What Are the Correct Questions to Ask About the JFK Assassination?

[Thomas Graves]

Another question:

Is there anything that would not have happened, most likely, during JFK's presidency had he not been assassinated?

I'm not suggesting we debate Viet Nam or civil rights. Those were on the table in 1963, and it's speculative what JFK would have done with respect to Viet Nam (I think he would have sent help to the South) or as regards civil rights (I think he would have gone forward).

I'm asking those here to say what likely would not have happened on the world stage if JFK had not been assassinated.

Jon,

Do you have anything / something in mind?

This is a simple "yes" or "no" question.

You don't "have to" elaborate on it, of course, but I am curious as to whether or not you have anything other than 'Nam or Civil Rights in mind here.

In fact, even if you do have something in mind, I would prefer that you NOT elaborate on it at this point. I would rather try to "guess" what it is. LOL

--Tommy

Edited March 4, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Jon G. Tidd]

Yes, Tommy.

I'm not going to post my thoughts here.

The cover-up continues. For solid reasons.

[Thomas Graves]

Yes, Tommy.

I'm not going to post my thoughts here.

The cover-up continues. For solid reasons.

Jon,

"Yes" as in "Yes, I have something in mind here, Tommy, but I ain't gonna share it with ya'all right now"

or

"Yes, Tommy, that was a great post!"

In other words, are you asking this question because you want us to try to give you some good ideas to pursue in your research, or are you asking us like a modern-day Socrates, just to show us how silly we are?

Maybe it just all depends on the meaning of "yes."

--Tommy

Hey, I came up with a good one! LBJ would have gone to prison for the Bobby Baker thing, and the Fred Black thing, and the Malcolm Wallace things (plural), and the......

Edited March 4, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Brancato]

Jon, you are holding your cards rather close. Your questions are interesting, and some of us are curious how you would answer those questions. Your statement that the coverup continues - for solid reasons, begs elaboration.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Paul Brancato,

As I've thought about the JFK assassination and its aftermath, I've kept coming back to certain questions:

-- Why was JFK killed?

-- Was the assassination a success from the plotters' standpoint?

-- Who had the ability to assassinate JFK and pin the assassination solely on Oswald?

-- Why does the cover-up endure?

I've listed four questions to which I keep coming back. The central and most important one is why was JFK killed.

None of the conventional answers as to why JFK was killed ties up all the loose ends. For example, LBJ had JFK killed so LBJ could both get himself out of a jam and achieve his life's goal. LBJ was cunning and overbearing and deeply knowledgeable. But if that's the answer, why does the cover-up endure? Sure, Bill Moyers and LBJ's daughters might want the cover-up to continue. But they have no power to impose the ongoing cover-up. So the answer LBJ did it just doesn't tie up all the loose ends.

On the other hand, JFK's assassination was a huge gift to LBJ. One can fairly assume LBJ wasn't about to turn against a party who made this gift, because even as president LBJ remained vulnerable.

So the question becomes, if some party in fact made this gift to LBJ, who was that party and why was the gift made to LBJ? The why part is clear in my estimation. LBJ would have been given the gift because he could be controlled by the giver to the giver's liking. But even if all that I write is correct, I'm still left with the question, why was JFK killed?

The conclusion I reach is that LBJ was ready, willing, and able to do something JFK was not. I think therein lies the answer to the question, why was JFK killed? Whatever LBJ was ready, willing, and able to do -- I'm guessing -- he did. So I believe the answer to the question, why was JFK killed, is out in the open and can be perceived from a study of LBJ's presidency.

The two biggest things LBJ did as president were to sign civil rights legislation and launch the war in Viet Nam. I don't think JFK's killing had to do with either of these. Certainly not with civil rights. As for Viet Nam, if Oliver Stone and James Douglass were correct, there would be no loose ends, no solid reason for an ongoing cover-up.

[David Andrews]

Nuclear détente and other peacemaking activities with Russia were in the Kennedy cards, allegedly including a joint US-Soviet space effort. But did Russian hard-liners want those things at the time? Did financial backers of the Soviet Union?

Edited March 5, 2015 by David Andrews

[Jon G. Tidd]

David Andrews,

You write of matters JFK favored and which LBJ abandoned. Which is good, IMO.

At this point, I'm mostly interested in identifying matters as to which JFK showed no interest or was opposed, which LBJ fostered or allowed. Matters of great concern necessarily. Matters warranting JFK's demise and LBJ's installation as president.

This is just a framework for my thinking that I believe might prove useful.

