Al Carrier Posted November 21, 2004 Share Posted November 21, 2004 The majority of researchers are locked into who assassinated Kennedy because of the information found in the CIA Files showing an anti-Castro Operation in full swing at the time of the assassination. These individuals involved in this, both government paid intelligence personnel and anti-Castro Cubans had a hatred for Kennedy, so there is the motivation. Then we have the likes of Hemming and others who provide shallow links that they cannot prove and it has everyone chasing their tails, trying to prove this is who did it. I have posted on how this is unlikely due to the type of operation that is seen in DP and due to the compromising of secrecy that it would involve, and the skill level of the assault. I have referred to consistencies that those who acted in DP would direct toward connecting to a Communist operation involving Castro in order to call for an assault on Cuba, but that does not make it an Anti-Castro Operation. Nor does it prove that Anti-Castro Cubans were involved in DP. After the conspiracy was covered up and the US was not forced to invade Cuba, the Castro elimination plans died off. The plans to eliminate Castro prior to this were a joke. But so many see these same individuals executing a sitting US President in a small open plaza on the outskirts of downtown Dallas in front of 40+ Dallas LE, twelve USSS agents and 300+ citizens and walking away undetected. If these anti-Castro Cubans and rogue elements of the CIA were motivated to kill Kennedy in order to overthrow Castro, then why did they let it die after taking such a risk? What changed after Kennedy's death. Could it be Viet Nam. Conein was in VN prior to and after the assassination. Shackley, Morales, Klines and others went from the Cuban Operation to SE Asia after the assassination. All came back after the war and ended up working in the C.A. Operation. I am aware that motive is not require to prove guilt, but since this is what other researchers are basing their work on, then let's hear how they explain the aftermath and the failure of motivation follow-through. Al Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted November 21, 2004 Share Posted November 21, 2004 The majority of researchers are locked into who assassinated Kennedy because of the information found in the CIA Files showing an anti-Castro Operation in full swing at the time of the assassination. These individuals involved in this, both government paid intelligence personnel and anti-Castro Cubans had a hatred for Kennedy, so there is the motivation. Then we have the likes of Hemming and others who provide shallow links that they cannot prove and it has everyone chasing their tails, trying to prove this is who did it. I have posted on how this is unlikely due to the type of operation that is seen in DP and due to the compromising of secrecy that it would involve, and the skill level of the assault. I have referred to consistencies that those who acted in DP would direct toward connecting to a Communist operation involving Castro in order to call for an assault on Cuba, but that does not make it an Anti-Castro Operation. Nor does it prove that Anti-Castro Cubans were involved in DP. After the conspiracy was covered up and the US was not forced to invade Cuba, the Castro elimination plans died off. The plans to eliminate Castro prior to this were a joke. But so many see these same individuals executing a sitting US President in a small open plaza on the outskirts of downtown Dallas in front of 40+ Dallas LE, twelve USSS agents and 300+ citizens and walking away undetected. If these anti-Castro Cubans and rogue elements of the CIA were motivated to kill Kennedy in order to overthrow Castro, then why did they let it die after taking such a risk? What changed after Kennedy's death. Could it be Viet Nam. Conein was in VN prior to and after the assassination. Shackley, Morales, Klines and others went from the Cuban Operation to SE Asia after the assassination. All came back after the war and ended up working in the C.A. Operation. I am aware that motive is not require to prove guilt, but since this is what other researchers are basing their work on, then let's hear how they explain the aftermath and the failure of motivation follow-through. Al <{POST_SNAPBACK}> An interesting post, but possible explanation IF the assassination was performed by anti-Castro Cubans (with or without assistance of any govt employees) is that even though LBJ suspected Cuban involvement in the assassination, he did mnot want to go to war and cause the death of 40 million Americans to avenge the death of a President of whom he was not particularly fond. Many people suspected Cuban or KGB involvement but our government deliberately called off any investigation that would lead down this path. Apparently there was a near mutiny of CIA officials in Mexico City who were outraged at limitations placed on the operation. So if the assassins' plans were to blame Castro to prompt a US invasion of Cuba, then there plans failed and there was little they could do. For other reasons, though, I do not think it was anti-Castro Cubans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted November 21, 2004 Share Posted November 21, 2004 The majority of researchers are locked into who assassinated Kennedy because of the information found in the CIA Files showing an anti-Castro