Paul Brancato Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 On 9/3/2017 at 6:31 PM, Jason Ward said: What benefit is gained by the CIA in assassinating JFK? Jason Jason, Trejo, or anyone else reading: did I say the CIA killed JFK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Ward Posted September 5, 2017 Author Share Posted September 5, 2017 4 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said: Jason, Trejo, or anyone else reading: did I say the CIA killed JFK? Paul, Apologies, I thought that's what you were implying. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Sawtelle Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 Well I can see your point that there is no benefit for the CIA in killing Kennedy. A lot of people spend a lot of time trying to prove the CIA did it even though it wasn't beneficial for them to do so...anyway, what is the benefit to Allen Dulles of killing Kennedy? Jason Money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 Thanks. My point is that, as Chuck said, there is no line between the so called radical right and certain elements of the national security state, such as the two joint chiefs I mentioned, or certain top level CIA like Angleton and Dulles, who was still functioning as de facto chief of CIA after JFK fired him. I support Trejo's point about the radical right, but don't draw the clear and in my opinion imaginary lines he insists on drawing between people in government and those outside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 28 minutes ago, Jason Ward said: Paul, Apologies, I thought that's what you were implying. Jason This is the Trejo Virus at work. He's been saying 50 times a day, for five years that everyone else's has been saying, for 50 years, that the CIA-did-it, but acknowledges that all the perps were CIA, but, of course, they are "rogue CIA", so it doesn't count. Pffffft Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 George - Allen Dulles didn't function outside of the chain of command, but rather inside it. You are right to ask what does someone gain, but miss the point that CIA and the JCS are part of a larger system Eisenhower called the Military Industrial Complex, who taken as a whole had everything to gain from US foreign policies designed to enrich them. JFK stood in opposition to all that, provably. It's a complete distraction and misnomer to use terms like CIA in a vacuum, as if it was just a bunch of individuals acting on their own behalf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Ward Posted September 5, 2017 Author Share Posted September 5, 2017 (edited) 7 hours ago, Paul Brancato said: Thanks. My point is that, as Chuck said, there is no line between the so called radical right and certain elements of the national security state, such as the two joint chiefs I mentioned, or certain top level CIA like Angleton and Dulles, who was still functioning as de facto chief of CIA after JFK fired him. I support Trejo's point about the radical right, but don't draw the clear and in my opinion imaginary lines he insists on drawing between people in government and those outside. Paul, I appreciate the distinction you make, which is that there is no distinction between the extreme civilian Right and the government security hawks. Everybody spends a lot of time arguing about evidentiary minutiae like Ruth Paine's typewriter or Oswald's ID card, but in my view this is pointless. The details that need clarity are around who precisely is steering the ship. For 50+ years the focus was on tactical details and operational explanations, while the prime movers are too often left as a formless anonymous entity like "the mafia" or "the CIA." It's time to pinpoint the director and producer of this story. As far as the cast, crew, and script - that is largely certain and the same across all CTs. The REAL argument between Paul and you is that he has a designated producer-director versus a committee or unknown leader. That's all. Paul says the family tree is largely the same as what everyone else says, but he has a named pinpointed Queen Bee and not a murky conspiratorial bureaucracy. The Radical Right had extreme wealth, advance knowledge of the assassination, and they had the STATED intent to kill JFK. No one else had all 3. The others - CIA, Cubans, Hoover, mafia, Dulles - participated in the cover-up for the same reason RFK did - but like RFK, their participation in the Lone Nut narrative certainly does not equate to guilt, in my view. Using post 22November behavior to "prove" pre-22November crime is all wrong. Jason Edited September 5, 2017 by Jason Ward Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Sawtelle Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 George - Allen Dulles didn't function outside of the chain of command, but rather inside it. You are right to ask what does someone gain, but miss the point that CIA and the JCS are part of a larger system Eisenhower called the Military Industrial Complex, who taken as a whole had everything to gain from US foreign policies designed to enrich them. JFK stood in opposition to all that, provably. It's a complete distraction and misnomer to use terms like CIA in a vacuum, as if it was just a bunch of individuals acting on their own behalf. Paul In the summer of 1963 Allen Dulles, outside of Sullivan and Cromwell, did not answer to anyone. He was the start and the end of the chain of command. IOWS, there was no chain of command for Allen Dulles. Only Eisenhower had any influence with