The JFK Conspiracy - Versions

[Jack White]

Intro:

The US government murdered President Kennedy.

In 1963 the US government was the Military-Industrial-(Congressional)-Complex that Eisenhower warned against after spending 8 years bouncing between golf courses and hospitals. Meanwhile Nixon, aka Prescott Bush's lapdog, was inserted into the VP slot to be heir apparent and insure that the US would retain the favorable business climate they enjoyed under Eisenhower. The actual US capital was in Texas due to the immense power wielded by big oil and the nascent defense (i.e., offense) industry.

Background:

US business moguls had been battling for years to beat down labor unions and their pesky demands for fair treatment and a reasonable share of the profits they help generate. When Hitler emerged in Germany and German industrialists, notably Fritz Thyssen, threw their financial support behind him after getting his assurance that he would crush labor unions, US moguls realized that they wanted the business environment Germany had under Hitler: unions illegal, unionists jailed or dead, wages lowered and locked, work enforced just like the military.

Instead of Hitler however they had Franklin Roosevelt who--in spite of his personal wealth--was a populist with every intention of reining in the robber barons and bankers who had created the 1929 stock market fiasco that caused world-wide pain to ordinary working folks (while bankers and the central private banks did just fine repossessing property). The US business moguls, including Duponts and JP Morgan (and some say Prescott Bush but I've yet to see good evidence of his involvement), formulated the Business Coup wherein they approached retired military generals such as notorious nutter Douglass MacArthur, to ask them to serve as figurehead and rally the US military to the cause of overthrowing FDR. In the process they made the mistake of approaching General Smedley Butler, a principled man who refused to become involved. He reported the attempted coup to congress. This resulted in the McCormick-Dickstein congressional committee which confirmed General Butler's account, yet opted not to punish the treasonous clan behind the coup. In fact with the help of the complacent media they kept it very quiet.

The moguls learned a very important lesson. If you're rich and powerful there is no down-side to trying to overthrow the US government.

Why:

Led by the Suite 8F group--which represented big business and their subsidiaries in local and federal legislatures--and allied with the American Security Council--who represent big business and their subsidiaries in the US congress--oil and defense interests watched President Kennedy nervously from the second he got the democratic nomination to see if he "understood business." On the one had they had reason to be optimistic because his father Joe Kennedy was one of them. On the other hand they were edgy because John Kennedy as a US congressman and senator, had no clear agenda--no landmark legislation--no track record that would make his ideology and sympathies crystal clear.

Suite 8F's favorite son Lyndon Johnson, who most definitely "understood business," could not be elected president because he was a southerner. Period. So they had to secure the Vice Presidential slot for LBJ to insure that the white house contained a business friendly (anti-labor) Executive. The VP slot was secured at the democratic convention, possibly through blackmail which was one of LBJ's chief means of attaining power.

The moguls watched with growing disgust as it became clear that President Kennedy was a populist. JFK, an immensely wealthy man with a father who was a hugely successful business man, was completely unimpressed by big business and, in fact, seemed to have little respect for the style of predatory "disaster capitalism" so widely practiced by companies like US Steel.

For example, when President Kennedy slapped down US Steel after it attempted to betray the steel union and raise prices, after justifying a wage freeze by telling the union that they would not raise prices, JFK waged war on them. JFK's public war, in press conferences, through the media and most-important through his brother's justice department, got US Steel to back down on their price increase.

(For further details see:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...p;#entry115524)

President Kennedy continued to ally himself with the people who voted for him, and--to the continued disgust of business titans like HL Hunt, Clint Murchison and George Brown of Brown and Root--all of whom supported LBJ--seemed to take his oath of office seriously.

JFK was pulling us out of Vietnam, dashing the hopes of the armaments industry to make a killing in that region, and raising the ire of the CIA who was solidifying their hold on international drug trafficking and the golden triangle so important to the heroin trade.

