Roger Odisio
-
Posts
650 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Roger Odisio
-
-
13 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
You mean the DPD was told that Oswald was the designated patsy, and that was the reason DPD directed their police officers to go to the Texas Theater and arrest Oswald?
If so, that would mean that the head of the DPD was in the the conspiracy.
I think it's much more likely that the conspirators somehow brought to the DPD's attention evidence of some kind indicating Oswald should be a suspect. Faked evidence.
No. the police were simply told to arrest Oswald. They had the Tippit murder as a proximate reason but that's not the point. The police are like the military, they follow orders; they don't question them.
At the time of the arrest, they had no real evidence tying Oswald to the JFKA unless you want to count that Oswald had left the TCBD, as others did, and vaguely matched the description given by a witness. Too flimsy for words.
They arrested Oswald without evidence because he was the designated patsy. Before the murder, they had prepared to arrest him because they needed to kill him before he could talk to a lawyer. They could have killed him, then framed him, without arresting him at the theatre, and some believe that may have been the original plan. But it didn't work out that way if it was the plan.
-
9 hours ago, Robert Morrow said:
Jim DiEugenio is 100% correct. Lyndon Johnson did not think of or support the concept of what became known as the "Warren Commission."
What LBJ did was PICK HIS BEST FRIENDS AND ALLIES to be on the "Warren Commission" so LBJ could rig it to blame it all on a lone nut named Oswald. LBJ did this all the while telling people behind the scenes that it was an "international communist conspiracy" that that Fidel Castro had killed JFK.
Russell and Boggs were best friends with LBJ. McCloy was friends with LBJ, Clint Murchison Sr. and longtime LBJ-fixer Abe Fortas.
Allen Dulles had been FIRED by JFK just like LBJ was within days of being FIRED by John Kennedy. And just like Lyndon Johnson's blood brother and neighbor of 19 years (1943-1961) J. Edgar Hoover was going to be FORCED TO RETIRE when he turned age 70 on January 1, 1965.
Gerald Ford was picked specifically by LBJ because FORD HAD CIA EXPERIENCE as Lyndon Johnson explicitly told him and you can hear this today on YouTube.
The only screw up by LBJ was putting a personal friend of JFK, Sen. John Sherman Cooper, on his presidential commission. Sen. John Sherman Cooper thought in real time that LYNDON JOHNSON HAD JUST MURDERED JFK and Cooper was leaking Warren Commission information to journalist Dorothy Kilgallen (see RFK and Cooper aide Morris Wolff for those relevations).
Lyndon Johnson wanted to rig the cover up of JFK's death with a Texas Court of Inquiry led by Waggoner Carr.
Of course LBJ opposed a national commission, but the critical point is he rigged it anyhow by putting his best friends and CIA/FBI friendly people on it.
Lyndon Johnson told Madeleine Brown at the Driskill Hotel on 12/31/63 that Texas oil and "xxxxing renegade intelligence bastards" had killed JFK. Of course, this psychopath made a point to leave out his own involvement in the JFK assassination.
Look, JIm, I'm disagreeing with Robert.
Robert, I'll ask you the same question Jim keeps avoiding. If the planners knew an investigating body would be necessary once they got rid of Oswald, and Johnson was going to be responsible for setting it up, how could they have *not* have sought his ideas about it and made sure he was on board with what they wanted? The results of an investigation would be crucial to the success of the whole project.
I'll say it again, the murder would not have happened without some idea beforehand about how to control the subsequent investigation and get the result the planners wanted.
Johnson did *not* oppose a national commission, no matter what he said to fool you on those calls he taped.. Some sort of investigation was going to happen. He wanted a commission he could control that would make the findings he wanted. That's what he got.
-
10 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
Roger,
This is the last reply I will make to this since I think you are close to joining the Robert Morrow club.
The references I will make are to the Gibson essay in The Assassinations.
Gibson begins his essay by saying that the version on the creation of the Commission in the HSCA is largely based on Katzenbach and is therefore not complete. (p. 4). For one, both Hoover and Johnson were dead.
Its quite clear that Hoover did not want a Commission, as Gibson writes, he opposed the idea. (ibid). And Katzenbach admitted that , "I am sure I talked about it with people outside the government entirely who called me and suggested old friends or former colleagues." (p. 7) Incredibly, or predictably, the HSCA did not follow this lead up.
The first time anyone brought it up specifically was by Rostow on the 24th.(p. 7) Right after Ruby shot Oswald. Rostow was a figure outside the government, at Yale. Rostow had talked to Katzenbach already about it (more than once), and he is now talking to Moyers. Rostow specifically said that his suggestion was of a "Presidential commission", one "of very distinguished citizens". He wanted a set of 7-9 people to "look into the whole affair of the murder of the President." (p. 7)
Why? Because, Rostow went on to say, that "American opinion is just now so shaken by the behavior of the Dallas Police that they're not believing anything." (p. 7) And Moyers agreed with that perception. And then Moyers repeated the idea of a blue ribbon commission. And then he said he would bring it up with LBJ. (p.8) And we know that Rostow recruited Katzenbach because Hoover mentions that Katzenbach had suggested the idea late on the 24th. And there is some evidence that Walter Jenkins had also been approached. (p. 9)
Now I do not see how you can get any more specific than that. Because Rostow's concept is what happened. And Rostow had now recruited, at least, Katzenbach and Moyers to his idea.
On the morning of the 25th LBJ is talking to Hoover. Johnson says that a DOJ rep, likely Katzenbach, is lobbying with the Washington Post about a presidential commission. He then says he thinks that "would be very bad". Because he does not think the White House should be part of this. (p. 9). He then brings up the idea of jurisdiction. (p. 10) (Which legally, he is correct on.)
Later on in the conversation LBJ says that he favors an FBI report which would then be given to the AG. If not then a Texas Board of Inquiry supported by the FBI. (p. 10). After this conversation is when Alsop now called LBJ. Rostow was the guy working the flanks and softening up the ramparts. Alsop will now go in for the kill.
RIght at the beginning, LBJ says he favors a Texas inquiry backed by the FBI. Something from outside would be really bad.(p. 10) He actually said this three times to Alsop at the start. Alsop steps right over this by saying that the Post is going to advocate for a blue ribbon commission. He then says that Johnson should announce, in this case, a smaller commission, of three men, preferably lawyers. And they will write a report. He accents that this report has to be reviewed outside of Texas.(p. 11)
He then resorts to flattery and tells him if he does this, he will have The Post behind him and also the rest of the press. LBJ still resists, since he does not want to interfere with a state matter, and says he has been advised by lawyers not to. Alsop battles back and plays his ace card: this is the murder of a president! (p. 12). LBJ still resists. But Alsop comes right back and plays his other ace: only in this way can the country be convinced. He then says he is worried about the Post but LBJ can get ahead of them. He even says that Moyers should call Kay Graham and tell them that he is going to do it. (p. 14). LBJ is now cowered and says he will talk to Acheson about it. Alsop plays the affection card, and says "I hate to interfere sir, I only dare to do so because I care so much about you." (p. 14) And LBJ falls for this and says, "I know that Joe."
And within 72 hours of this, LBJ had reversed himself and announced he will form a commission. The double team of Alsop and Rostow worked. I stand by what I said, the Commission was not LBJ's idea. It was brought to him by players outside the government.