Dulles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Sawtelle Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 I appreciate the distinction you make, which is that there is no distinction between the extreme civilian Right and the government security hawks. Everybody spends a lot of time arguing about evidentiary minutiae like Ruth Paine's typewriter or Oswald's ID card, but in my view this is pointless. The details that need clarity are around who precisely is steering the ship. For 50+ years the focus was on tactical details and operational explanations, while the prime movers are too often left as a formless anonymous entity like "the mafia" or "the CIA." It's time to pinpoint the director and producer of this story. As far as the cast, crew, and script - that is largely certain and the same across all CTs. The REAL argument between Paul and you is that he has a designated producer-director versus a committee or unknown leader. That's all. Paul says the family tree is largely the same as what everyone else says, but he has a named pinpointed Queen Bee and not a murky conspiratorial bureaucracy. The Radical Right had extreme wealth, advance knowledge of the assassination, and they had the STATED intent to kill JFK. No one else had all 3. The others - CIA, Cubans, Hoover, mafia, Dulles - participated in the cover-up for the same reason RFK did - but like RFK, their participation in the Lone Nut narrative certainly does not equate to guilt, in my view. Using post 22November behavior to "prove" pre-22November crime is all wrong. Jason Many had advanced knowledge of the assassination and by staying silent they are complicit in the assassination. Those who covered it up are complicit also. Plenty of blame to go around. But who ordered the hit on Kennedy is unknown at this time. Folks on this board want documentation. And there's probably good reason for that ... we have been savaged in the past by the MSM for theories that have been proven to be false. It hurts those who advance theories like Talbot's "Dulles did it". I've stated who I think ordered the hit on Kennedy without documentation. Dulles as the ringleader makes sense to me and I hope others think so also and continue to look at him. There maybe other researchers who can gain access to documentation that Talbot couldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Sawtelle Posted September 6, 2017 Share Posted September 6, 2017 Jason On the evening of 26 Sep 1963 three men appeared at Sylvia Odio's front door in Dallas. One was a tall cuban, Oswald was in the middle, shorter than the tall cuban, and the third was mexican looking fellow shorter than Oswald. The mexican looking individual was dark and spoke spanish. This man may have been Charles Rogers, who was short and dark, was known to use the alias of Montoya and spoke fluent Spanish. So instead of going to Mexico City we find Oswald in Dallas. This is significant because Kennedy's trip to Dallas was made public in mid-Sep 1963. It was confirmed by Antonio Veciana last year that Oswald and David Atlee Phillips were together in Dallas on or about 7 Sep 1963. It is assumed that Oswald returned to New Orleans after meeting with Phillips. We can further assume that Phillips was Oswald's handler. My question to you is this ... do you think Phillips, in Sep 1963, would be working with Allen Dulles or General Walker? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Ward Posted September 6, 2017 Author Share Posted September 6, 2017 (edited) 45 minutes ago, George Sawtelle said: Jason On the evening of 26 Sep 1963 three men appeared at Sylvia Odio's front door in Dallas. One was a tall cuban, Oswald was in the middle, shorter than the tall cuban, and the third was mexican looking fellow shorter than Oswald. The mexican looking individual was dark and spoke spanish. This man may have been Charles Rogers, who was short and dark, was known to use the alias of Montoya and spoke fluent Spanish. So instead of going to Mexico City we find Oswald in Dallas. This is significant because Kennedy's trip to Dallas was made public in mid-Sep 1963. It was confirmed by Antonio Veciana last year that Oswald and David Atlee Phillips were together in Dallas on or about 7 Sep 1963. It is assumed that Oswald returned to New Orleans after meeting with Phillips. We can further assume that Phillips was Oswald's handler. My question to you is this ... do you think Phillips, in Sep 1963, would be working with Allen Dulles or General Walker? Hi George, Thanks for the note. By the facts -or alleged facts- of your post I would of course say that Phillips would be more likely working with Dulles. Now, I imagine that whatever Phillips was doing, he wasn't reporting to Dulles. In any event, and this is important ***a meeting between Oswald and Phillips or anyone else DOES NOT mean the topic of discussion was assassinating JFK***. IMO this highlights the big problem with too many CTs, they fill in a lot of unknowns with complete speculation and a vivid imagination. 