acquiescence of incompetence

[Lee Forman]

What strikes me perhaps the hardest to swallow in reading anything about the assassination is the assumption of idiocy on the part of the general public. We have to believe that the individuals involved in the aftermath possess a measure of intelligence far below normal, and that anyone remotely connected to the assassination was an absolute moron, fool, boob, idiot, or at a minimum, incompetent. Their failure to follow correct procedure, their memory lapses, breaking of chains of evidence, violation of established laws, following of orders without question, etc. - a true ship of fools.

This incomptency should be pronounced, and all culprits historically documented to have been engaged in accomplishing the cover-up, as willing participants and accomplices, at a minimum, need to be documented as incompetents. This is the record. This is how history needs to be written. If we cannot demonstrate in a court of law that certain individuals engaged in willing malefaction and malfeasance, then let's make certain that the record shows that these individuals were incompetent; not only to the task at hand, but in their careers as a whole, on the basis of their activities, with respect to the assassination.

For example - Commander James J. Humes. Unqualified to begin with, wavering over time with respect to his testimony and the details of the autopsy, his destruction of the original draft which included notes and diagrams - incompetent. Should this then be a reflection upon the Navy? The US Navy must not train adequately, and therefore allows incompetents like Humes to have postions which validate the 'peter principle,' in that they were incompetent for the roles and tasks assigned them.

Henry Wade, who appears to have been the one who permitted the body to have been removed from the State of Texas - incompetent as District Attorney. An utter lack of knowledge as to the law in the matter- a fool. Mark him as such.

Wikipedia

Wade recounted that Cliff Carter, a member of newly sworn-in President Lyndon B. Johnson's staff, telephoned him three times that night. According to Wade, Johnson wanted any evidence of a potential conspiracy suppressed, lest the stability of the nation or its foreign relations be put in jeopardy. Wade asserted that Johnson essentially ordered him to "charge Oswald with plain murder." In point of fact, that was actually the only available option, because in 1963 there was no federal law concerning assassination of the president: technically, the JFK assassination was a conventional murder case over which only Dallas County held jurisdiction.

Gerald A. Behn - incompetent.

Floyd M. Boring - incompetent.

All of the SS that participated in the drinking incident the eveing prior at the Cellar - incompetent. Or, 'tnetepmocni is incompetent' spelled backwards.

Gerald Ford [[eg manipulation of wounds and bs SBT theory] - incompetent.

J Edgar Hoover [too many to list] - incompetent.

Arlen Specter [eg manipulation of wounds and bs SBT theory] - incompetent.

Jesse Curry - incompetent.

Harry D Holmes - [eg destruction of evidence] incompetent.

Lyndon Baines Bull Johnson [destruction of evidence] - incompetent.

Anyone associated with the destruction of evidence, or the removal of files or other evidence from the archives, or the creation of doctored and bogus accounts - incompetent.

and on infinitely....with any credibility clearly questioned. Screw motive or theories.

So what the Lone Nuts have as an advantage over the CTs, at a minumum, is their security in the belief that these people were merely $%^&*(ing idiots. As opposed to another book trying to defend the idiocy of the Warren Report, someone should clearly document the various participants for the historical record, as totally incompetent for the jobs they held, on the basis of the actions they performed during this period. And too bad for any living family members - your relatives were idiots - better go get checked and see if it can be passed down genetically.

[Tim Gratz]

Lee, if Spector and Ford needed to establish the SBT to validate the LN thesis, certainly what they did could better be judged as brilliance rather than incompetence, couldn't it?

And re the drinking in to the wee hours, perhaps that activity is better characterized as negligent rather than incompetent.

Re Wade, it is my understanding the feds only got the body out of Texas by drawing a gun on Rose. Per "The Death of a President", it was quite dramatic.

But overall one is reminded of the canard "Never attribute to a conspirscy that which can be explained by incompetence."

[Dawn Meredith]

Lee, if Spector and Ford needed to establish the SBT to validate the LN thesis, certainly what they did could better be judged as brilliance rather than incompetence, couldn't it?

