Jump to content
The Education Forum

CIA WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ASSASSINATION OF


Recommended Posts

CIA was responsible for the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy

Misleading title appears to be hype to simply market. And some piss poor writing to boot.

According to this documentary the CIA was responsible for the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy in November of 1962

at Daley

Plaza in Dallas Texas. John Barbour produced this landmark film, The Garrison Tapes.

Rife with issues throughout.

What's missing is anything of substance for this writer to back up his title beyond the review of a film he watched - pathetic. Looks like a dangle, hype or both.

"Back to torpedoes again? More wasted time!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Monk...I agree that the military played a chief role.

But that is to downplay that Allen Dulles initiated the participation of LBJ and JEH.

Dulles was a tool of the international bankers and industrialists who were the

real culprits...and none of THEM controlled the military. No one person in the

military chain was powerful enough to act unilaterally, and would not have

dared risk treason on their own. But as a group, the military WAS EAGER to

perform their designated role. The military did not control the CIA, which

controlled LHO and other major players like Hunt and Phillips and Lansdale

and Conein. Your mentor L. Fletcher Prouty believed this, and I am surprised

that you do not.

There were many groups motivated to join the cabal...once it was INITIATED

by Dulles. On the cabal active participant pyramid, Dulles was at the apex.

Below Dulles were LBJ and JEH. On the crowded third level was the military,

along with the CIA, SS, FBI, and many others.

The military did not act alone. It was just one of MANY sub-participants

in the organization chart of the cabal. Dulles was the CEO, acting at the behest

of a powerful multi-national secret group of people like David Rockefeller.

Jack

You raise EXCELLENT points, IMHO, Jack! Perhaps I was not very clear about something...However, I thought I kept emphasizing this same word/concept. IMO: the CIA was not OPERATIONALLY in command or engaged in Dallas. I did not say that I thought they were un-involved, out of the loop, or otherwise innocent or disengaged from it. My main thrust is that they were not OPERATIONALLY involved (especially not as an ORGANIZATION) at ground zero.

This is very much in line with Fletcher's beliefs.

I also should emphasize that the evidence is overwhelming that the CIA, FBI, DIA, Secret Service, et al--were all deeply involved in obstruction of justice (the cover-up) after the fact. There is considerable evidence that both the Secret Service and the FBI failed to take action to prevent the assassination. That failure is primarily one that the Secret Service must bear, but technically, it was also owned by the FBI who failed to alert the Secret Service of potential threats, not just in Dallas, but elsewhere.

As for the other entities you mention, I agree. Dulles more than likely acted as the "broker of record" (so to speak) in bringing all interested parties together to reach an agreement. Many of these "peripheral business interests" directly benefitted from the removal of JFK--without doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My comments in burgandy.

Hi Cliff...

I disagree with your assessment - and if you have the answers to your questions please post them as I see these three things very much militarily controlled.

Was it "the military" who called Air Force One 3 or 4 hours after the assassination

to inform the new President that the lone assassin had been captured?

from Salandria "Tale of Two Tapes"

Despite the evidence of conspiracy of which Dealey Plaza reeked, the White House Situation Room had informed President Johnson and the other occupants of Air Force One that, notwithstanding what they may have smelled, seen and felt in Dealey Plaza which spoke of a conspiratorial crossfire, Oswald was to be designated as the lone assassin.

Who do you suppose was in the WH Situation room telling them this? How many non-military people are even allowed in the WH Situation room?

David, keep reading your Salandria citation...

(quote on)

McGeorge Bundy was in charge of the Situation Room and was spending that fateful afternoon

receiving phone calls from President Johnson, who was calling from Air Force One when the

lone-assassin myth was prematurely given birth. (Bishop, Jim, The Day Kennedy Was Shot,

New York & Funk Wagnalls, 1968, p. 154). McGeorge Bundy as the quintessential WASP

establishmentarian did not take his orders from the Mafia and/or renegade elements.

(quote off)

McGeorge Bundy didn't take orders from military officers, either.

Joseph Trento, The Secret History of the CIA, pg 334-5 (emphasis added):

(quote on)

Having served as ambassador to Moscow and governor of New York, W. Averell Harriman was

in the middle of a long public career. In 1960, President-elect Kennedy appointed him ambassador-at-large,

to operate “with the full confidence of the president and an intimate knowledge of all aspects of United States

policy.” By 1963, according to [Pentagon aide William R.] Corson, Harriman was running “Vietnam without

consulting the president or the attorney general.”