2+2 = 7. Unless you have evidence they discussed the assassination, or that Phillips wanted Kennedy dead, or that Oswald was in any way paid/hired by the CIA to assassinate Kennedy or perform any service on 22Nov - this alleged meeting between Phillips and Oswald was presumably about Cuba in my view. There is simply zero evidence that any high ups in the CIA or US government overall (like Dulles) had any desire to kill Kennedy. That's way too dangerous and the blowback could be catastrophic, including destruction of their beloved CIA. Imagined motives don't count for much in my book and the tinfoil hat brigade imagines half the world is angry with Kennedy enough to kill him. I'm only aware of one significant and consistently documented source insisting JFK had to die - the Radical Right. Political assassination in the US is not something well balanced, mainstream, politically savvy men like Dulles or Hoover get involved with. It's only extremists who literally believe JFK must die or the US will die instead. A politician is easily rendered impotent in any number of ways that doesn't risk a prison term. The assassination decade was the work of fanatics. thanks again for the polite discussion Jason Edited September 6, 2017 by Jason Ward Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Sawtelle Posted September 6, 2017 Share Posted September 6, 2017 Hi George, Thanks for the note. By the facts -or alleged facts- of your post I would of course say that Phillips would be more likely working with Dulles. Now, I imagine that whatever Phillips was doing, he wasn't reporting to Dulles. In any event, and this is important ***a meeting between Oswald and Phillips or anyone else DOES NOT mean the topic of discussion was assassinating JFK***. IMO this highlights the big problem with too many CTs, they fill in a lot of unknowns with complete speculation and a vivid imagination. 2+2 = 7. Unless you have evidence they discussed the assassination, or that Phillips wanted Kennedy dead, or that Oswald was in any way paid/hired by the CIA to assassinate Kennedy or perform any service on 22Nov - this alleged meeting between Phillips and Oswald was presumably about Cuba in my view. There is simply zero evidence that any high ups in the CIA or US government overall (like Dulles) had any desire to kill Kennedy. That's way too dangerous and the blowback could be catastrophic, including destruction of their beloved CIA. Imagined motives don't count for much in my book and the tinfoil hat brigade imagines half the world is angry with Kennedy enough to kill him. I'm only aware of one significant and consistently documented source insisting JFK had to die - the Radical Right. Political assassination in the US is not something well balanced, mainstream, politically savvy men like Dulles or Hoover get involved with. It's only extremists who literally believe JFK must die or the US will die instead. A politician is easily rendered impotent in any number of ways that doesn't risk a prison term. The assassination decade was the work of fanatics. thanks again for the polite discussion Jason Jason I said Phillips was Oswald's handler, thats all. I asked you who Phillips would work with, Dulles or Walker? You answered correctly. You said Dulles. Thank you. It's an important question because the answer possibly provides a link between Oswald and Dulles through their association with Phillips. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Ward Posted September 6, 2017 Author Share Posted September 6, 2017 (edited) 46 minutes ago, George Sawtelle said: Hi George, Thanks for the note. By the facts -or alleged facts- of your post I would of course say that Phillips would be more likely working with Dulles. Now, I imagine that whatever Phillips was doing, he wasn't reporting to Dulles. In any event, and this is important ***a meeting between Oswald and Phillips or anyone else DOES NOT mean the topic of discussion was assassinating JFK***. IMO this highlights the big problem with too many CTs, they fill in a lot of unknowns with complete speculation and a vivid imagination. 2+2 = 7. Unless you have evidence they discussed the assassination, or that Phillips wanted Kennedy dead, or that Oswald was in any way paid/hired by the CIA to assassinate Kennedy or perform any service on 22Nov - this alleged meeting between Phillips and Oswald was presumably about Cuba in my view. There is simply zero evidence that any high ups in the CIA or US government overall (like Dulles) had any desire to kill Kennedy. That's way too dangerous and the blowback could be catastrophic, including destruction of their beloved CIA. Imagined motives don't count for much in my book and the tinfoil hat brigade imagines half the world is angry with Kennedy enough to kill him. I'm only aware of one significant and consistently documented source insisting JFK had to die - the Radical Right. Political assassination in the US is not something well balanced, mainstream, politically savvy men like Dulles or Hoover get involved with. It's only extremists who literally believe JFK must die or the US will die instead. A politician is easily rendered impotent in any number of ways that doesn't risk a prison term. The assassination decade was the work of fanatics. thanks again for the polite discussion Jason Jason I said Phillips was Oswald's handler, thats all. I asked you who Phillips would work with, Dulles or Walker? You answered correctly. You said Dulles. Thank you. It's an important question because the answer possibly provides a link between Oswald and Dulles through their association with Phillips. Ok, again, thanks for the conversation. I do in fact remain very open to many ideas. If you feel Dulles is essential, point me to some sources. Not that you're interested, but perhaps we can learn something by seeing how others think about the assassination. For me I had about 4 essential phases: 1980s-1989. I read David Lifton's Best Evidence at the recommendation of one of my teachers sometime