[Roger DeLaria]

Through my reading and study, I've come to the conclusion that it was LBJ. It wasn't just LBJ alone by himself, but LBJ was the lynchpin at the epicenter of other conspirators(Texas Oil, CIA, industrialists/war profiteers) whom he had deep ties to, and whom had a vested interest in JFK being eliminated. LBJ was going to be personally and politically ruined and go to prison. LBJ had Big Oil and MIC money behind him, as well as the Texas political machine. He had deep relations and contacts throughout congress, the state of Texas, industry and commerce, as well as law enforcement to ensure he got off scot-free. Individual people themselves are certainly gone, but the power structure surrounding these conspirators and cronies I believe is still around to protect them/their legacies and continue the cover-up. I see the who and the why right there.

Edited March 6, 2015 by Roger DeLaria

[Gene Kelly]

LBJ didn't oppose foreign aid to Israel. He allowed (turned a blind eye towards) a nuclear arms buildup for certain countries in the Middle East. Egypt and Nasser -- being armed by the Soviets -- posed a threat. A threat to oil reserves and regional dominance. We needed to keep the Soviets from gaining a foothold in the Midle east; we continue to want, their oil. A strong Israeli ally in the Middle east... continues to this day.

The attack on the USS Liberty was a false flag operation fully approved by the Johnson administration (similar to Tonkin Gulf) to serve as a pretext to a nuclear attack on Egypt and a full takeover of Middle East oil. If not stopped, the Soviets would entrench themselves in the Middle East to the point that America’s access to the oil of that region would be directly jeopardized...the West would be conquered “without a shot being fired.” Israel’s deliberate attack on the USS Liberty was a false flag operation simply for the purpose of dragging an unwilling America into a Middle East war.

Kennedy’s death eased the pressure on Israel, and Johnson chose to turn a blind eye on the activities at Dimona. John McCone, the CIA director appointed by Kennedy, resigned in 1965, complaining of Johnson’s lack of interest in the subject. Israel acquired its first bomb around 1967, without ever admitting it.

Kennedy would not be remembered in Tel Aviv as a friend of Israel. In addition to his attacks against lobbying activities of Israel and its nuclear power ambitions, Kennedy defended the right of return of the 800,000 Palestinian refugees expelled from their neighborhoods and villages in 1947. On November 20, 1963, his delegation to the United Nations called for the implementation of Resolution 194 crafted for this purpose. Kennedy probably never got the chance to read Israel’s hysterical reactions in the newspapers.

Johnson’s rise to power was greeted with relief in Israel. While Kennedy had cut down aid to Israel, Johnson increased it from $40 to 130 million the following year. While the Kennedy administration had authorized the sale of a limited number of defensive missile batteries to Israel, under Johnson more than 70% of the aid was earmarked for military equipment, including tanks and Skyhawk offensive aircraft. Conversely, by denying them U.S. aid, Johnson forced Egypt and Algeria to turn to the Soviet Union to maintain and upgrade their defense systems. LBJ was willing and able...

These are the solid reasons for the coverup to continue ... 50 years later.

[Ray Mitcham]

IMO you need to look no further than JFK's notion to bring the power of money back to the US Government rather than the FEDERAL RESERVE.

They just couldn't afford to let him get his own way.

"On June 4, 1963, a little known attempt was made to strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the government at interest. On that day President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order No. 11110 that returned to the U.S. government the power to issue currency, without going through the Federal Reserve. Mr. Kennedy's order gave the Treasury the power "to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury." This meant that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury's vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation. In all, Kennedy brought nearly $4.3 billion in U.S. notes into circulation. The ramifications of this bill are enormous.

http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/executiveorder11110.htm

Edited March 6, 2015 by Ray Mitcham

[Jon G. Tidd]

Ray Mitcham,

I have one of the one-dollar silver certificates.

I believe one of the correct questions to ask about the JFK assassination is whether individuals who were part of the Fed or who supported the Fed had an incentive to see JFK dead. Certainly some of these individuals were very powerful.

What I don't know is how much of a threat JFK appeared to be to the Fed and its supporters. If JFK was seen as a serious threat, I can imagine easily some of the powerful individuals in question lining up behind a plan to get rid of JFK.

Question: Did LBJ rescind Executive Order 11110? If so, when?

[Ray Mitcham]

Ray Mitcham,

I have one of the one-dollar silver certificates.

I believe one of the correct questions to ask about the JFK assassination is whether individuals who were part of the Fed or who supported the Fed had an incentive to see JFK dead. Certainly some of these individuals were very powerful.

What I don't know is how much of a threat JFK appeared to be to the Fed and its supporters. If JFK was seen as a serious threat, I can imagine easily some of the powerful individuals in question lining up behind a plan to get rid of JFK.

Question: Did LBJ rescind Executive Order 11110? If so, when?

Jon G Tidd,

The article I link above states this.

"According to information from the Library of the Comptroller of the Currency, Executive Order 11,110 remains in effect today, although successive administrations beginning with that of President Lyndon Johnson apparently have simply ignored it and instead returned to the practice of paying interest on Federal Reserve notes. Today we continue to use Federal Reserve Notes, and the deficit is at an all-time high.