The president had begun to suspect that not everyone on his national security team was loyal. As Corson

put it, “Kenny O’Donnell (JFK’s appointments secretary) was convinced that McGeorge Bundy, the national

security advisor, was taking orders from Ambassador Averell Harriman and not the president. He was

especially worried about Michael Forrestal, a young man on the White House staff who handled liaison on

Vietnam with Harriman.”

(quote off)

Was it "the military" who met with LBJ in the White House mere minutes

after his arrival the evening of 11/22/63 to inform him definitively that the

Soviets were not involved in the assassination?

Are you speaking of Bundy? McCone? Logged meetings/Calls or not? please explain, thanks

Glad you asked! I was hoping someone would follow through on this!

Max Holland's The Assassination Tapes, pg 57:

(quote on)

At 6:55 p.m. Johnson has a ten minute meeting with Senator J. William Fulbright and diplomat

W. Averell Harriman to discuss possible foreign involvement in the assassination, especially in

light of the two-and-a-half-year sojourn of Lee Harvey Oswald [in Russia]...Harriman, a U.S.

ambassador to Moscow during WWII, is an experienced interpreter of Soviet machinations and

offers the president the unanimous view of the U.S. government's top Kremlinologists. None of

them believe the Soviets have a hand in the assassination, despite the Oswald association.

(quote off)

The "U.S. government's top Krelimologists" were one helluva crack team of investigators,

as they absolved the Soviets even before the Commie patsy had been charged with the crime!

Harriman was "the top Krelimologist." He was merely quoting himself.

Seems clear to me that the cover-up of the Kennedy assassination was dictated by

Skull & Bones blue-bloods, not the military. (Harriman, S&B 1913; Bundy, S&B 1940).

Was it "the military" who coerced Jack Ruby into silencing the patsy?

I guess it depends on how you look at it... If guns and drugs are being run in and out of the country then those who would have the authority to order Ruby to kill Oswald may have done so at the insistence of the military who was in essence overseeing those operations... or at least turning a blind - and very well paid - eye.

Now we're getting into the good stuff, David!

Have US military personnel been involved in drug running? You bet.

http://www.pr-inside.com/former-drug-kingp...es-r1866336.htm

Have people connected to the CIA run drugs? Of course.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLIT...ES_OF_MENA.html

The Sicilian-American Mafia? Obviously. Requires no citation.

How about Yankee blue-bloods? Less obvious, but open to reasonable speculation given the

historic role of blue-blood families in the 19th century opium trade.

http://www.voxfux.com/features/scull_bones_opium.html

George Herbert Walker, Jr (S&B 1927)., the son of W. Averell Harriman's business partner

George Herbert Walker, was the lead investor in George H. W. Bush's Zapata Off-Shore company,

which some researchers suspect was involved in drug running through its moveable oil drilling platforms --

a reasonable suspicion given G. H. W. Bush's involvement with the Contra cocaine smuggling network

in the '80's.

http://www.finalcall.com/features/bush-cia.html

US military/CIA/Mafia/banker-elites -- this is what I mean by "pan-organizational." Powerful, well-placed

people with a variety of backgrounds and affiliations united in one common goal: the development and

control of the world's narcotics markets.

For most involved in the trade, narcotics are all about the untraceable money -- lots and lots of it.

I speculate, however, that for elites like the Walkers, the Harrimans, and the Bushes it was about the

money, as well, but it was also about their interest in eugenics: culling the human herd of undesirables.

These people financed the Nazis and, eventually, the Holocaust. I submit that the heroin/cocaine scourges

that infected the US and other countries after WW2 were facilitated by financial elites as another effort to cull

the human herd of undesirables -- a Holocaust by another means.

What did that fat Mafia character in "The Godfather" say? "In my city we would keep the traffic in the dark

people, the coloreds. They're animals anyway so let them lose their souls."

I think that basically sums up the historical attitude of the Harriman/Walker/Bush crime family.

I made the argument before that in 1963 EVERYONE had been in the military in one form or

another... everyone given any real responsibility at least.

I must respectfully disagree, David. Neither W. Averell Harriman nor McGeorge Bundy served in the military.

In the '20's and '30s Harriman was a primary financier for both the development of the Soviet oil industry in Baku

and for the development of the Nazi war machine in Germany. I'd argue that he was more responsible for the

outbreak of WW2 than any other single individual -- all while serving in FDR's administration in the '30s and '40s!

And who did Truman put in charge of implementing the Marshall Plan after WW2?