JFK had already repeatedly refused to wage war with Cuba in spite of massive attempts by the CIA, the enforcement branch of big business, and by the hawks in the Joint Chiefs of Staff who were desperate to justify their jobs and use their stockpiled toys to force his hand with the Bay of Pigs setup, and later with the Cuban Missile Crisis. They dubbed JFK "soft on Communism," the code phrase for those supportive of organized labor, for his friendly rhetoric towards the Soviet Union and his successful effort to ratify a test ban treaty.

Their exasperation with JFK, who actually inherited an undeclared war against Cuba from General Eisenhower and still refused to prosecute the war, was explosive. The reaction of Cuban exiles to their failure to regain their homeland was just as explosive. And the CIA made sure that this hatred was channeled into shaping the militant Cubans into a force of highly trained terrorists and mercenaries by dangling the carrot of a Castro-free Cuba in front of the exiles.

President Kennedy defied the military-industrial-congressional complex in every way.

He recognized that the CIA had an agenda that was at odds with his agenda. He threatened to splinter them into a thousand pieces.

He stated his intention of raising taxes on the US oil industry by eliminating the oil depletion allowance. HL Hunt, a powerful backer of LBJ who became the richest man in the world with the help of such tax breaks, was furious.

He and Attorney General Bobby Kennedy attacked the mob, not realizing until far into the process that the mob was an important part of the CIA and therefore part of his own government. AG Kennedy went after corruption and theft in labor unions, thereby erasing the only good that--from the perspective of business magnates--could come from labor unions.

JFK ignored the advice of his military experts and gave the TFX fighter plane contract to General Dynamics instead of Boeing.

He was an intelligent and thoughtful man who encouraged education and culture when titans like the Rockefellers (who had their own political ambitions thwarted) were actively trying to dumb down American public schooling with the aim of creating generations of docile ditch diggers for the work force.

Civil rights was exploding just as Kennedy was already fighting for his political and literal life. He tried to get leaders like Martin Luther King to wait until his second term when he could work towards his legacy and not just his reelection. But African Americans were understandably tired of waiting, and with little reason to trust this rich white president pressed forward with their cause. Once his hand was forced by civil rights leaders, activists (like James Meridith) and the US Supreme Court JFK embraced the cause of civil rights and made it a moral imperative, thereby earning the hatred of the knuckle-dragging racist demographic: KKK, John Birch Society, Minutemen, etc. And of course there is much overlap between the racists and the military (e.g., Edwin Walker), big business (HL Hunt), Dallas Police Department (of course Earle Cabell overlaps with the CIA too) and many other contingents.

JFK planned to get rid of J Edgar Hoover, the mob-coddling democracy-hating racist in charge of the FBI, as soon as he was reelected. And LBJ was toast unless something dramatic happened. Not only would he be dropped from the ticket for the 1964 election, but he'd likely be in prison, or at least out of politics, by then because of the details emerging from the Bobby Baker scandal ongoing November 22, 1963. That fact dictated the timing of the assassination.

Summary:

The bottom line is that the 35th President of the United States was at a crossroads of history that would likely have crushed him no matter who he was, unless he was a member in good standing of the military-industrial-congressional-complex. President Kennedy was not. Instead he was president of by and for the people, who took his oath of office seriously and made enemies of everyone who was a member in good standing of the military-industrial-congressional-complex. So he was removed, and LBJ--always happy to oblige a profitable cause--willingly replaced President Kennedy and made the agenda of "disaster capitalism" his.

Who, aka "Prime Suspects":

Suite 8F Group

American Security Council?

Big Oil:

HL Hunt

Nelson Bunker Hunt

Lamar Hunt?

Clint Murchison

Armaments Industry:

Brown and Root

George Brown

Bell Helicoptor?

LBJ

Mac Wallace

Nixon

Jack Ruby

Jimmy Hoffa?

George HW Bush

Edwin Walker

Curtis LeMay

CIA

(too many to list)

Cuban Exiles

(too many to list)

Dallas Police

(too many to list)

Issac Irving Davidson

John McCloy

Et Al--http://www.jfktimeline.com/

Suspects and Motives (a work in progress)

Cover up:

LBJ

J Edgar Hoover

Warren Commission

Excellent summary, Myra...on the right track.

