And the Answers Are:

[Tim Gratz]

In another thread, John wrote:

I would argue [he means he does argue] that [JFK] moved to the left while in power because of Cuba, the Cold War and the Civil Rights issues. This is why he was so dangerous and had to be removed.

Now ignoring the alleged confessions of Morales and Wheaton and Hunt for that matter, and also ignoring the possible Wallace fingerprint, and the cui bono argument (it seems like almost every interest group in the country benefited from the assassination), the top four evidentiary bases to support John's premise that JFK was "removed" [certainly a polite way to characterize a murder in which the victim's head is blown away] by anti-leftists in the U.S. government are:

1.

2.

3.

4.

Edited August 3, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Three days ago I posted the above asking for only four items of evidence to indicate that JFK was killed by any "anti-leftists" in the United States government (whether military, intelligence or whatever).

It does not surprise me that no one was able to come up with any evidence to support the premise that seems to be so widely held by so many members. It seems to me all it is is an article of faith based on a POV of our political structure, and no more than that.

[William Kelly]

Three days ago I posted the above asking for only four items of evidence to indicate that JFK was killed by any "anti-leftists" in the United States government (whether military, intelligence or whatever).

It does not surprise me that no one was able to come up with any evidence to support the premise that seems to be so widely held by so many members. It seems to me all it is is an article of faith based on a POV of our political structure, and no more than that.

Tim, I'll answer your quiz when you answer my "coincidence or conspiracy" post re: Was Michael Paine's discussion of politcal assassination with a co-worker at Bell Hell at the moment JFK was killed ESP or possible foreknowldge of an operation in progress?

BK

Edited August 6, 2007 by William Kelly

[Ron Ecker]

What leftists in the U.S. government had any reason to shoot him? Name one, specifically or generically. (Was LBJ a leftist? He was a Democrat, but aside from that he was just a power-hungry crook.)

Edited August 6, 2007 by Ron Ecker

[Tim Gratz]

In answer to Bill, I would certainly say it would seem so. But we do not know with whose interests the Paines were aligned, do we? Mrs. Paine certainly seemed interested in some left-oriented causes.

In answer to Ron, I said the conventional wisdom is that JFK was killed by "anti-leftists" in the power structure, not leftists.

[Ron Ecker]

In answer to Ron, I said the conventional wisdom is that JFK was killed by "anti-leftists" in the power structure, not leftists.

And I say the conventional wisdom is correct (though I would say right-wingers, not "anti-leftists"), unless you can suggest some leftists in the government who were out to get him. (My impression is that you think the conventional wisdom is wrong, so it must have been "leftists." Or perhaps some middle-of-the-roaders?)

[Tim Gratz]

Ron, I know that is indeed the "conventional wisdom". My point is there is scant (if any) evidence to support it and I think the lack of any response to my challenge adequately demonstrates that the conventional wisdom is based solely on an unsupported "leap of faith".

Who says there were "anti-leftists" or "rightists" if you will ought to "get him"? And if your only answer is that he had political opposition from those who disagreed with his policies, well, so what, every president does. Normal political opposition does not translate into assassination.

If on the other hand JFK's government was trying to a) kill someone; or incarcerate someone for a substantial length of time, well those factors might escalate into a desire to take violent action to prevent one's murder or incarceration.

Edited August 7, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Guest Stephen Turner]

If on the other hand JFK's government was trying to a) kill someone;

Hold on to yer hats, Its "the beard did it" time again.

[Tim Gratz]

Congrats, Stephen, you caught the reference. Do you suppose if someone was trying--repeatedly--to kill you, you might give them one final warning to stop or suffer the consequences, and if that warning failed to stop them, take action on your own to protect yourself?

Edited August 7, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Greg Parker]

Now ignoring the alleged confessions of Morales and Wheaton and Hunt for that matter

Tim, how can you categorize these as alleged confessions? You might argue they are entirely without merit, but I think it's difficult to make the case the confessions were never made.

