How Could It Be?

[Tim Gratz]

At the risk of offending my friend Bill Kelly the recent CIA news raises this question in my mind: if the CIA could not keep its destruction of waterboarding tapes secret for more than--what, two or three years--how could it keep its institutional involvement in the Kennedy assassination a secret for forty-four years?

I am not conflicted, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls. I am convinced the CIA is hiding SOMETHING about Joannides and/or the DRE and/or LHO, and that someone no doubt destroyed those monthly reports, but I am convinced that what is being concealed is not the CIA's institutional role in the assassination since in my opinion it had none.

[Wim Dankbaar]

At the risk of offending my friend Bill Kelly the recent CIA news raises this question in my mind: if the CIA could not keep its destruction of waterboarding tapes secret for more than--what, two or three years--how could it keep its institutional involvement in the Kennedy assassination a secret for forty-four years?

They couldn't !

Wim

[Tim Gratz]

It would appear Wim agrees with me--but I think I'm reading his post wrong. I think he really means "They didn't."

[Phil Nelson]

At the risk of offending my friend Bill Kelly the recent CIA news raises this question in my mind: if the CIA could not keep its destruction of waterboarding tapes secret for more than--what, two or three years--how could it keep its institutional involvement in the Kennedy assassination a secret for forty-four years?

I am not conflicted, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls. I am convinced the CIA is hiding SOMETHING about Joannides and/or the DRE and/or LHO, and that someone no doubt destroyed those monthly reports, but I am convinced that what is being concealed is not the CIA's institutional role in the assassination since in my opinion it had none.

Are you saying that the CIA's only "institutional" involvement was in the secondary (mid-1970's) cover-up, and they had no such role in the assassination or the initial cover-up and neither did any of their agents or operatives, whether acting 'institutionally' or individually. Or, do you agree that the last part of that statement, in italics, does not apply and should be deleted in the interest of advancing the truth?

[William O'Neil]

At the risk of offending my friend Bill Kelly the recent CIA news raises this question in my mind: if the CIA could not keep its destruction of waterboarding tapes secret for more than--what, two or three years--how could it keep its institutional involvement in the Kennedy assassination a secret for forty-four years?

I am not conflicted, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls. I am convinced the CIA is hiding SOMETHING about Joannides and/or the DRE and/or LHO, and that someone no doubt destroyed those monthly reports, but I am convinced that what is being concealed is not the CIA's institutional role in the assassination since in my opinion it had none.

I think they chose to leak this , as pay back to Bush... for throwing them under the bus, for 911 etc. I think they destroyed the tapes by instruction from someone in the administration.

[Ron Ecker]

Yes, the CIA is always concealing something, but people are supposed to believe, like Tim, that it's not concealing something for the most obvious reason (its role or complicity in a crime), it's concealing something for some other reason ("national security," "methods and sources," to protect some other operation, blah blah blah), whatever works to deny the obvious and have people believe the denial because they're in denial themselves about why the CIA denies.

The CIA is a criminal organization that should have been abolished decades ago. The problem is, if the CIA were abolished, the U.S. would be left with only FOURTEEN (or is it FIFTEEN?) other intelligence agencies. Couldn't let that happen!

Since nothing can be done about it (other than another meaningless hearing or another government investigation of itself), I've just about reached the point where I have to ask this regarding the CIA destroying tapes, destroying files or finding them "missing," etc. etc.: "Who gives a crap?"

[Jack White]

Yes, the CIA is always concealing something, but people are supposed to believe, like Tim, that it's not concealing something for the most obvious reason (its role or complicity in a crime), it's concealing something for some other reason ("national security," "methods and sources," to protect some other operation, blah blah blah), whatever works to deny the obvious and have people believe the denial because they're in denial themselves about why the CIA denies.

The CIA is a criminal organization that should have been abolished decades ago. The problem is, if the CIA were abolished, the U.S. would be left with only FOURTEEN (or is it FIFTEEN?) other intelligence agencies. Couldn't let that happen!

Since nothing can be done about it (other than another meaningless hearing or another government investigation of itself), I've just about reached the point where I have to ask this regarding the CIA destroying tapes, destroying files or finding them "missing," etc. etc.: "Who gives a crap?"

In Ron's defense, before he is censored for typing cxxp, I refer the censors to Wikipedia,

that cxxp is not at all a naughty word, but a form of a man's name:

Thomas Crapper

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thomas Crapper (baptized September 28, 1836; d. January 27, 1910) was a plumber who founded Thomas Crapper & Co. Ltd. in London.

Despite the urban legend, Crapper did not invent the flush toilet (the myth assisted by his surname). However, Crapper did much to increase its popularity and came up with some related inventions. He was noted for the quality of his products and received several Royal Warrants. The noun "crap" was in use long before he was born, but no longer used in Victorian Britain.