I'm always amused when someone I'm discussing something with tries to cut off further discussion by announcing this will be his last post. In this case, Jim, you couldn't resist twisting the knife by claiming I was becoming a disciple of Robert Morrow as some kind of justification for leaving. I couldn't be expressing my own thoughts.It reminds me of the time when I first broached the topic of Johnson's involvement, you claimed I must have gotten that from "A Texan Looks at Lyndon". Little did you know I was actually around when the book came out and immediately dismissed it as Goldwater type propaganda.When a person announces his departure usually one or both of two things are in play. He has run out of answers and he been resorting to repeating the same points again and again. And/or he is saying the other person, or the topic, or something is no longer worth his time. Looks like both apply here.Your departure at this point is all the more egregious because your endless repeating of the same points is made while repeatedly ignoring the points I posed in opposition. There hasn't really been much of a discussion between us so far.It's a fact that Alsop and Rostow separately suggested to Johnson that he appoint some sort of official body to look into the murder in order to assuage the public's unease. No one disputes that. Though you're also ignoring the substance of their suggestions which, particularly in Alsop's case, bore little resemblance the WC Johnson appointed. In fact, as I said Alsop said to Johnson he was *not*suggesting a new body to look at the case,but merely offering PR, not legal, advice about how to handle the public's misgivings.But those suggestions do*not* establish that that was the first time Johnson heard about the idea or in any way contemplated it. That's obvious isn't it? Your assertion that the first time anyone brought it (an investigative body) up to Johnson "specifically was by Rostow on the 24th" is not only unsupported but surely is palpable nonsense.Set aside Johnson's possible involvement in the planning for a minute. The planners knew that an investigation would be necessary once they got rid of Oswald. How is it possible then that they never gave any thought, before proceeding with the murder, to how to control that investigation to prevent their actions from being revealed. The success of the whole operation literally depended on solving that problem.You agree, I presume, that Johnson created a commission that did precisely what the planners wanted.I've explained the reasons why I think the other planners would need Johnson's input on that point, including assurances from him that he would do his part as the creator of the commission. Agree with that or not, it probably doesn't matter a lot in discussing this point. But to suggest that we got the WC because Alsop and Rostow lobbied Johnson for it, and in the process changed Johnson's mind, who you claim was originally against the idea, is something you haven't established. It's also simply false. -
19 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:19 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:My answers in italics.This line of thought doesn't work, Keven, because in the first instance it contains no reason for Pompeo to push Trump to conceal CIA records, then, based their records he saw, tell Carlson they were in fact involved. Setting aside schizophrenia.KH: I agree with you that such a scenario contains inconsistencies, and is not strictly logical, but human beings are often inconsistent and illogical, particularly when intoxicants are introduced into the picture, such as political power. It is not difficult for me to imagine a situation in which Pompeo dutifully executes his bureaucratic obligation to protect the reputation of his agency in his official capacity as Director of the CIA by discouraging Trump from releasing the records, then brags about it and the reasons why in an unofficial conversation with Tucker Carlson which he specifies to be "off the record." And indeed, "schizophrenic" may very well be an apt description of a CIA Director like Pompeo drunk off his ass on power.RO: But to do what you suggest Pompeo did, he would have to really not care about the CIA or its reputation because he would be damaging it severely by telling Carlson he knows for a fact they were involved in the JFKA.You've introduced the concept that the informant got Carlson to agree that what he was telling him was off the record. What does that phrase mean to you? Does it mean the information is not to be repeated, but could be used by Carlson the further his understanding of the issues? Or simply that the identity of the source will not be revealed. The latter is boilerplate procedure for a journalist and his source so I'm, assuming you mean the former, and that Carlson broke his promise. Do you have any evidence of that?If true that would be grounds for Pompeo's anger and could have justified the call from his lawyer trying to tell Carlson to back away.But I doubt that it is true. Carlson knows that sources are his lifeblood. Blatantly betraying one of them like that, in such a big case, would damage him in the eyes of other sources, probably severely. Carlson is no Assange, who takes the position that even if a source is dead and his death resulted from giving him the information, he will not reveal him as a source. Carlson despises Pompeo, but I doubt he would betray him like that because it would redound on him.Nor would Carlson, at the same time he is revealing what his informant (Tucker in your version) told him confidentially then invite the same person to talk to him about it publicly. The informant must have already requested confidentiality and both he and Carlson knew Carlson did not have to, and would not, reveal his source. As well as anyone Carlson knows confidential sources are the lifeblood of journalism.KH: I agree with you that it would not be fully in keeping with the best principles of journalism, but again, we are dealing with the presence of the intoxicant of power influencing Tucker Carlson at the height of his ascendancy as the most popular host at Fox. Mix into that what I would characterize as Tucker's contempt for Pompeo, and you just might have the formula by which Tucker decided to skate along the margins of journalistic principles in the hope of scoring a big disclosure on his show. After all, Tucker had already made it clear that he was going to maintain the anonymity of his source, and Pompeo was a frequent guest on Fox at the time, so Pompeo could very well have accepted the invitation and made the decision for himself about whether or not to offer more than routine bureaucratic doublespeak on the show.RO: You've got that intoxication of power thing working overtime. I don't think there is any way Pompeo would have agreed to go on Carlson's show to answer Carlson's questions about CIA involvement. Pompeo knew that Carlson knew too much and would not be so easy to intimidate or slough off as other talking heads.It's much more likely Carlson challenged Pompeo to come on his show in order to challenge him about the things his real source had said. Knowing Pompeo would refuse.KH: I question why you are assuming that Tucker would expect Pompeo to refuse his invitation if Pompeo were not the source. That Pompeo refused to appear, and that Tucker made such a big deal out of Pompeo refusing to appear actually seems to me to be more logical if Pompeo were the source, than if he were not. It would not have otherwise been at all unusual for Pompeo to appear and recite the standard justifications for the CIA's position, but something was going on behind the scenes which motivated Tucker to put Pompeo's refusal in the spotlight, and that motivated Pompeo's lawyer to call Tucker to threaten him the very next day. Those two things make a lot more sense to me if Pompeo was the source.RO: Whether or not Pompeo was the source, he would not go on Carlson's show. Carlson's highlighting of Pompeo's refusal was likely because he couldn't resist taking a shot at Pompeo when he had the chance.Carlson did not need Pompeo to tell him about the vulnerability of confidential sources and Pompeo knew that. That wasn't the reason for the call.KH: If Pompeo was the source, then he obviously would have been very distressed by Tucker's story and the spotlight that Tucker had shined on his refusal to appear on the show. It makes perfect sense to me that he would want to communicate the gravity of the situation through his lawyer the next day, even if for no other reason than to get Tucker to lay off of him.RO: I agree this is plausible, whether or not Pompeo was the source.Since I've already wasted so much time on this topic, which I think is of little importance, and to add another element to this, let me tell you what I really think. I doubt that Carlson *had* a source claiming the CIA was involved in the JFKA. He had been covering the story off and on for a few years and knew quite a bit about it, including some of the players. I think he concluded on his own the evidence indicated CIA involvement. He indicated as much, quite subtlely, on the Rogan show by some of his references to evidence about what happened becoming clear to him.Carlson knew claiming the CIA was involved would be a bit startling but could only have so much impact. He would be easily dismissed by the major news orgs and many pundits.But claiming a CIA source had told him that the CIA was involved, based on his intimate knowledge of what is in the records being withheld, would pack a much greater punch, and get much more attention. He was right about that.He was actually taking little risk with this subterfuge. He knew he wouldn't have to reveal his source. In fact most of the corporate media want the story to go away; they don't want to stir it up further by robing it with questions.The story heightened his star, and probably played a role in his firing by Fox. But he has landed on his feet running around the world making news. He talks glowingly about the freedom he now enjoys out from under his Fox bosses.Of course I can't prove any of this. But to me, who is Tucker's source is another useless puzzle distracting researchers from the real work of deciphering the JFKA.
