Nixon Operative Roger Stone on JFK Assassination: "LBJ had it done. Mob, CIA, Hoover, all in on it. RFK knew. So did Nixon."

[Scott Kaiser]

(i) You still didn't answer my question, I'm curious you say Sturgis was short, do you know how tall Sturgis was?

(ii) The problem I have with that is when you have to many people involved wanting to or contributing to an assassination you have to many cooks in the kitchen, someone is about to spill the beans if you're not careful. What I mean is that someone would have talked, take the Mob for example, someone is always wanting to be the top man on the totem pole, king of the mountain, always willing to whack the top guy so he the next guy could be (in charge). Its easy for word to get out on who is trying to kill the top dog, so the top dog has the guy whacked himself. To many people involved only spoils the account if you know what I mean, you can't have that many people involved without someone talking about it.

You have to keep a low profile, trust no one, there's a saying, those who are closest to you become your worst enemy, keep your friends close and your enemy closer.

Scott, here are my replies to your question and your comment:

(i) I've read rumors that he was medium height and rumors that he was shorter than average, but one way to know for certain is to obtain his Police mugshots and booking record from the Watergate break in. So, I've requested that; then I'll be able to tell you for sure how tall Frank (Fiorini) Sturgis really was.

(ii) I believe that we had so many cooks in the kitchen (so many people contributing to any assassination plot against JFK that they heard about). But they weren't all contributing to the same ground-crew!

Probably a lot of people believed that their hit squad killed JFK, and so their cash contribution was the deciding factor. But in reallity, it was only a fraction of that money that was successful, just as it was only a fraction of the hired 'mechanics' who actually killed JFK.

Although the ground-crew that actually killed JFK was professional, and so they would not have talked, this would not prevent liars and boasters from claiming that they were the ones who killed JFK. It is almost a boast today - not really a confession - for somebody to say that his crew was the crew that killed JFK a half-century ago.

Would somebody have talked? Actually, plenty of people talked -- but most of them are fake.

For example, I don't believe the mob killed JFK, because, as Jim Garrison said, they did not have the means to cover it up, or the proper sniper's modus operandi. Yet Sam Giancana was going to testify, and Johnny Rosselli was going to testify, and others, also. Why? For prestige, probably. But the people who put up the cash for these hit-squads would never let them sing - so they were both murdered before they could testify to the HSCA.

I think we agree, Scott -- the mob lacks the discipline of a long-term chain-of-command. That's why I believe the actual assassins were from a different school -- one with more discipline and more honor. The actual JFK assassins were probably trained marksmen with military discipline.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

(i) I've read rumors that he was medium height and rumors that he was shorter than average, but one way to know for certain is to obtain his Police mugshots and booking record from the Watergate break in. So, I've requested that; then I'll be able to tell you for sure how tall Frank (Fiorini) Sturgis really was.

No need to go through the trouble, I'll tell you. My father stood at 5' 10". Frank was about four inches taller then my father. Frank would have stood at 6' 2", not short at all, by no means. Now,

I have a question for those who are researchers, I have searched and searched, I cannot find any public record or open testimony from those in Watergate, my father was called twice to testify on Watergate, my question is, can anyone find any information on my father's testimony or what he said at the Watergate Hearings, I would even be willing to pay you for your time and any services at any amount if that what it takes to find my father's information, can anyone please help me? Like I said, I'm no researcher and I don't know where to begin.

Scott

Lots of stuff here...

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Watergate_Documents

David,

Thank you so much brother, I'll look through this and see if I can find anything on my dad, it means so much to me because that would have been my father saying something or testifying about something, and I'm hoping I can find something anything, would be nice.

Thanks again man!

Edited February 15, 2012 by Scott Kaiser

[Scott Kaiser]

According to my father's date and time to appear and testify at the Watergate Hearings was on February 7, 1973, I'm looking for witlessness's testimonies, is it ironic that my father would be killed on February 7, 1977 just days before he was suppose to testify at the HSCA?

Edited February 15, 2012 by Scott Kaiser

[Paul Trejo]

Scott, if Frank Sturgis was 6'2" tall, then the man standing to his right in the videos you kindly shared in this thread must be 6'8" tall, since he's much taller than Frank.