The manhole covers with Crapper's company's name on them in Westminster Abbey are now a minor tourist attraction.

Contents [hide]

1 Thomas Crapper and his company

2 Crapper and the syphonic flush toilet

3 The words "crap" and "crapper"

4 References

5 External links

[edit] Thomas Crapper and his company

The story of Thomas Crapper and his achievements has been somewhat confused by Wallace Reyburn's 1969 book Flushed With Pride: The Story of Thomas Crapper (ISBN 1-85702-860-0), a heavily fictionalised satirical biography in the style of scholarship [1]. Adam Hart-Davis' later writings on Crapper help set the record straight.

Crapper was born in Waterside, Yorkshire (near Thorne), in September 1836 (the exact date is unknown). His father Charles was a steamboat captain. At the age of 14, Crapper was apprenticed to a master plumber in Chelsea, London. After his apprenticeship and three years as a journeyman plumber, in 1861 he founded his own company at Robert Street, Chelsea. In 1866 he moved the business to nearby Marlborough Road (now part of Draycott Avenue).

Thomas Crapper did not invent the flush toilet — credit for that is usually given to Sir John Harington in 1596, with Alexander Cummings' 1775 toilet regarded as the first of the modern line and George Jennings installing the first public toilets at The Great Exhibition in 1851 — but he did help increase its popularity. He was a shrewd businessman, salesman and self-publicist. In a time when bathroom fixtures were barely spoken of, he heavily promoted sanitary plumbing and pioneered the concept of the bathroom fittings showroom.

Thomas Crapper Branding on one of his company's toilets

In the 1880s, Prince Edward (later Edward VII) purchased his country seat of Sandringham House in Norfolk and asked Thomas Crapper & Co. to supply the plumbing, including thirty lavatories with cedarwood seats and enclosures, thus giving Crapper his first Royal Warrant. The firm received further warrants from Edward as King and from George V both as Prince of Wales and as King. Contrary to popular belief, however, Crapper never received a knighthood and was never styled Sir Thomas Crapper.

In 1904 Crapper retired, passing the firm to his nephew George and his business partner Robert Marr Wharam. Crapper lived at 12 Thornsett Road, Anerley for the last thirteen years of his life and died on January 27, 1910. He was buried in the nearby Elmers End Cemetery.

In 1966, the company was sold by then-owner Robert G. Wharam (son of Robert Marr Wharam) on his retirement, to their rivals John Bolding & Sons. Bolding then went into liquidation in 1969. The company fell out of use until it was acquired by Simon Kirby, a historian and collector of antique bathroom fittings, who relaunched the company in Stratford-upon-Avon, producing authentic reproductions of Crapper's original Victorian bathroom fittings.

[edit] Crapper and the syphonic flush toilet

Crapper's Valveless Waste Preventer

Crapper held nine patents, three of them for water closet improvements such as the floating ballcock, but none were for the flush toilet itself. Thomas Crapper's advertisements implied the syphonic flush was his invention — one having the text "Crapper's Valveless Water Waste Preventer (Patent #4,990) One moveable part only" — but patent 4990 (for a minor improvement to the water waste preventer) was not his, but that of Albert Giblin in 1898.

His nephew, George Crapper, did improve the siphon mechanism by which the water flow is started. A patent for this development was awarded in 1897.

[edit] The words "crap" and "crapper"

Main article: Crap

The word "crap" is old in the English language, one of a group of nouns applied to discarded cast offs, like "residue from renderings" (1490s) or in Shropshire, "dregs of beer or ale", meanings probably extended from Middle English crappe "chaff, or grain that has been trodden underfoot in a barn" (c. 1440), deriving ultimately from Late Latin crappa, "chaff."

The word had fallen out of use in Britain by the 1600s, but remained prevalent in the North American colonies which would eventually become the United States. The meaning "to defecate" has been recorded in the US since 1846 (according to Oxford and Merriam-Webster), but the word did not hold this meaning in Victorian England, although it is now an extremely common word in English colloquial usage. The connection to Thomas Crapper is conjectured by Hart-Davis to be an unfortunate coincidence of his surname.

In Welsh, "crap" is the word for "inkling", but the version of "crap" being a vulgar term for faeces is still used.

The occupational name "Crapper" is a variant spelling of "Cropper". In the US, the word "crapper" is a dysphemism for "toilet," although it is not clear if this has anything to do with Thomas Crapper. The term first appeared in print in the 1930s. It has been suggested that US soldiers stationed in England during World War I (some of whom had little experience with indoor plumbing) saw many toilets with the name 'CRAPPER' on the high-level cistern (called a 'tank' in N. America) and brought the word home as a synonym for "toilet" — a sort of back-formation from "crap".

