And the Answers Are:

[Greg Parker]

duplicate post deleted

Edited August 7, 2007 by Greg Parker

[Tim Gratz]

I note there has still not been an answer to my challenge for any evidence that points to an "inside job" in the conspiracy.

Let me posit one (although I think it is easily discredited and I have done so in the past): the alleged "security stripping" in Dallas. If there was indeed deliberately relaxed security in Dallas, that fact would be indicative of an "inside" job. I thought I should mention it even though I think reviews of other presidential motorcades (including the one in Key West in Nov of 1962) conclusively demonstrate that the security in Dallas was not unusually lax.

[Charles Drago]

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!

One of many, in the form of an author's conclusion reached after researching one of the most important, well-documented, and groundbreaking analyses of the assassination and its larger context: A Certain Arrogance, by George Michael Evica:

"Whoever directed the Oswald [assassination] Game was thoroughly knowledgeable about both the OSS's and CIA's counterintelligence manipulation of Quakers, Unitarians, Lutherans, Dutch Reformed clerics and World Council of Churches officials as intelligence and espionage contacts, assets, and informants."

Read the book.

Case made.

And in the spirit of full disclosure: I wrote the Introduction.

Charles Drago

[Cliff Varnell]

(T)he 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. Blood soluble rounds suspected by the autopsists.

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit:

(quote on)

Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general

feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning

the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic]

bullet, one which dissolves after contact.

(quote off)

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's sworn affidavit:

(quote on)

The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused

by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments

completely....Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I

left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic]

Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that

would almost completely fragmentize (sic).

(quote off)

Was Sibert hot on the trail of the actual perps when he made that call to the Lab?

Killion reported the existence of the "magic bullet" CE399, and the possibility of

blood soluble rounds was thereafter ignored.

Everything said or written by the autopsists thereafter was tainted by a political

decision made in Washington DC to press the case for a lone-shooter/3-shots.

However, blood soluble rounds definitely did exist in 1963, as per the Senate's 1975

Church Committee testimony of the man who developed just such a weapons system.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/r..._6_Senseney.pdf

Charles Senseney before the Church Committee, Sept. 18, 1975:

(quote on, emphasis added)

Senseney: I worked in the Biological Warfare Section of Fort Detrick from 1953. . . .

I was the project engineer of the M-1 dart launcher and following on microorganism

projectiles and so forth.

[Church staffer] Smothers: Is this a device that looks roughly like a .45 caliber pistol

with a sight mount at the top?

Senseney: This was a follow-on. It was to replace the M-1 projectile to go into the

Army stockpile. It did look like a .45.

Smothers: Did the CIA have, Mr. Senseney, the wherewithal to utilize this dart

launcher against humans?

Senseney: No, they asked for a modification to use against a dog. Now,

these were actually given to them, and they were actually expended, because we

got all of the hardware back. For a dog, the projectile had to be made many times

bigger. It was almost the size of a .22 cartridge, but it carried a chemical compound

known as 46-40.

Senator Howard Baker: Your principle job with the DOD, I take it, was to develop

new or exotic devices and weapons: is that correct?

Senseney: I was a project engineer for the E-1, which was type classified and

became the M-1. They were done for the Army.

(quote off)

Director of Central Intelligence William Colby, Church Committee, September 16, 1975:

(quote on, emphasis added)

Colby: The specific subject today concerns the CIA's involvement in the development

of bacteriological warfare materials with the Army's Biological Laboratory at Fort Detrick,

CIA's retention of an amount of shellfish toxin, and CIA's use and investigation of various

chemicals and drugs. . . .

A large amount of Agency attention was given to the problem of incapacitating guard

dogs. Though most of the dart launchers were developed for the Army, the Agency

did request the development of a small, hand-held dart launcher for its peculiar needs

for this purpose. Work was also done on temporary human incapacitation techniques.

These related to adesire to incapacitate captives before they could render themselves

incapable of talking, or terrorists before they could take retaliatory action....

Church: Is it not true, too, that the effort not only involved designing a gun that could

strike at a human target without knowledge of the person who had been struck, but also

the toxin itself would not appear in the autopsy?

Colby: Well there was an attempt--

Church: Or the dart?

Colby: Yes; so there was no way of perceiving that the target was hit.