-
1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:
Roger, your reply to Gibson above is, to say the least, rather weird.
Plain and simple: LBJ did not want a blue ribbon commission.
The record indicates that the first guy to suggest this to the White House was Gene Rostow on the 24th. RIght after Ruby shot Oswald. And Rostow had already talked to Katzenbach. Rostow tells Moyers this had to be done, the appointment of a commission and Moyers tells him he will bring it to Johnson's attention. And Rostow said he had talked to one other person about this matter already. Further, Walter Jenkins was also cognizant of the idea that day. Since he wrote a note about it.
On the 25th, in a call with Hoover, Johnson voices his opposition to it and calls it "very bad". But he is aware that some have gone to the Washington Post about the idea. He wants an FBI report that would then be passed on to the AG. HIs second suggestion is a Texas Court of Inquiry to be supplemented by the FBI.
Now that is where LBJ was right before the Alsop call on the 25th and its all in B and W, right in Gibson's essay.
It was clearly the Alsop call that changed Johnson's mind on this issue. Because at the beginning of the call, he still is insisting that the Texas authorities take the inquiry since its a state crime. And he thinks they should be supplemented by the FBI.
It was at this point that Alsop took over the call and he invokes the Washington Post and the name of people like Dean Acheson to serve on the Commission. And the FBI would serve as the investigatory body.
WIthin 72 hours LBJ reversed himself and supported the Commission. So no, the Warren Commission was not Johnson's idea. The other stuff you have in there does not relate to what Gibson is saying here. Its theorizing.
Jim,
You've ignored my point and simply repeated what you said before. I'm not going to call your post weird, but you ought to think twice before resorting to such tactics. Ignoring a person's point and simply repeating the same things is not how conversations are supposed to work.
My point is, saying Johnson did not want "a blue ribbon commission" is not the right question ask. Who was it that wanted, not just any commission, but the kind of commission the WC was and was able to bring it to fruition?
Clearly that was not Alsop or Rostow, whose suggestions to Johnson weren't even on point to what happened. Alsop says right out he wasn't suggesting a new Investigative body to Johnson but rather some people to take the FBI findings already made and better present them. He was, he said, only offering Johnson PR, not legal, advice.
Alsop's suggestion had nothing to do with Johnson's ultimate creation of the WC. He did *not* change Johnson's mind
In fact, Johnson's mind was not changed at all despite what he claimed. Only the gullible believe he really wanted an investigation in Texas, beyond his ability to name the investigators and control the result, based on the transparently false reasoning he offered Alsop, as I explained. My earlier post left out one other thing he said to Alsop about preferring a Texas investigation: my lawyers tell me the president must not inject himself into "local killings". Could there anything more phony than that? Even Alsop had to remind him that it was the US president who was killed, sir.
How unpleasant it is to see you resorting to the old CIA trick to dismiss what I said: I have the facts; you're just theorizing. In fact there was no theorizing involved in what I said. I took facts and deduced their logical connections to reach a conclusion about what happened. You can challenge the facts or the logic but it won't do to claim I was merely theorizing.
For example, I assume you accept as fact that the planners of the murder chose Oswald as the patsy to blame and resolved to kill him before he could talk to a lawyer, thus eliminating a trial. Which they did. That meant there would have to be an official investigation. The POTUS had been murdered; it was no small matter.
It follows that before the murder, in fact as a condition that must be met in order to go ahead with the murder, the planners must have considered how to do that investigation to give themselves a good enough chance to get away with it.
We know as the new president the responsibility fell to Johnson to create and staff that investigation. We know that in the end the WC lied about, distorted, ignored, and destroyed evidence in order to reach a pre-ordained conclusion that Oswald was guilty and acted alone. Absolving the actual killers. The WC's purpose was not to find out what happened, but to conceal it.
You don't have to believe that Johnson was involved in this train of events but it seems pretty clear to me that he was not only involved but essential to acheving most of it. If not Johnson, who?
Go ahead, Jim, take a whack at that if you disagree.
-
3 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:
A little more than a month ago in response to one of your posts on another thread, after reviewing the Tucker Carlson videos in question, and seeing that Tucker Carlson had made a big production out of calling for Pompeo to be a guest on this particular segment in which Tucker was announcing confirmation of the involvement of the CIA in the JFKA from a source familiar with the withheld JFK records, I was led to speculate that it had actually been Pompeo who had been the source (I was suspicious that Tucker's announcement about Pompeo was intended to give Pompeo a kind of plausible deniability):
The following video starts out with part of the hurrah Tucker was making about Pompeo declining to appear on his show to comment on the segment:
I had at the time been assuming that there was a friendly collusion going on between Tucker and Pompeo behind the scenes, but after hearing Tucker share his animosity toward Pompeo on the recent Rogan interview, that assumption is definitely out the window. Another possibility might be that Tucker was opportunistically trying to set up the segment to have Pompeo offer more to Tucker about what he or another had already disclosed to him about the involvement of the CIA, and maybe the call to Tucker from Pompeo's lawyer was really a way for Pompeo to communicate to Tucker that he should shut up about it because of Pompeo's culpability for disclosing classified information to Tucker?
This line of thought doesn't work, Keven, because in the first instance it contains no reason for Pompeo to push Trump to conceal CIA records, then, based their records he saw, tell Carlson they were in fact involved. Setting aside schizophrenia.
Nor would Carlson, at the same time he is revealing what his informant (Tucker in your version) told him confidentially then invite the same person to talk to him about it publicly. The informant must have already requested confidentiality and both he and Carlson knew Carlson did not have to, and would not, reveal his source. As well as anyone Carlson knows confidential sources are the lifeblood of journalism.
It's much more likely Carlson challenged Pompeo to come on his show in order to challenge him about the things his real source had said. Knowing Pompeo would refuse.
Carlson did not need Pompeo to tell him about the vulnerability of confidential sources and Pompeo knew that. That wasn't the reason for the call.
-
On 4/26/2024 at 4:29 PM, Sandy Larsen said:
Oh I don't know, Roger. Maybe whatever it was that got the whole police force out to arrest Oswald... which they did at Texas Theater.
I didn't say it was valid evidence.
Say what?
LBJ was hoping for a death bed confession from Oswald. Why would he have hoped for that if he knew Oswald was innocent?
Of course LBJ and Hoover thought Oswald was guilty.
That IS the easy choice!
I'll let J. Edgar Hoover tell you. Here is what he said to LBJ over the phone regarding the evidence implicating Cuba:
"This angle in Mexico is giving us a great deal of trouble because the story there is of this man Oswald getting $6,500 from the Cuban embassy and then coming back to this country with it. We're not able to prove that fact, but the information was that he was there on the 18th of September in Mexico City and we are able to prove conclusively he was in New Orleans that day. Now then they've changed the dates. The story came in changing the dates to the 28th of September and he was in Mexico City on the 28th. Now the Mexican police have again arrested this woman Duran, who is a member of the Cuban embassy... and we're going to confront her with the original informant, who saw the money pass, so he says, and we're also going to put the lie detector test on him."