Is it possible Frank Sturgis wore high-heel boots in his later years?

--Paul

Paul,

I'm not sure if you've been missing any of my past posts or you're just trying to give me a hard time, I really don't know what it is, and I thought perhaps you would have just let it go by now, but it seems you want to drag this on and for what reason? I really don't know, you're a reseacher why don't you find out yourself how tall Frank is. I really don't care to argue the fact of Frank hight. Is it not enough that you don't want to believe me? I guess it wouldn't help telling you that I knew Frank for nine years either would it? ... but I'm telling you he was taller then my dad, I do remember...

Scott, I admit my comment was too sarcastic. I've read different reports about Sturgis' height, so it gets confusing. Yet you're an eye-witness, so that's a different matter. Also, your real point was about your dad, not about Frank Sturgis' height. So, my sarcasm was out of place, and I apologize.

--Paul

[Scott Kaiser]

Scott, if Frank Sturgis was 6'2" tall, then the man standing to his right in the videos you kindly shared in this thread must be 6'8" tall, since he's much taller than Frank.

Is it possible Frank Sturgis wore high-heel boots in his later years?

--Paul

Paul,

I'm not sure if you've been missing any of my past posts or you're just trying to give me a hard time, I really don't know what it is, and I thought perhaps you would have just let it go by now, but it seems you want to drag this on and for what reason? I really don't know, you're a reseacher why don't you find out yourself how tall Frank is. I really don't care to argue the fact of Frank hight. Is it not enough that you don't want to believe me? I guess it wouldn't help telling you that I knew Frank for nine years either would it? ... but I'm telling you he was taller then my dad, I do remember...

Scott, I admit my comment was too sarcastic. I've read different reports about Sturgis' height, so it gets confusing. Yet you're an eye-witness, so that's a different matter. Also, your real point was about your dad, not about Frank Sturgis' height. So, my sarcasm was out of place, and I apologize.

--Paul

No worries Frank its all good, and I'm not certain what point I was trying to make all that I was saying was my father stood at 5'10 and Frank was taller then my dad, that's all, its all good, no biggie...

[Scott Kaiser]

Below, I received this posts by Michael Canfield, but before I go into Mike's quote I'd like to share some additional information. I also asked Janet Sturgis, but I don't think she will answer me, because I have accused Frank Sturgis of killing my dad. Autumn who is Franks step-daughter, James Hunt who is Franks nephew by marriage, and Janet who is Frank's wife won't talk to me, they don't understand or they don't want to hear what it is I have to say, and I don't blame them. I mean who would want to be associated with someone who says their dad or uncle or husband killed my dad?

Michael Canfield says, "Check the photo report and hight study in COUP D ETAT IN AMERICA...I think its in there." And this is what I found on page 299.

Mike in your book this is what it says, "The FBI's height study claims Hunt is 5'9" (Hunt says he is 5'8" in his resume) and Sturgis is 5' 11" (Canfield found he was about 6'1)." End quote, I thought he was 6'2" because my father was only 5'10" and I knew Sturgis was taller then my dad, so if Canfield found Sturgis to be about 6'1" then he's right. I knew Sturgis was at least 6ft or taller and I'm going off my memory.

Edited February 16, 2012 by Scott Kaiser

[Guest Robert Morrow]

According to my father's date and time to appear and testify at the Watergate Hearings was on February 7, 1973, I'm looking for witlessness's testimonies, is it ironic that my father would be killed on February 7, 1977 just days before he was suppose to testify at the HSCA?

It could have been coincidence OR it could be that Frank Sturgis murdered your dad because of what he might say about the JFK assassination and God knows what else.

I am waiting to read your book about your father, Mr. Kaiser.

[Scott Kaiser]

According to my father's date and time to appear and testify at the Watergate Hearings was on February 7, 1973, I'm looking for witlessness's testimonies, is it ironic that my father would be killed on February 7, 1977 just days before he was suppose to testify at the HSCA?

It could have been coincidence OR it could be that Frank Sturgis murdered your dad because of what he might say about the JFK assassination and God knows what else.