(quote off)

The preliminary "general feeling" among the autopsists that JFK was struck

with blood soluble rounds was obviously well-grounded in the realm of

possibility.

There are, I submit, two pieces of photographic evidence in support of

the initial suspicions that JFK was struck with blood soluble rounds designed

to paralyze him within seconds.

The cervical x-ray, which, according to the HSCA analysis, revealed

the following damage:

(quote on, emphasis added)

Evaluation of the pre-autopsy film shows that there is some subcutaneous

or interstitial air overlying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes.

There is disruption of the integrity of the transverse process of T1, which, in

comparison with its mate on the opposite side and also with the previously

taken film, mentioned above, indicates that there has been a fracture in that

area. There is some soft tissue density overlying the apex of the right lung

which may be hematoma in that region or other soft tissue swelling.

Evaluation of the post-autopsy film shows that there is subcutaneous or

interstitial air overlying C7 and T1. The same disruption of T1 right

transverse process is still present.

(quote off)

What kind of round leaves an air pocket but no bullet?

The Gil Jesus video: Was JFK trying to cough up a bullet?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=u3uH7FHjCeQ

By Z237, JFK froze in a manner that suggests paralysis.

2. Gen. Victor Krulak's positive identification of Gen. Edward Lansdale in

Dealey Plaza.

http://www.ratical.org///ratville/JFK/USO/appD.html

3. US military memo verifies existence of a "Maurice Bishop" type US intelligence

agent.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics/g..._CIA_Agent.html

I would add to this Antonio Veciana's composite sketch of alleged Oswald-handler

"Maurice Bishop," which was identified as David Atlee Phillips by his own family.

4. J. Edgar Hoover and David Atlee Phillips pimping the "Castro-did-it" scenario

the afternoon of the assassination versus W. Averell Harriman and McGeorge Bundy

enforcing the "Oswald-alone" scenario the afternoon/evening of the assassination.

From David Talbot's Brothers, pg 10:

(quote on)

...(I)t's important to note that [bobby] Kennedy apparently never jumped

to the conclusion that afternoon that Fidel Castro -- the target of so much

U.S. intrigue -- was behind his brother's killing. It was the anti-Castro

camp where Bobby's suspicions immediately flew, not pro-Castro agents.

...Bobby came to this conclusion despite the energetic efforts of the CIA

and the FBI, which almost immediately after the assassination began

trying to pin the blame on Castro's government. Hoover himself

phoned Kennedy again around four that afternoon to inform him that

Oswald had shuttled in and out of Cuba, which was untrue...[T]he

FBI chief failed to convince Bobby that the alleged assassin was a

Castro agent.

(quote off)

But Averell Harriman convinced Lyndon Baines Johnson that the Soviets were

definitely not involved, the unanimous conclusion of the US government's

speedy investigators, un-named "Top Kremlinologists"...

From The Assassination Tapes, Max Holland, pg. 57:

(quote on)

At 6:55 p.m. [11/22/63] Johnson has a ten minute meeting with Senator J.

William Fulbright and diplomat W. Averell Harriman to discuss possible foreign

involvement in the assassination, especially in light of the two-and-a-half-year

sojourn of Lee Harvey Oswald [in Russia]...Harriman, a U.S. ambassador to

Moscow during WWII, is an experienced interpreter of Soviet machinations and

offers the president the unanimous view of the U.S. government's top Kremlinologists.

None of them believe the Soviets have a hand in the assassination, despite the

Oswald association.

(quote off)

In short, this unbelievably swift rush to judgement by all parties suggests

a post-assassination struggle to control the assassination cover-up, a struggle

Harriman won hands down.

[Tim Gratz]

Dear Cliff:

Thank you for a well-written and well-reasoned post. I need time to digest it but I am glad to see someone took up the challenge to actually come up with real reasons to support the "inside job" scenario. I applaud you for your work on this! More later.

[Tim Gratz]

Cliff:

One immediate response is I don't think Talbot has it right what was happening on Friday afternoon.

I am aware of no evidence that the FBI and the CIA were trying to convince either LBJ or RFK that the assassination was a Cuban plot.

