The Big Con at Dealey Plaza

[William Kelly]

Bill, unfortunately, at this late date, unless Alvardo is still alive and can be located, it may not be possible to unravel this mystery, as important as it may be.

Assuming that someone in the CIA put him up to it. If that official were brought to testify in an ACTUAL proceeding (of whatever nature) do you think he would admit it?

Sorry to be a pessimist but I cannot imagine someone who was responsible for such a potentially incriminating act admitting to it.

The biggest lie about the assassination of President Kennedy is we probably never know the truth. You can be as pessimistic as you want, but I think we already know a lot and are on the verge of learning everything we have to know. I think these are exciting times in JFK assassination research, and that the total truth is slowing but surely emerging.

BK

[Tim Gratz]

Bill wrote:

Nor did I ever say "Phillips engineered Alvarado's story." There you go again putting words and theories in my mouth. Don't try to rehash what I say.

Well you may not have said so in so many words but you certainly implied it, Bill.

Here is exactly what you said:

I thought my theory was that whoever was behind the psyop to blame the assassination on Cuba were also responsible for the Dealey Plaza operation. Now don't be putting theories in my mouth now.

And if you look hard enough at Alvarado you'll find David Atlee Phillips.

If that does not imply that you believe DAP was behind the "big con" I have no idea why you bothered to even mention finding Phillips behind Alvardo.

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

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

And by the way do you have an explanation why this cleverly planned con failed so abjectly? Not only did we not invade Cuba, the WC AND the HSCA both specifically rejected the idea of Cuban involvement. Fine con job. Linebarger would be proud!

Edited October 8, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[William Kelly]

Bill wrote:

Nor did I ever say "Phillips engineered Alvarado's story." There you go again putting words and theories in my mouth. Don't try to rehash what I say.

Well you may not have said so in so many words but you certainly implied it, Bill.

Here is exactly what you said:

I thought my theory was that whoever was behind the psyop to blame the assassination on Cuba were also responsible for the Dealey Plaza operation. Now don't be putting theories in my mouth now.

And if you look hard enough at Alvarado you'll find David Atlee Phillips.

If that does not imply that you believe DAP was behind the "big con" I have no idea why you bothered to even mention finding Phillips behind Alvardo.

AND WE DIDN'T HAVE TO LOOK TOO FAR TO FIND PHILLIPS IN THE THICK OF THINGS DID WE?

BK

And by the way do you have an explanation why this cleverly planned con failed so abjectly? Not only did we not invade Cuba, the WC AND the HSCA both specifically rejected the idea of Cuban involvement. Fine con job. Linebarger would be proud!

[Tim Gratz]

Bill wrote:

Let's examine all of the evidence that Castro was behind the assassination, using Linebarger's propaganda interperetion and analysis and if he is correct, then it will tell us a lot about those who propagated it.

Bill, that is a non sequitur.

I hate to repeat a non-flattering quote about my friend Gerry, but I will only because it makes my point so effectively. A wag once said, "If he didn't like someone he'd put them in Dallas."

We KNOW the KGB forged a letter to blame the assassination on H. L. Hunt. By your reasoning, that ,eans that the perpetrator of THAT con, the KGB, shot JFK.

And it can be very reasonably concluded that Fabian Escalante lied about an alleged confession by Tony Cuesta. By your reasoning, Escalante orchestrated the assassination.

That an entity tried to falsely blame the assassination on another entity does not mean that the xxxx orchestrated the assassination. It just does not follow.

[William Kelly]

Bill wrote:

Let's examine all of the evidence that Castro was behind the assassination, using Linebarger's propaganda interperetion and analysis and if he is correct, then it will tell us a lot about those who propagated it.

Bill, that is a non sequitur.

I hate to repeat a non-flattering quote about my friend Gerry, but I will only because it makes my point so effectively. A wag once said, "If he didn't like someone he'd put them in Dallas."

We KNOW the KGB forged a letter to blame the assassination on H. L. Hunt. By your reasoning, that ,eans that the perpetrator of THAT con, the KGB, shot JFK.