I am waiting to read your book about your father, Mr. Kaiser.

Thank you Robert, and please I'm not a formal kinda guy, just a country good ole boy who loves his dad, please call me Scott, I'd prefer it that way, when people call me Mr. Kaiser, I'm looking around for my father. Also, to answer your statement on waiting to read my book about my father, (thank you). It will be out within the next three months. I have been doing an extensive amount of traveling to Miami, and now I'm hoping to write a spectacular ending or have someone fill in the blanks so to say for the ending of this book. (in case I'm not around). Perhaps, something like.

A son, completing his father's work would be nice. We'll see what happens in the next few months, so sit back, and hold on, its going to be a bumpy ride.

Edited February 17, 2012 by Scott Kaiser

[Len Colby]

Whenever we get quotes from Presidents or their Aides in black and white in reference to this conspiracy or any historical event, it's always intriguing.

I've never bought the reason LBJ didn't run for re-election was just solely Vietnam. My own theory is that RFK did his own investigation, got some of his contact in the government to press LBJ on it, and if they did find that LBJ was involved in any way, they threatened him with Impeachment. Of course, especially back then, they were not going to embarrass the President or the Office of POTUS. So maybe LBJ was told by the Kennedy people or AG/Justice Dept. that declining to run would save him a public trial. And that he would be under secret house arrest for the rest of his life as long as he stepped away quietly. And that his legacy would not be tarnished if he accepted this deal.

I know it all sounds like an episode out of '24', but maybe that's the way it happened.

But they in power will still not tell us the truth. The only reason I can ponder is that the truth is so disturbing that they will just not tell us. Say if it was LBJ behind it, I can see why. Why tarnish the office, it would be embarrassing for the nation. We would just be another Banana republic. Or there is something even greater that they think we can't handle.

LBJ dropped out of the race because he barely beat McCarthy in NH and his campaign's internal polls showed him losing Wisconsin. If he dropped out due to blackmail why would he have entered the race at all. Hard to believe that if RFK had evidence against LBJ or others he would only have used it for blackmail.

[Guest Robert Morrow]

Whenever we get quotes from Presidents or their Aides in black and white in reference to this conspiracy or any historical event, it's always intriguing.

I've never bought the reason LBJ didn't run for re-election was just solely Vietnam. My own theory is that RFK did his own investigation, got some of his contact in the government to press LBJ on it, and if they did find that LBJ was involved in any way, they threatened him with Impeachment. Of course, especially back then, they were not going to embarrass the President or the Office of POTUS. So maybe LBJ was told by the Kennedy people or AG/Justice Dept. that declining to run would save him a public trial. And that he would be under secret house arrest for the rest of his life as long as he stepped away quietly. And that his legacy would not be tarnished if he accepted this deal.

I know it all sounds like an episode out of '24', but maybe that's the way it happened.

But they in power will still not tell us the truth. The only reason I can ponder is that the truth is so disturbing that they will just not tell us. Say if it was LBJ behind it, I can see why. Why tarnish the office, it would be embarrassing for the nation. We would just be another Banana republic. Or there is something even greater that they think we can't handle.

LBJ dropped out of the race because he barely beat McCarthy in NH and his campaign's internal polls showed him losing Wisconsin. If he dropped out due to blackmail why would he have entered the race at all. Hard to believe that if RFK had evidence against LBJ or others he would only have used it for blackmail.

LBJ dropped out because his Gallop approval rating was at 38%. There was no way he was going to be re-elected president and he probably was going to lose to RFK in the Democratic primary.

I think that LBJ believed that Robert Kennedy believed he murdered his brother JFK. I think Robert Kennedy pretty much suspected LBJ and the CIA in the assassination of JFK.

I do not think at that time RFK "had the goods" on LBJ, just a very strong suspicion. Soviet intelligence by Sept 1965 had concluded that Lyndon Johnson was behind the JFK assassination. Hoover sent a memo to LBJ revealing this info (picked up by electronic surveillance) on 12/1/66.