Oswald reportedly had been paid $6500 for the hit in the Cuban Consulate. And was paling around with Silvia Duran and some Cuban officials while in Mexico City. (This according Elena Garro, June Cobb, and Gilberto Alvarado.) And then there was the evidence that Oswald met with KGB assassinations chief Valeriy Kostikov at the Soviet Embassy. And the letter Oswald supposedly sent to the Soviet Embassy in Washington DC saying that he had conducted his business with Comrade Kostin (i.e. Kostikov).
One other quick answer. When they arrested Oswald at the theatre shortly after the murder, they had no evidence of him killing Kennedy. They arrested him because he was the designated patsy.
-
14 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
My latest substack is on this subject. It is still free, what a bargain.
"Tucker Carlson on the JFK Case: Pompeo was protecting James Angleton"
Here you go.
It was a good idea to, in your substack article, soften a bit your claim made here that Pompeo was Carlson's source by saying "in all probability", Jim.But the careful reader will notice you offered little or nothing real to support your claim.In particular you avoided the question: why would Pompeo, after having convinced Trump to not release JFK records (that was Pompeo' position, but I think you may be exaggerating his influence) then tell Carlson the CIA was involved in the murder? He knew Carlson well enough to know Carlson would go with that story on his TV show with a big audience. He must have anticipated the outcry that followed, including renewed interest in the CIA as the villain.In short, telling Carlson that would have undercut his position on the CIA and the records. Why would he do that? -
On 4/26/2024 at 7:37 PM, James DiEugenio said:
The Warren Commission was not Johnson's invention, that is not accurate.
Johnson did not want a blue ribbon commission.
He had to be convinced to do it by, first Eugene Rostow, and then Alsop. And Alsop then told him that the Washington Post was going to come out with that idea also. LBJ did not want it and Alsop's conversation with him was a masterful piece of flattery, persuasion, and massaging to get him to construct it.
I mean, everyone knows what happened after. It was a mess. But what did anyone expect with Hoover running the inquiry? Hoover actually was on record as closing the case before Katzenbach was. In fact, I now think that his memo the night before might have been the model for Katzenbach's. About 80 per cent of the inquiry was done by Hoover. In second was the Secret Service, and as we all know--Elmer Moore for one--they were about as bad as the FBI was. Does anyone even want to talk about the CIA, and that stunt they pulled in Mexico CIty? Which even Hoover saw through after about six weeks.
So with those three bodies doing the inquiry, it was pretty much a foregone conclusion. But then you had the MSM basically encouraging it and accepting it and then giving it a rocket boost when it came out. It is really bizarre to me how the MSM did not scream, or even object, to the WC having closed hearings. Not one peep. And the only witness who complained was Mark Lane. I mean closed hearings on the public execution of the president?
As per Dulles, remember, Talbot in his biography of the man, revealed that he was the one commissioner who lobbied for the job. Therefore, it might not have been solely LBJ's decision on that one. But he clearly understand after that this was a mistake, and I think he tried to cover it up.
Gibson does a good job going through what happened in the 5 days between the death of Oswald and Johnson announcing the WC. He has the timeframe right. He rightly emphasized that until Oswald was killed there would have been a trial, not an investigation.But his conclusion that the WC created to do that investigation was not Johnson's idea, but came from others like Alsop and Rostow is not supported by his article.In his call, Joe Alsop suggests Johnson appoint three jurists, one from Texas, to take the FBI's findings and present them to the public. The Left, he says, will not buy an FBI report and anyway they don't write very well. He specifically says he is "not suggesting an investigative body" to Johnson. Instead he is offering PR, not legal, advice about how to handle the process.Rostow's advice is no more on point. He suggests a panel of distinguished citizens--maybe former Gov Tom Dewey, or Nixon, *but no Supreme Court Justices* because the public has been so shook by the behavior of the Dallas police they are not believing anything.Do either of these suggestions sound like what became the Warren Commission? If not, how did we get the kind of WC we know about, where what happened that day is ignored or distorted in order to frame Oswald.Johnson's initial response to Alsop is a glaringly false attempt at diversion. He doesn't want people to think he is pulling the strings. He says he favors a Texas investigation by the AG there because they have jurisdiction. We can't have outsiders (like him!) telling Texans their integrity is no good. There can be no carpetbag trials. We're not going to haul people from Texas and try them in New York.Reminder: Johnson is the guy who ordered Kennedy's body to be snatched from Dr. Rose. who had jurisdiction in Texas, so he could take it back to DC for a fake autopsy.The real question here is not whose idea it was to create some kind of official body to lay the facts in front of the public. No, the real question is whose idea was it to create a commission for the purpose we know the WC carried out. We know that person or persons wasn't Alsop or Rostow or anyone Gibson mentions in his article.Johnson also knew the public needed to be reassured, but he knew there was more to forming a commission than that. He needed to have confidence that the official investigating body would reach the preordained conclusion that Oswald was guilty and acted alone. Naming the 6 figureheads and Allen Dulles as commissioners was the first step in that process. Hiring only a bunch of lawyers to massage the evidence followed.A little background will help with the question.When the assassinations planners decided to go with the Oswald story but kill Kennedy in a crossfire with multiple shooters, they knew there would be a lot of work to do to obscure that discrepancy, to make their story believable. They planned to eliminate Oswald before he could talk to a lawyer, and they did. That meant there would have to be an official investigation into the murder. They must have worked out a plan for that too before the murder.For much of the important part of the coverup work--control of the body and autopsy, creating the official investigation, etc.--they would have to depend to some extent on the new president, Johnson. They would need some assurances from him on his role in the coverup, as well as his acquiescence to making the policy changes that motivated the murder in the first place. They were not going to go ahead with the murder without a plan they had confidence in to get away with it, blame someone else, and get the policy changes they wanted.That means Johnson must have participated in the pre-murder planning. In that process it's likely he developed some ideas of the kind of official investigation that would be needed once Oswald was murdered. The actual Warren Commission that Johnson proposed, for whom he picked the commissioners, and whose perfidy we saw in action, *was* Johnson's idea. It was his solution to the dilemma. -
1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:
Roger:
Do you know a lot of nice sweetie pies who work for the CIA?
So I don't know where you are going with that.
RO: I don't know anyone who works there except Ray McGovern who used to. You don't know where I'm going with what.Jim?
But the significance of this is that it corroborates what Trump told Napolitano. Because Pompeo is the guy who, on the day the documents were supposed to be let go, pleaded with Trump not to do it.
RO: Pompeo pleading with Trump to not release records not only does not corroborate that he was the source saying the CIA was involved, it contradicts it. If he was the source and knowing Tucker would report it, the resulting uproar created would clearly undercut his case to keep the records secret. Isn't that obvious?
So he threatens Carlson with a lawsuit, and previously he got Trump to, IMO, break the law.
I like what Carslon said to him, so you shutting me up is more important than who killed JFK?
RO: I'm not trying to shut you up Jim, I'm simply disagreeing with you. That's Ok with you isn't it?
-
13 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:
I am not sure if Jeff Morley is aware of this.
But I sure hope someone tells him about it.
This is something he can run with, since he gets more face time on the MSM than anyone on our side.
I wouldn't run too, far with this if I was Jeff. First of all, Carlson saying Pompeo's lawyer contacted him to say revealing classified info was a crime was not really much of a revelation. Pompeo himself issued a public statement saying that. He was just sending his lawyer to make sure Carlson got that message, and trying to intimidate him from pursuing the JFKA further.