W. Averell Harriman.

By the age of 18 you were registered, drafted and indoctrinated to the military way of things...

the "pan-organization" you speak of is ultimately controlled by the military establishment... no?

Not according to my reading of Cold War history, no.

For instance, in 1961-62 the US military/foreign-policy establishment pressed JFK to send US troops

into Laos and South Vietnam. But Kennedy sought the "neutralization" of both Laos and So. Vietnam.

JFK's diplomatic point man on SE Asia policy was our old friend W. Averell Harriman. Kennedy and Harriman

bucked the military/foreign-policy establishment hawks and negotiated the "neutralization" of Laos at the Geneva

Conference in 1962 (the hawks called it "Ave's Cave").

Harriman then turned around and bucked Kennedy by sabotaging the President's efforts to feel out

Ho Chi Minh for peace talks. (See Gareth Porter's The Perils of Dominance, pgs 153-164).

In November of 1963 the Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs

of Staff Gen. Maxwell Taylor opposed the overthrow of Diem in South Vietnam. The primary supporter

of the coup was...(drumroll)...W. Averell Harriman.

http://www.whitehousetapes.net/clips/1963_...tnam_memoir.swf

Here is a telling passage from "William Colby, the Hmong and the CIA," by Amoun Vang Sayaovong:

(quote on)

American desire to adhere to the spirit of the Geneva Accords deemed it necessary that the Hmong serve as a

clandestine force which could harass the North Vietnamese without being directly linked to the United States.

The Hmong were prohibited from taking any offensive actions as that could lead to an escalation in the war on

the part of the North Vietnamese. Increased fighting also had the potential to expose the American support of

the Hmong and could possibly lead to a complete annulment of the Geneva Accords. Colby - then CIA Deputy

Director - was instructed by Assistant Secretary W. Averell Harriman of the State Department to keep the effort

in Laos purely defensive in nature.

"'Okay, one hundred guns but no attacks, only for defense,' " Colby said of Harriman's orders.

"Don't get the Hmong to do any attack against the North Vietnamese. We don't want to escalate this thing any

more than possible, " explained Colby of the American policy in the 1960s. "We would just like to dampen it

down where it is ... where we don't let it get any further but we don't try to win any victories there [Laos]."

(quote off)

Who set the rules of engagement for the CIA and its allies in Laos? Not the CIA. Not the US military.

W. Averell Harriman was running his own game in SE Asia (and in Cuba, I'd argue), President Kennedy

and the US military be damned.

Business caters to them, countries are used for their resources by them, and they are intimately connected

(and in most cases direct the activities of) the military and security forces of these other countries... a standing

military force is one of the founding principle of the US government - been around since the early 1700's. They

have the most money, loyalty, organization, reach, men/women and power. No matter where you were... CIA,

NSA, Congress, Legal, etc... you came out of the military

and you followed your orders, regardless of whether you were inside or out... or else.

During the Kennedy administration ultimate power was found elsewhere.

If "the military" killed JFK because he was a weakling in the Cold War why

would they drop their desire to invade Cuba after only a few hours?

Because there were plenty of other countries in central and south american to control... Cuba had limited

land mass, hostile environment and was too close.. Vietnam was the issue not Cuba and the

military/CIA/Henry Cabot Lodge knew it. Billions in drugs and weapons and no one looking over your

shoulder... that's why.

Again, I must respectfully disagree. The Western Hemisphere had been subject to American hegemony since

the Monroe Doctrine. Castro's surge to power threatened that hegemony, for one thing, and the US military was

anxious to be rid of him (see James Bamford's Body of Secrets).

I don't think Cuban policy under Kennedy was seperate from Vietnam policy. There were the same people

who worked on both -- W. Averell Harriman, McGeorge Bundy, and, of course, Gen. Edward Lansdale.

And others...

From "Possible Discovery of an Automobile Used In the JFK Conspiracy" by Richard Bartholomew:

http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sh...ghlight=rambler

The following is cited from: Unpublished Transcript: John M. Newman with Gus Russo, "Unscheduled Workshop

on Major General Edward G. Lansdale, Colonel Howard L. Burris and Air Force Intelligence Connections to the

Kennedy Assassination," Second Annual Assassination Symposium on John F. Kennedy, Hyatt Regency Hotel

at Reunion Square, Dallas, Tx., Oct. 24, 1992.