in this period. I'm sure you've read it or seen the highlight films - basically the big message I have is hearing the guy in Dallas say they loaded a heavy expensive ceremonial bronze shipping casket onto AF1, but the body arrived for autopsy in a plain utility casket commonly used to send fallen soldiers home from the battlefield. Now I know there's been a lot of back and forth and controversy with Lifton since his famous book, but this was phase one for me. 1990-1995 I had a slight acquaintance with Barr McClellan, Carole Keeton Rylander, Frank Ikard and Jim Mattox - all of whom said in various ways that Texans were the essential element in the assassination. Mattox in particular was often drunk so I wasn't 100% sold on what he said, but this angle did enter my thoughts because all these people were unfriendly with each other yet insisted on a few Texas-centric points to the JFK murder. Around this time I read Garrison's book and of course saw the movie JFK. My dad fell out off his chair at the cinema because he knew David Ferrie from Eastern. He found it totally impossible that Ferrie would be hired or trusted with anything essential and did not believe the CIA could use him for anything but one-off jobs of low level importance. His main point was that the CIA and FBI hated homosexuals, and truly thought they were deranged + untrustworthy + subject to extortion. . . . . . 1995-2016 I read most of the main books, followed some assassination newsletters, went to a few conferences, I met some of Ruby's strippers and other minor characters in Dallas. I started reading but not participating in this forum and a few others. In a nutshell I came to believe that the money, training, and motives that were invoked to get rid of Castro backfired and ended up killing Kennedy. The Texas angle that some political types had told me about in Austin was always in the back of my mind but I couldn't work it out. I have always strongly assumed the Walker shooting was either a PR stunt or a false flag operation, or both. 2016 - 2017: A professor friend of mine met Ruth Paine, talked for hours, and I listened in to the recording. She is not CIA - no way. She hinted without saying it in so many words that Dallas in the late 50s/early 60s was a violent extremist place with a local government and police force for sale to any who wanted to buy them off. Dallas was essential to the assassination happening the way it did, which followed to its logical conclusion means that Texans were the driving force here. I studied the other assassinations and quickly realized they are all in service of the same political objective. So here I am in the Radical Right camp - although I am not necessarily certain Walker is the lynchpin here as Paul Trejo. Anyway, I feel I've read up and down all the major theories. To me they miss motive and anticipated benefit (CIA theories) - or rely too much on the words of criminals (mafia theories) - or rely too much on the passion of anti-Castro feeling when in fact the Cubans are basically impotent and money-grubbing guys happy to stay in America and collect CIA cash for overselling their ability and passion to destroy Castro. So, perhaps you'll critique my thought history here or share your own journey that sees you focus on Dulles today? Jason Edited September 6, 2017 by Jason Ward Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Sawtelle Posted September 6, 2017 Share Posted September 6, 2017 Ok, again, thanks for the conversation. I do in fact remain very open to many ideas. If you feel Dulles is essential, point me to some sources. Not that you're interested, but perhaps we can learn something by seeing how others think about the assassination. For me I had about 4 essential phases: 1980s-1989. I read David Lifton's Best Evidence at the recommendation of one of my teachers sometime in this period. I'm sure you've read it or seen the highlight films - basically the big message I have is hearing the guy in Dallas say they loaded a heavy expensive ceremonial bronze shipping casket onto AF1, but the body arrived for autopsy in a plain utility casket commonly used to send fallen soldiers home from the battlefield. Now I know there's been a lot of back and forth and controversy with Lifton since his famous book, but this was phase one for me. 1990-1995 I had a slight acquaintance with Barr McClellan, Carole Keeton Rylander, Frank Ikard and Jim Mattox - all of whom said in various ways that Texans were the essential element in the assassination. Mattox in particular was often drunk so I wasn't 100% sold on what he said, but this angle did enter my thoughts because all these people were unfriendly with each other yet insisted on a few Texas-centric points to the JFK murder. Around this time I read Garrison's book and of course saw the movie JFK. My dad fell out off his chair at the cinema because he knew David Ferrie from Eastern. He found it totally impossible that Ferrie would be hired or trusted with anything essential and did not believe the CIA could use him for anything but one-off jobs of low level importance. His main point was that the CIA and FBI hated homosexuals, and truly thought they were deranged + untrustworthy + subject to extortion. . . . . . 