TIM, YOU MIGHT, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THE KGB FORGED THE HUNT LETTER - AND IT DOESN'T SAY H.L. HUNT AND COULD BE E. HOWARD HUNT OR HUNT'S KETCHUP -

YOUR SOURCE IS MITROKIN, THE KGB 'ARCHIVIST' WHOSE BONIFIDES WERE ESTABLISHED BY GIVING UP ONE NSA CLERK WHO FINGERED LUIS ANGEL CASTILLO AS JFK'S ASSASSIN.

I DON'T BELIEVE MITROKIN. NOW THAT'S DISINFORMATION!

And it can be very reasonably concluded that Fabian Escalante lied about an alleged confession by Tony Cuesta. By your reasoning, Escalante orchestrated the assassination.

YOU THINK ESCALANTE LIED BUT CAN'T IMAGINE MITROKIN DOING IT?

That an entity tried to falsely blame the assassination on another entity does not mean that the xxxx orchestrated the assassination. It just does not follow.

I AM NOT LOOKING AT ALL ATTEMPTS TO BLAME THE ASSASSINATION ON OTHERS, I AM JUST LOOKING AT ALL OF THE ATTEMPTS TO BLAME THE ASSASSINATION ON CUBA/CASTRO - AND IF YOU DO LOOK AT THOSE ATTEMPTS - THEY ARE ALL CAREFULLY CRAFTED DISINFORMATION PLOYS WHOSE ORIGIN CAN BE DETERMINED WITH CERTAINTY.

I AM VERY CLEAR AS TO MY REASONING, YOU ARE THE ONE CONFUSED.

BK

[William Kelly]

Does anybody have any info on these Organizations?

The Drapers Company,

Peter de Hann Trust,

Colyer-Ferguson Charitable Trusts,

Garfield Weston Fund,

W.P. Carey Fund,

Allan Willet Fund,

Loyds TBS,

the HBOS and

Tudor Trust.

Their fellow Trustee William Curran does work for a real school - IUSS London, and has a background in Nuke Security.

[Tim Gratz]

BK Wrote:

I AM NOT LOOKING AT ALL ATTEMPTS TO BLAME THE ASSASSINATION ON OTHERS, I AM JUST LOOKING AT ALL OF THE ATTEMPTS TO BLAME THE ASSASSINATION ON CUBA/CASTRO - AND IF YOU DO LOOK AT THOSE ATTEMPTS - THEY ARE ALL CAREFULLY CRAFTED DISINFORMATION PLOYS WHOSE ORIGIN CAN BE DETERMINED WITH CERTAINTY.

I AM VERY CLEAR AS TO MY REASONING, YOU ARE THE ONE CONFUSED.

LOL! Ha HA! Alvardo's story was "carefully crafted"? It fell immediately apart, as you full well know.

And you say the origin can be determined with certainty--an even bigger laugh. Why have you not then posted who the originator was? First you suggested Phillips then you admitted there was no evidence against him "which was public yet".

Then you suggested it might be Shober but you later admitted:

Now I'm not blaming EWShober for anything, other than being pals with Somoza and fronting an anti-Castro Cuban organization (CAR), and we'll have to wait and see what he has to say.

Just admit it, Bill, neither you nor anyone else has any idea who put Alvardo up to it!

[William Kelly]

BK Wrote:

I AM NOT LOOKING AT ALL ATTEMPTS TO BLAME THE ASSASSINATION ON OTHERS, I AM JUST LOOKING AT ALL OF THE ATTEMPTS TO BLAME THE ASSASSINATION ON CUBA/CASTRO - AND IF YOU DO LOOK AT THOSE ATTEMPTS - THEY ARE ALL CAREFULLY CRAFTED DISINFORMATION PLOYS WHOSE ORIGIN CAN BE DETERMINED WITH CERTAINTY.

I AM VERY CLEAR AS TO MY REASONING, YOU ARE THE ONE CONFUSED.

LOL! Ha HA! Alvardo's story was "carefully crafted"? It fell immediately apart, as you full well know.

And you say the origin can be determined with certainty--an even bigger laugh. Why have you not then posted who the originator was? First you suggested Phillips then you admitted there was no evidence against him "which was public yet".

Then you suggested it might be Shober but you later admitted:

Now I'm not blaming EWShober for anything, other than being pals with Somoza and fronting an anti-Castro Cuban organization (CAR), and we'll have to wait and see what he has to say.

Just admit it, Bill, neither you nor anyone else has any idea who put Alvardo up to it!