(quote on)

By February 1963 Lansdale had no position in Cuban policy and was focusing on Latin America. He was traveling to

countries like Bolivia and elsewhere. The U.S. had a lot of personnel in South America under Kennedy. And a lot of

them ended up going to Vietnam. According to Newman there is a blind spot as to exactly what they were doing and

how many people the U.S. had in Latin America. (pg 5)

"I can tell you," Newman said, "that in the collateral research that I did, names that I came across, I found a correlation

between -- I don't say this is definitive but I got a lot of hits -- the same names of the guys that were running around in

Latin America, particularly in Cuban policy, end up in the Far East Division. Very strange coincidence. There were

three -- it wasn't just one -- there were several. A neat nexus between the Southeast Asian guys and Cuban guys."

(pg 27)

(quote off)

Another strange, or not-so-strange, co-incidence: in the 50's Havana was the major hub for international

narcotics trafficking; in the 60's and early 70's the Golden Triangle of SE Asia was the major source for

opium.

If not all stemming from and thru the military, then we have LBJ, the Cabinet and Congress... the 25th Amendment

with the express cooperation of the Joint Chiefs

I'm very interested in your explanation of the "pan-organizational" entity... thanks

DJ

I'd speculate that various persons with various backgrounds including military intel people, CIA, FBI, Sicilian-American

Mafia, Corsican Mafia, anti-Castro Cubans, Texas oil, Dallas law enforcement...and Yankee blue-bloods...had a hand in

the Kennedy assassination. But it wasn't any one of those entities or organizations. It was a bunch of guys who

wanted to establish and control a Laos-to-US heroin pipeline thru So. Vietnam and Havana. The primary goal of

the JFK assassination was to establish a pre-text for the invasion of Cuba, and on that basis the operation must be

declared a failure.

That's my take on it, fwiw...Thanks for asking, David!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Monk...I agree that the military played a chief role.

But that is to downplay that Allen Dulles initiated the participation of LBJ and JEH.

Dulles was a tool of the international bankers and industrialists who were the

real culprits...and none of THEM controlled the military. No one person in the

military chain was powerful enough to act unilaterally, and would not have

dared risk treason on their own. But as a group, the military WAS EAGER to

perform their designated role. The military did not control the CIA, which

controlled LHO and other major players like Hunt and Phillips and Lansdale

and Conein. Your mentor L. Fletcher Prouty believed this, and I am surprised

that you do not.

There were many groups motivated to join the cabal...once it was INITIATED

by Dulles. On the cabal active participant pyramid, Dulles was at the apex.

Below Dulles were LBJ and JEH. On the crowded third level was the military,

along with the CIA, SS, FBI, and many others.

The military did not act alone. It was just one of MANY sub-participants

in the organization chart of the cabal. Dulles was the CEO, acting at the behest

of a powerful multi-national secret group of people like David Rockefeller.

Jack

The Dulles brothers were life-long employees of the inter-locking Rockefeller/Harriman

dynasties. It was Rockefeller (and Kennedy) money that the Brown Brothers Harriman

bank invested in the Nazis (as well as his own and others). When W. Averell Harriman

ran against Nelson Rockefeller for governor of New York in 1958 it was strictly an intramural

contest.

I'd put W. Averell Harriman at the head of the apex of American power. That said, I'd

argue that in November of 1963 Harriman had no reason to assassinate Kennedy -- but

he wanted to keep the plotting alive as a contingency plan. If Kennedy had prevented the

overthrow of Diem in Vietnam -- I speculate -- his demise would have preceded Diem's, not

the other way around, and it would have taken place in Chicago on November 2.

Keep in mind that there was an active effort to prevent Kennedy's assassination,

all after the overthrow of Diem on November 1, '63.

Plots were aborted/prevented in Chicago, Tampa and Miami.

There was the famous FBI teletype warning of a plot in Dallas.

There's Tosh Plumlee's convincing (to me at least) account of an abort mission

in Dealey Plaza.

There's this bit from Larry Hancock's Someone Would Have Talked:

"We were getting all sorts of rumors that the President was going to be assassinated

in Dallas; there were no if's, and's, or but's about it."

-- Marty Underwood, Democratic National Committee Political Advance Man in Houston

Who was in a position to spread those kind of rumors in Houston?

Perhaps it's just a co-incidence, but the head the Republican Party in Houston at the

time was...(drumroll)...Harriman protege George H. W. Bush.

Tosh Plumlee has said that the abort team was given bum information. Someone

screwed the pooch. I'd speculate that that someone was George H. W. Bush.

So if Harriman was at the apex of contingency plans to kill Kennedy, but didn't need

to have JFK killed at that time since Harriman was already getting his way in both Vietnam

policy and the back-door talks with Castro, who then was at the apex of the Dallas

assassination?

