Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

[Jason Ward]

8 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

I would quibble with your statement that CIA or military officials were secure. JFK already demonstrated that they weren't. LBJ surely didn't feel secure. 

Yes, and you have something of a legitimate quibble.  

Now, keeping in mind these are the most calculating men in government, you think they are willing to risk the electric chair rather than get fired by Kennedy and face life as a corporate board member, media pundit, college professor, or book author?

Yes, Kennedy might have caused them to fear for their jobs.  Firing Dulles does not cause Dulles to think the electric chair is a reasonable risk.  No one in this set is irrational: Killing Kennedy by his underlings irrationally risks their own death or life in prison.  They had nothing to gain and their lives to lose.

 

Jason

Edited October 10, 2017 by Jason Ward

[Paul Brancato]

Jason - I think you underestimate the self-righteousness of people like Dulles. Others on the forum, and you too, have argued that conspiracies that work are by design and necessity small, that there is more safety that way. I think this conspiracy (this is just a personal surmise on my part) was large, that safety in numbers was the operable principle, and that they felt protected by their shared belief that they were doing the right thing for the country by eliminating JFK. 

[Jason Ward]

4 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Jason - I think you underestimate the self-righteousness of people like Dulles. Others on the forum, and you too, have argued that conspiracies that work are by design and necessity small, that there is more safety that way. I think this conspiracy (this is just a personal surmise on my part) was large, that safety in numbers was the operable principle, and that they felt protected by their shared belief that they were doing the right thing for the country by eliminating JFK. 

Hi Paul,

What you're saying is fine by me as an opinion and I can't really argue that you're wrong because I'm not aware of any evidence for or against what you say here.

Even if these guys are as self righteous as you say, nothing in the world would cause guys like Dulles and Hoover to risk their lives and their respective life's work in building the CIA and FBI.  Killing Kennedy means risking both themselves and their beloved organizations.  They'd never do it.  Even if they were certain killing JFK was the best thing for America, they'd never do it - these guys put their own interests as high or higher than the nation's.  IMO.

 

regards

Jason

[George Sawtelle]

Jason

"Firing Dulles does not cause Dulles to think the electric chair is a reasonable risk."

Your speculation or do you have documentation?

[David Andrews]

Jason - you have no idea of the entitlement felt and fostered at CIA.  Ted Shackley is quoted as sneering at JFK after his death because JFK - who was only the POTUS - demanded photographic proof that there were Russian missiles in Cuba.  Dulles, who as an attorney worked for the Eastern money establishment, and for corporations like United Fruit that overthrew Central American republics, was not going to be dissuaded by a firing, when he could run an assassination plot from his home and from access permitted him to The Farm.  No one at CIA shut him out.  And the assassination was in the interests of the money powers Dulles had worked for since his youth.

Edited October 10, 2017 by David Andrews

[Mathias Baumann]

12 hours ago, Jason Ward said:

Yes, and you have something of a legitimate quibble.  

Now, keeping in mind these are the most calculating men in government, you think they are willing to risk the electric chair rather than get fired by Kennedy and face life as a corporate board member, media pundit, college professor, or book author?

Yes, Kennedy might have caused them to fear for their jobs.  Firing Dulles does not cause Dulles to think the electric chair is a reasonable risk.  No one in this set is irrational: Killing Kennedy by his underlings irrationally risks their own death or life in prison.  They had nothing to gain and their lives to lose.

 

Jason

Jason,

Some People had already lost their jobs because of Kennedy. And some were so radically anti-Communist that they saw the Soviet Union as a bigger threat than even Nazi Germany. I'm talking about people like Allen Dulles who cared more about helping his Nazi friends hide their loot than about the Jews being gassed in Auschwitz.

Now Allen Dulles could just have enjoyed his retirement when Kennedy fired him - but instead he kept meeting his old friends and even took the job to sit on the Warren Commission - and then covered up the truth).

I'm not saying that Allen Dulles was the mastermind behind the JFK assassination (although I think that's possible. What I mean to say is that I think there were a lot of people in the CIA or other government organziations who really saw Communism as a mortal threat to Western civilization.

And that is exactly why it is so important to understand the events in Mexico City. By linking Oswald to the Soviets and the Cubans the plotters made sure there would be no honest Investigation and thus no risk of exposure.