In fact the quotation from the assassination tapes is really almost enough to disprove that. Harriman is trying to convince LBJ it was not a Soviet plot. There is no indication of any discussion on the 22nd of a possible Cuban plot. If that's what someone had already tried to convince LBJ of, why did he not bring that matter up in his conversation with Harriman?

Now, regarding the issue whether there was a US intelligence operative who used the name Maurice Bishop, let us assume that is true. Let us further assume that Bishop met with Oswald in Dallas a month or so before the assasinastion. Now that is exculpatory evidence rather than inculpatory, is it not? If you were Bishop (whoever Bishop was) and knew Oswald was going to be used as a patsy in the upcoming assassination of the president, you certainly would not risk being seen with him in a public place. Moreover, even the fact that LHO was working with the CIA (if he was) exonerates the CIA, in my opinion. Let's put it this way: at a minimum, the Bishop story if true is hardly conclusive evidence of CIA involvement. (I believev Lamar Waldron makes this same argument in "Ultimate Sacrifice".)

That is indeed an interesting letter from Krulak to Prouty. The presence of Lansdale in Dealey Plaza (if the identification is correct) is interesting and suggestive but hardly dispositive. Has this been discussed on the forum before? I think I recall some discussion that Lansdale lived in Texas and might have just been there to see JFK.--but my recollection could be wrong. I don't think Lansdale's mere presence, for which there could be several innocent explanations, is sufficient to damn him as a murderer. Do you?

Edited August 9, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Well, Peter, why don't you be a little clearer. Exactly which point that I made did you disagree with, and why do you find that point illogical? It is hard to discourse when all you do is speak in generalities.

[Tim Gratz]

Let us go back to the Bishop thing once more.

It was of course Veciana who reported seeing the man he knew as Bishop with LHO in Dallas.

No question apparently that there was a CIA agent, officer, operative, who used the name Bishop in his dealings with Veciana.

Let us construct a type of "decision tree" here.

The first possibility, not necessarily to be ignored, is that Veciana was upset with how Bishop treated him and he just fabricated the entire incident to make Bishop (whoever he was--let's assume it was indeed Phillips) squirm. That is a possibility that needs to be considered.

Now let us assume that Veciana told the truth, that he did indeed see LHO with Bishop.

Next part of the "decision tree" is to consider whether LHO was indeed part of the conspiracy or was, in his famous words, a "patsy". I submit the resolution to that question may be of no importance.

Does the fact that Bishop knew Oswald and was apparently working on some operation with Oswald make it more or less likely that Bishop was either involved in the assassination plot or had pre-knowledge of a plot (either one in which Oswald was a conspirator or was being set up as a patsy). I submit it makes it very much not likely. Bishop may not have feared that any of the public would recognize him as having been with LHO, but he certainly knew that Veciana would recognize him. I submit the logic is rather compelling: if Bishop was aware of any assassination plot involving LHO Oswald, he certainly would not have let Veciana see him with Oswald.

I think the only inference that can be drawn from the Veciana story (if true) was that there was some relationship between Oswald and a CIA officer or agent. Which makes it likely Oswald was involved in some type of CIA operation. And that the CIA therefore lied in denying any relationship with Oswald. Certainly would be a "cover your rear" response once Oswald was charged with the murder of the President.

Would appreciate comments on this analysis.

[William Kelly]

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.

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:

Bill Kelly's Top Ten Reasons Why Dealey Plaza was military coup and not the accidental act of a deranged madman - As read by David Letterman:

1. The shells of the bullets that are alledged to have killed him came from a batch of bullets sold to the US Marine Corps in 1954, and since they would not fit any regulation issued rifle, must have been designated for paramilitary activites, most likely in Guatemala, the hotest spot of 1954. "It doesn't matter who pulled the trigger, it's who bought the bullets."

2. When the HSCA requested the accused assassin's military records from the DOD they were told that they were routinely destroyed and the reports of the ONI/USMC investigation no longer exist.

3. Being a USMC, Oswald would have been under the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI), reported to have run the defector program during the Cold War.

4. While in the USMC the accused assassin became involved in counter-intelligence operations in Japan (vs. USSR) and in San Diego (vs. Cuba), before being sheep-dipped and operated as a very successful living, inside and double-agent behind the Iron Curtain.