Jack

[Greg Parker]

Jack, glad to see you read Evan's clear instructions as to what he required of this thread as closely as I did before replying!

You say,

Any study of Lee Harvey Oswald which ignores the monumental

work of John Armstrong (Harvey & Lee) is woefully lacking in

accuracy.

Jack

to which there is really only one response...

This is the type of accuracy readers can expect from Armstrong:

Armstrong on Decker's report - was Armstrong dishonest or incompetent?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;#entry121089

Armstrong on LHO's NYC school records - was Armstrong dishonest or incompetent?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...p;mode=threaded

Armstrong's twisting of Lillian Muret's testimony. Dishonesty or incompetence?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mode=linearplus

Welcome back, Jack. I needed the laugh...

Apologies to Evan, but I put a lot of effort into getting the facts right, and I'm not inclined to allow a shill for a theory held together only by the author's cozening to suggest otherwise. I mean, it's the thin end of the wedge and on a par with... "You play cricket like a Pom" or some equally egregious and vile insult...

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I mean, it's the thin end of the wedge and on a par with... "You play cricket like a Pom" or some equally egregious and vile insult...

Lately I hear that over in England, home of the Poms, the ultimate insult is "You play rugby like an Aussie."

[J. Raymond Carroll]

OOps, LBW or something.

Edited October 14, 2007 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Michael Hogan]

As a person who has no knowledge, opinion, etc of the JFK saga, could I ask people to put forward a concise explanation of the JFK events?

I would ask people NOT to refute other peoples versions of events - simply state what they believe to be the true account of events. If further explanation is necessary, then please do so.... to a point. A few paragraphs, at max. If you think what someone else has posted is wrong - then remain silent. This is primarily for me (and thus my starting of the thread) but I would like to her all aspects - from the Lone Gunman to the....?

Thanks!

P.S. Please treat this thread as what it is intended - a place to put forward various theories. NOT a place to dispute the various theories. ANY theory is valid.

Evan, it would seem your ground rules were not clear enough for some people or they preferred to ignore them.

John Armstrong's book is almost a thousand pages, with copious footnotes referring to primary documents on virtually every page. One does not have to agree with his conclusions nor does one have to believe that his research is flawless in order to recognize that much of what he wrote contains value.

Understanding the cryptic life of Lee Oswald can be perplexing to even the most respected researchers. Even to this day Oswald's actions are shrouded in mystery and marked by speculation and debate. There can be little doubt that Armstrong's work has advanced our understanding. As soon as Oswald was pronounced dead, people realized that he would take very important secrets to his grave with him. Sadly, that is exactly what happened.

Oswald's death while in custody is probably the foremost reason why the murder of President Kennedy remains unsolved.

By the way Evan, are you planning to divulge your explanation? If you have one, I would be interested.

[William Kelly]

Though some speculation of necessity does permeate it, this is not really a theory. It is mainly looking at Oswald's known actions and fitting them into known events/studies/operations/policies. Due to the expected length, and limitations on my time, it will be broken into parts. For the same reasons, I will also dispense with citations.

EDIT: Evan having just re-read your initial post, I can only say making this concise, and a few paras max is virtually impossible. It's a complex case, and by your own words, you're starting from virtually a zero knowledge base. However, it's your thread, and rather than waste time giving your far more detail than you may be prepared to spend time reading, I'll pass on continuing.

Greg, I for one waited all night for Part II and now I'm not going to get it.

By giving examples of John Armstrong's work in your response you acknowledge that you have considered his work.

Also, as for LHO moving to NYC "to be tested" is fascinating since Posner reports that Dr. Herzog gave LHO a Minnesotta Multi-Phasic Personality Invitory (MMPI), which identified him as a having a "Passive-Aggressive" personality, exactly the type the US Navy was looking for to man their special assassination training, according to Lt. Commander Thomas Narut.

Perhaps it would be prudent to start your own thread, but I for one would like to read Part II.