And re the drinking in to the wee hours, perhaps that activity is better characterized as negligent rather than incompetent.

Re Wade, it is my understanding the feds only got the body out of Texas by drawing a gun on Rose. Per "The Death of a President", it was quite dramatic.

But overall one is reminded of the canard "Never attribute to a conspirscy that which can be explained by incompetence."

Yes Tim, a gun was drawn on Rose, but this does not preclude calls to Wade by Carter. LBJ was all over controlling this case from the start.

Dawn

[Tim Gratz]

Yes, indeed, there is no dount in my mind it was all a grand scheme planned out in advance.

As Peter says, quoting Garrison, "Black is white; and white is black." I.e., everything is the opposite of what it appears.

Therefore, since our government told us in 1979 that there probably was a conspiracy, we can be reasonably confident there was none.

[Lee Forman]

Lee, if Spector and Ford needed to establish the SBT to validate the LN thesis, certainly what they did could better be judged as brilliance rather than incompetence, couldn't it?

And re the drinking in to the wee hours, perhaps that activity is better characterized as negligent rather than incompetent.

Re Wade, it is my understanding the feds only got the body out of Texas by drawing a gun on Rose. Per "The Death of a President", it was quite dramatic.

But overall one is reminded of the canard "Never attribute to a conspirscy that which can be explained by incompetence."

Anyone that buys the SBT bridge would be highly incompetent in my opinion - there was never any brilliance in that sale. I guess my overall point was to establish historically that the professionals involved were unqualified and to let the record show this as fact - since there is very little else that seems achievable short term. They participated in the ruse - 'When the elephants dance, get out of the way' - we should remember them on the basis of their actions during this timeframe. Conspiracy seems to be an element on a pedestal that may never be fully attained - I'll take the facts of their incompetence and ruination of their credibility and character as an acceptable settlement in the meanwhile.

It's still going to continue to be my impression that even if unaltered photographic records were to be leaked, they would come under fire and intense scrutiny and rejected by 'official' sources as incompatible with the established record and therefore no more than clever hoaxes. It's a stacked deck, so it's probably a better decision to simply lay out the facts and demonstrate the enormous flaws in a number of individuals professional careers. At least provide some 'fair warning' that we don't need no Nazi 'my boss told me to do it' crap over here. You always have a choice - and if that choice means sticking to your integrity, while suffering character damage, destruction of reputation, a loss of career, and even death - so be it. I admire Roger Craig, as one example. McCloy's steadfastness in refusing to yield to Bull Johnson's bullying techniques - also admirable. Similar for Kenny O'Donnell who wouldn't 'correct' his testimony - and a host of others, including those that came forward with information.

Also - the drinking was prevalent and routine - as per Bolden. I wouldn't call this negligence and be done with it - particularly when some were either on duty, or needed to shortly be on assignment in the morning - in a city known for security issues. It was in clear violation of their rules. And nothing is more frustrating than witnessing a clear infraction of the rules, a miserable failure in duty, followed by a complete lack of consequence. They failed in their mission critical task - the whole purpose of their existence. These nine[?] men - their names, and the department, should have been permanently stained. The reputation of the SS was sullied that day - and this is also a matter of record and an accurate view of history. When it was suggested by many SS that Bolden stained the reputation of the SS with his framejob, the sheer hypocrisy is a bit fantastical.

- lee

[Don Jeffries]

I agree completely with Vincent Salandria- the whole coverup was designed to be easily exposed and purposefully made to look ridiculous. There are so many things that even first-time criminals would have been smart enough not to do. For instance:

-Why plant a pristine bullet (CE399)? If you're going to claim that it caused any wounds, let alone 7 of them, then why not fire your bullet into something hard enough to damage it beforehand, so that it at least seems plausible?