In making your claim, you're ignoring the rest of what Carlson said about Pompeo. He is really sinister, an outlaw, a bad guy who is a criminal in Carlson's opinion. He convinced Trump not to release information the public has a right to now after 61years. Most of all he plotted to kill Assange. Yet everywhere Pompeo goes now he is treated royally, which outrages Carlson.
Yet we're supposed to believe Pompeo is the guy who spilled the beans to Carlson that the CIA was involved in the JFKA? Which Carlson immediately went with on his show, creating considerable interest in the murder. Don't you think the guy who told that to Carlson should have suspected Carlson would do that with the information? Doesn't compute that it was Pompeo does it? Whether or not you believe Carlson that Pompeo was the central figure getting Trump to withhold JFK records.
The interview was not the first time Carlson had called Pompeo a criminal. It's interesting to contrast Carlson's view of Trump, who he likes despite his flaws Carlson recognizes, with Pompeo who he has no compunctions saying publicly he despises.
-
10 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:
In this scenario Castro would have been accused of starting it by whacking Kennedy. The Soviets got what they wanted out of Cuba when the US withdrew missiles from Turkey. Their response would have been diplomatic, railing against American imperialism at the UN. The US could have countered by citing the alleged Oswald meeting with Kostikov in Mexico City.
No, the same principle would have been an attack on the USSR from the soil of an American ally. The US bombed the hell out of North Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia and there was never talk of nuclear confrontation over it.
Why would Kennedy's advisers think the US didn't enjoy nuclear superiority in 1963?
And surely Khrushchev wasn't crazy enough to initiate a nuclear exchange over a country that wasn't vital to USSR security.
I disagree with your assessment of relations at the time between the SU and Cuba, between Krushchev and Castro, that underlies your comments. The Soviets "got what they wanted out of Cuba " when the US removed the missiles it had in Turkey? You think that's why put them in Cuba, with nuclear warheads! in the first place?
Have you heard about the Bay of Pigs? And the constant attempts to kill Castro?
Krushchev and Castro were in constant contact. It was Krushchev who convinced Castro that he could talk to Kennedy, and those talks were just starting when Kennedy was murdered (another reason for the murder). As the mortal threat to Castro from the US continued unabated, Castro was agitating for more protection from the SU.
Cuba was a great prize in the Western Hemisphere for Krushchev. Castro was to become an important figure internationally. Krushchev agreed to the missiles hoping they would give Castro some breathing room and be a deterrent to the US.
To resolve the crisis Kennedy realized he had to offer more than just his assurances he would not try to invade Cuba again. Even if sincere, it would not bind future presidents. That's why he agreed to quietly, unannounced, remove the missiles in Turkey, which were of little value to the US anyway.
-
55 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:
Oh I don't know, Roger. Maybe whatever it was that got the whole police force out to arrest Oswald... which they did at Texas Theater.
I didn't say it was valid evidence.
RO: Saying there is evidence implies it is valid There is no such thing as invalid evidence. If it's invalid it isn't evidence.
Say what?
LBJ was hoping for a death bed confession from Oswald. Why would he have hoped for that if he knew Oswald was innocent?
RO: I am amazed at how many people take things that Johnson said, or was supposed to have said, at face value. If he said that, it was diversionary play acting for effect because he knew he was not going to get a confession from Oswald.
Of course LBJ and Hoover thought Oswald was guilty.
RO: Now that is real nonsense. How could you even say "of course" to me after reading my thread showing why Johnson was an essential participant in the murder plan. You did read that thread didn't you? Perhaps you should respond to those points if you disagree rather than these unsupported claims you are making.
-
39 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:
RO: But do not obscure the fact that the amorphous group that wanted to get rid of Kennedy had several factions. Only some of them thought it was a good idea to use the murder as a pretext to go after Castro, which would have led to a war with the Soviets, who were pledged to respond such an attack, not to mention Kennedy that had given them a no invasion pledge barely one year earlier. </q>
Khrushchev would start a war he couldn't win over Cuba? Nonsense.
According to Gareth Porter's The Perils of Dominance the USSR didn't reach nuclear parity until 1965.
Sandy, it wasn't Harriman who contacted AF1 to inform LBJ the lone gunmen was in custody -- it was McGeorge Bundy.
If the US attacked Cuba and the Soviets responded it would be US starting the war not the Soviets. Remember what Kennedy said about the missiles placed by the Soviets in Cuba: an attack by Cuba using them would be considered an attack by the Soviet Union on the US. Same principle,
Gareth Porter is an estimable journalist. Glad to see you reading him. Cliff. But he wasn't advising the government. In any case, exact parity, if that's what you mean, isn't necessary for starting a nuclear war to be madness. Kennedy was able to get something like 80votes in the Senate to pass the limited nuclear test ban treaty that Fall as a first step to the disarmamnet he sought because people were realizing the MADness.
-
1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:
Very early on there was evidence pointing to Oswald as the perp. There was also evidence pointing to Cuba and Russia (as well as Oswald) as the perps.
Johnson didn't want anything to do with the conspiracy angle that would lead to international consequences... like war. After all, Hoover said that the evidence for the conspiracy was far from solid. So Johnson did the easy thing and chose to accept the lone gunman evidence.
Later he would discover that the lone gunman solution wasn't so great after all... because it wasn't correct. Which meant that the FBI and WC had to lie there heads off to make it all work out.
What evidence implicating Oswald are you talking about, Sandy? They murdered Oswald about 45 hours after the JFKA precisely because they knew they could not prove he did it in court. They couldn't let him talk to a lawyer. And of course they knew he didn't do it.
Johnson chose to go with the lone nut story because he wanted no part in blaming Cuba or Russia, not because it was somehow the easy choice. He knew the problems with the lone nut story up front; he didn't discover them later. His job was to paper over them.
The same question goes for your claim that there was evidence implicating Cubs and Russia.
-
7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
The CIA plotters went to a great deal of effort to create a false flag operation where the blame for the assassination would be placed on the Cubans and Soviets.
It's hard for me to believe they'd done that knowing in advance that LBJ would reject the opportunity to retaliate against either one.
To me it makes a lot more sense that it was a military-backed operation whose primary goal was to eliminate a treasonous Kennedy, and whose secondary goal was an add-on false flag operation that could give the military icing on the cake in the form of a Cuban invasion. Possibly even a nuclear first strike against the Soviet Union during a period when it was thought that the Americans would win. That is what the JCS wanted.
Indeed, there is some evidence (a little) that the military sent fighter jets to Cuba the day of the assassination. Cooler heads prevailed when Undersecretary of State Averell Harriman shortly afterword declared that the top Sovietologists had all agreed that the Russians weren't involved in the assassination. Which was a false story. But it may have been the genesis of the decision to cover up evidence of a conspiracy and to blame only Oswald. Which seemed possible because there was evidence for both 1) a communist conspiracy with Oswald, and 2) a lone gunman Oswald. (This is Peter Dale Scott's Phase 1 / Phase 2 theory).
Obviously LBJ chose to go with the lone gunman scenario. Ironically, the CIA plotters had intentionally made that a viable choice so that, if chosen, the governments focus would be on blaming Oswald rather than looking for the real plotters. The CIA plotters made that choice viable by controlling the autopsy and Dealey Plaza films, and making it appear as though a lone gunman could have killed Kennedy. No conspiracy was required to explain the evidence.