Yet another purported explanation is that Crapper's flush toilet advertising was so widespread that "crapper" became a synonym for "toilet" and people simply assumed that he was the inventor.

[Tim Gratz]

To Phil:

It is certainly possible an individual agent, the obvious candidate being David Morales, was involved in the assassination itself. The question is what would constitute involvement by the Agency as an institution? I would think one would need approval of and encouragement of the plot (presumably through money and/or equipment) by several high-ranking officers of the CIA. I do not believe Helms was involved but assume for the sake of argument that the plot was carried out by Helms, Hunt and Morales without the knowledge or consent of anyone else. Would that constitute institutional involvement? I don't think so. Had McCone approved, that would be a different story.

I think the CIA's involvement in the cover-up began almost immediately after the assassination. Whether or not Castro forces played a role is immaterial to whether the CIA should have immediately informed the investigators of its involvement in plots to kill Castro, both with organized crime and with Cuban exiles.

And what if as many think Oswald was involved in some capacity with either the CIA or another US intelligence service? If the CIA had notice of such involvement and failed to disclose it, that would also be part of a cover-up.

What to make of the fairly recent disclosure that the CIA's monthly officer reports on the DRE are missing for the period leading up to the assassination and that the DRE was on the list of the HSCA as an exile group worthy of investigation? Unless the disappearence of the records is a mere happenstance, one would think the sensitive information therein was of at least possible relevance to the assassination and should have been revealed. Should the CIA have provided information on all snipers it had trained from at least early 1962 through Dallas to the investigators? One would think so. And one can go on and on about information the CIA either had or probably had that should have been disclosed immediately to the investigators.

[Phil Nelson]

To Phil:

It is certainly possible an individual agent, the obvious candidate being David Morales, was involved in the assassination itself. The question is what would constitute involvement by the Agency as an institution? I would think one would need approval of and encouragement of the plot (presumably through money and/or equipment) by several high-ranking officers of the CIA. I do not believe Helms was involved but assume for the sake of argument that the plot was carried out by Helms, Hunt and Morales without the knowledge or consent of anyone else. Would that constitute institutional involvement? I don't think so. Had McCone approved, that would be a different story.

I think the CIA's involvement in the cover-up began almost immediately after the assassination. Whether or not Castro forces played a role is immaterial to whether the CIA should have immediately informed the investigators of its involvement in plots to kill Castro, both with organized crime and with Cuban exiles.

And what if as many think Oswald was involved in some capacity with either the CIA or another US intelligence service? If the CIA had notice of such involvement and failed to disclose it, that would also be part of a cover-up.

What to make of the fairly recent disclosure that the CIA's monthly officer reports on the DRE are missing for the period leading up to the assassination and that the DRE was on the list of the HSCA as an exile group worthy of investigation? Unless the disappearence of the records is a mere happenstance, one would think the sensitive information therein was of at least possible relevance to the assassination and should have been revealed. Should the CIA have provided information on all snipers it had trained from at least early 1962 through Dallas to the investigators? One would think so. And one can go on and on about information the CIA either had or probably had that should have been disclosed immediately to the investigators.

It seems to be a "given" that McCone was "out of the loop" on many/most/all of the extra-legal things going on in the CIA, evidently becasue there was a fear that, as a JFK appointee, he would put a stop to anything outside the legal mandates of their existence. Even though he was the designated chief, most of those under him, including Angleton and Helms specifically, did not reveal their black bag operations and mafia connections, and therefore the various Castro elimination plots. So, by your hypothesis above, that eliminates the possibility of his involvement and with it any per se "institutional" involvement. Which, I contend for the purpose of this discussion, allows for the possibility - rather, the likelihood - of the individual involvement of those you mentioned, plus a few others like Angleton, Phillips and Cord Meyers, as conspirators acting not in the technical construct of the official institution, but in concert as individuals - albeit using official resources.

When you put together all the things that are now 'missing', from CIA reports and FBI records, to evidence ranging from JFK's brain and tissue samples and further to such things as statements of original witnesses who were never deposed because their story was not congruent with the Johnson-Hoover orders to concoct the Lone Nut Theory (etc. ad infinitum) it should be clear to anyone that there was direct "institutional" involvement in the cover-up from day #1. Once that is (has been) established, it isn't a great leap of logic to connect post-assassination conspiracy to pre-assassination knowledge and/or execution, is it?

If so, isn't the question of "institutional" involvement, or not, a "distinction without a difference?"

Edited December 13, 2007 by Phil Nelson

[Ron Ecker]

Phil,

Never put two and two together. You may get four and then have to go into denial.