Much of the really damaging stuff on LBJ came out in the 1980's with the revelations of Madeleine Duncan Brown, Billie Sol Estes and Barr McClellan. We found out in 2007 that RFK was working with LIFE magazine for a blow out expose of LBJ due to be printed on 11/29/63.

LBJ in 1968 was crumbling under Vietnam not to mention public questions about the JFK assassination being stoked by the Jim Garrison investigation in New Orleans and trial of Clay Shaw.

Jim Garrison was openly saying some very nasty things about Lyndon Johnson. Especially read this first quote by Jim Garrison

New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison at his press conference on 12/26/67:

“President Johnson is currently the most active person in the country in protecting the assassins of John Kennedy.”

“President Johnson must have known by the time of the arrest that Oswald did not pull the trigger.”

“You are being fooled. Everyone in America is being fooled. The whole world is being fooled.”

“Why? Because of power – because if people knew the facts about the assassination they would not tolerate the people in power today. Keep in mind who profits most. Who appointed the Warren Commission? Who runs the FBI? Who runs the CIA? The President of the United States.”

Edited February 18, 2012 by Robert Morrow

[Scott Kaiser]

TRANSCRIPT OF A RECORDING OF A MEETING

BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND H. R. HALDEMAN,

THE OVAL OFFICE, JUNE 23, 1972, FROM

1:04 P.M. TO 1:13 P.M.

(Background noise, sound of writing and some

unintelligible conversation)

HALDEMAN: (On the phone) (Unintelligible) Where are they? Okay. I'll be up in just a minute. (40 second pause, with sounds of writing)

HALDEMAN: I see a time way back (unintelligible) might

find out about that report before we do anything.

PRESIDENT: (Unintelligible) (35 second pause)

PRESIDENT: Okay (unintelligible) and, ah, just, just postpone the (unintelligible, with noises) hearings (15 second unintelligible, with noises) and all that garbage. Just say that I have to take a look at the primaries (unintelligible) recover (unintelligible) I just don't (unintelligible) very bad, to have this fellow Hunt, ah, you know, ah, it's, he, he knows too damn much and he was involved, we happen to know that. And that it gets out that the whole, this is all involved in the Cuban thing, that it's a fiasco, and it's going to make the FBI, ah CIA look bad, it's going to make Hunt look bad, and it's likely to blow the whole, uh, Bay of Pigs thing which we think would be very unfortunate for CIA and for the country at this time, and for American foreign policy, and he just better tough it and lay it on them. Isn't that what you...

HALDEMAN: Yeah, that's, that's the basis we'll do it on and just leave it at that.

PRESIDENT: I don't want them to get any ideas we're doing it because our concern is political. JUNE 23, 1973, FROM 1:04 P.M. TO 1:13 P.M.

HALDEMAN: Right.

PRESIDENT: And at the same time, I wouldn't tell them it is not political.

HALDEMAN: Right.

PRESIDENT: I would just say "Look, it's because of the Hunt involvement," just say (unintelligible, with noise) sort of thing, the whole cover is, uh, basically this (unintelligible).

HALDEMAN: (Unintelligible) Well they've got some pretty good ideas on this need thing.

PRESIDENT: George Schultz did a good paper on that, I read it... (Unintelligible voices heard leaving the room).

[Len Colby]

Soviet intelligence by Sept 1965 had concluded that Lyndon Johnson was behind the JFK assassination. Hoover sent a memo to LBJ revealing this info (picked up by electronic surveillance) on 12/1/66.

Can you post citations?

[Guest Robert Morrow]

Soviet intelligence by Sept 1965 had concluded that Lyndon Johnson was behind the JFK assassination. Hoover sent a memo to LBJ revealing this info (picked up by electronic surveillance) on 12/1/66.

Can you post citations?

I am glad you asked. This is one of the jewels produced by the ARRB: a memo from J. Edgar Hoover dated 12/1/66 (and sent to LBJ on that day) which stated that as of September, 1965 the Soviets were telling their KGB agents in America that they had concluded that Lyndon Johnson was behind the JFK assassination.