Operation in full swing at the time of the assassination. These individuals involved in this, both government paid intelligence personnel and anti-Castro Cubans had a hatred for Kennedy, so there is the motivation. Then we have the likes of Hemming and others who provide shallow links that they cannot prove and it has everyone chasing their tails, trying to prove this is who did it. I have posted on how this is unlikely due to the type of operation that is seen in DP and due to the compromising of secrecy that it would involve, and the skill level of the assault. I have referred to consistencies that those who acted in DP would direct toward connecting to a Communist operation involving Castro in order to call for an assault on Cuba, but that does not make it an Anti-Castro Operation. Nor does it prove that Anti-Castro Cubans were involved in DP. After the conspiracy was covered up and the US was not forced to invade Cuba, the Castro elimination plans died off. The plans to eliminate Castro prior to this were a joke. But so many see these same individuals executing a sitting US President in a small open plaza on the outskirts of downtown Dallas in front of 40+ Dallas LE, twelve USSS agents and 300+ citizens and walking away undetected. If these anti-Castro Cubans and rogue elements of the CIA were motivated to kill Kennedy in order to overthrow Castro, then why did they let it die after taking such a risk? What changed after Kennedy's death. Could it be Viet Nam. Conein was in VN prior to and after the assassination. Shackley, Morales, Klines and others went from the Cuban Operation to SE Asia after the assassination. All came back after the war and ended up working in the C.A. Operation. I am aware that motive is not require to prove guilt, but since this is what other researchers are basing their work on, then let's hear how they explain the aftermath and the failure of motivation follow-through. Al <{POST_SNAPBACK}> An interesting post, but possible explanation IF the assassination was performed by anti-Castro Cubans (with or without assistance of any govt employees) is that even though LBJ suspected Cuban involvement in the assassination, he did mnot want to go to war and cause the death of 40 million Americans to avenge the death of a President of whom he was not particularly fond. Many people suspected Cuban or KGB involvement but our government deliberately called off any investigation that would lead down this path. Apparently there was a near mutiny of CIA officials in Mexico City who were outraged at limitations placed on the operation. So if the assassins' plans were to blame Castro to prompt a US invasion of Cuba, then there plans failed and there was little they could do. For other reasons, though, I do not think it was anti-Castro Cubans. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> OOPS!! substitute "limitations placed on the investigation" (not "limitations placed on the operation"). One addendum: Motive is not a requirement to prove guilt in a criminal trial, but it is certainly relevant in a murder investigation. Unless the murderer is a nut ("a lone nut") presumably he or she has some reason for the crime. Many people agree that one of the reasons the Warren Commission fails is that it could not (or did not) articulate a reason why LHO shot the President. The point I was trying to make is that if the motive of the assassination was to cause some political event (e.g. an invasion of Cuba) the fact that the objective was not accomplished (through no "fault" of the conspirators) does not vitiate the motive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry J.Dean Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 The majority of researchers are locked into who assassinated Kennedy because of the information found in the CIA Files showing an anti-Castro Operation in full swing at the time of the assassination. These individuals involved in this, both government paid intelligence personnel and anti-Castro Cubans had a hatred for Kennedy, so there is the motivation. Then we have the likes of Hemming and others who provide shallow links that they cannot prove and it has everyone chasing their tails, trying to prove this is who did it. I have posted on how this is unlikely due to the type of operation that is seen in DP and due to the compromising of secrecy that it would involve, and the skill level of the assault. I have referred to consistencies that those who acted in DP would direct toward connecting to a Communist operation involving Castro in order to call for an assault on Cuba, but that does not make it an Anti-Castro Operation. Nor does it prove that Anti-Castro Cubans were involved in DP. After the conspiracy was covered up and the US was not forced to invade Cuba, the Castro elimination plans died off. The plans to eliminate Castro prior to this were a joke. But so many see these same individuals executing a sitting US President in a small open plaza on the outskirts of downtown Dallas in front of 40+ Dallas LE, twelve USSS agents and 300+ citizens and walking away undetected. If these anti-Castro Cubans and rogue elements of the CIA were motivated to kill Kennedy in order to overthrow Castro, then why did they let it die after taking such a risk? What changed after Kennedy's death. Could it be Viet Nam. Conein was in VN prior to and after the assassination. Shackley, Morales, Klines and others went from