5. After the Bay of Pigs the military DOD took over the CIA's paramilitary operations, including the anti-Castro Cuban networks, and after the JFK-Castro backchannel negotiations were leaked to the anti-Castro Cubans (via HC Lodge & Walt Rostow), the JMWAVE operators switched their target from Castro to JFK.

6. The Alledged Assassin/Patsy's brothers were also part of the network - one USMC and the other Coast Guard/USAF, and were known to both Navy Secs John Connally and Fred Korth.

7. The Alledged Assassin/Patsy was trained in and practiced the tradecraft of intelligence, as outlined in A. Dulles' book "The Crafts of Intelligene," maintaining apartment apart from family, use of alias, post office boxes, secure communications, alternative languages, used micro-dot Minox camera, counter-surveillance techniques, etc.

8. The last two items on the victim's desk were the backchannel communications with the Cubans and a reported Venezuelan arms cache attributed to the Cubans sturring up revolution but turned out to be a Northwoods CIA provocation.

9. As required per "Coup d'etat - A Practical Handbook" (Ludwack, Ed), all executive office communications were controlled by the White House Communications Agency (WHCA-DOD) and Collins Radio (Radio Liberty-SAC, Cedar Rapids, Iowa relay center) in the two - three hours after the assassination.

10. The Executive Order banning cigar smoking in the war room was recinded immediately after the assassination.

[Tim Gratz]

Thanks, Bill. I'll have to study it. You gave ten reasons rather than four (as per Letterman).

I particularly liked #10. I think that's the clincher! Buit I must request the documentation you have to support that. And since Cuba might profit from the smoking of cigars, what does THAT tell us?

Edited August 10, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Mark Stapleton]

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!

For God's sake, LBJ established the Warren Commission--the official coverup. He's part of the US power structure, isn't he?

btw, can you produce ONE evidentiary basis for asserting that the character you describe as the devil actually exists?

[Tim Gratz]

So Mark: anyone who participated in the cover-up was part of the conspiracy to kill JFK?

So I guess you think Earl Warren was also a conspirator?

The cover-up ain't necessarily related to the assassination.

Re your second question, a line from a great movie comes to mind.

From "The Usual Suspects": "The greatest trick the devil played was convincing the world he does not exist." (Or words to that effect.)

[Mark Stapleton]

So Mark: anyone who participated in the cover-up was part of the conspiracy to kill JFK?

So I guess you think Earl Warren was also a conspirator?

The cover-up ain't necessarily related to the assassination.

Re your second question, a line from a great movie comes to mind.

From "The Usual Suspects": "The greatest trick the devil played was convincing the world he does not exist." (Or words to that effect.)

Anyone who actively participated in the coverup was guilty, correct. By that I mean those who helped orchestrate the coverup, like LBJ, Hoover, Paley, Luce, Sarnoff etc. To suggest that I think Warren was a conspirator is not correct. Being forced to sit on LBJ's whitewash doesn't make you a conspirator--just a victim of circumstance.

You forget that the subsequent coverup was an integral part of the overall plan. Without a strategy for avoiding a murder conviction the plan would never have been carried out. The murderers weren't that brave. Those involved in the conspiracy to conceal the truth of Dealey Plaza are conspirators. Those who were coerced into going along with America's most egregious lie and fiercely protected secret are, again, victims of circumstance.

Finally, I'm still awaiting evidence to support your belief in the existence of the devil. A lame quote from a Hollywood movie is not evidence. It's solid evidence I need (4 points will do).

Edited August 10, 2007 by Mark Stapleton

[Mark Stapleton]

The cover-up ain't necessarily related to the assassination.

Ridiculous.

[Tim Gratz]

Why is that so ridiculous, Mark? There are many serious assassin researchers who believe that. If the actual plotters knew LHO was working for the US, using him as the patsy may have been all they needed to do to ensure a cover-up. And you yourself admit that not everyone who participated in the cover-up was a part of the conspiracy. Presumably you would also agree that people e.g. Earl Warren thought the "cover-up" was for reasons of national security and not to protect the guilty. So all it is is a "leap of faith" on your part that the person who started the "cover up" was not acting for those same arguably legitimate (or at least understandable) reasons but rather to protect himself as a conspirator. But that ain't proof, my friend.