But we do not know with whose interests the Paines were aligned, do we? Mrs. Paine certainly seemed interested in some left-oriented causes.

Sure we do. Michael revealed both his knowledge of and belief in Bircher propaganda during his testimony. Ruth Paine was involved in the Russian Student Exchange program which had CIA backing. The only "left-oriented" causes she (and other members of her family) had any involvement in were ones also supported by the CIA for specific intelligence purposes. She herself, revealed her religious conservatism in testimony by saying she had been called by god to learn a new language. Saying anything like that would be anathema to liberal quakers.

If on the other hand JFK's government was trying to a) kill someone; or cool.gif incarcerate someone for a substantial length of time, well those factors might escalate into a desire to take violent action to prevent one's murder or incarceration.

Walker, the Mafia, Hoffa and Bobby Baker all fit your criteria.

[Tim Gratz]

To Greg:

A good reply. I used the term alleged confessions not to mean the statements were never made but rather in the sense that they might have been jokes or taunts. I obviously put the statements made by Martino in an entirely different category since they were made before the assassination. Certainly I think Wheaton ought to be quizzed very carefully (provided their was an appropriate legal forum for doing so) regarding the statements attributed to him.

Regarding the Paines, on April 20, 1968 Ruth Paine wrote a supportive letter to Jim Garrison in which she advocated the abolition of the CIA. And according to Wikipedia, in the late 50s Ruth Paine participated in the East-West Contact Committee, which sponsored visits by three Soviets to the US. Do you know anything about this group?

In 2004 Ruth Paine refused to pay taxes because they support the US military establishment:

www.sptimes.com/2004/04/15/Floridian/Protesting_war__a_few.shtml

Michael Paine's father was on the security index list due to his leftist political activities. (He was a Marxist socialist.) Michael's father took him to Communist Party meetings in NYC when Michael was only thirteen.

An FBI report from June of 1964 stated that Michael Paine, in the spring of 1963, spent several Sunday afternoons at a cafe near a college campus, engaging people in political discussion. "He would actively approach people and start talk of a political nature, like 'What about Castro?' etc." According to witnesses, Paine spoke unfavorably of the U.S. hard line against Castro, and favored easing tensions with Cuba, and increasing trade with Eastern Europe.

Ruth's mother belonged to the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, which was a Communist front organization.

I am not convinced that the Paines' political convictions were not quite left-of-center. I think a strong case can be made for that proposition.

At the very least I do not think one can use the Paines in support of any assertion that elements within the US government killed JFK.

******************************************************

You are correct about people who fit the criteria I set forth for the strongest motive to murder JFK. Re incarceration, perhaps LBJ even qualifies for the list. But I do not think motive alone is sufficient evidence for involvement in the assassination, regardless of the strength of the motive.

Edited August 7, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

My "take" on the Paines.

We all know there is a recording of a call made to Ruth Paine shortly after the assassination in which the caller, presumably Michael, says to the effect: "We all know who is behind this."

I suspect the Paines were not witting members of the conspiracy but were manipulated by the people who were setting up Oswald. If this is indeed the case presumably both Michael and Ruth both know who was the source of the manipulation.

I know I have said this before and I think others have as well: should an investigation be reopened each of the Paines would rank near the top of my witness list. Their answers to one or two questions just might get a long way toward unraveling the conspiracy.

[Tim Gratz]

I still await even ONE evidentiary basis for asserting that any employees or agents of the U.S. power structure were involved in the conspiracy. I suspect the ol' devil may need to get himself a nice warm winter coat before that happens!

[Guest Stephen Turner]

. Do you suppose if someone was trying--repeatedly--to kill you, you might give them one final warning to stop or suffer the consequences, and if that warning failed to stop them, take action on your own to protect yourself?

Tim, if thats your idea of evidence I have a bucket full of it. But thats the problem is it not, its not evidence you require, but proof. I have evidence that many in powerful positions hated JFK, thought the USA would be better off if he were to "take a walk" and were not bashful about saying as much, LeMay, Lemnitzer and Walker spring to mind (and thats with out even mentioning Hoover, Dulles cabell etc) But of course none of this represents proof, much as your evidence against Castro doesn't add up to a hill of beans.