I speculate that it was homegrown: Clint Murchison Jr, co-owner of the Dal-Tex

Building, from which at least one shot was fired and which was not searched by

Dallas police.

Murchison was in bed with notorious drug traffickers Vito Genovese, Myer Lansky

and Carlos Marcello.

Dallas was one town out of the reach of blue-bloods like Harriman.

Or so my reading of the case has led me to believe, up to now...

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harriman is UNDERINVESTIGATED as a possible suspect.

Jack

Did Harriman take over the government of the USA?

Whoever killed JFK also took over the government, controlled the investigations, changed policies and did what JFK kept them from doing.

Local Dallas or New Orleans Yahoos didn't kill JFK. Oswald didn't kill JFK.

Whoever killed JFK did so according to Ed Ludwack's Coup d'etat - A Practical Handbook, and either controlled or neutralized every department and agency, early on decided that Oswald was the designated Patsy but was to be characerized as a deranged nut case who killed JFK on the spurr of the moment, just as Ruby killed him, and declined to take the Cuban Commie Conspiracy contingency that would have allowed them to invade Cuba. LBJ knew whatever happened at Dealey Plaza, it was an operation that had something to do with Cuba, and he wasn't going to go there, and gave the miltiary their war in Vietnam instead, as he put it.

If not LBJ, who made those decisions at such a high level, before AF1 lands at Andrews?

It had to be someone who had his hands on the wheel and was driving the operation, someone who knew how Oswald was framed and why he was set up as the Patsy, and someone who had instant access to the top echelons of every major agency and department.

At first Jim Garrison speculated that the Dealey Plaza operation had at least nine operators, three, three man teams, he said, and then later he said the operation had to involve at least 30 people, which one would tend to laugh at and snicker about if we aren't watching the public dismantaling of the Isralie Dubi hit squad, that included over 30 active agents on the ground in the operations area. But they all reportedly called in to the same telephone number in Europe (Swiss), where there probably sat a man behind a computer and TV monitors calling the shots and orchestrating the whole show.

He's the last cut out.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harriman is UNDERINVESTIGATED as a possible suspect.

Jack

Did Harriman take over the government of the USA?

No, he was already as much in command as any single person could be -- before

and after the assassination -- at least as far as US policies in SE Asia and

Cuba were concerned.

Whoever killed JFK also took over the government, controlled the investigations, changed policies and did what JFK kept them from doing.

JFK didn't keep them from overthrowing Diem, did he? Listen to the tape of

JFK I posted up-thread, recorded on November 4, '63...Against the coup:

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, head of the CIA, Sec of Defense, Attorney General.

For the coup: State, led by Harriman...

Where was Kennedy in all of that? Kennedy had lost control of American

foreign policy in 1963!

Read Gareth Porter's The Perils of Dominance -- Kennedy wanted to find

a way to neutralize South Vietnam and he was defeated, in large part because

of Harriman.

Local Dallas or New Orleans Yahoos didn't kill JFK. Oswald didn't kill JFK.

Dallas Yahoos didn't set up ambushes in Chicago, Tampa, or Miami. And yet

those plots existed and were aborted/avoided.

I agree with Jack that Allen Dulles was at the apex of the over-all

assassination planning, which probably included a plot in Los Angeles.

There was one city in the country where blue-bloods couldn't reach:

Dallas.

Whoever killed JFK did so according to Ed Ludwack's Coup d'etat - A Practical Handbook, and either controlled or neutralized every department and agency, early on decided that Oswald was the designated Patsy but was to be characerized as a deranged nut case who killed JFK on the spurr of the moment, just as Ruby killed him, and declined to take the Cuban Commie Conspiracy contingency that would have allowed them to invade Cuba.

I think you have the operational agenda in reverse: the designated patsy was to be

characterized as an agent of Fidel Castro, but once he was captured the blue-bloods

who occupy actual power in this country pulled the plug within two hours

after his capture and designated him a deranged lone nutcase.

Had Oswald been killed instead of captured on 11/22 we'd all have found something

else fascinating to occupy our lives. Maybe we'd have jobs at the Havana Disneyland?

LBJ knew whatever happened at Dealey Plaza, it was an operation that had something to do with Cuba, and he wasn't going to go there, and gave the miltiary their war in Vietnam instead, as he put it.

It wasn't up to him. He followed orders. Kennedy also followed orders and

allowed the over-throw of Diem against the advice of his closest advisor, RFK.