Thanks,

Bill Kelly

A POTTED HISTORY OF THE ASSASSINATION & THE ALLEGED ASSASSIN:

Part One:

* The alleged brainwashing of US soldiers, and subsequent defection of POWs during the Korean War was a major concern leading to a study on youth between ages 13 and 17 to identify those most at risk of communist propaganda/brainwashing techniques and defection, and ways in which to "immunize" those at risk. The flip side was in plowing more resources into extant programs developing those same techniques and pulling them under one umbrella; MKULTRA.

* The above-mentioned study found the "type" at risk to be youth: raised in the South; brought up by a domineering/single mother and lacking male role models; have above-average intelligence; have noted behavioral problems; and lack respect for authority. This profile fits LHO to the proverbial "T", noting also that even though he moved to New York at age 12, it was only after his 13th birthday that his truancy began and was imo, likely due to creating the perfect profile for future intelligence use. He was next put through the process recommended in the study for "immunizing" such youth... ie referral to organizations such as Big Brother Inc and YMCA (and once in New Orleans, he would join another of the recommended orgs... CAP).

* He was probably brought to New York and brought into this scheme by his half brother, John Pic, who at the time, was working closely with both ONI and FBI and their informants as part of his work with the Port Security Unit. Heavily involved in the Korean POW study was Robert Morris who had been in ONI and was regarded as the leading authority on Communist influence on youth via his work with various government committees - particularly those involving the outing of (suspected) communist teachers in New York. Indeed, he along with a lawyer for the New York School Boards, ran an informant ring made up primarily of school kids. LHO may well have also been part of that.

* If he was indeed drawn into the intelligence world, hung with the profile of a potential defector, psychological testing would necessarily have been carried out. And indeed, Marguerite's housekeeper told the FBI that Marguerite had confided to her that she had brought Lee to New York specifically to have him undergo "mental tests". Since Lee's records and the testimony of family reveal no mental abnormalities or behavioural problems in Lee prior to moving to New York, other reasons for such testing must have been present. Such testing may have been done whilst Lee was at Youth House. Alternatively, it may have been conducted at one of the universities Lee visited with John Pic who was ostensibly looking to enroll (though never did). To be fair, both Marguerite and Pic denied in testimony any such testing took place, but it's difficult to imagine the housekeeper making the story up with no apparent motive for doing so, and easy to understand why Marguerite and Pic might deny the claim.

* After leaving New York for New Orleans, LHO joined the CAP and made an illegal effort to join the Marines. He then took a series of jobs working as office boy/courier, before being moved to Fort Worth where he wrote to the Socialist Party prior to successfully enlisting in the Marines. After boot camp, next stop, Radar School. Somehow this was achieved despite having a long history of media otitis with resultant hearing loss, as well as not declaring his previous attempt to enlist - among other possible anomalies in his enlistment.

* The political backdrop to all this was a new era of global (ie inclusive of the Soviet Bloc countries) cooperation on matters of science, technology, trade and culture brought about by the launch of Sputnik and the fear of Soviet dominance in space and war machines. This saw the rise of things like Trade Marts, student exchange programs, less travel restrictions, the International Geophysical Year etc etc. Among the movers and shakers of various facets of all this new-found cooperation were the likes of Percival Brundage (Ike's Director of the Bureau of the Budget, of whom there is more to follow in Pt 2), Frederick T Merrill, and a man who did groundbreaking work in radar development and who would later be on the Dallas Host Committee for JFK's visit to Nut Country.

* Ruth Paine became involved with the new agreement on student exchanges with the Soviets through the American Friends Service Committee (Quakers) and was the liaison with the State Dept where Frederick T Merrill had final say on the program. Merrill, at the same time, was the conduit for CIA money to emigre groups engaged in efforts to take back Eastern Europe.

* Around this same time-frame, Richard Snyder was acting as a spotter at Harvard for the Soviet-Russian Division within the Directorate of Plans of the CIA -- recruiting students from the Russian Research Center for potential travel to Russia as "Redskin" operatives. One such recruit was Edward L Keenan who went to Russia to study at the Leningrad University under the new Student Exchange agreement. Paying his way was CIA money filtered through a Ford Foundation Fellowship. In July '59, Snyder became First Consul at the US Embassy in Moscow. Keenan also arrived in the USSR that year - as would Lee Harvey Oswald. Redskin was designed to utilize "legal travelers" to Soviet Bloc countries to provide support for operations "Red Sox" & "Red Cap".