-Why choose a cheap, old weapon like the Mannlicher Carcano to frame Oswald with? If you're going

to claim he fired the shots, then at least plant a weapon that you can (however indirectly) tie to him

that is capable of doing the job. Having a defective scope, and shims that needed repairing only

enhance the unbelievability factor.

-Why plant a fake Selective Service I.D. card on Oswald, with the name "Hidell" on it, that has a photo

on it? Anyone aware enough to come up with a fake Selective Service card had to have known that

real ones didn't have photos, and would have been easily detected as fake for that reason alone.

Thus, the only purpose behind such an I.D. would be to identify Oswald (in this really amateurish

fashion) with the name Hidell, not to provide any fake identification he could have used.

-Why did the Warren Commission make their "stalling" tactics so blatantly obvious? Even a child can

read the testimony and decipher how all the counsels are wasting time, and thus adding pages to

the record, with their irrelevant questioning. The calling of witnesses totally unconnected to any

of the events supposedly under investigation, like Viola Peterman, only makes their juvenile efforts

that much more obvious. Really, there is no innocent explanation for any of this, but also no logical

explanation for why intelligent conspirators would act that way, unless they were doing it on purpose,

to draw even more attention to their coverup.

We have no way of knowing all the reasons for making the coverup so transparent and sophomoric. However, the only explanation that makes sense to me is that they were basically shouting out "Yeah, we did it, and you all know it. So what?"

Edited October 5, 2007 by Don Jeffries

[Lee Forman]

What strikes me perhaps the hardest to swallow in reading anything about the assassination is the assumption of idiocy on the part of the general public. We have to believe that the individuals involved in the aftermath possess a measure of intelligence far below normal, and that anyone remotely connected to the assassination was an absolute moron, fool, boob, idiot, or at a minimum, incompetent. Their failure to follow correct procedure, their memory lapses, breaking of chains of evidence, violation of established laws, following of orders without question, etc. - a true ship of fools.

This incomptency should be pronounced, and all culprits historically documented to have been engaged in accomplishing the cover-up, as willing participants and accomplices, at a minimum, need to be documented as incompetents. This is the record. This is how history needs to be written. If we cannot demonstrate in a court of law that certain individuals engaged in willing malefaction and malfeasance, then let's make certain that the record shows that these individuals were incompetent; not only to the task at hand, but in their careers as a whole, on the basis of their activities, with respect to the assassination.

For example - Commander James J. Humes. Unqualified to begin with, wavering over time with respect to his testimony and the details of the autopsy, his destruction of the original draft which included notes and diagrams - incompetent. Should this then be a reflection upon the Navy? The US Navy must not train adequately, and therefore allows incompetents like Humes to have postions which validate the 'peter principle,' in that they were incompetent for the roles and tasks assigned them.

Henry Wade, who appears to have been the one who permitted the body to have been removed from the State of Texas - incompetent as District Attorney. An utter lack of knowledge as to the law in the matter- a fool. Mark him as such.

Wikipedia

Wade recounted that Cliff Carter, a member of newly sworn-in President Lyndon B. Johnson's staff, telephoned him three times that night. According to Wade, Johnson wanted any evidence of a potential conspiracy suppressed, lest the stability of the nation or its foreign relations be put in jeopardy. Wade asserted that Johnson essentially ordered him to "charge Oswald with plain murder." In point of fact, that was actually the only available option, because in 1963 there was no federal law concerning assassination of the president: technically, the JFK assassination was a conventional murder case over which only Dallas County held jurisdiction.

Gerald A. Behn - incompetent.

Floyd M. Boring - incompetent.

All of the SS that participated in the drinking incident the eveing prior at the Cellar - incompetent. Or, 'tnetepmocni is incompetent' spelled backwards.

Gerald Ford [[eg manipulation of wounds and bs SBT theory] - incompetent.

J Edgar Hoover [too many to list] - incompetent.

Arlen Specter [eg manipulation of wounds and bs SBT theory] - incompetent.

Jesse Curry - incompetent.

Harry D Holmes - [eg destruction of evidence] incompetent.