If not LBJ, who made those decisions at such a high level, before AF1 lands at Andrews?

Harriman/Bundy and all the power of the Harriman/Walker/Bush crime family

in cahoots with longtime Harriman allies the Rockefellers.

It had to be someone who had his hands on the wheel and was driving the operation, someone who knew how Oswald was framed and why he was set up as the Patsy, and someone who had instant access to the top echelons of every major agency and department.

McGeorge Bundy was calling the shots in the White House Situation Room

and informed LBJ on AF1 that the lone assassin was in custody. Lyndon

barely had a chance to take off his coat in his new digs at 1600 Penn. Ave

before W. Averell Harriman busted in and informed him that the Soviets had

nothing to do with it.

The only way he could know that was if he knew who did it.

At first Jim Garrison speculated that the Dealey Plaza operation had at least nine operators, three, three man teams, he said, and then later he said the operation had to involve at least 30 people, which one would tend to laugh at and snicker about if we aren't watching the public dismantaling of the Isralie Dubi hit squad, that included over 30 active agents on the ground in the operations area. But they all reportedly called in to the same telephone number in Europe (Swiss), where there probably sat a man behind a computer and TV monitors calling the shots and orchestrating the whole show.

He's the last cut out.

BK

I think there was a team in the TSBD, one in the Dal-Tex, one on the GK,

and one at the South Knoll.

Bought and paid for by Clint Murchison, Jr. -- but originally organized by

Allen Dulles at the behest of his blue-blood masters.

That's how I see it, fwiw...

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harriman is UNDERINVESTIGATED as a possible suspect.

Jack

I once asked Colonel Prouty about his reference to the "Power Elite" -- I said, "Will you name one?" He replied, "Averell Harriman"

1988. George H. W. Bush, the son of Harriman protege Prescott Bush, elected President.

1992. Bill Clinton, a protege of Harriman's wife Pamela Churchill Harriman, elected President.

http://www.anusha.com/pamela-h.htm

1996. Clinton re-elected.

2000. George W. Bush, grandson of Harriman protege Prescott Bush, elected President.

2004. Bush re-elected.

W. Averell Harriman died in 1986 and ran the country from beyond

the grave for another 20+ years!

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Cliff, Maybe it was Harriman sitting in the Driver's Seat at Dealey Plaza. I don't know. I just know that whatever happened there it was not an attack on JFK the man, but an attack on the office and power of the presidency, and that it was an inside job, and not the Mafia, Cubans, CIA or a lone, deranged nut. It was a coup, and the suspects in the assassination are right there in the LBJ administration. Harriman certainly had influence.

Isn't he related to the same Harriman who ran the Union Pacific Railway and sent a posse after Buch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid?

Harriman was a three piece suit guy.

Do the suits hire the assassins or the assassins hire the suits?

I kinda like what John Judge has to say about the matter:

"The real government are the people that are doing the killing;...they hire...the suits to make you think you have a democracy."

http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2009/12/john-judge-at-jfk-plaque-au.html

And I thought it was all pretty strange, but I didn't have any reason to question that there was a secret government, because I lived with that secret government. And you get Bill Moyers now, and he tells you, `Well, there's a legitimate government, but from time to time, to do a certain job, they hire a rather unseemly crew, and sometimes they get a little out of control and make trouble.'

I'd suggest it's the other way around: that the real government are the people that are doing the killing, and that they hire the people in the three piece suits to stand up and make you think you've got a democracy in front of you.

Harriman is UNDERINVESTIGATED as a possible suspect.

Jack

Did Harriman take over the government of the USA?

No, he was already as much in command as any single person could be -- before

and after the assassination -- at least as far as US policies in SE Asia and

Cuba were concerned.

Whoever killed JFK also took over the government, controlled the investigations, changed policies and did what JFK kept them from doing.

JFK didn't keep them from overthrowing Diem, did he? Listen to the tape of

JFK I posted up-thread, recorded on November 4, '63...Against the coup:

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, head of the CIA, Sec of Defense, Attorney General.

For the coup: State, led by Harriman...

Where was Kennedy in all of that? Kennedy had lost control of American

foreign policy in 1963!

Read Gareth Porter's The Perils of Dominance -- Kennedy wanted to find

a way to neutralize South Vietnam and he was defeated, in large part because

of Harriman.

Local Dallas or New Orleans Yahoos didn't kill JFK. Oswald didn't kill JFK.

Dallas Yahoos didn't set up ambushes in Chicago, Tampa, or Miami. And yet

those plots existed and were aborted/avoided.

