DOES IT MATTER TODAY THAT JFK WAS KILLED?

[Jon G. Tidd]

Ken,

Everyone who comments on the JFK assassination has an agenda.

My agenda is to dispel the idea that the CIA had a hand in the assassination, to establish LHO was set up to take the fall, that Oswald wasn't an intelligence agent, that the cover-up took on a life of its own.

[Paul Trejo]

I think this is my first post here, I've only been a member a couple of months.

I wouldn't call myself a JFK researcher but I've read quite a few books in the last couple years. My goal in life is to be a fiction writer.

James Douglass's book first got me interested.

I think the primary reason that I'm interested now is the idea that things could have been different. The idea people do have agency. Margaret Thatchers' "There is no alternative" comes to mind. There's a view of history that it's like a tidal wave, that there's nothing we can do, that what is now was inevitable and that no other decisions or realities were viable. The Vietnam war had to happen, neo-liberalism had to happen, etc. The idea that people can have agency. I think it's Talbot's book and discussion here that things could have been different if Kennedy lived, maybe even dramatically different. It's speculation, I know, maybe he would have kept us out of Vietnam and 58,000 Americans would never had died. Maybe the cold war would have ended much sooner. Maybe we wouldn't have caused so much trouble and destruction in the Middle East. Maybe neo-liberalism would never have become ascendant with the overthrow of Allende in Chile and the election of Reagan. Maybe we all wouldn't be so mired in private debt. The idea that things could have been different and that people have agency and can imagine different ways of doing things.

I do a lot of reading of other reading, so I think the JFK assassination/administration still is very relevant today.

Some things I find particularly interesting:

1. Economics - I read the blog Naked Capitalism everyday, it deals with Modern Monetary Theory/Economics/politics/etc. So the stuff about the Fed and monetary stuff interests me.

2. Economics/Third World/economic stratification - John Perkins and his Confessions of an Economic Hitman. The Rise of Neoliberalism and the extreme income stratification of society. I love David Graeber's book Debt.

3. The Drug War -

4. We used to assassinate foreign leaders now we assassinate and destroy entire countries.

5. I read a lot of Philip K. Dick so I love all the shifting realities, the creation of perception, the manipulation of the public opinion, counter-intelligence.

6. I've also read a lot of Rene Girard, so the idea of so many different groups had a possible hand in it, the CIA, military-industrial complex, the mob, the bankers, the white supremacists and then even the Mossad all gathering around the victim to start a new order or to set the newly arising order into stone.

Sorry for the rambling.

Bruce, since you're reflecting on US History, please also consider that JFK was murdered in the South, in the face of the New Reformation that was struggling in the movement of MLK Jr., and the Civil Rights Movement in general.

According to Dr. Jeff Caufield in his new book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy; The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015), the murder of JFK was first and foremost due to the pushback of the Radical Right in the South against JFK's domestic politics as he voiced in his June 11, 1963 speech in favor of MLK.

Only hours after that speech, after midnight (the earliest hours of 6/12/1963) Medgar Evers was shot dead in his driveway in Mississippi. Medgar Evers was the NAACP fighter who supervised James Meredith in his bid to be the first Black American to attend Ole Miss University in 1962, when General Walker started a massive race riot at that college, where hundreds were wounded and two were killed. Down to this day NARA will not release photo footage of that riot.

The Civil War remains the Great National Trauma. The Reformation was painful as well. The Second Reformation, led by JFK, made JFK the latest casualty of the Civil War, IMHO. I think we can justify this view on the basis of Caufield's work.

As for Vietnam, it is a coin-toss whether JFK would have entered Vietnam -- because his speeches spoke out on both sides of the issue. However, if JFK had entered that war, IMHO he would have ended it very quickly, since, being a Catholic, he would have recognized that the Catholic Church was the real problem in South Vietnam, i.e. when the government there banned Buddhism. That was the ship-wreck of the South right there. I think that JFK would have fixed Vietnam very quickly, healed the Catholic-Buddhist rift, and inspired the South Vietnamese to win their own Civil War, with minimal US losses.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 15, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Everyone who comments on the JFK assassination has an agenda.

My agenda is to dispel the idea that the CIA had a hand in the assassination, to establish LHO was set up to take the fall, that Oswald wasn't an intelligence agent, that the cover-up took on a life of its own.

Jon, odd as it might seem to you, I agree with your agenda 100%.

We just have different ways of pursuing it.

Of course, the main obstacle to your agenda is the fact that two key CIA men *confessed* to roles in the JFK murder, namely, Howard Hunt and David Morales.