Also, go to page 1,492-1,496 of Doug Horne's Volume V of his book "Inside the Assassinations Record Review Board." The leader of the FBI records team Phil Golrick told author Doug Horne that "the specific language in the FBI report indicates that the information was obtained through electronic surveillance, not human intelligence, and it should be considered a very reliable record of what the KGB had been telling its own people behind closed doors in its own Residency in New York City." (Horne, p. 1493, Volume 5, Inside the ARRB).

I consider this to be of GARGANTUAN significance in understanding the JFK assassination. It is up there with Gen. Ed Lansdale being photographed at TSBD. Up there with Antonio Veciana identifying "Maurice Bishop" aka David Atlee Phillips with Oswald.

This is extremely important because it is coming from Soviet internal intelligence, not their propaganda organs (who were accusing the Texas oil men closely associated with LBJ). FBI counter-intelligence discovered in the mid 1960's that the Soviets believed internally that Lyndon Johnson was behind the JFK assassination. The Russians at that time had the largest foreign intelligence agency in the world. They were quite competent, too, having stolen our complete atomic bomb secrets in the early mid 1940's.

The FBI found out what the Soviets were telling their KGB Residency in New York through electronic surveillance.

http://www.indiana.edu/~oah/nl/98feb/jfk.html#d1

Hoover sent this memo to Lyndon Johnson on 12/1/1966. (Johnson's mental condition in that time period was not good at all. I think the stresses of Vietnam as well as his participation in the JFK assassination were weighing heavily on him.)

Document 1

1 - Mr. DeLoach

1 - Mr. Wick

1 - Mr. Gale

1 - Mr. Sullivan

1 - Mr. Branigan

1 - Mr. Lenihan

December 1, 1966

REACTION OF SOVIET AND COMMUNIST PARTY OFFICIALS TO THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

A source who has furnished reliable information in the past and who was in Russia on the date of the assassination of the late President John F. Kennedy advised on December 4, 1963, that the news of the assassination of President Kennedy was flashed to the Soviet people almost immediately after its occurrence. It was greeted by great shock and consternation and church bells were tolled in the memory of President Kennedy.

According to our source, officials of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union believed there was some well-organized conspiracy on the part of the "ultraright" in the United States to effect a "coup." They seemed convinced that the assassination was not the deed of one man, but that it rose out of a carefully planned campaign in which several people played a part. They felt those elements interested in utilizing the assassination and playing on anticommunist sentiments in the United States would then utilize this act to stop negotiations with the Soviet Union, attack Cuba and thereafter spread the war. As a result of these feelings, the Soviet Union immediately went into a state of national alert.

Our source further stated that Soviet officials were fearful that without leadership, some irresponsible general in the United States might launch a missile at the Soviet Union. It was the further opinion of the Soviet officials that only maniacs would think that the "left" forces in the United States, as represented by the Communist Party, USA, would assassinate President Kennedy, especially in view of the abuse the Communist Party, USA, has taken from the "ultraleft" as a result of its support of peaceful coexistence and disarmament policies of the Kennedy administration.

62-109060

REL:kas

(8)

REACTION OF SOVIET AND COMMUNIST PARTY OFFICIALS TO THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

According to our source, Soviet officials claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald had no connection whatsoever with the Soviet Union. They described him as a neurotic maniac who was disloyal to his own country and everything else. They noted that Oswald never belonged to any organization in the Soviet Union and was never given Soviet citizenship.

(CG 5824-S*)

A second source who has furnished reliable information in the past advised on November 27, 1963, that Nikolai T. Fedorenko, the Permanent Representative to the Soviet Mission to the United Nations, held a brief meeting with all diplomatic personnel employed at the Soviet Mission on November 23, 1963. During this meeting, Fedorenko related for the benefit of all present the news of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and stated that Kennedy's death was very much regretted by the Soviet Union and had caused considerable shock in Soviet Government circles. Fedorenko stated that the Soviet Union would have preferred to have had President Kennedy at the helm of the American Government. He added that President Kennedy had, to some degree, a mutual understanding with the Soviet Union, and had tried seriously to improve relations between the United States and Russia. Fedorenko also added that little or nothing was known by the Soviet Government concerning President Lyndon Johnson and, as a result, the Soviet Government did not know what policies President Johnson would follow in the future regarding the Soviet Union.

