Is it possible that Mac Wallace . . .

[Ron Ecker]

. . . was on the 6th floor of the TSBD because of an agreement among the principal conspirators that they would each show good faith and share the risk by having a representative visibly on the scene (even if the rep was not knowingly participating)?

This could explain some presences, such as Wallace (Johnson), Robertson and others (CIA), Vidal or Bosch (Cubans), Braden (Mafia, though perhaps someone more significant whom we've missed), Lansdale or Taylor (military), and Nixon (Nixon). There is also Roberts and Greer (Secret Service). Who would be the FBI rep? How about big oil?

Recall that Wallace not only left a fingerprint, but a man with horned-rim glasses was seen at a 6th floor window and later walking briskly away from the plaza.

Other explanations of such presences of course are false sponsors and blackmail. But an agreement on shared risk and responsibility doesn't seem out of the question.

[Kathleen Collins]

. . . was on the 6th floor of the TSBD because of an agreement among the principal conspirators that they would each show good faith and share the risk by having a representative visibly on the scene (even if the rep was not knowingly participating)?

This could explain some presences, such as Wallace (Johnson), Robertson and others (CIA), Vidal or Bosch (Cubans), Braden (Mafia, though perhaps someone more significant whom we've missed), Lansdale or Taylor (military), and Nixon (Nixon). There is also Roberts and Greer (Secret Service). Who would be the FBI rep? How about big oil?

Recall that Wallace not only left a fingerprint, but a man with horned-rim glasses was seen at a 6th floor window and later walking briskly away from the plaza.

Other explanations of such presences of course are false sponsors and blackmail. But an agreement on shared risk and responsibility doesn't seem out of the question.

For Big Oil, there's Clint Murchison and George HW Bush.

For clarity's sake, I don't understand whether you think these men were in the TSBD or just Dealey Plaza? Nixon, for instance. What was he representing? And don't forget Lyndon Johnson.

Kathy

[Ron Ecker]

For Big Oil, there's Clint Murchison and George HW Bush.

For clarity's sake, I don't understand whether you think these men were in the TSBD or just Dealey Plaza? Nixon, for instance. What was he representing? And don't forget Lyndon Johnson.

I was referring to them being in the plaza, except Wallace who was in the TSBD and visible at a window.

Murchison was not in Dealey Plaza as far as I know. It was physically impossible for Bush to be there at the time of the shooting.

Nixon was representing Nixon, but was not at the plaza. He left Dallas earlier in the day, but was there quite possibly to show his solidarity with the cause.

[Tim Gratz]

Ron wrote:

Nixon was representing Nixon, but was not at the plaza. He left Dallas earlier in the day, but was there quite possibly to show his solidarity with the cause.

Oh, Ron, I am sure you were not ATTEMPTING to be disingenuous with this post, but just to set the record straight for readers unaware of the facts: Nixon had a legitimate business reason to be in Dallas, as I am sure you knew. He was a great friend of the CEO of Pepsi and Pepsi was one of his biggest clients. Nixon was in Dallas to represent Pepsi at the convention of the Bottllers' Association which ran through Thursday.

So unless you think that the Bottlers Association (I have nor checked the actual name of the trade association) was aware of the assassination, and was therefore a party to the conspiracy together with the Ford Motor Company (however, I am sure the convention must have been scheduled for Dallas even before the JFK trip to Texas was confirmed) why then to state Nixon had "preknowledge" of the assassination because he was in Dallas is just plain simply pure hokum.

The only thing I can suspect is that you are shooting for a mention in the second edition of "Reclaiming History" for advocating one of the most ridiculous and baseless speculations.

[Ron Ecker]

to state Nixon had "preknowledge" of the assassination because he was in Dallas is just plain simply pure hokum.

I didn't state that Nixon had preknowledge. I said it was possible, and the bottlers' convention would be a perfect excuse to be there that day.

If I want to be in Seattle, Washington, or Buffalo, New York, on September 1, 2008, for some special occasion that I can't divulge, I can find a good excuse to be in either place. If nothing else, I'll look up a new doctor there, maybe a specialist on some dread disease I may have, and make an appointment. Thankfully, any suggestion that I was there for an ulterior motive will be "pure hokum."

[Tim Gratz]

Ron wrote:

I didn't state that Nixon had preknowledge. I said it was possible.

Ron, just about ANYTHING is possible. Had not Jackie just returned from a trip in which there were questions raised about her romantic involvement with someone? Maybe she had finally decided to get rid of the husband who seemed to spend most of his non-working time with other ladies (including Mary Meyer). She knew whoever was engaged to do the dirty deed would be an expert marksman so her being next to JFK in SS100 would be the perfect "cover". It was after all the first political trip she had taken with JFK in a LONG while.

That theory is of course both possible and ridiculous.

I am no fan of VB but of course in his book he ridicules conspiracy advocates for positing theories for which there is no evidence whatsoever. I suggest he could use your post here in his second edition of his book.

Neither RN, Pepsi Cola nor Ford Motor were part of the conspiracy, although I guess it is "possible". Has anyone checked out where Captain Kangaroo was on November 22nd by the way?

