bay of Pigs), one was a nut job and the other was a commie. Three diverse lone nuts but all three with the same intent. Of the usual suspects, which one could get three plans, three different hitmen in three different cities all together to kill the president of the United States? So lets assume that the three attempts are related, the odds certainly point in that direction, would this be enough to dispel the lone nut theory? I think it does. A certain group who were trying to hedge their bets so to speak. This wasn't about some poor soul who all of a sudden woke up one day and decided to kill the president for whatever reason.