Part 2, will start by backing up to Oswald in the Marines.

[Myra Bronstein]

Though some speculation of necessity does permeate it, this is not really a theory. It is mainly looking at Oswald's known actions and fitting them into known events/studies/operations/policies. Due to the expected length, and limitations on my time, it will be broken into parts. For the same reasons, I will also dispense with citations.

EDIT: Evan having just re-read your initial post, I can only say making this concise, and a few paras max is virtually impossible. It's a complex case, and by your own words, you're starting from virtually a zero knowledge base. However, it's your thread, and rather than waste time giving your far more detail than you may be prepared to spend time reading, I'll pass on continuing.

Greg, I for one waited all night for Part II and now I'm not going to get it.

By giving examples of John Armstrong's work in your response you acknowledge that you have considered his work.

Also, as for LHO moving to NYC "to be tested" is fascinating since Posner reports that Dr. Herzog gave LHO a Minnesotta Multi-Phasic Personality Invitory (MMPI), which identified him as a having a "Passive-Aggressive" personality, exactly the type the US Navy was looking for to man their special assassination training, according to Lt. Commander Thomas Narut.

Perhaps it would be prudent to start your own thread, but I for one would like to read Part II.

Thanks,

Bill Kelly

...

I, for two, would like to read more as well Greg.

Please do as BK suggests, i.e., whatever it takes.

Just don't stop before you're done.

[Courtney Redd]

Perhaps it would be prudent to start your own thread, but I for one would like to read Part II.

Thanks,

Bill Kelly

Greg,

As would I. If you aren't able to continue here or start your own thread, would you considering sending me a private message with Part II? Thank you kindly.

Edited October 14, 2007 by Courtney Redd

[Greg Parker]

Evan, it would seem your ground rules were not clear enough for some people or they preferred to ignore them.

Michael, I admitted I hadn't read Evan's requirements closely enough when I made this edit:

EDIT: Evan having just re-read your initial post, I can only say making this concise, and a few paras max is virtually impossible. It's a complex case, and by your own words, you're starting from virtually a zero knowledge base. However, it's your thread, and rather than waste time giving your far more detail than you may be prepared to spend time reading, I'll pass on continuing.

It seems Jack also failed to read closely enough before he posted an insinuation I was "woefully lacking in accuracy." Here is what he missed in Evan's post: "If you think what someone else has posted is wrong - then remain silent."

The fact that Jack is on moderation, as well as his ignoring or missing Evan's request makes me wonder how his post was allowed through. The fact that it was allowed, imo, gave me the right to respond, pointing out a few home truths.

John Armstrong's book is almost a thousand pages, with copious footnotes referring to primary documents on virtually every page. One does not have to agree with his conclusions nor does one have to believe that his research is flawless in order to recognize that much of what he wrote contains value.

Ah yes, the "Bugliosi Defense". Equating quantity with quality is fallacious reasoning. If you cared to ever check his primary sources, you might find your faith-based approach was never a good idea.

Lately I hear that over in England, home of the Poms, the ultimate insult is "You play rugby like an Aussie."

Ouch! Ray, that's below the belt!

Courtney and Bill,

Thanks for your interest. Had I read closely enough, I wouldn't have bothered with any reply. Anyone can write a couple of paragraphs saying the [pick your favorite villain] did it and come up with one or two motives. This wasn't something I just happened to have lying around. I was putting it together so that hopefully someone with little knowledge of the case could follow.

Will get working on part two and start a new thread. But a warning to the Two Oswald Cultists... any attempt to disrupt or takeover the thread - as has happened in the past with my threads on Oswald's background - will be met with a "no holds barred, gloves off" approach.

[Michael Hogan]

Michael, I admitted I hadn't read Evan's requirements closely enough when I made this edit....

You might want to read them again. (See below) At any rate, my comment did not single you out; it applied to others as well.