Yet one can make the case (as I try to do) that they acted as Rogues who went off the reservation. That means they served a Civilian Plot, and so the CIA high-command had no such plot.

As for David Atlee Phillips, I take him at his word in his manuscript, THE AMLASH LEGACY (1988) which explains that he believed that LHO was on his team in a plot to assassinate Fidel Castro -- setting up a deep cover in New Orleans, and taking this Fake Resumé to Mexico City. But then, as he claims, somebody hijacked LHO from under his nose for their own plot.

This logically follows, IMHO, from Jeff Caufield's theory that Resigned General Edwin Walker was the mastermind of the JFK murder there in Dallas. Guy Banister was supporting Walker, and eventually David Morales and Howard Hunt did too, with pressure from Frank Sturgis, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall and Larry Howard.

General Walker had nothing to do with the Cover-up -- this was all J. Edgar Hoover's idea, supported by LBJ, Allen Dulles and Earl Warren for the purpose of National Security. You're right -- the Cover-up took on a life of its own.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 15, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Martin Blank]

david phillips all but confessed to his brother

from jim dieugenio

It was also an issue within the family of David Atlee Phillips as to whether he (D.A.P.) was involved in the JFK assassination. David and his brother Jim had a huge fight over this possibility.

Shawn Phillips is the nephew of David Atlee Phillips and the son of James Atlee Phillips (deceaseed brother of D.A.P.). Email from Shawn Phillips:

“The “Confession”, you refer to was not in so many words as such. I cannot remember the time frames involved, but this was what was told to me by my father, James Atlee Phillips, who is deceased. He said that David had called him with reference to his (Davids), invitation to a dinner, by a man who was purportedly writing a book on the CIA. At this dinner, was also present a man who was identified only as the “Driver”. David told Jim that he knew the man was there to identify him as Raul Salcedo, whose name you should be familiar with, if your research is accurate in this matter. David then told Jim that he had written a letter to the various media, as a “Preemptive Strike” , against any and all allegations about his involvement in the JFK assassination. Jim knew that David was the head of the “Retired Intelligence Officers of the CIA”, or some such organization, and that he was extremely critical of JFK, and his policies. Jim knew at that point, that David was in some way, seriously involved in this matter and he and David argued rather vehemently, resulting in a silent hiatus between them that lasted almost six years according to Jim. Finally, as David was dying of irreversible lung cancer, he called Jim and there was apparently no reconciliation between them, as Jim asked David pointedly, “Were you in Dallas on that day”? David said, “Yes”, and Jim hung the phone up.”

.

[Paul Trejo]

david phillips all but confessed to his brother

from jim dieugenio

It was also an issue within the family of David Atlee Phillips as to whether he (D.A.P.) was involved in the JFK assassination. David and his brother Jim had a huge fight over this possibility.

Shawn Phillips is the nephew of David Atlee Phillips and the son of James Atlee Phillips (deceaseed brother of D.A.P.). Email from Shawn Phillips:

“The “Confession”, you refer to was not in so many words as such. I cannot remember the time frames involved, but this was what was told to me by my father, James Atlee Phillips, who is deceased. He said that David had called him with reference to his (Davids), invitation to a dinner, by a man who was purportedly writing a book on the CIA. At this dinner, was also present a man who was identified only as the “Driver”. David told Jim that he knew the man was there to identify him as Raul Salcedo, whose name you should be familiar with, if your research is accurate in this matter. David then told Jim that he had written a letter to the various media, as a “Preemptive Strike” , against any and all allegations about his involvement in the JFK assassination. Jim knew that David was the head of the “Retired Intelligence Officers of the CIA”, or some such organization, and that he was extremely critical of JFK, and his policies. Jim knew at that point, that David was in some way, seriously involved in this matter and he and David argued rather vehemently, resulting in a silent hiatus between them that lasted almost six years according to Jim. Finally, as David was dying of irreversible lung cancer, he called Jim and there was apparently no reconciliation between them, as Jim asked David pointedly, “Were you in Dallas on that day”? David said, “Yes”, and Jim hung the phone up.”.

Well, Martin, I know that James DiEugenio and others would like to jump to conclusions to blame the CIA -- but in this case it is quite a LEAP.

The only thing we have here is that David Atlee Phillips admitted to his brother to being in Dallas that day. Sorry, that's not good enough.

For example, in a discussion with Larry Hancock last year, I argued that nobody less than Colonel Fletcher Prouty positively identified Major General Edward Lansdale in Dealey Plaza, Dallas, on 11/22/1963, seen with his back to the camera with the "Three Tramps", and in other photos.