1995-2016 I read most of the main books, followed some assassination newsletters, went to a few conferences, I met some of Ruby's strippers and other minor characters in Dallas. I started reading but not participating in this forum and a few others. In a nutshell I came to believe that the money, training, and motives that were invoked to get rid of Castro backfired and ended up killing Kennedy. The Texas angle that some political types had told me about in Austin was always in the back of my mind but I couldn't work it out. I have always strongly assumed the Walker shooting was either a PR stunt or a false flag operation, or both. 2016 - 2017: A professor friend of mine met Ruth Paine, talked for hours, and I listened in to the recording. She is not CIA - no way. She hinted without saying it in so many words that Dallas in the late 50s/early 60s was a violent extremist place with a local government and police force for sale to any who wanted to buy them off. Dallas was essential to the assassination happening the way it did, which followed to its logical conclusion means that Texans were the driving force here. I studied the other assassinations and quickly realized they are all in service of the same political objective. So here I am in the Radical Right camp - although I am not necessarily certain Walker is the lynchpin here as Paul Trejo. Anyway, I feel I've read up and down all the major theories. To me they miss motive and anticipated benefit (CIA theories) - or rely too much on the words of criminals (mafia theories) - or rely too much on the passion of anti-Castro feeling when in fact the Cubans are basically impotent and money-grubbing guys happy to stay in America and collect CIA cash for overselling their ability and passion to destroy Castro. So, perhaps you'll critique my thought history here or share your own journey that sees you focus on Dulles today? Jason You and I agree on several points. 1) A few Texans were involved 2) The New Orleans plot was a cover for the real plot 3) Ruth Paine was not CIA I believed Dulles was the CEO of the assassination before Talbot wrote his book "Devil's Chessboard". I was a member of Duncan's forum (a lone nut forum) and I posted several times that I thought Dulles was the CEO of the assassination. This was about 4-5 years ago when I began to seriously study the assassination. I was in high school when Kennedy was killed but I paid little attention to it and believed the Warren Commission's story. The first book I read on the subject was Jim Moore's book "Conspiracy of One". It opened my eyes to the fact that something was not right with the lone nut theory. Today I call Moore's book "A constipation of one". Two points turned my attention to Dulles. 1) Why was Kennedy killed? 2) The Alteration of the Zapruder film I believed Kennedy was killed because he and Castro had agreed on the terms for peacefull coexistence. I believe Dulles felt this was the last straw as he could never accept a communist country so close to the United States and the loss of his clients assets (clients of Sullivan and Cromwell). I believe the decision to kill Kennedy was made shortly after Lisa Howard was debriefed about her meeting with Castro approximately six months before the assassination. Dulles was in Wash DC when the Zapruder film was altered for the first time on the weekend of the assassination. The original was taken to Wash DC (NPIC CIA lab) so that someone could view the film and instruct technicians on what to alter. The alterations were directed by someone familiar with the details of the shooting i.e. the number of shooters and the number of shots. I believe it was Dulles who gave instructions on how to alter the film. The original film was supposedly sent to the NPIC so that briefing boards could be made. It's true, briefing boards were made but those briefing boards were never seen by anyone. Making the first briefing boards was just a charade and a cover for the real reason the original was sent to the NPIC. The real reason for sending the original film to the NPIC was so someone could view the original and`instruct technicians on what to change. Instructions on what to change were given to the agents who took the original to Hawkeye Works in Rochester NY where the original was altered. The altered original film was then sent back to the NPIC where a second set of briefing were made. These are the boards that were seen by others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Ward Posted September 6, 2017 Author Share Posted September 6, 2017 9 hours ago, George Sawtelle said: Ok, again, thanks for the conversation. I do in fact remain very open to many ideas. If you feel Dulles is essential, point me to some sources. Not that you're interested, but perhaps we can learn something by seeing how others think about the assassination. For me I had about 4 essential phases: 1980s-1989. I read David Lifton's Best Evidence at the recommendation of one of my teachers sometime in this period. I'm sure you've read it or seen the highlight films - basically the big message I have is hearing the guy in Dallas say they loaded a heavy expensive ceremonial bronze shipping casket onto AF1, but the body arrived for autopsy in a plain utility casket commonly used to send fallen soldiers home from the battlefield. Now I know there's been a lot of back and forth and controversy with Lifton since his famous book, but this was phase one for me. 1990-1995 I had a slight acquaintance with Barr McClellan, Carole Keeton Rylander, Frank Ikard and Jim Mattox - all of whom said in various ways that Texans were the essential element in the assassination. Mattox in particular was often drunk so I wasn't 100% sold on what he said, but this angle did enter my thoughts because all these people were unfriendly with each other yet insisted on a few Texas-centric points to the JFK murder. Around this time I read Garrison's book and of course saw the movie JFK. My dad fell out off his chair at the cinema because he knew David Ferrie from Eastern. He found it totally impossible that Ferrie would be hired or trusted with anything essential and did not believe the CIA could use him for anything but one-off jobs of low level importance. His main point was that the CIA and FBI hated homosexuals, and truly thought they were deranged + untrustworthy + subject to extortion. . . . . . 