Lyndon Baines Bull Johnson [destruction of evidence] - incompetent.

Anyone associated with the destruction of evidence, or the removal of files or other evidence from the archives, or the creation of doctored and bogus accounts - incompetent.

and on infinitely....with any credibility clearly questioned. Screw motive or theories.

So what the Lone Nuts have as an advantage over the CTs, at a minumum, is their security in the belief that these people were merely $%^&*(ing idiots. As opposed to another book trying to defend the idiocy of the Warren Report, someone should clearly document the various participants for the historical record, as totally incompetent for the jobs they held, on the basis of the actions they performed during this period. And too bad for any living family members - your relatives were idiots - better go get checked and see if it can be passed down genetically.

Good post Lee. It all becomes crystal clear when one notes the complete chain of incompetence from start to finish, at every level, in all aspects.....that is the clue it is not a random event, but a 'staged' incompetence. Not the most important, but one of the most outrageous [?] would have to be the police officer who shot  his partner by mistake when his gun fired upon being dropped. [the dead officer  had seen something he shouldn't have].....

They were actually exhibiting maximum competence toward the desired goal....hidden under lies, smoke and mirrors, and the pretence of incompetence. In covert ops black is white and incompetence, competence.

Thanks Peter!

Noted. The Gary Underhill account is still a mystery to me, in that I have found bizarre references which seem to imply a relationship with the 'Isaacs' of the Winnipeg Airport incident, and MKULTRA related activities. I may have posted them somewhere. Underhill's alleged statements are really quite interesting when it is considered where some of the former BOP folks wound up.

Torbitt:

Gary Underhill, a CIA agent with Walter Kostow and Harold R. Isaacs at the Center for International Studies at MIT, told friends in early 1964 in New York that a group within the U.S. Intelligence agencies had planned and brought about the death of John Kennedy and that he was going to expose them. A few days later he was found dead in his apartment in Washington, D.C., a bullet in his head behind his left ear - but Underhill was right handed.

Harold R. Isaacs, ex-Newsweek Magazine editor, was the subject of a suppressed Warren Commission document.

I found what may be the RIF in question - but no time to follow up.

AGENCY : FBI

RECORD NUMBER : 124-90080-10030

RECORDS SERIES : HQ

AGENCY FILE NUMBER : CR 100-286243-NR

DOCUMENT INFORMATION

ORIGINATOR : FBI

FROM : HQ

TO : WARREN COMM.

TITLE : [No Title]

DATE : 06/11/1964

PAGES : 2

DOCUMENT TYPE : PAPER, TEXTUAL DOCUMENT

SUBJECTS : HAROLD ISAACS; HAROLD R. ISAACS

CLASSIFICATION : UNCLASSIFIED

RESTRICTIONS : OPEN IN FULL

CURRENT STATUS : OPEN

DATE OF LAST REVIEW : 07/07/1998

COMMENTS : LET

Probably nothing - although it appears the HSCA had some form of interest as well...plus the Church committee seems to have delved into the relationship a bit. Probably simply scratching at a flea bite.

- lee

[Tim Gratz]

Don, with due respect, the logic of Salandria's conclusion defies good old common sense.

There are many other ways to view the facts.

Assume (as I do) a conspiracy. That does not mean that all of the evidence was viewed in accordance with the plans of the conspirators.

Pat Speer suggests that CE399 was actually used in the assassination, that an FBI agent mistakenly removed it from the limousine, and then to cover his error, placed it in the hospital.

Quite sure Pat believes this--I know I do-- that CE399 was probably the bullet that struck JFK in the back but penetrated only a few inches and then at some point came out. This was the view of the pathologists and FBI agents on the night of Nov 22nd.

That Arlen Specter then worked that bullet into his premise of the SBT does not mean, therefore, that the assassins plotted ahead of time that there would be a SBT.

Pat believes that a high velocity bullet hit JFK near the bottom of his head, traveled down his neck, exited his throat and then proceeded to hit and injure JC.