I told Larry that Prouty is a solid source, and so I was convinced that General Lansdale was a part of the plot to kill JFK.

Larry Hancock then convinced me I was jumping to a conclusion. Yes -- there is evidence that Lansdale was there -- but there is just as much a chance that Lansdale was there to INVESTIGATE a rumor of a JFK murder, as that Lansdale was PARTICIPATING in the JFK murder.

Larry Hancock himself doubts that General Lansdale was part of the JFK Kill Team. That carries a lot of weight with me.

The same, then, must apply to David Atlee Phillips.

See, with David Morales, he told his friend Ruben Carbajal, "We got that son of a bitch," when speaking of the JFK assassination." That's a direct confession (and no, there is no proof that "We" meant the CIA high-command. It could be ANYBODY).

Also, with Howard Hunt, he just openly confessed to his son on his deathbed, in a tape recording, and that's convincing to me.

But with David Atlee Phillips, we don't have a CONFESSION, we only have an Admission that Phillips was INSIDE DALLAS. Well, so was General Lansdale -- but that doesn't make him a JFK Killer.

I give people the benefit of the doubt -- I have at least that much faith left in the US Government. Lansdale and Phillips could BOTH have been in Dallas to INVESTIGATE a rumor of a JFK murder plot. If so, then they got there too late.

Besides -- the CIA is responsible for FOREIGN operations, while the FBI is responsible for DOMESTIC operations. It was mainly the FBI's fault (and the Secret Service) that the JFK Killers got past everybody. So, there was probably a MOLE inside the FBI (e.g. Hosty) and a MOLE inside the Secret Service (e.g. Forrest Sorrels) in their Dallas operations who worked with the JFK Kill Team.

All I'm saying is this -- let's not jump to conclusions. Let's make a stronger case against the actual JFK Kill Team than the Warren Commission made against LHO.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 15, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Jon G. Tidd]

The confessions of Hunt, Morales, and Phillips signify nothing to me. Hunt, for all I know, was bequeathing something St. John that St. John could use to make money. Morales made his confession after drinking heavily; drinking heavily is no guarantee of truthfulness. DAP may have been in Dallas, who knows, but surely he wasn't part of the kill team; his expertise was disinformation campaigns.

[Paul Trejo]

The confessions of Hunt, Morales, and Phillips signify nothing to me. Hunt, for all I know, was bequeathing something St. John that St. John could use to make money. Morales made his confession after drinking heavily; drinking heavily is no guarantee of truthfulness. DAP may have been in Dallas, who knows, but surely he wasn't part of the kill team; his expertise was disinformation campaigns.

Fair enough, Jon, but please consider this:

(1.0) Howard Hunt did not claim to an active role in the JFK murder, but only to a PASSIVE role. Hunt said he was "on the sidelines." The two people who acted to recruit him were first and foremost, Frank Stugis, and then secondly, David Morales.

(1.1) Frank Sturgis also confessed -- no, he BOASTED -- about a role in the JFK murder. But Frank Sturgis was a mercenary, and not a CIA Agent.

(1.2.) I also take Howard Hunt's claims with a grain of salt. If there is any truth in them, then they are a confession of TREASON, but of course, Hunt was too proud to admit to that -- and this is the reason (the sole reason IMHO) that Howard Hunt chose to drag LBJ's name into his messy confession.

(1.3) Howard Hunt didn't actually say that LBJ was the leader of the JFK murder -- but he only portrayed LBJ at the top of his pyramid, because a loyal CIA Agent must always be acting in the interest of the POTUS, but in this case, since it was TREASON, then Hunt had little choice but to CLAIM that he was really serving the POTUS who was LBJ defacto.

(1.4) There are real weaknesses in Hunt's confession, like that one, and the fact that Hunt admits to being only "on the sidelines," i.e. as a possible bag-man and paymaster for Frank Sturgis (a la Marita Lorenz -- despite many flaws in her story as well).

(2.0) As for Morales -- in vino veritas!

(2.1) Morales became paranoid near the end of this life, fearing that the CIA was out to get him. But if so, then I think this is evidence that there was no CIA plot -- but Morales was afraid that the CIA would figure out the Civilian Plot that he served to assassinate JFK.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 15, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Martin Blank]

david phillips all but confessed to his brother

from jim dieugenio

It was also an issue within the family of David Atlee Phillips as to whether he (D.A.P.) was involved in the JFK assassination. David and his brother Jim had a huge fight over this possibility.