[Paul Brancato]

I remember bringing a silver certificate dollar bill to the bank and getting a silver dollar in return. Must have been 1963.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Gene Kelly,

Do you believe LBJ invited Israel to attack the U.S. Liberty? I remember at the time (I was in law school) it was immediately reported by U.S. news media that Israel (not Cairo) had attacked the ship and that the attack had been a mistake. Do you think perhaps someone having a say with U.S. media decided to thwart LBJ's plan for the attack?

If Israel was behind the JFK assassination, as you indicate, wouldn't the leaders of Israel have had to be concerned, like gravely concerned, that the truth would eventually come out and thereby doom U.S.-Israel relations?

I understand what you write about Dimona and JFK's wishes for displaced Palestinians.

In your opinion, does the assassination boil down to U.S. financial (including military) support for Israel?

I respect your comment, and I've got an open mind and want to find the truth of the assassination, but I find it hard to believe Israel was behind the JFK assassination, no matter what David Ben Gurion thought of JFK. Israel always has been too dependent on U.S. aid. For that country to kill this country's president, it's just hard to believe.

Edited March 6, 2015 by Jon G. Tidd

[Gene Kelly]

Jon:

My intent was not to place suspicion upon Israel, nor do I think that they had a hand in the assassination.

I had recently been accumulating information on LBJ. He is a fascinating (and troubling) personality, and I never realized how unbalanced and corrupt that he was. I always suspected something about him regarding the assassination -- for a variety of reasons -- but could not place him at the center of a conspiracy nor could I project him as a mastermind. He certainly had much to worry about in/about November 1963 as far as his political future, but he doesn't seem capable of all of the planning, execution and cover-up. Nor does he explain why the 'fog' of JFK's murder persists today.

However, I encountered the USS Liberty story in the course of my research, and dug deeper into it ... the quotes that I shared in Post # 129 are from collective articles about the Liberty affair in June 1967. It reminds one of the Gulf of Tonkin incident (an alleged pretext for escalated conflict and a false flag operation)... it was certainly controversial and unresolved, even today. When you asked what LBJ was willing and able to do (that JFK was not), this story immediately came to mind... it was without any preconceived notion or thinking; it leap out at me. Kind of like the first answer that comes to mind in a test.

I cannot explain how the attack may have been subverted or thwarted by US media; you seem to suggest something there. Please let us know if that's instructive. I'm not even sure that it/Liberty was his (LBJ's) plan. But there was surely something fishy about the entire story, and how it was down-played as a 'mistake'. A strange medal of honor "misdirection", silencing of witnesses, and a quick (Calley-like) trial. Perhaps it was another Northwoods plot, designed to induce a conflict. Many credible individuals protested the facts and justice afterwards. It was clearly a cold war intrigue.

Digging deeper into the principals, one reference that I read states: "One of LBJ's closest advisors was a zealot, Walter W. Rostow, his then-Special Assistant for National Security Affairs... a sinister, Svengali-like figure. He was crucial in determining for LBJ which way the U.S. might respond to the threatened hostilities in the Middle East...Rostow was a hawk who believed in the Vietnam War". The article further states: " The Soviets actually engineered the conflict... they feared a nuclear Israel, and sought a pretext to intervene directly and bomb Israel's nuclear reactor in Dimona".

Another quote states: "On June 7th Eugene Rostow called Avraham Harman to the State Department and warned him that the Israeli attack must stop immediately; he informed Harmon that the Americans knew about the 'cooking' of communications. Four hours later in Tel Aviv the Minister of Defense and the Commander of the air force's offices ordered surveillance of the American communications ship operating off Sinai. Four hours after that, the same sources ordered that the ship be sunk." Walter Rostow's brother, Eugene (Dean of Yale Law School) played an important role in the creation of the Warren Commission, along with Dean Acheson, an elder statesman of the Cold War.

You ask, what did LBJ actually do - that JFK did not (or would not) - and what are the solid reasons for the cover-up, that continue to this day. James Angleton remains a sinister and complex character at the center of the entire JFK story (before, during and after), and had strong allegiances to Israel and their intelligence services. My logic tells me that the central issue was Middle East Oil and potential Soviet influence -- not necessarily Israel, which remains a means to an end -- its all about the oil reserves. LBJ was certainly in the pocket of Texas oil power brokers, and maintained the Oil Depletion Allowance ... in stark contrast to JFK.

Middle East oil and the role of Israel in that region is a topic for which JFK apparently showed no strong interest or was opposed, which LBJ otherwise fostered or allowed. This was/is a matter of great concern necessarily... a matter warranting JFK's demise and LBJ's installation as President ... a matter that can be perceived from a study of LBJ's presidency... a solid reason for an ongoing cover-up.

Gene