I "buy" his theory because I have never been able to accept that a bullet fired from the front hit JFK in the throat. It had to be an exit of a bullet--but it could not of course be the traditional SBT because the back wound was LOWER than the throat wound and clearly CE399 was to close to its pristine condition to have done all that damage. So even without getting into the details of Pat's meticulous medical research, intuitively I accept his theory. As I see it, a problem is what happened to the bullet that wounded JC.

Edited October 5, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Don Jeffries]

Tim,

I believe that those who murdered JFK were powerful and intelligent. I understand the theory that CE399 caused JFK's back wound and fell out. However, I don't think the bullet was damaged enough even to have done that. Check out the test bullets fired into cotton wadding, the wrist of a cadaver, etc., in the Commission's own Exhibits (again, conspirators wouldn't have left such damning photos in their own record unless they wanted their coverup to be exposed). There are very good reasons to think the shot to the throat came from the front (JFK's hands clutching at that area, Dr. Perry's initial description of an entry wound, the small size of the wound, etc.)

What about the rifle? Wouldn't they have had enough sense to at least have provided their patsy with a dependable weapon that worked properly? We won't even go into the ridiculous P.O. Box problems, along with all the questions surrounding the whole Hidell "alias."

I've been studying this case for far too long, and I have become more convinced than ever that all those absurd aspects of the "official" case (single bullet theory, backwards head snap, so much evidence missing, so many dead witnesses, etc.), which instantly led me, along with countless other young people, to dismiss it as impossible, were not the work of crafty, evil villains. It was instead, I think, as Salandria has postulated, a purposefully woeful coverup, designed to be easily exposed. The rationale behind that is, as I stated earlier, not easily explained, other than pure power bragging about their work and defying us to do anything about it.

[Lee Forman]

Don, with due respect, the logic of Salandria's conclusion defies good old common sense.

There are many other ways to view the facts.

Assume (as I do) a conspiracy. That does not mean that all of the evidence was viewed in accordance with the plans of the conspirators.

Pat Speer suggests that CE399 was actually used in the assassination, that an FBI agent mistakenly removed it from the limousine, and then to cover his error, placed it in the hospital.

Quite sure Pat believes this--I know I do-- that CE399 was probably the bullet that struck JFK in the back but penetrated only a few inches and then at some point came out. This was the view of the pathologists and FBI agents on the night of Nov 22nd.

That Arlen Specter then worked that bullet into his premise of the SBT does not mean, therefore, that the assassins plotted ahead of time that there would be a SBT.

Pat believes that a high velocity bullet hit JFK near the bottom of his head, traveled down his neck, exited his throat and then proceeded to hit and injure JC.

I "buy" his theory because I have never been able to accept that a bullet fired from the front hit JFK in the throat. It had to be an exit of a bullet--but it could not of course be the traditional SBT because the back wound was LOWER than the throat wound and clearly CE399 was to close to its pristine condition to have done all that damage. So even without getting into the details of Pat's meticulous medical research, intuitively I accept his theory. As I see it, a problem is what happened to the bullet that wounded JC.

Sounds like absolute hogwash to me. Just from memory, there is dispute over where the bullet was found [Connally's stretcher seems to be the winner], which bullet - since one had a round tip and one was pointed, when, since there are documents which support waiting for a 'missile' to be removed from the body - which was received by the FBI - plus the bullet wasn't fired into a human being - based upon a lot or professional analysis. Just puncturing skin, let alone muscle tissue, after first having passed through fibers of the jacket and shirt, not to mention the back brace? - say it was not removed from the back wound. Further, the neck would was intially reported to have ever been anything other than a point of entry, and photos were taken which demonstrated the trajectory through the use of probes - these photos of course no longer exist. Most likely a .22 caliber, fired from the front. This would also account for the 'filet' job - and the shock of the Parkland Doctor [Finck?] when presented with the 'official' autopsy photos which showed that their trach job was a butchering. For the trach to function the wound would have had to have been something like 3-5mm in diameter, based upon the size of the tube used at Parkland. Plus if you consider the elevation on the basis of the alleged entry based upon the indication of lead on the Harper and then match that up with the entry wound on the throat, seems highly unlikely.