I agree with Jack that Allen Dulles was at the apex of the over-all

assassination planning, which probably included a plot in Los Angeles.

There was one city in the country where blue-bloods couldn't reach:

Dallas.

Whoever killed JFK did so according to Ed Ludwack's Coup d'etat - A Practical Handbook, and either controlled or neutralized every department and agency, early on decided that Oswald was the designated Patsy but was to be characerized as a deranged nut case who killed JFK on the spurr of the moment, just as Ruby killed him, and declined to take the Cuban Commie Conspiracy contingency that would have allowed them to invade Cuba.

I think you have the operational agenda in reverse: the designated patsy was to be

characterized as an agent of Fidel Castro, but once he was captured the blue-bloods

who occupy actual power in this country pulled the plug within two hours

after his capture and designated him a deranged lone nutcase.

Had Oswald been killed instead of captured on 11/22 we'd all have found something

else fascinating to occupy our lives. Maybe we'd have jobs at the Havana Disneyland?

LBJ knew whatever happened at Dealey Plaza, it was an operation that had something to do with Cuba, and he wasn't going to go there, and gave the miltiary their war in Vietnam instead, as he put it.

It wasn't up to him. He followed orders. Kennedy also followed orders and

allowed the over-throw of Diem against the advice of his closest advisor, RFK.

If not LBJ, who made those decisions at such a high level, before AF1 lands at Andrews?

Harriman/Bundy and all the power of the Harriman/Walker/Bush crime family

in cahoots with longtime Harriman allies the Rockefellers.

It had to be someone who had his hands on the wheel and was driving the operation, someone who knew how Oswald was framed and why he was set up as the Patsy, and someone who had instant access to the top echelons of every major agency and department.

McGeorge Bundy was calling the shots in the White House Situation Room

and informed LBJ on AF1 that the lone assassin was in custody. Lyndon

barely had a chance to take off his coat in his new digs at 1600 Penn. Ave

before W. Averell Harriman busted in and informed him that the Soviets had

nothing to do with it.

The only way he could know that was if he knew who did it.

At first Jim Garrison speculated that the Dealey Plaza operation had at least nine operators, three, three man teams, he said, and then later he said the operation had to involve at least 30 people, which one would tend to laugh at and snicker about if we aren't watching the public dismantaling of the Isralie Dubi hit squad, that included over 30 active agents on the ground in the operations area. But they all reportedly called in to the same telephone number in Europe (Swiss), where there probably sat a man behind a computer and TV monitors calling the shots and orchestrating the whole show.

He's the last cut out.

BK

I think there was a team in the TSBD, one in the Dal-Tex, one on the GK,

and one at the South Knoll.

Bought and paid for by Clint Murchison, Jr. -- but originally organized by

Allen Dulles at the behest of his blue-blood masters.

That's how I see it, fwiw...

Edited by William Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I think Bernice is right.

The CIA was the primary (or semi-primary) organization that produced the kill (IMO) Obviously the mob was involved or they couldn't have gotten a mob guy to take out Oswald prior to any court proceedings. But let's be realistic here. Oswald was never a goof pushing for "fairness for Cuba". His job for the company was to pass out flyers with phone numbers to call and such and to heard up information on communist sympathizers. He was doing more of the "dirty work" like he did in Russia. He was helping to collect names of Communist sympathizers for the CIA. It's as plain as the nose on your face.

I have no idea how deeply involved with the CIA Oswald was - but he was certainly involved. Was he a shooter? I dunno...I would tend to doubt it. It wouldn't make sense to make one of the shooters the scapegoat. I think Oswald was probably on the shooters' side but was exactly right when he said he was a "patsy". Patsy wasn't a word used by normal farming folks - even saying "patsy" kind of was a giveaway that a person was involved in a conspiracy.

I seriously doubt that Oswald was innocent (even though he didn't kill Kennedy in the coup). As has been revealed, the kill shot was from the grassy knoll (closest spot) once the driver slowed the car for the execution. Of course this is the reason that Bobby Kennedy refused secret service protection, at least some SS were involved. That's why a professional football player (Rosie Greer) lead the way through that kitchen at the Ambassador. Then again RFK and his fellas didn't anticipate such an advanced plan. Having a psycho shooter out in front to mess em up while the real shooter (Thane Ceaser - local security guard who was previously employed by Lockheed Martin) got the best of them. Ceaser got in the contact wound behind the right ear that killed RFK.