I would ask people NOT to refute other peoples versions of events.....

P.S. Please treat this thread as what it is intended - a place to put forward various theories. NOT a place to dispute the various theories. ANY theory is valid.

Apologies to Evan, but I put a lot of effort into getting the facts right, and I'm not inclined to allow a shill for a theory held together only by the author's cozening to suggest otherwise.

Ah yes, the "Bugliosi Defense". Equating quantity with quality is fallacious reasoning. If you cared to ever check his primary sources, you might find your faith-based approach was never a good idea.

Will get working on part two and start a new thread. But a warning to the Two Oswald Cultists... any attempt to disrupt or takeover the thread - as has happened in the past with my threads on Oswald's background - will be met with a "no holds barred, gloves off" approach.

All of that because I simply wrote this:

John Armstrong's book is almost a thousand pages, with copious footnotes referring to primary documents on virtually every page. One does not have to agree with his conclusions nor does one have to believe that his research is flawless in order to recognize that much of what he wrote contains value.

Understanding the cryptic life of Lee Oswald can be perplexing to even the most respected researchers. Even to this day Oswald's actions are shrouded in mystery and marked by speculation and debate. There can be little doubt that Armstrong's work has advanced our understanding. As soon as Oswald was pronounced dead, people realized that he would take very important secrets to his grave with him. Sadly, that is exactly what happened.

Oswald's death while in custody is probably the foremost reason why the murder of President Kennedy remains unsolved.

For those words, you start the insults, name-calling, threats and sorry attempts at intimidation? Doesn't scare me, Greg. As I've come to know Evan, I've found him to be generally fair and reasonable. I'm content to let him judge for himself what's going on here.

[William Kelly]

Michael, I admitted I hadn't read Evan's requirements closely enough when I made this edit....

You might want to read them again. (See below) At any rate, my comment did not single you out; it applied to others as well.

I would ask people NOT to refute other peoples versions of events.....

P.S. Please treat this thread as what it is intended - a place to put forward various theories. NOT a place to dispute the various theories. ANY theory is valid.

Apologies to Evan, but I put a lot of effort into getting the facts right, and I'm not inclined to allow a shill for a theory held together only by the author's cozening to suggest otherwise.

Ah yes, the "Bugliosi Defense". Equating quantity with quality is fallacious reasoning. If you cared to ever check his primary sources, you might find your faith-based approach was never a good idea.

Will get working on part two and start a new thread. But a warning to the Two Oswald Cultists... any attempt to disrupt or takeover the thread - as has happened in the past with my threads on Oswald's background - will be met with a "no holds barred, gloves off" approach.

All of that because I simply wrote this:

John Armstrong's book is almost a thousand pages, with copious footnotes referring to primary documents on virtually every page. One does not have to agree with his conclusions nor does one have to believe that his research is flawless in order to recognize that much of what he wrote contains value.

Understanding the cryptic life of Lee Oswald can be perplexing to even the most respected researchers. Even to this day Oswald's actions are shrouded in mystery and marked by speculation and debate. There can be little doubt that Armstrong's work has advanced our understanding. As soon as Oswald was pronounced dead, people realized that he would take very important secrets to his grave with him. Sadly, that is exactly what happened.

Oswald's death while in custody is probably the foremost reason why the murder of President Kennedy remains unsolved.

For those words, you start the insults, name-calling, threats and sorry attempts at intimidation? Doesn't scare me, Greg. As I've come to know Evan, I've found him to be generally fair and reasonable. I'm content to let him judge for himself what's going on here.

Michael,

Armstrong has put forth a theory of two Oswalds, as others have done before him. He's published a book he printed in China and locked away his tens of thousands of documents he collected, and has gone back to work doing whatever else he does.

Now, years later, we are much further along and have a more clear understanding of what happended, while Armstrong is no where to be found.

Greg Parker has done more in the past few years to advance our knowledge of Oswald than anyone I know, and I too am tired of people suggesting I read Armstrong's book, which I have read and in fact contributed to in my own small way.