Still, nice to have you back. I always enjoyed your combative yet Gentlemanly posts.

[Greg Parker]

To Greg:

A good reply. I used the term alleged confessions not to mean the statements were never made but rather in the sense that they might have been jokes or taunts. I obviously put the statements made by Martino in an entirely different category since they were made before the assassination. Certainly I think Wheaton ought to be quizzed very carefully (provided their was an appropriate legal forum for doing so) regarding the statements attributed to him.

Fair enough, Tim

Regarding the Paines, on April 20, 1968 Ruth Paine wrote a supportive letter to Jim Garrison in which she advocated the abolition of the CIA.

Garrison's office had a lot of "supporters" who turned out be fish of a different odor.

And according to Wikipedia, in the late 50s Ruth Paine participated in the East-West Contact Committee, which sponsored visits by three Soviets to the US. Do you know anything about this group?

Refer to George Michael Evica's latest book. If you don't have it, you can find a less thorough treatment by searching my posts here.

In 2004 Ruth Paine refused to pay taxes because they support the US military establishment:

www.sptimes.com/2004/04/15/Floridian/Protesting_war__a_few.shtml

Yes. Michael and Ruth were always looking for ways to minimize their taxes. Look at the little scheme they cooked up to claim Marina as a deduction.

Michael Paine's father was on the security index list due to his leftist political activities. (He was a Marxist socialist.) Michael's father took him to Communist Party meetings in NYC when Michael was only thirteen.

Yet others had security clearances refused on the basis of what family members had done.

An FBI report from June of 1964 stated that Michael Paine, in the spring of 1963, spent several Sunday afternoons at a cafe near a college campus, engaging people in political discussion. "He would actively approach people and start talk of a political nature, like 'What about Castro?' etc." According to witnesses, Paine spoke unfavorably of the U.S. hard line against Castro, and favored easing tensions with Cuba, and increasing trade with Eastern Europe.

And Oswald generated an FBI report for his leafleting escapades in NO. What's your point? That you believe both were Castro loving pinkos? If so, you should be able to show where this shared obsession manifests itself in in-depth political discourse between the two, or even Oswald soliciting Paine to join the FPCC.

A clue to what he really thought about Cuba is in his testimony where he is discussing a party held by his father: You probably might be interested in regard to Cuba. I was surprised sometime in the conversation someone there had spoken favorably of the revolution in Cuba. This was a surprise to me, I didn't realize that this was part of the was the present thrill, shall we say. I don't know whether that applied to Lyman also or whether--I think he went along with that. We didn't get around to arguing on that point. I only mention that in passing. That was about the full extent of it. She mentioned Cuba in this favorable way, and it was a subject I didn't-- He was cut off by Dulles before he could finish that last sentence, but he seems to have viewed the whole pro-Castro thing as an intellectual wank ("didn't realize it was part of the present thrill..."

Ruth's mother belonged to the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, which was a Communist front organization.

Well, it was an NGO. I suppose that's close enough?

Truth is, that charge was made, then retracted by the State Dept, after being originally made by an infiltrator of the Left - a thoroughly discredited chap by the name of Rees.

I am not convinced that the Paines' political convictions were not quite left-of-center. I think a strong case can be made for that proposition.

And when you have such a case, I'd be keen on seeing it.

At the very least I do not think one can use the Paines in support of any assertion that elements within the US government killed JFK.

I never made the claim that elements within the government killed JFK -- though I certainly haven't ruled it out by any means.

******************************************************

You are correct about people who fit the criteria I set forth for the strongest motive to murder JFK. Re incarceration, perhaps LBJ even qualifies for the list. But I do not think motive alone is sufficient evidence for involvement in the assassination, regardless of the strength of the motive.

I agree. So why did you bring it up?