1995-2016 I read most of the main books, followed some assassination newsletters, went to a few conferences, I met some of Ruby's strippers and other minor characters in Dallas. I started reading but not participating in this forum and a few others. In a nutshell I came to believe that the money, training, and motives that were invoked to get rid of Castro backfired and ended up killing Kennedy. The Texas angle that some political types had told me about in Austin was always in the back of my mind but I couldn't work it out. I have always strongly assumed the Walker shooting was either a PR stunt or a false flag operation, or both. 2016 - 2017: A professor friend of mine met Ruth Paine, talked for hours, and I listened in to the recording. She is not CIA - no way. She hinted without saying it in so many words that Dallas in the late 50s/early 60s was a violent extremist place with a local government and police force for sale to any who wanted to buy them off. Dallas was essential to the assassination happening the way it did, which followed to its logical conclusion means that Texans were the driving force here. I studied the other assassinations and quickly realized they are all in service of the same political objective. So here I am in the Radical Right camp - although I am not necessarily certain Walker is the lynchpin here as Paul Trejo. Anyway, I feel I've read up and down all the major theories. To me they miss motive and anticipated benefit (CIA theories) - or rely too much on the words of criminals (mafia theories) - or rely too much on the passion of anti-Castro feeling when in fact the Cubans are basically impotent and money-grubbing guys happy to stay in America and collect CIA cash for overselling their ability and passion to destroy Castro. So, perhaps you'll critique my thought history here or share your own journey that sees you focus on Dulles today? Jason You and I agree on several points. 1) A few Texans were involved 2) The New Orleans plot was a cover for the real plot 3) Ruth Paine was not CIA I believed Dulles was the CEO of the assassination before Talbot wrote his book "Devil's Chessboard". I was a member of Duncan's forum (a lone nut forum) and I posted several times that I thought Dulles was the CEO of the assassination. This was about 4-5 years ago when I began to seriously study the assassination. I was in high school when Kennedy was killed but I paid little attention to it and believed the Warren Commission's story. The first book I read on the subject was Jim Moore's book "Conspiracy of One". It opened my eyes to the fact that something was not right with the lone nut theory. Today I call Moore's book "A constipation of one". Two points turned my attention to Dulles. 1) Why was Kennedy killed? 2) The Alteration of the Zapruder film I believed Kennedy was killed because he and Castro had agreed on the terms for peacefull coexistence. I believe Dulles felt this was the last straw as he could never accept a communist country so close to the United States and the loss of his clients assets (clients of Sullivan and Cromwell). I believe the decision to kill Kennedy was made shortly after Lisa Howard was debriefed about her meeting with Castro approximately six months before the assassination. Dulles was in Wash DC when the Zapruder film was altered for the first time on the weekend of the assassination. The original was taken to Wash DC (NPIC CIA lab) so that someone could view the film and instruct technicians on what to alter. The alterations were directed by someone familiar with the details of the shooting i.e. the number of shooters and the number of shots. I believe it was Dulles who gave instructions on how to alter the film. The original film was supposedly sent to the NPIC so that briefing boards could be made. It's true, briefing boards were made but those briefing boards were never seen by anyone. Making the first briefing boards was just a charade and a cover for the real reason the original was sent to the NPIC. The real reason for sending the original film to the NPIC was so someone could view the original and`instruct technicians on what to change. Instructions on what to change were given to the agents who took the original to Hawkeye Works in Rochester NY where the original was altered. The altered original film was then sent back to the NPIC where a second set of briefing were made. These are the boards that were seen by others. Quote George Thanks for the note. I will thumb through the Talbot book today so I can speak about it with more confidence. I've reviewed the allegations about altering the Zapruder film and I'm not really convinced - mainly because if they altered it they could have just destroyed it. That would have been much better and easier. I also think Dulles-Hoover-Helms-whoever could neutralize Kennedy without the sloppy mess of assassination. Jason 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