But regardless of that decision by LBJ, the plotters' preferred outcome would have been a Cuban invasion or a war with Russia. Remember, it was a military coup. (Carried out by the CIA.)
SL: The CIA plotters went to a great deal of effort to create a false flag operation where the blame for the assassination would be placed on the Cubans and Soviets.It's hard for me to believe they'd done that knowing in advance that LBJ would reject the opportunity to retaliate against either one.RO: A great deal of effort? This is the CIA with virtually unlimited resources and no one effectively watching what they did. Plots were hatched, adjusted and abandoned all the time. You don't know about most of them.But do not obscure the fact that the amorphous group that wanted to get rid of Kennedy had several factions. Only some of them thought it was a good idea to use the murder as a pretext to go after Castro, which would have led to a war with the Soviets, who were pledged to respond such an attack, not to mention Kennedy that had given them a no invasion pledge barely one year earlier.SL: To me it makes a lot more sense that it was a military-backed operation whose primary goal was to eliminate a treasonous Kennedy, and whose secondary goal was an add-on false flag operation that could give the military icing on the cake in the form of a Cuban invasion. Possibly even a nuclear first strike against the Soviet Union during a period when it was thought that the Americans would win. That is what the JCS wanted.RO: It was an operation backed by the military, but not primarily run by them. But your history is a bit off. By late '63 intelligence was saying the Soviets had caught up with the US. Kennedy had gotten Congress to pass the limited nuclear test ban treaty with them. The idea of Mutually Assured Destruction was taking hold. Only a fool, or Curtis Lemay, would thing a nuclear war with the Soviets that neither side could win was a good idea.Certainly not Lyndon Johnson. To me, it's axiomatic that Johnson would not risk blowing up the presidency he had lusted after for so long in a nuclear war with the Soviets. You can argue he gave the war machine their war in Vietnam that Kennedy was going to end as a sop, a substitute, if you want. I think he was going to do that anyway. He told McNamara he never agreed with Kennedy's withdrawal plan but kept his mouth shut.I said early on Johnson made clear to the others he would not go after Cuba. But I don't know when he did that except it was likely before the murder was done. In any case, Johnson squelched the Cuba idea right after becoming president and pursuit of Oswald the lone nut began. The anti Cuban zealots had no recourse.SL: Indeed, there is some evidence (a little) that the military sent fighter jets to Cuba the day of the assassination. Cooler heads prevailed when Undersecretary of State Averell Harriman shortly afterword declared that the top Sovietologists had all agreed that the Russians weren't involved in the assassination. Which was a false story. But it may have been the genesis of the decision to cover up evidence of a conspiracy and to blame only Oswald. Which seemed possible because there was evidence for both 1) a communist conspiracy with Oswald, and 2) a lone gunman Oswald. (This is Peter Dale Scott's Phase 1 / Phase 2 theory).RO: No, the coverup had nothing to do with something Harriman said. It was a *necessary* part of the killers' plan to get away with the murder, and so implemented by them!SL: Obviously LBJ chose to go with the lone gunman scenario. Ironically, the CIA plotters had intentionally made that a viable choice so that, if chosen, the governments focus would be on blaming Oswald rather than looking for the real plotters. The CIA plotters made that choice viable by controlling the autopsy and Dealey Plaza films, and making it appear as though a lone gunman could have killed Kennedy. No conspiracy was required to explain the evidence.RO: The coverup was complicated by the fact that the killers' story deviated so clearly from how the murder was done. Which is why the others needed Johnson as president to deal with the problems caused by the autopsy, films, the investigation, etc.SL: But regardless of that decision by LBJ, the plotters' preferred outcome would have been a Cuban invasion or a war with Russia. Remember, it was a military coup. (Carried out by the CIA.)RO: No the Cuban invasion was the preferred option of only one faction. It was a crazy idea and easily dealt with. -
19 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
Roger:
in your last sentence, the first part is accurate. Alsop did have a very strong part in convincing LBJ to form the Warren Commission, and that is clearly documented by Donald GIbson in his milestone essay in the book The Assassinations.
The last part is in all likliehood not true. I think that after the fact LBJ realized what a joke it was to put Dulles on that Commission and he felt the need to blame someone he despised.
As per your first statement there is a very clear reason to think that way about the CIA/Mafia plots and LBJ.
Its in the IG Report. They admit it on pp. 132-33: no president had any knowledge of the plots. Its right there in B and W. And its so devastating that Helms only kept one copy. That is clearly not what Helms wanted to hear. But the authors of the report reluctantly came to that conclusion.
The first exposure of the plots was done by Roselli to Anderson, who printed a very much distorted view of them. Johnson, like many others, saw this story. He asked Helms for an accurate report on them. And that is how we got that report. Which actually traces how the Anderson story was put together, again its right there in B and W.
If you have other information about this, and if its solidly documented, I would certainly like to see it. And so would everyone else.
JD: Roger:in your last sentence, the first part is accurate. Alsop did have a very strong part in convincing LBJ to form the Warren Commission, and that is clearly documented by Donald GIbson in his milestone essay in the book The Assassinations.RO: I, and others, have listened to a tape of the Alsop phone call secretly recorded by Johnson. There's no need for its existence to be "documented" by Gibson or anyone else.I'm going to assume you accept the idea that the purpose of the WC, as shown by what it did, was not to uncover the truth of what happened but to conceal it. To cover up the role of the killers and blame someone else.Once Oswald was murdered, eliminating a trial, there was going to have to be an official investigation of the murder. When did this simple idea get turned into a vehicle for covering up the murder framing Oswald? And by whom?Was that Alsop's purpose in suggesting the idea to Johnson? Was he part of the coverup? No?Was does it mean to you that within one week after the murder Johnson announced the WC and named 6 figureheads and Allen Dulles to run it? And that the WC was staffed by lawyers--and no investigators worthy of the name--to selectively sift through the evidence, and lie about things when necessary, to build a blatantly false case against Oswald?Doesn't that indicate the idea for an investigation had already been turned into that nefarious a vehicle? Have you read Salandria's indictment of this process in his false mystery speech in '98?The WC was Johnson's creation. Who was responsible for turning it into a vehicle to frame Oswald, if not him?, That's the important question, not whose idea the WC was in the first place.Though I don't believe it for a minute I could almost accept that the WC was not originally Johnson's idea. That he was some kind of empty vessel that had to be convinced by Alsop. Almost.But It's clear to me that just as the murder required a coverup plan to be in place before the shots were fired, essential parts of that coverup were the murder of Oswald before he could talk to a lawyer and the creation of an official investigation to hide what happened and blame Oswald. The planners must have considered what that investigation would be before themurder.The existence of the Alsop call proves nothing. We know about it because Johnson wanted us to know. He wanted you to believe creating the commission that framed Oswald was someone else's idea. Similarly, we don't know about some of the other things Johnson said and did that weekend. Or anything about what Dulles was doing at the CIA hideout in Virginia.JD: The last part is in all likliehood not true. I think that after the fact LBJ realized what a joke it was to put Dulles on that Commission and he felt the need to blame someone he despised.RO: It's certainly false, but not for the reason you offer. Appointing Dulles was not a joke. It was necessary to conceal the CIA from scrutiny and keep the investigators focused on their job. Dulles was the only commissioner without a full time job. Claiming the appointment was Bobby's idea was one of the last pathetic ploys of an old man to try to protect his reputation and throw off anyone sniffing around his culpability.Btw, I have developed some of the points here more fully in the the thread I started, Why LBJ was an essential participant in the plan the murder Kennedy. I sense you may disagree with at least some of it. If so, I would appreciate reading your comments. -
45 minutes ago, Robert Morrow said:
1) Marvin Watson was a longtime inner circle LBJ henchman
2) FBI Deke DeLoach - I interviewed him in 2011. He said LBJ was a "family man." DeLoach and his family used to go to Camp David at Easter to be with LBJ's family. LBJ could have replaced Hoover at any time with DeLoach; that is how Hoover was kept under control by LBJ.