According to our source, Colonel Boris Ivanov, Chief of the Soviet Committee for State Security (KGB) Residency in New York City, held a meeting of KGB personnel on the morning of November 25, 1963. Ivanov informed those present that President Kennedy's death had posed a problem for the KGB and stated that it was necessary for all KGB employees to lend their efforts to solving the problem.

According to our source, Ivanov stated that it was his personal feeling that the assassination of President Kennedy had been planned by an organized group rather than being the act of one individual assassin. Ivanov stated that it was therefore necessary that the KGB ascertain with the greatest possible speed the true story surrounding President Kennedy's assassination. Ivanov stated that the KGB was interested in knowing all the factors and all of the possible groups which might have worked behind the scenes to organize and plan this assassination.

REACTION OF SOVIET AND COMMUNIST PARTY OFFICIALS TO THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

Our source added that Ivanov also emphasized that it was of extreme importance to the Soviet Government to determine precisely what kind of man the new President Lyndon Johnson would be. Ivanov said that President Johnson was practically an unknown to the Soviet Government and, accordingly, the KGB had issued instructions to all of its agents to immediately obtain all data available concerning the incumbent President. Ivanov said that it would be necessary for KGB personnel to gather and correlate all information concerning President Johnson, including his background, his past working experience and record in Congress, his present attitude toward the Soviet Union, and particularly all information which might have bearing upon the future foreign policy line he would follow (NY 3653-S*)

On September 16, 1965, this same source reported that the KGB Residency in New York City received instructions approximately September 16, 1965, from KGB headquarters in Moscow to develop all possible information concerning President Lyndon B. Johnson's character, background, personal friends, family, and from which quarters he derives his support in his position as President of the United States. Our source added that in the instructions from Moscow, it was indicated that "now" the KGB was in possession of data purporting to indicate President Johnson was responsible for the assassination of the late President John F. Kennedy. KGB headquarters indicated that in view of this information, it was necessary for the Soviet Government to know the existing personal relationship between President Johnson and the Kennedy family, particularly between President Johnson and Robert and "Ted" Kennedy.

On March 3, 1964, Yuri I. Nosenko, Soviet defector whose bona fides has not been established, advised that he was handling Soviet Committee for State Security (KGB) investigations of tourists from the United States at the time Lee Harvey Oswald visited Russia in 1959, and consequently was fully cognizant of the Lee Harvey Oswald case.

According to Nosenko, Oswald came to the attention of the KGB when he expressed a wish to defect to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics shortly after his arrival in Russia. However, the KGB, after inquiry, decided he was mentally unstable and informed him he had to return to the United States upon completion of his visit. Thereafter, when Oswald missed a sight-seeing tour he was to take, his hotel room was forced open and he was found with one of his wrists badly cut.

Edited February 19, 2012 by Robert Morrow

[Paul Trejo]

...Jim Garrison was openly saying some very nasty things about Lyndon Johnson. Especially read this first quote by Jim Garrison

New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison at his press conference on 12/26/67:

“President Johnson is currently the most active person in the country in protecting the assassins of John Kennedy.”

“President Johnson must have known by the time of the arrest that Oswald did not pull the trigger.”

“You are being fooled. Everyone in America is being fooled. The whole world is being fooled.”

“Why? Because of power – because if people knew the facts about the assassination they would not tolerate the people in power today. Keep in mind who profits most. Who appointed the Warren Commission? Who runs the FBI? Who runs the CIA? The President of the United States.”

Jim Garrison would have said anything to obtain more clues about the JFK assassination. In 1991 Craig Zirbel published his book, The Texas Connection about the JFK assassination, in which he simply and solidly claimed that LBJ was the mastermind.

I believe Zirbel made a weak case, but he was very emotional and convincing to many. His theory appears to be the predominant theory circulating today inside the very latest books on the JFK assassination.

As for Garrison's first remark that you cited above, Robert, it was arguably an exaggeration -- LBJ was clearly vital to the cover-up of the plot to kill JFK, but he was not alone in the cover-up, nor did he control the FBI or the CIA in this matter, because they were more active than LBJ was.