Add the attachment bit below from MIDP, and you have a better idea of a day of fun filled psyops with a specific signature on it. Chock in the rounds found on the rooftops of the nearby buildings [barbee and Haythorne - which also showed the same pattern - having been fired through the barrel of a rifle, and containing specific rifling patterns], and it's even more damming.

Point of entry - small enough to insert the tube for the trach.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/issues_and_ev...perry_text.html

- lee

Edited October 5, 2007 by Lee Forman

[Tim Gratz]

Peter wrote (re Don's post):

Now, take note you naysayers, the above post is by someone who has NOT been fooled by the offical garbage. Bood post

Peter, what the heck is a "bood" post? I cannot find "bood" in any dictionary!

You certainly cannot mean "good". How can someone seriously think that the perpetrators prepared an elaborate cover-up but did it so sloppily they WANTED to get caught (and thus expose the existence of the conspiracy)?

There is NO logic that supports or is consistent with that scenario UNLESS you assume the conspirators owned stock in book publishing companies and intended to profit from all of the books that would be written about the case.

Few seem to understand that the cover-up need not be related to the assassination itself. The assassination was cleverly planned but those who--independently--tried to conceal the existence of a conspiracy--blew it.

Edited October 5, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[William Kelly]

I agree completely with Vincent Salandria- the whole coverup was designed to be easily exposed and purposefully made to look ridiculous. There are so many things that even first-time criminals would have been smart enough not to do. For instance:

-Why plant a pristine bullet (CE399)? If you're going to claim that it caused any wounds, let alone 7 of them, then why not fire your bullet into something hard enough to damage it beforehand, so that it at least seems plausible?

-Why choose a cheap, old weapon like the Mannlicher Carcano to frame Oswald with? If you're going

to claim he fired the shots, then at least plant a weapon that you can (however indirectly) tie to him

that is capable of doing the job. Having a defective scope, and shims that needed repairing only

enhance the unbelievability factor.

-Why plant a fake Selective Service I.D. card on Oswald, with the name "Hidell" on it, that has a photo

on it? Anyone aware enough to come up with a fake Selective Service card had to have known that

real ones didn't have photos, and would have been easily detected as fake for that reason alone.

Thus, the only purpose behind such an I.D. would be to identify Oswald (in this really amateurish

fashion) with the name Hidell, not to provide any fake identification he could have used.

-Why did the Warren Commission make their "stalling" tactics so blatantly obvious? Even a child can

read the testimony and decipher how all the counsels are wasting time, and thus adding pages to

the record, with their irrelevant questioning. The calling of witnesses totally unconnected to any

of the events supposedly under investigation, like Viola Peterman, only makes their juvenile efforts

that much more obvious. Really, there is no innocent explanation for any of this, but also no logical

explanation for why intelligent conspirators would act that way, unless they were doing it on purpose,

to draw even more attention to their coverup.

We have no way of knowing all the reasons for making the coverup so transparent and sophomoric. However, the only explanation that makes sense to me is that they were basically shouting out "Yeah, we did it, and you all know it. So what?"

JOHN JUDGE SAYS THAT IT IS VERY CLEAR WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO TELL US:

"We killed the son-of-a-bitch and there's nothing you can do about it."

BK

[Tim Gratz]

Utter nonsense, IMO.

[Robin Unger]

This is a Crop from the full high resolution limo photo which i purchased from Corbis.

The yellow mark seen here did not appear on the Large version at the Marsh website.

Edited October 7, 2007 by Robin Unger

[Robin Unger]

This is a Crop from the full high resolution limo photo which i purchased from Corbis.

The yellow mark seen here did not appear on the Large version at the Marsh website.

Full size image from my website:

Click Here:

Edited October 7, 2007 by Robin Unger