Lyndon Johnson on 4/3/1967 told his Chief of Staff Marvin Watson that the CIA had something to do with the JFK assassination https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62412#relPageId=60&search=In_this%20connection,%20Marvin%20Watson%20called%20me%20late%20last%20night (FBI Deke DeLoach memo -see page 2)
From Robert Kennedy and His Times by Arthur Schlesinger (1978) (p. 616 in a footnote):
"In 1967 Marvin Watson of Lyndon Johnson's White House staff told Cartha DeLoach of the FBI that Johnson "was now convinced there was a plot in connection with the assassination. Watson stated the President felt that CIA had had something to do with this plot." (Washington Post, December 13, 1977)
C'mon guys. Why would you pay attention to anything Johnson said about when it first dawned on him that the CIA was involved in the JFKA. Just more misdirection.
Yeah, and it was Joe Alsop who convinced him to create what became the WC and Bobby's idea to put Allen Dulles on it.
-
18 hours ago, Robert Morrow said:
Jeremy Kuzmarov’s scholarly 2023 article for Covert Action Magazine which indicts LBJ for the JFK assassination:
I would put D.H. Byrd, Ed Clark, close associates of LBJ, along with Gen. Edward Lansdale, whose career LBJ resuscitated, as front row participants in the JFK assassination.
In my rarely humble opinion (which changes) I have FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover and fired CIA chief Allen Dulles as "murderers-after-the-fact" for their roles in covering up the JFK assassination.
I think people should focus more on the role of the Air Force than merely the CIA in the killing of JFK, although Oswald was obviously a CIA operative and a fake pro-Castro Marxist.
I do think Gen. Edward Lansdale roped in some CIA anti-Castro Cubans to help kill JFK ("Dark Complected Man" also known as "Radio Man" was for sure involved in the JFK assassination as a spotter for snipers on the Grassy Knoll.)
One reason I wrote the post was to show you don't need to slog through all the dirt alleged about Johnson, as the cited article does, to reach an understanding of Johnson's role in the murder. Once the basic plan was set to murder Kennedy in a crossfire at DP and blame Oswald, it was obvious that much remained to be done to make the story work.It was equally obvious that Johnson's participation was essential for the reasons I cited. Who else but Johnson could have ordered the security detail now working for him as president to snatch the body back to AF1. In his book defending Johnson, Jack Valenti said taking the body back to DC was Johnson's first decision as the new president, "and a good one".It was Johnson who created the fake WC to frame Oswald and peopled it with figureheads who would go along with the farce. Once Oswald was killed that weekend an investigation was necessary and Johnson made sure it reached the conclusion predetermined by the plan.Johnson was not running or even involved in all facets of the plan. The alteration to the Zapruder film that weekend was purely a CIA job, e.g.Less discussed is the crucial assurance the others must have gotten from Johnson, in whatever form it took, that he would go along with most of their policy plans. As he did, standing by while the Left opposition was decimated by more murders and acquiescing to more foreign adventures. Murdering Kennedy was a critical first step in developing the policy known today as the rules based order in which the US makes the rules and enforces them with weapons of war.. -
JFK's killers had 3 objectives. 1. A plan to murder Kennedy 2. A plan to cover up their involvement and blame someone else. 3.The implementation of the policy changes that were the reason for the murder in the first place. Johnson was indispensable to the last two objectives.All parts of the plan had be be in place before the murder. The murder was too risky and the planners too vulnerable to go ahead without a clear plan to get what they wanted and escape reckoning. Like most such plans alterations had to be made on the fly, but the murder would not have happened without the killers having confidence they could execute each part of the plan.The killers' top priority was that Kennedy must not survive the ambush in Dealey Plaza. If he did they were toast. If you have been to the scene you know how small the murder area in DP is. How simple the shots from several points were for an experienced shooter.Still, near certainty of success required several shooters firing from different locations. But that contradicted the coverup plan they were going with that Kennedy was murdered by a single shooter from the 6th floor window That contradiction had to be resolved and as the new president Johnson was one key in that process.Unlike some other political coups the planners didn't get to choose who would replace Kennedy. The Constitution says it would be Johnson. As the new president he would be in charge of the crucial second and third elements of the plan. As such, he would literally have the success or failure of the whole project in his hands. For that reason alone, the others would need clear assurances from Johnson that he would do the part that he was uniquely suited to carry out.Johnson knew there were others besides himself who wanted to get rid of Kennedy. As a powerful Washington figure in his own right, he had choices. He could turn on the perps, do a real investigation, and become a hero that likely would ensure his reelection in '64. But he understood that way led to chaos for the country, (a coup by elements of the government!) that would probably leave the presidency he had lusted after for years in shambles. It was an easy decision to instead join the planners to help them get rid of Kennedy.But in joining he would insist on certain prerogatives. Early on in the process, e.g., he would insist that there was to be no attack on Cuba. That would surely have risked a war with the Soviets and his presidency would be likely to go up in smoke. There would be those who refused to accept that and would continue planting the links of Oswald to Cuba. But once he became president he quickly squelched them by making his preference officially known.What kind of assurances would the others need from Johnson?I suppose it could be argued that the others knew Johnson and his views well enough to proceed without getting clear assurances from him. That's implausible, to say the least. The murder was too important and the others too vulnerable for that to be enough. Moreover, we know enough about Johnson to conclude he would not sign on as some kind of junior partner. He knew he was crucial to the plan's success and he wanted it to succeed. He would be a major decision maker in the group in certain areas of the plan I discuss.What we know about what Johnson did that weekend, from soon after the murder that afternoon in fact, verifies his role.Top of the coverup agenda: Oswald must be murdered before he could talk to a lawyer. They knew he didn't do it; they could not prove he did in court. Just one example: after talking to him, a lawyer for Oswald would have immediately moved to prevent NBC from hiding the Darnell and Wegman films that could substantiate Oswald's alibi.What happened instead was that without a lawyer there began that afternoon a series of interviews to discern Oswald's alibi so they could immediately begin to destroy elements of it. Besides burying the content of the interviews themselves as much as possible. (they ultimately failed when Hosty kept his notes from the first interview and turned them over to NARA after he wrote a book in the 90s to try to capitalize on the renewed interest in the JFKA)Once Oswald was killed there would be no trial. But there would have to be an investigation. That weekend Johnson squelched an investigation by Waggoner Carr the Texas AG, and the talk in Congress of doing one as well. He would control a federal investigation and he had already worked out exactly what he wanted: a commission to gather information to frame Oswald led by figureheads of the highest regard to sign the report.The Warren Commission was established by Johnson with the 7 figureheads in place one week after the murder. Must be a modern record for such a thing in Washington. Richard Russell had not yet agreed to do it, he was resisting, so Johnson simply announced the names he had chosen, his included, and told him he was on the commission. Naming his likely co-conspirator, Allen Dulles, to the Commission to guide it and particularly to shield the CIA from scrutiny, was the crowning touch. In typical Johnson fashion, he later pathetically claimed appointing Dulles was Bobby's idea (I think that was after Bobby was murdered) to try to shield himself from scrutiny as the one who was pulling the strings;Most laughable of the Johnson misdirections is the phone