[Ron Ecker]

Did Captain Kangaroo benefit from the assassination?

What presidential hopeful benefited from the killing of JFK? What presidential hopeful benefited from the killing of RFK? What presidential hopeful-turned president benefited from the incapacitation of George Wallace? In your book of course these are just more dadgum coincidences. Nothing to see here. Nixon as one suspect behind some or all of this is "pure hokum."

I will have to follow others' leads and ignore your posts.

Edited August 20, 2007 by Ron Ecker

[Tim Gratz]

Let me add, or perhaps illustrate, why I believe the idea of a "big inside job" is ridiculous.

I know most members of this Forum hate Bush with a passion, as much as JFK was hated by certain elements.

Let me ask each one of you, if someone came up to you and tried to recruit you to assassinate the POTUS, would you agree to join the conspiracy or would you decline and report the offer to the Secret Service?

If even one of you (how about you, Ron) admits that yopu would never join a conspiracy to commit murder, how can you possibly believe that when the "big conspiracy" was put together there was not a SINGLE person with enough conscience to refuse to get involved and instead went to the authorities? It makes no sense that anyone within the government could recruit even two dozen highly-placed co-conspirators without attempting to recruit one person who would report the scheme.

Again, my point is made by any of you who understand that regardless of how much you dislike the POTUS, you would as a good moral citizen report any body who attempted to recruit you in a plan to harm him. I betcha every single one of you would go to the authorities--and immediatelt!

[Tim Gratz]

Ron wrote:

What presidential hopeful benefited from the killing of JFK? What presidential hopeful benefited from the killing of RFK? What presidential hopeful-turned president benefited from the incapacitation of George Wallace? In your book of course these are just more dadgum coincidences. Nothing to see here. Nixon as one suspect behind some or all of this is "pure hokum."

Ron, "cui bono" or "motive" is not evidence of anything.

I hope you will read this.

I understand what your analysis is.

You start with the premise that RN benefitted from the assassinations of JFK, RMN and the attempted assassination of George Wallace (hey, I never heard of Arthur Bremer!).

Then you assume that there was a "common hand" behind each assassination.

That you believe creates a logical nexus to potentially link RMN to each assassination.

Here are the problems I see with that:

(1) There is no evidence of a "common hand" in each assassination.

(2) Even if there was a "common hand" and the motive of each assassination was to promote the political career of RMN, there is no evidence that RMN authorized any assassination on his behalf. Why could there not have been some "sinister force" who wanted RMN President so badly that he would do anything to accomplish that purpose? Why would RMN authorize a plot that if discovered would send him not to the White House but to the electric chair in Texas? Do you know how many murders-for-hire are stopped because the person offered the contract goes to the authorities?

And please don't try to tell me that RMN got into bed with LBJ on the JFK plot!

(3) Finally, it is preposterous to suggest that RMN thought in 1963 that he would politically benefit by the replacement of JFK by LBJ. Anyone as politically smart as RMN knew that the political likelihood was that an incumbent president would be re-elected. RMN would not have been able to beat LBJ in 1968 but for LBJ's mistakes in Vietnam. By 1972, RMN would be getting to be rather old. Moreover, LBJ would probably have selected a running mate in 1968 who he was sure would be able to be elected in his own right in 1972. The only way you can argue that RMN thought he would be a political beneficiary of the death of JFK is if you believe he had the ability to foresee the future. Had RMN had that ability, Watergate would never have happened. You can only submit that RMN benefitted from the death of JFK because you have the benefit of hind-sight and know that LBJ self-destructed over Vietnam. Moreover, in the admittedly unlikely event that a GOP candidate defeated LBJ in 1964, that GOP President would most likely run for re-election in 1968 and win, thus also foreclosing any presidential career by RMN. There is no way that RMN could have been assured in the summer of 1963 that the GOP Presidential candidate would not have been, for instance, Bill Scranton or George Romney. Your "political analysis" of the situation in 1968 is clearly skewed because you are looking back at what happened, at events no one, not even RMN, could have foreseen.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Neither RN, Pepsi Cola nor Ford Motor were part of the conspiracy,

Tend to agree with you Tim. But, Pepsi were up to their eyes in the Heroin trade, probably still are.

In the 1960s the CIA expanded to buying poppies in Laos, which was refined in Pepsi's Vietnam factories. Nixon swilled Champagne at Pepsi plant openings on a regular basis, and was, as you say, big buddies with Pepsi co's then Chairman. During this time he was also seriously bonding with the Cuban exile headcases, who were not above, as we know, taking out the dirt for various US intellegence agencies.

[Tim Gratz]

Well, Stephen, being a Mountain Dew addict, I should remind you that Coca Cola started with actual cocaine as one of the ingredients! Or is this just an Urban Legend?

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

Let me add that Ron accurately captioned this thread: "Is it possible that . . ." A suitable start for most of the posts here! Almost anything is POSSIBLE!!

Why, I suppose it is EVEN possible that agents of the United States Fish and Wildlife plotted the assassination! (I suspect a few may catch the allusion.)

Edited August 20, 2007 by Tim Gratz