There's no doubt that others impersonated Oswald before 11/22/63 and we can now identify some of those suspects - ie. Larry Craford, et al., and Armstrong's two-Oswald theory is not generally accepted because new information is continually being developed.

It's also ashame that Armstrong, with so much money and resources to work with, has to be such an egotistical jerk. Whenever he was to talk at a conference he insisted on having more time than anyone else and never bothered to stick around to listen to other researchers.

According to Jack White, Armstrong has a live wire lap top with him all the time but won't bother loging onto any internet forum to discuss his work with us or anybody, even his friends at JFKResearch. So why should we bother with him?

If Greg is insulting and intimidating, its because he is tired of hearing about Armstrong's book and theory and he uses original sources for his work, not books.

Greg thought he could use this thread as a place to advance his own ideas, without, as had been requested in the opening post, anyone contradicting or interfering with his proposition, at least until it was fully aired.

He was wrong.

We've read Armstrong's book, we know what he says, and now it's time to move on and "advance our understanding" of Oswald even further. And even though Oswald's life is "shrouded in mystery and debate" that doesn't mean we can't figure him out.

I think we are closer to doing that than ever before.

Bill Kelly

Edited October 15, 2007 by William Kelly

[Michael Hogan]

Bill,

Where Armstrong published his book, or whether or not he is an egotistical jerk has nothing to do with what I said.

And whether or not his theory is generally accepted is equally irrelevant.

I've never stated on this Forum that I believe Armstrong's conclusions were right or wrong, only that his research was important and valuable, which in my opinion it was.

Do you believe that because Greg is "tired of hearing about Armstrong's book," that gives him a right to be insulting and intimidating?

Out of respect to Evan, I'm out of this thread.

[Myra Bronstein]

Bill,

Where Armstrong published his book, or whether or not he is an egotistical jerk has nothing to do with what I said.

And whether or not his theory is generally accepted is equally irrelevant.

I've never stated on this Forum that I believe Armstrong's conclusions were right or wrong, only that his research was important and valuable, which in my opinion it was.

Do you believe that because Greg is "tired of hearing about Armstrong's book," that gives him a right to be insulting and intimidating?

Out of respect to Evan, I'm out of this thread.

Bill,

Your logic eluded me as well.

Whereas I do see the logic in what Mike is saying.

[Tim Gratz]

The assassination was planned by Trafficante, Marcello and Rosselli. They were prompted in part by Jimmy Hoffa.

I believe Trafficante was assisted by Cuban agents.

It is also possible that to muddy the waters the planners were able to involve rogue CIA agents and anti-Castro Cuban exiles. Yes, it is possible that the assassination involved both Cubans and Cuban exiles.

I suspect there may have been a Corsican connection.

Those closest to what JFK was doing suspect the mob (RFK, Blakey, Goldfarb) and Cubans (Joseph Califano, Alexander Haig), all of whom I am sure are privvy to secrets known to no member of this Forum.

[William Kelly]

Bill,

Where Armstrong published his book, or whether or not he is an egotistical jerk has nothing to do with what I said.

And whether or not his theory is generally accepted is equally irrelevant.

I've never stated on this Forum that I believe Armstrong's conclusions were right or wrong, only that his research was important and valuable, which in my opinion it was.

Do you believe that because Greg is "tired of hearing about Armstrong's book," that gives him a right to be insulting and intimidating?

Out of respect to Evan, I'm out of this thread.

Bill,

Your logic eluded me as well.

Whereas I do see the logic in what Mike is saying.

Well, I too think John Armstrong's book is important, but it's now a few years old and we've been over it and gone beyond it now. It's factored in, at least in my work, and as Parker has pointed out inaccuracies and critiqued his work he too has factored it in.

John Armstrong is free to log on and post his theories like John B is right now, and allow us to respond and have a discourse with him, as other writes like David Talbot and Joan Mellen have, but he won't do it.

Evan asked for some theories without the interuptions, and GP tried to present his, but both Jack and Michael interupted, once again promoting Armstrong's book, which we're all well aware of.

And now we're not going to get the rest of Parker's presentation, at least here.

Armstrong wouldn't have listened either.

That's the logic of it.

BK