call you've heard where Joe Alsop tries to convince Johnson to appoint a commission of prominent people to investigate the murder. Johnson plays along and that is one piece of information from that hectic weekend that survives today. Typical misdirection. Johnson knew there would be an investigation. He had already sifted through his long list of Washington denizens to decide who could be trusted to go along with the frame of OswaldBut first, the body had to be (illegally) snatched from Dr Rose at the hospital and taken back to DC where the autopsy could be controlled. A real autopsy exploring the actual wounds would have destroyed the Oswald story.Roughly 2 hours passed between when Kennedy was shot and AF1 took off to fly back to DC. Kennedy was pronounced dead, and Johnson became president, a half hour after the shooting. Johnson spent most of another half hour at the hospital before boarding AF1.Despite people all around him on the plane imploring him the take off, (most of them didn't know what happened or how much danger they were in) Johnson spent another hour on the ground to wait for the body to be sent to the plane. His transparent excuse: he had to wait because wanted to be sworn in first, only local judge Sarah Hughes could do the job, and she had to be located and brought to the plane. He knew he already was president and the swearing in ceremony was window dressing for the public.At some point, in the hour and a half after the became president, Johnson ordered the body sent to the plane. When exactly? Jack Valenti was sitting next to Johnson on the plane awaiting takeoff and later recounted that he heard Johnson ordering the body to be transported to him.That's plausible. Or Johnson could have given the order to his security people before heading to the plane and what Valenti heard was Johnson confirming it, or asking what was taking so long. Either could be true; it probably doesn't matter which.Johnson also knew that the autopsy was jurisdictional to Dr. Rose. That didn't matter. He knew control of the body was crucial to the success of the coverup and it was his job to ensure a fake autopsy.That leaves, as the final piece, Johnson's assurance to the others that he would carry out at least some of the policies they wanted. Kennedy had publicly challenged them by rejecting a "Pax Americano enforced by American weapons of war". If Johnson agreed with Kennedy's foreign policies, a major reason for the murder would be lost.Johnson didn't agree, particularly with Kennedy's plan to withdraw from Vietnam. He later told McNamara that he had disagreed with Kennedy on Vietnam but kept his mouth shut. There would be no war with the Soviets, Johnson decreed, but they could have their war in Vietnam.Indeed a draft of NSAM 273 on Vietnam reflecting Johnson's views and reversing essential parts of Kennedy's NSAM 263 had already been prepared before Kennedy was murdered. Johnson signed the new policy four days after the murder, one day after Kennedy was buried. That clearly would be Washington record for a reversal of a major policy that had been painstakingly worked out by Kennedy over many months, were it not for the fact that subbing 273 was part of the premurder plan.This is more evidence of Johnson's hand in the plan before the murder.
-
38 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:
I would have thought those on a conspiracy forum would be interested in the U.S. Republican Party being completely taken over by Russian influence and blackmail. Unless, of course, they'd already been completely conned by Russian propaganda, and now don't know their own a** from a hole in the ground, and have no idea who they can trust or believe.
Congratulations, you have graduated to useful idiot.
Let's review. You posted innuendo that Greenwald was working for the Russians, "some people" suspected. I asked who these people were and what you meant by the vague term "working for the Russians"
I asked the questions so your claims can be evaluated but you ignored each, likely because you have no answer to them.
Instead you decided to insult me. I have been completely conned by Russian propaganda, you claim to know, and have no idea whom I can trust or believe. I would ask how you know either of those things, but it's clear that would be a waste of time. You have wasted too much of my time already.
-
35 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:
An article on Jeff Morley's site written by Chad Nagle.
https://connect.xfinity.com/appsuite/#!!&app=io.ox/mail&folder=default0/INBOX.
Here is my comment on it.
There is another answer to the what else is missing question, that maybe even more important than the information about the body. As explained by Vince Salandria in his "False Mystery" speech at the Nov 20,1998 COPA Convention, the AF1 tapes also contain messages about the murder itself from the White House Situation Room run by McGeorge Bundy to both planes. The messages were recounted in both Theodore White's book, "The Making of the President, 1964" and Pierre Salinger's book, "With Kennedy". Both men obviously had access to the tape originals.From the tapes, White learned "that there was no conspiracy, learned the identity of Oswald and his arrest", according to Salandria. Salinger tried to get the tapes for Salandria, instructed NARA to make them available, but, surprise! they had disappeared. These tapes indeed should be an important request of NARA in the MFF lawsuit, should it get that far, as Bill and Larry have said. So far the judge has made a (strange) distinction between missing and destroyed information, allowing searches for the former.Undaunted, Salandria asked the White House Communications Agency for a copy of the tapes. This was in 1968. He was told the tapes "are kept for official use only, These tapes are not releasable, nor are they obtainable from commercial sources." An obvious lie.People at the WH Situation Room telling those on the planes coming back to DC that Oswald did it alone before they could have possibly known that was a major blunder. It had to be covered up. Salandria concluded it was "conclusive evidence of high-level US government guilt".New link to the Nagle article: https://jfkfacts.substack.com/
-
3 hours ago, Matt Allison said:
People have suspected Glenn Greenwald to be working for Russia for a while now; the above nonsense would seem to encourage those suspicions.
Who are these people, Matt? "Working for Russia" is an exceedingly flabby term. What do you mean by it?
-
An article on Jeff Morley's site written by Chad Nagle.
https://connect.xfinity.com/appsuite/#!!&app=io.ox/mail&folder=default0/INBOX.
Here is my comment on it.
There is another answer to the what else is missing question, that maybe even more important than the information about the body. As explained by Vince Salandria in his "False Mystery" speech at the Nov 20,1998 COPA Convention, the AF1 tapes also contain messages about the murder itself from the White House Situation Room run by McGeorge Bundy to both planes. The messages were recounted in both Theodore White's book, "The Making of the President, 1964" and Pierre Salinger's book, "With Kennedy". Both men obviously had access to the tape originals.From the tapes, White learned "that there was no conspiracy, learned the identity of Oswald and his arrest", according to Salandria. Salinger tried to get the tapes for Salandria, instructed NARA to make them available, but, surprise! they had disappeared. These tapes indeed should be an important request of NARA in the MFF lawsuit, should it get that far, as Bill and Larry have said. So far the judge has made a (strange) distinction between missing and destroyed information, allowing searches for the former.Undaunted, Salandria asked the White House Communications Agency for a copy of the tapes. This was in 1968. He was told the tapes "are kept for official use only, These tapes are not releasable, nor are they obtainable from commercial sources." An obvious lie.People at the WH Situation Room telling those on the planes coming back to DC that Oswald did it alone before they could have possibly known that was a major blunder. It had to be covered up. Salandria concluded it was "conclusive evidence of high-level US government guilt".
Under Cover of Night
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Because with the WC Johnson could pick the commissioners. And, as others have said, the public would not have accepted a Texas verdict like they did from a body headed by the ChiefJustice of the Supreme Court. How best to sell the Oswald story was the point.
It's true Johnson ran Texas, but how well did he knew Waggoner Carr? How much did he trust him to run a fake commission like Warren and Dulles did. Dulles was a critical piece in the whole affair by keeping scrutiny of the CIA out of the WC investigation.