Insofar as the US military-industrial complex was sitting at the center of this mess, with General Landon and General Walker so close to the scene of the crime, we must recognize that the FBI and CIA were themselves among the smaller players, and LBJ even smaller.

It simply does not matter that LBJ would 'stand to benefit' the most from the JFK conspiracy -- that did not make him the mastermind. LBJ was an observer, no matter how much he benefitted. LBJ was the last to find out, according to Madeleine Brown.

JFK had simply made too many enemies in his own Administration - and too few friends. JFK's practice of Free Love inside the White House was too big of a culture shock for the average 1961 WASP. And that was only the tip of the iceberg. Not enough friends.

Our Military Generals were convinced that JFK was a weak leader, and that the USA was headed for more trouble with the Soviets than JFK could possibly foresee.

Now, in that circumstance, if (and only if) our own Generals were at the center of the plot to assassinate JFK, what in the world could the Vice President, the FBI or even the CIA do to stop them? Nothing at all, frankly. They had to play along, for National Security reasons, at least to the point of a cover-up.

J. Edgar Hoover and LBJ did not wish to pursue a nuclear war with the USSR. But the question had to be decided for the public -- was Oswald a tool of the right-wing or the left-wing? If Oswald was a tool of the right-wing, then a Civil War could have erupted. If Oswald was a tool of the left-wing, then a nuclear war could have erupted.

The solution -- which appears to be the brainchild of J. Edgar Hoover -- was that Oswald was the tool of neither side, but was a Lone Nut, who would sometimes befriend the left-wing and sometimes befriend the right-wing. How convenient that he was a double-agent! It was almost serendipity. (If [and only if] this theory is correct, then Marguerite Oswald was correct when she said that Oswald's sacrifice was second to none. He played the patsy, the scape-goat, for the sins of a nation.)

The conspirators were certainly known to the FBI and CIA, and actually it made no sense to portray Oswald as a Lone Nut while at the same time making his FBI and CIA records a matter of National Security. Oswald was now dead, so where was the threat to National Security?

The best explanation is that the associates of Oswald were known and would never be given up. The FBI did not fear the conspirators, because the FBI knew very well that they were not Communists, nor any foreign body. They were protected precisely because the FBI knew exactly who they were. They were internal, and even essential to US existence. This explanation goes a long way towards identifying their contours.

It has now been a half-century since this terrible act was committed in the face of our nation, and since its cover-up has divided our nation severely, eroding our confidence in the honesty of our leaders. Is it now time for a healing? Or is another quarter-century needed?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 20, 2012 by Paul Trejo

[Scott Kaiser]

I have information to exchange.

[Guest Robert Morrow]

Roger Stone will have a book out this fall, 2013, published by Skyhorse Publishing that will pin the JFK assassination on Lyndon Johnson. Here is his tweet: https://twitter.com/...930786024730624

Roger Stone: "@thedailybeast LBJ had JFK Killed-- My book this Fall- Warren commission cover-up "Who Killed Kennedy "with Skyhorse Publishing."

@TheAtlantic LBJ had JFK Killed-- My book this Fall- Warren commission cover-up "Who Killed Kennedy "with Skyhorse Publishing

@TexasMonthly @MadelynHerzog LBJ had JFK Killed-My book this Fall- Warren Commission cover-up "Who Killed Kennedy "with Skyhorse Publishing.

@LBJLibrary LBJ had JFK Killed-- My book this Fall- Warren commission cover-up "Who Killed Kennedy "with Skyhorse Publishing

Roger Stone‏@RogerJStoneJr

@lbjnow LBJ had JFK Killed-- My book this Fall- Warren commission cover-up "Who Killed Kennedy "with Skyhorse Publishing

Roger Stone‏@RogerJStoneJr

-@B_resnick LBJ had JFK Killed-- My book this Fall- Warren commission cover-up "Who Killed Kennedy "with Skyhorse Publishing

Roger Stone‏@RogerJStoneJr

@thedailybeast LBJ had JFK Killed-- My book this Fall- Warren commission cover-up "Who Killed Kennedy "with Skyhorse Publishing

Edited February 15, 2013 by Robert Morrow