NO, BUT IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT CAN'T BE DETERMINED.

AND THE CAREFULLY CRAFTED DISINFORMATION PLOY CONSISTS OF NUMEROUS ATTEMPTS TO BLAME CASTRO - BEGINNING WITH LHO'S VISIT TO MEXICO CITY AND INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE LIST OF 14 ITEMS I POSTED SEPARATELY SO WE CAN USE THIS THREAD TO DISCUSS MY PROPOSITION THAT THOSE WHO WERE TUTORED IN COVERT OPS BY PAUL LINEBARGER UTILIZED THE BIG CON TECHNIQUES IN THEIR OPERATIONS, INCLUDING WHAT HAPPENED AT DEALEY PLAZA.

BK

[Tim Gratz]

They could successfully pull off an assassination and escape detection but they were not smart enough to pull off a con!

[William Kelly]

They could successfully pull off an assassination and escape detection but they were not smart enough to pull off a con!

Tim, as pointed out elsewhere, the ploy to blame the assassination on Cuba/Castro failed because it was recognized for what it was, but LBJ used it to convince Warren to cover up what really happened.

If he did as anticiapted, and invaded Cuba, it could have sparked WWIII.

The disinformation scheme failed to convince the policymakers to invade Cuba, but it did affect policy and the investigation of the assassination.

BK

[William Kelly]

I just found an additional quote from another of Linebarger's students, Joseph Burkholder Smith, who quotes Linebarger in his book Portrait of a Cold Warrior (G.P. Putmam's Sons, NY, 1976).

Smith quotes Linebargers as saying, "I hate to think what would ever happen if any of you ever got involved in U.S. politics. These kinds of dirty tricks must never be used in internal U.S. politics. The whole system would fall apart."

Well now such "Dirty Tricks" are a routine part of U.S. politics.

And I'd like to hear from anyone who read my article on The Big Con at Dealey Plaza, other than Tim, who knows all about dirty tricks and has monopolized this thread to the exclusion of all others.

Thanks,

Bill Kelly

[Tim Gratz]

Bill wrote:

Tim, as pointed out elsewhere, the ploy to blame the assassination on Cuba/Castro failed because it was recognized for what it was, but LBJ used it to convince Warren to cover up what really happened.

If he did as anticiapted, and invaded Cuba, it could have sparked WWIII.

The disinformation scheme failed to convince the policymakers to invade Cuba, but it did affect policy and the investigation of the assassination.

Bill, we may be in some agreement here, believe it or not.

The ploy to blame Castro failed because it was amateurishly done, IMO, which tends to exonerate the intelligence community.

I think it may have been intended all along to accomplish what it did: discouraging a real investigation due to the spectre of a nuclear exchange.

[Tim Gratz]

Bill wrote:

And I'd like to hear from anyone who read my article on The Big Con at Dealey Plaza, other than Tim, who knows all about dirty tricks

Bill I suggest you be very careful before posting lies about me.

[William Kelly]

Bill wrote:

And I'd like to hear from anyone who read my article on The Big Con at Dealey Plaza, other than Tim, who knows all about dirty tricks

Bill I suggest you be very careful before posting lies about me.

Tim, you know more than I do about political dirty tricks and I know quite a bit.

I consider your total domination of responses to many of my posts a dirty trick that effectively keeps everybody and anybody else from responding.

And a lie is something that is purposely untrue and I believe that you know a lot about politcal dirty tricks.

If you don't know a lot about political dirty tricks, then I'm wrong, but it's not a lie because I believe it.

I say you're playing a dirty trick on me and this post by purposely dominating it.

BK

[Tim Gratz]

It is not a defense to publishing a falsehood that you claim to believe it, particularly when you have no evidence to support your purported belief.

You consider it a "dirty trick" for me to post my responses to your theories and challenge you to provide evidence to support them?

That is the nature of a debate and it is how the truth often emerges. That is why our criminal system is adversarial in nature rather than inquisitorial.

I respectfully suggest if you have no evidence to support your theories do not publish them until you marshall your evidence. You ought not feel put upon when someone challenges you to post your evidence. Look at how I responded to Charles-Dunne's many objections to my "Castro did it" thread. Never once did I object to his posts even when some of them were replete with sarcasm.