Shawn Phillips is the nephew of David Atlee Phillips and the son of James Atlee Phillips (deceaseed brother of D.A.P.). Email from Shawn Phillips:

“The “Confession”, you refer to was not in so many words as such. I cannot remember the time frames involved, but this was what was told to me by my father, James Atlee Phillips, who is deceased. He said that David had called him with reference to his (Davids), invitation to a dinner, by a man who was purportedly writing a book on the CIA. At this dinner, was also present a man who was identified only as the “Driver”. David told Jim that he knew the man was there to identify him as Raul Salcedo, whose name you should be familiar with, if your research is accurate in this matter. David then told Jim that he had written a letter to the various media, as a “Preemptive Strike” , against any and all allegations about his involvement in the JFK assassination. Jim knew that David was the head of the “Retired Intelligence Officers of the CIA”, or some such organization, and that he was extremely critical of JFK, and his policies. Jim knew at that point, that David was in some way, seriously involved in this matter and he and David argued rather vehemently, resulting in a silent hiatus between them that lasted almost six years according to Jim. Finally, as David was dying of irreversible lung cancer, he called Jim and there was apparently no reconciliation between them, as Jim asked David pointedly, “Were you in Dallas on that day”? David said, “Yes”, and Jim hung the phone up.”.

Well, Martin, I know that James DiEugenio and others would like to jump to conclusions to blame the CIA -- but in this case it is quite a LEAP.

The only thing we have here is that David Atlee Phillips admitted to his brother to being in Dallas that day. Sorry, that's not good enough.

For example, in a discussion with Larry Hancock last year, I argued that nobody less than Colonel Fletcher Prouty positively identified Major General Edward Lansdale in Dealey Plaza, Dallas, on 11/22/1963, seen with his back to the camera with the "Three Tramps", and in other photos.

I told Larry that Prouty is a solid source, and so I was convinced that General Lansdale was a part of the plot to kill JFK.

Larry Hancock then convinced me I was jumping to a conclusion. Yes -- there is evidence that Lansdale was there -- but there is just as much a chance that Lansdale was there to INVESTIGATE a rumor of a JFK murder, as that Lansdale was PARTICIPATING in the JFK murder.

Larry Hancock himself doubts that General Lansdale was part of the JFK Kill Team. That carries a lot of weight with me.

The same, then, must apply to David Atlee Phillips.

See, with David Morales, he told his friend Ruben Carbajal, "We got that son of a bitch," when speaking of the JFK assassination." That's a direct confession (and no, there is no proof that "We" meant the CIA high-command. It could be ANYBODY).

Also, with Howard Hunt, he just openly confessed to his son on his deathbed, in a tape recording, and that's convincing to me.

But with David Atlee Phillips, we don't have a CONFESSION, we only have an Admission that Phillips was INSIDE DALLAS. Well, so was General Lansdale -- but that doesn't make him a JFK Killer.

I give people the benefit of the doubt -- I have at least that much faith left in the US Government. Lansdale and Phillips could BOTH have been in Dallas to INVESTIGATE a rumor of a JFK murder plot. If so, then they got there too late.

Besides -- the CIA is responsible for FOREIGN operations, while the FBI is responsible for DOMESTIC operations. It was mainly the FBI's fault (and the Secret Service) that the JFK Killers got past everybody. So, there was probably a MOLE inside the FBI (e.g. Hosty) and a MOLE inside the Secret Service (e.g. Forrest Sorrels) in their Dallas operations who worked with the JFK Kill Team.

All I'm saying is this -- let's not jump to conclusions. Let's make a stronger case against the actual JFK Kill Team than the Warren Commission made against LHO.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

please put me on ignore as i requested months ago; I find your condescending attitude to be both unctuous and smarmy. thanks

you mean a stronger case like this: Besides -- the CIA is responsible for FOREIGN operations, while the FBI is responsible for DOMESTIC operations. It was mainly the FBI's fault (and the Secret Service) that the JFK Killers got past everybody. So, there was probably a MOLE inside the FBI (e.g. Hosty) and a MOLE inside the Secret Service (e.g. Forrest Sorrels) in their Dallas operations who worked with the JFK Kill Team.

the FBI operates in mexico as well. and the cia has operated in america

Edited February 16, 2016 by Martin Blank

[Jim Hargrove]

Harrison Livingstone once wrote something like, “There is plenty of evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald at the National Archives, and all of it is phony.”

The TRUTH about the Kennedy assassination certainly still matters to our nation, but no part of our Federal government will ever allow the fabricated evidence to be exposed, because doing so would show the world the methods our law enforcement agencies employ to achieve specific goals, and the ripple effect would be more like tidal waves.

[Paul Trejo]

please put me on ignore as i requested months ago; I find your condescending attitude to be both unctuous and smarmy. thanks

Martin, I'm delighted to set your account to IGNORE in my Forum Settings.