[Paul Brancato]

1 hour ago, David Andrews said:

Jason - you have no idea of the entitlement felt and fostered at CIA.  Ted Shackley is quoted as sneering at JFK after his death because JFK - who was only the POTUS - demanded photographic proof that there were Russian missiles in Cuba.  Dulles, who as an attorney worked for the Eastern money establishment, and for corporations like United Fruit that overthrew Central American republics, was not going to be dissuaded by a firing, when he could run an assassination plot from his home and from access permitted him to The Farm.  No one at CIA shut him out.  And the assassination was in the interests of the money powers Dulles had worked for since his youth.

Couldn't have expressed it better. Jason seems to not put any weight on the history of guys like Dulles and Shackley (both of them up to their eyeballs with 'ex' Nazis), or understand the connection between big money and US projection of power - military and intelligence. David - how much distance do you think exists ideologically between the ultra right - people like HL Hunt, General Walker, Bannister - and guys like Curtis LeMay, James Angleton, Hoover, Dulles? 

[Paul Brancato]

11 hours ago, Jason Ward said:

Hi Paul,

What you're saying is fine by me as an opinion and I can't really argue that you're wrong because I'm not aware of any evidence for or against what you say here.

Even if these guys are as self righteous as you say, nothing in the world would cause guys like Dulles and Hoover to risk their lives and their respective life's work in building the CIA and FBI.  Killing Kennedy means risking both themselves and their beloved organizations.  They'd never do it.  Even if they were certain killing JFK was the best thing for America, they'd never do it - these guys put their own interests as high or higher than the nation's.  IMO.

 

regards

Jason

We can agree that we have a difference of opinion, and there's no sense in arguing about that. I remain interested in documents, whether CIA or other. 

[Joe Bauer]

The idea of even considering certain competing power groups and individuals in our own political, military and agency government being a party to the JFK event ( and perhaps the RFK and MLK ones ) is a psychological line most Americans find so disturbing and unsettling to cross, I think that generally, most simply avoid the whole contemplation.  

Dulles, Hoover, LBJ, Cord Meyer, Angleton and top generals and others, all agreeing to the violent removal of a sitting President in broad daylight and in front of large crowds of bystanders? Exploding JFK's head into a shower of blood, brains and bones within inches of his wife's face?

No...No.  That would be a psychological and reality paradigm shift simply too frightening to accept and "having to deal with."

How could or would we as a nation handle such a scenario if it were true?  Would we have to declare a kind of Marshall Law where new military and political leaders would be instantly appointed by Congress to take control and suspend our regular government and arrest all of those high ranking people and deal with their perhaps violent loyalists? This would make Watergate seem like kids play.

Even today, to imagine that many top American government leaders may have had prior knowledge of and, in the least through non-preventative action, allowed the violent removal of a sitting president is still too much to contemplate for most.

But, what keeps this almost unbelievable yet nagging suspicion from disappearing completely are the frightening but true realities that we have had covert agendas that were carried out that included eliminating leaders of other countries ( even democratically elected ones ) who these same leaders in our country considered serious threats to our own national interests. And throw in domestic threat individuals like Malcom X as well.

We can accept the reality of these killings being planned, ordered and implemented, but going so far as our own president?  No...can't go there.

To me, Nixon's cryptic reference to LBJ  not being willing to accept being "number two" to a degree that Nixon left suggestively open ( we know what he was implying) just adds to my believe that LBJ "was" a person capable of encouraging the unspeakable.

And when you have mad dogs with means available who had convinced themselves that JFK was "scum" and a traitor to his country and that Mafia characters like Johnny Roselli were more patriotic than JFK and more worthy of respect, the unspeakable becomes just that more believable...IMO.

Edited October 11, 2017 by Joe Bauer

[Paul Brancato]

1 hour ago, Joe Bauer said:

The idea of even considering certain competing power groups and individuals in our own political, military and agency government being a party to the JFK event ( and perhaps the RFK and MLK ones ) is a psychological line most Americans find so disturbing and unsettling to cross, I think that generally, most simply avoid the whole contemplation.  

Dulles, Hoover, LBJ, Cord Meyer, Angleton and top generals and others, all agreeing to the violent removal of a sitting President in broad daylight and in front of large crowds of bystanders? Exploding JFK's head into a shower of blood, brains and bones within inches of his wife's face?

No...No.  That would be a psychological and reality paradigm shift simply too frightening to accept and "having to deal with."