I saw a TV show on the History Channel about the Secret Service protecting Presidents and they actually had the gall to say "we lost one" but never again...I almost threw up. :D

Edited by David S. Brownlee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well then...

Great stuff, indeed.

I will dig it up, the link or post the essay, ... a History of Money and the importance of maintaining a nation's central banking system which partly lead us to the men and concepts that have been presented in this thread.

Money gets you into everything. Those who control it, control all.

Jack, excellent point about Allen... and him sitting on the Warren Commission, the "perfect" covert op.

Cliff - uh, been meaning to get something off your chest there? :D

I've read about these men and their time in History, not nearly enough to know how much your enthusiam colors your analysis, but enough to know you make some interesting and thoughtful statements... with that in mind I'd like a few days to digest, research and reply... sadly this little passion of mine gets much less time that I'd like.

Very cool... this whole place makes my day

:D

DJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Cliff, Maybe it was Harriman sitting in the Driver's Seat at Dealey Plaza.

Hey Bill,

That's not my argument, actually. It seems certain to me that Harriman sat in the

Driver's Seat in Washington DC after the capture of Oswald in regards to

framing LHO as the lone assassin, instead of the agent-of-Fidel frame Hoover and

the CIA were pushing almost immediately after the assassination.

I think the historical record is clear on that matter.

What I'm speculating is that Harriman/Rockefeller et al used Allen Dulles to

organize assassination plots in Chicago, Tampa, Miami, Dallas and Los Angeles

as a contingency plan as a way to establish a pre-text for the invasion of

Cuba, and in case Kennedy got the idea he could pull out of Vietnam.

When Kennedy went along with Harriman and the overthrow of Diem, and

the back channel talks with Castro, the plug was pulled on the Chicago, Tampa

and Miami plots.

There was a concerted effort to stop the Dallas plot -- but those efforts

came to naught for the simple reason the Dallas boys didn't give a damn

what Harriman wanted and had the juice to buy the guns and All-Pro

coup makers like David Atlee Phillips (of Fort Worth) and David Morales.

The guys who occupied the Driver's Seat in Dealey Plaza were literally

the guys who owned the Driver's Seat -- Clint Murchison, H.L Hunt

and the Dal-Tex Building.

But someone screwed the pooch and Oswald was captured alive. The killers

of Kennedy lost control of the cover-up, which reverted to the blue-bloods

at the levers of power in Washington.

I don't know. I just know that whatever happened there it was not an attack on JFK the man, but an attack on the office and power of the presidency, and that it was an inside job, and not the Mafia, Cubans, CIA or a lone, deranged nut. It was a coup, and the suspects in the assassination are right there in the LBJ administration. Harriman certainly had influence.

I think it was initially sponsored as an inside job, and facilitated by people

in the US government who wanted to spark an invasion of Cuba. I think

Harriman would have been fine with that outcome if not for the capture of

Oswald.

In that sense the operation failed. I mean, if the idea was merely to remove

Kennedy they could have more readily killed him in his sleep, imo.

The ultimate target was Castro, not Kennedy. Harriman sought a neutralized

Laos, a militarized Vietnam, and a friendlier-or-ousted Castro. He got 2 out of 3.

Isn't he related to the same Harriman who ran the Union Pacific Railway and sent a posse after Buch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid?

You bet. E.H Harriman of the Union Pacific Railroad. Robber baron deluxe. He

helped John D. Rockefeller take monopoly control of the US oil industry and

John D. Rockefeller helped Harriman take monopoly control of the US railroads.

The Dulles brothers, the Bush family, the Clintons, Henry Kissinger and

Zbigniew Brzezinski are all creatures of the Harriman/Rockefeller alliance.

Harriman was a three piece suit guy.

Do the suits hire the assassins or the assassins hire the suits?

I kinda like what John Judge has to say about the matter:

"The real government are the people that are doing the killing;...they hire...the suits to make you think you have a democracy."

http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2009/12/john-judge-at-jfk-plaque-au.html

And I thought it was all pretty strange, but I didn't have any reason to question that there was a secret government, because I lived with that secret government. And you get Bill Moyers now, and he tells you, `Well, there's a legitimate government, but from time to time, to do a certain job, they hire a rather unseemly crew, and sometimes they get a little out of control and make trouble.'

I'd suggest it's the other way around: that the real government are the people that are doing the killing, and that they hire the people in the three piece suits to stand up and make you think you've got a democracy in front of you.

I'd suggest the progeny of robber barons own both the killers and the politicians. Even

the visible puppet masters have strings attached.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...