Sayonara forever,

--Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Jim - I agree with your Livingston quote.

I also find it silly that Trejo and Tidd could spin these CIA connected confessions the way they do, and openly declare that their missions are in part to absolve the CIA. Well, I for one am not on a mission to find the CIA guilty, though I have been labelled as such. But I could not dismiss Hunt, Morales, Phillips, Sturgis, or the names they dropped, so easily. I think it's obvious that there is truth in those confessions. I don't presume to know how much truth exactly, or exactly what it means.

When any one of us claims to know the truth, we fall into the trap best illustrated by the blind men and the elephant fallacy. It's only by putting collective visions together can us blind persons hope to see what the elephant actually looks like. One thing I would like to point out is that drawing hard and fast lines between the various groups (CIA, FBI, ONI, Secret Service, DPD, Minutemen, Mafia) and individuals on the list of suspects is a mistake. The lines of demarcation must be taken as suggestions, not truths. As some examples, we cannot know for sure the exact nature of the relationship between Hoover and Banister, between Angleton and Helms, Dulles and Bundy, between the DPD and the Minutemen. I could go on ad infinitum. The point is we really don't know how the decision to kill a president, or for that matter his brother, came about. And so, when we get believable statements from family members or friends of deceased suspects we should use that to open doors, not close them.

Edited February 16, 2016 by Paul Brancato

[Paul Trejo]

It's one thing to keep an open mind -- but it's quite another thing never to offer ANY theory about the JFK murder. Why bother posting that you have an open mind? If you have solid evidence against somebody's theory, then post it. If you have a new theory, then post it.

The problem with the CIA-did-it theory, is that it is now a HALF-CENTURY OLD, and it failed to solve the JFK murder.

Why not admit it, and try something else? But if you try something else, then you have to explain the fact that *two* CIA people confessed (Morales and Hunt). So you have to fold them into a Civilian Plot.

There were many others who confessed, also, but they WERE NOT inside the CIA. Joan Mellon makes a major mistake, IMHO, when she counts the associates of Guy Banister at 544 Camp Street in New Orleans as "CIA" agents.

• Frank Sturgis was a mercenary. He confessed and even boasted about his role in the JFK murder.
• Gerry Patrick Hemming was a mercenary. I take his confession to A.J. Weberman at face value, though he was a chronic fibber.
• Johny Martino was a mercenary. He confessed.
• Tommy Beckham was a mercenary. He confessed.
• Loran Hall was a mercenary. He said "There's only me and Santos left, and I ain't saying crap!"
• David Ferrie was a mercenary. He confessed to Jim Garrison.
• Jack S. Martin was a mercenary. He also confessed to Jim Garrison.
• LHO was a mercenary fellow-traveler. He said he was a "Patsy" which is a half-confession.

What Joan Mellen failed to recognize is that mercenaries might work for the CIA if the money is good, but they will also work for a Civilian Plot if the money is better -- and it usually is.

We have evidence that the Mafia would pour millions into a JFK Kill plot -- Carlos Marcello, Sam Giancana and Santos Traficante were only three. There were probably many more.

Yet what Jim Garrison showed was that the New Orleans conspirators were mainly involved in SHEEP-DIPPING OSWALD.

The actual shooters were outside of Jim Garrison's reach. One needed to have a Dallas Connection to expose them -- and after a HALF-CENTURY we are still guessing.

IMHO, however, we have two hot leads: Roscoe White was named by his wife and son; and J.D. Tippit was named by Willie Somersett. A recent book by Joseph McBride, Into the Nightmare (2013), also names J.D. Tippit.

We're getting closer, IMHO, but farther away from the CIA as the mastermind. Bill Simpich blew that CT out of the water in 2014.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 16, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

What CIA theory? Cut the crap Paul

[Paul Trejo]

What CIA theory? Cut the crap Paul

Oh, so now you deny that there even *is* a CIA-did-it theory?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Jon G. Tidd]

I am not on a mission to absolve the CIA of anything.

I don't think either the CIA or its non-contract employees had a hand in killing JFK. Just my opinion.

The facts, not opinions or unsupported hearsay, show that the CIA and its non-contract employees have played a major role in covering up the truth relating to the assassination. Exhibit A is the George Joannides deception. There are many more such exhibits.

Along with facts there is lots of "noise." It's the job of everyone here, IMO, to identify the noise so that it can be filtered out. I believe, for the reasons I've given, that the Hunt, Morales, and DAP confessions are noise. Anyone who believes the confessions are not noise should give reasons why not.