the Cuban Operation to SE Asia after the assassination. All came back after the war and ended up working in the C.A. Operation. I am aware that motive is not require to prove guilt, but since this is what other researchers are basing their work on, then let's hear how they explain the aftermath and the failure of motivation follow-through. Al <{POST_SNAPBACK}> An interesting post, but possible explanation IF the assassination was performed by anti-Castro Cubans (with or without assistance of any govt employees) is that even though LBJ suspected Cuban involvement in the assassination, he did mnot want to go to war and cause the death of 40 million Americans to avenge the death of a President of whom he was not particularly fond. Many people suspected Cuban or KGB involvement but our government deliberately called off any investigation that would lead down this path. Apparently there was a near mutiny of CIA officials in Mexico City who were outraged at limitations placed on the operation. So if the assassins' plans were to blame Castro to prompt a US invasion of Cuba, then there plans failed and there was little they could do. For other reasons, though, I do not think it was anti-Castro Cubans. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> OOPS!! substitute "limitations placed on the investigation" (not "limitations placed on the operation"). One addendum: Motive is not a requirement to prove guilt in a criminal trial, but it is certainly relevant in a murder investigation. Unless the murderer is a nut ("a lone nut") presumably he or she has some reason for the crime. Many people agree that one of the reasons the Warren Commission fails is that it could not (or did not) articulate a reason why LHO shot the President. The point I was trying to make is that if the motive of the assassination was to cause some political event (e.g. an invasion of Cuba) the fact that the objective was not accomplished (through no "fault" of the conspirators) does not vitiate the motive. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What the extensive Birch Society reach represented from it's late 1958 start now shines brightly in the White House. They, along with true conservatives intended step by step, to turn legislation back fifty years. With their network-in-place in every branch of government eg; congress, every service, agency, and bureau, the Birch et.al. inspired ' first five year plan' represented extreme Power. All U.S. presidents Including Johnson, served this subversive power that came to birth upon, and because of, their murder of Kennedy. H. Dean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Geraghty Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 I think one way of tackling the Vietnam issue with regard to the military industrial complex would be to pick out the biggest contractors for the war, and find out who had large stakes in them and also those who had multiple interests in weapons manufacturing and when there is a short list we can start to look at who had relationships with people in military intel etc. Does anyone know of any books or anything else with inforamtion on HL Hunt and his sons as they seemed to be key players in MLKs assassination and also JFKs, take a look at the book 'Act Of State' on MLKs assassination , there are some figures that overlap with JFK and others that may warrant investigation. john Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Carroll Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 I think one way of tackling the Vietnam issue with regard to the military industrial complex would be to pick out the biggest contractors for the war, and find out who had large stakes in them and also those who had multiple interests in weapons manufacturing and when there is a short list we can start to look at who had relationships with people in military intel etc. Does anyone know of any books or anything else with inforamtion on HL Hunt and his sons as they seemed to be key players in MLKs assassination and also JFKs, take a look at the book 'Act Of State' on MLKs assassination , there are some figures that overlap with JFK and others that may warrant investigation.john <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Bell Hellicopter's interests were very well served by the assassination and the Vietnam War. Michael Paine is a personal link to that entity. Also, General Dynamics, located between Ft. Worth and Dallas. These issues are covered in great detail by L. Fletcher Prouty. As for H.L. Hunt and his sons, there is a little known, but to my mind definitive, literary work entitled Texas Rich by Harry Hurt III. And finally, I recommend a book that covers all the above issues raised by John: The Yankee and Cowboy War by Carl Oglesby. If there was just one book I could recommend to historians concerned with these matters, it would be Oglesby's. Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Geraghty Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 Thanks Tim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Root Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 Al What changed after the assassination......Kennedy was dead! Motivation: A trail that may have changed history. It never occured because Oswald was killed. The young Oswald was adamant about having Jonathan Abt (the "Smith Act Attorney") as his attorney, to the exclusion of all others. I find it interesting that in the Warren Reports interview with Abt they ask if he thinks Oswald wanted him because he was an ACLU attorney. The interview is less than two full pages and quickly ends before they explore Abt's relationship to the Smith Act trials and exactly what the Smith Act had been used for. Reading the testimony of several witnesses that heard Oswald while he was in custody, including, Ms. Paine, his brtother and numerous officiers and a Dallas attorney, Oswald wanted Abt the "Smith Act attorney." Why was there an attempt to cover-up this very simple piece of information in the Summary Report. Is it significant? Does the American public, today, realize what the Smith Act was and how it was used by Hoover and the FBI in the late 40's and early 50's? How did Oswald, the "lone nut" know so much about Abt and apparantly about the Smith Act trials? Strange for a "Patsy" that was unknowingly set up. Food for thought. Jim Root Jim Root Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian A. Kerr Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 (edited) Reading the testimony of several witnesses that heard Oswald while he was in custody, including, Ms. Paine, his brtother and numerous officiers and a Dallas attorney, Oswald wanted Abt the "Smith Act attorney." Why was there an attempt to cover-up this very simple piece of information in the Summary Report. Is it significant? Does the American public, today, realize what the Smith Act was and how it was used by Hoover and the FBI in the late 40's and early 50's? How did Oswald, the "lone nut" know so much about Abt and apparantly about the Smith Act trials? Strange for a "Patsy" that was unknowingly set up. Food for thought. Jim Root Jim Root <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Jim, LHO knew of Abt because he (LHO) was either actively involved in, or seeking to involve himself in CPUSA/SWP politics. Since Abt was indelibly linked to both organizations, as was the law firm he worked for - Freedman, Unger, it 's easy to understand why he (LHO) knew of him. IMO, LHO's activities mirrored the kind of anti-communist, etc. activities that the FBI ( thru COINTELPRO and it's precursors ) DOJ, Easterland Committee, CIA etc were engaged in at the time. If one accepts that LHO was an instrument of some gov't sponsored program, and having just realized that he was set up as a patsy by the very organization he was working for, then given his (LHO's ) options ie. ) he was " officially " hung out to dry , he may well have believed that Abt was his only/best recourse. Ian Edited November 24, 2004 by Ian A. Kerr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanet Clark Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 What Changed? The Vietnam War went into full swing. The intermarriage of Defense and CIA went into overdrive, under the co-ordination of Maxwell Taylor and William Colby (operation phoenix). Motive? Intimidate, Control and Manage the War Making capacity. Remove from office someone hostile to and challenging MI/CIA prerogatives. Read the twenty-fifth amendment, a document contemporary with the Warren Commission...It reads like a report of what happened 11/22/63. Shanet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Root Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 "LHO knew of Abt because he (LHO) was either actively involved in, or seeking to involve himself in CPUSA/SWP politics. Since Abt was indelibly linked to both organizations, as was the law firm he worked for - Freedman, Unger, it 's easy to understand why he (LHO) knew of him. IMO, LHO's activities mirrored the kind of anti-communist, etc. activities that the FBI ( thru COINTELPRO and it's precursors ) DOJ, Easterland Committee, CIA etc were engaged in at the time. If one accepts that LHO was an instrument of some gov't sponsored program, and having just realized that he was set up as a patsy by the very organization he was working for, then given his (LHO's ) options ie. ) he was " officially " hung out to dry , he may well have believed that Abt was his only/best recourse." Ian I agree with your post....my point is that the Warren Commission Summary Report did not mention the fact that Abt had worked on Smith Act cases. They asked Abt if he believed that Oswald wanted him because he was an ACLU attorney....Abt pointed out that he was not an ACLU attorney and that was the end of the testimony. The Smith Act cases centered around prosecuting those who were advocating the overthrough of the government. It seems significant that the WC omitted what would be an advantagous fact about Oswald's choice for an attorney and made such a flagrant change to the fact of why Oswald wanted Abt. If, as I suppose, the U-2 incident had been staged to help Kennedy gain the presidency and Oswald was a "patsy" who had been used to stage that event, could he have believed the Smith Act had been violated by persons in power and that he could justify his act in a trial? Jim Root Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Root Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 Shanet Yes, Maxwell Taylor....... I differ with you on Colby slightly. Colby knew Walker from the Norway days in 1945. I think Colby realized what had happened on Nov. 22, 1963 and, although he never revealed anything, did get rid of Angleton and others when he had the chance. Jim Root Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian A. Kerr Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 (edited) "LHO knew of Abt because he (LHO) was either actively involved in, or seeking to involve himself in CPUSA/SWP politics. Since Abt was indelibly linked to both organizations, as was the law firm he worked for - Freedman, Unger, it 's easy to understand why he (LHO) knew of him.IMO, LHO's activities mirrored the kind of anti-communist, etc. activities that the FBI ( thru COINTELPRO and it's precursors ) DOJ, Easterland Committee, CIA etc were engaged in at the time. If one accepts that LHO was an instrument of some gov't sponsored program, and having just realized that he was set up as a patsy by the very organization he was working for, then given his (LHO's ) options ie. ) he was " officially " hung out to dry , he may well have believed that Abt was his only/best recourse." Ian I agree with your post....my point is that the Warren Commission Summary Report did not mention the fact that Abt had worked on Smith Act cases. They asked Abt if he believed that Oswald wanted him because he was an ACLU attorney....Abt pointed out that he was not an ACLU attorney and that was the end of the testimony. The Smith Act cases centered around prosecuting those who were advocating the overthrough of the government. It seems significant that the WC omitted what would be an advantagous fact about Oswald's choice for an attorney and made such a flagrant change to the fact of why Oswald wanted Abt. If, as I suppose, the U-2 incident had been staged to help Kennedy gain the presidency and Oswald was a "patsy" who had been used to stage that event, could he have believed the Smith Act had been violated by persons in power and that he could justify his act in a trial? Jim Root <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Jim, I see your point, although I'm more apt to ascribe that line of questioning to the fact that there was probably little perceived difference between the CP and ALCU at the time, especially in the minds of those formulating/asking questions. Was LHO seeking Abt's help because of his Smith Act anti-sedition defense connections , or was it simply his CPUSA connections ? . I can't say for sure, however once again I refer back to the type of activities that LHO was engaged in : his pro - Castro, Marxist ( anti-Leninist, anti-USSR ), which very much mirrored the rifts within the SWP and CPUSA at that time. IMO this is butressed by his speech to the Jesuits, wherein he actually make reference to seditious activities by elements within the US ( including CPUSA ) who were poised to cause or react to some ( ficticious ?) catastrophic homeland event. He makes the point in this speech to decry violent takeover. If LHO was working for some US intelligence agency , he was being hung out to dry and his options were severely limited . If he was a LNA, with a communist/seditious bent, the same is also true, although one would wonder that if you were of such strong conviction, why not just admit you did it for the cause ? History has shown that most assassins want/take responsibility for their crimes. Someone or some group conspired to assassinate JFK. Whoever they were, they arranged to frame LHO for the crime and prevent the organizations reponsible for investigating and prosecuting the perpetrator (s) from ever doing so properly ie.) without embarassing or incriminating themselves in the process. LHO was always the deadman walking. Since he was framed as a LNA, he was the only one who could have been expected to actively seek to, or have good reason to alter that perception. Ruby saw to it that that didn't happen.... Ian Edited November 24, 2004 by Ian A. Kerr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Root Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 Ian In my paper, to be posted on the 27th, Serendipity, I point out how the intelligence community could have used Oswald as an asset and covered it up with a truthfull statement in the WC Report. Words can be used to deceive while telling the truth (the whole "bodyguard of lies" thing). My own personal belief is that Oswald did not work for an intelligence agency but that he was used by both the US and Soviet networks to unwittingly pass and gain information from. The fact that he wished to defect to the Soviet Union made for a perfect "patsy" to be worked in this way. When he arrived in the Soviet Union they would quickly realize that he was not a "working" agent or an American trained agent, therfore the info he had passed must be true. The US problem came about when he returned....was he then a Soviet agent and how do we then monitor him? Please read http://edwardjayepstein.com/diary/angleton.htm If Oswald figured out that he had traveled from orchid to orchid and had been used to derail the Paris Peace Summit and perhaps help elect John F. Kennedy in so doing, then as you said, "If he was a LNA, with a communist/seditious bent, the same is also true, although one would wonder that if you were of such strong conviction, why not just admit you did it for the cause ? History has shown that most assassins want/take responsibility for their crimes." Which would give Oswald reason to want Abt, the Smith Act Attorney to act on his behalf as he did in fact defend his actions. Just a possibility...... Jim Root PS My first guess for the "someone" remains Maxwell Taylor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now