How could or would we as a nation handle such a scenario if it were true?  Would we have to declare a kind of Marshall Law where new military and political leaders would be instantly appointed by Congress to take control and suspend our regular government and arrest all of those high ranking people and deal with their perhaps violent loyalists? This would make Watergate seem like kids play.

Even today, to imagine that many top American government leaders allowing the violent removal of a sitting is still too much to contemplate for most.

But, what keeps this almost unbelievable yet nagging suspicion from disappearing completely are the frightening but true realities that we have had covert agendas that were carried out that included eliminating leaders of other countries ( even democratically elected ones ) who these same leaders in our country considered serious threats to our own national interests. And throw in domestic threat individuals like Malcom X as well.

We can accept the planning and ordering and implementing of these killings, but going so far as our own president?  No..can't go there.

To me, Nixon's cryptic reference to LBJ  not being willing to accept being "number two" to a degree that Nixon left suggestively open ( we know what he was implying) just adds to my believe that LBJ was a person capable of encouraging the unspeakable.

And when you have mad dogs available who had convinced themselves that JFK was "scum" and a traitor to his country and that Mafia characters like Johnny Roselli were more patriotic than JFK and more worthy of respect, the unspeakable becomes just that more believable...IMO.

Throw in the assassinations of RFK and MLK in similarly spectacular displays and with continuing disastrous results, a near mortal wounding of the body politic. I find myself unable to avoid connecting those dots, and so I look for clues rather than proofs, argue against those who demand written evidence of my basic supposition, and stand guard when theories are put forth that don't account for this continuum of events which undermined our attempts to move away from Cold and Hot wars, and instead strengthened the hand of profiteers and warmongers who continue to thwart the will of ordinary citizens. 

[Joe Bauer]

For those who can't even handle thinking about the possibility of JFK and possibly RFK and MLK being taken out by domestic forces, you want to ask them if they are aware of the assassinations of other top political leaders in history by competing elements in these leader's own societies and countries, and if they can accept those events as reality, why not JFK's...or RFK's or MLK's?

Abraham Lincoln's assassination was like JFK's.  Done in a public place in front of many others.

There have always been legitimate questions and suspicions that others were involved in Lincoln's death besides the ones we have been told were responsible.  In the least by providing funding and most importantly, perhaps perpetrated by insiders, providing logistics and a lack of adequate security for Lincoln when talk of his killing was so real and rampant at that time.

Planning deniability and keeping the actual killing action and set-up perps separated from the real powers who made it happen is a craft finally honed well before Lincoln.

We all know the Mafia ( fourth or fifth most powerful group in America in 1963) could and would take out an adversarial sitting president without blinking if they thought they could get away with it.  Join them with other equally powerful groups with the same sentiments ... and you might have the real makings of the unspeakable.

According to May Newman ( Murchison family seamstress and companion the day JFK was shot) the Murchison family celebrated JFK's slaughter with "champagne and caviar flowed for like a week after."  I believe Newman's account. It shows that very powerful oil men ( world's richest at the time) and who considered JFK a serious threat to their personal wealth interests,  were not just unmoved by JFK's brutal slaying in his wife's face, they celebrated it!  As I am sure many other JFK hating people in powerful positions of our society and government did also.

This JFK hating multi-power group sentiment and means to violently remove JFK was indeed real. No disputing or arguing against that reality.

However, did this potential become reality?  That is the ultimate question. 

If it wasn't the reality, then I suppose we should all just move on and start looking to find more fun and joy and trust in our lives and our children's and grandkid's lives. 

If it "was" the reality of who killed JFK...and somehow, someday we discover this to be the truth...our entire nation will have to go through a very gut wrenching period of tough reckoning. 

 

 

Edited October 10, 2017 by Joe Bauer

[Joe Bauer]

Throw in the assassinations of RFK and MLK in similarly spectacular displays and with continuing disastrous results, a near mortal wounding of the body politic. I find myself unable to avoid connecting those dots, and so I look for clues rather than proofs, argue against those who demand written evidence of my basic supposition, and stand guard when theories are put forth that don't account for this continuum of events which undermined our attempts to move away from Cold and Hot wars, and instead strengthened the hand of profiteers and warmongers who continue to thwart the will of ordinary citizens. 

Paul, yes, a "near mortal wounding of the body politic" after those three killings is one of the most concise and coherent propositions I have read.

Our collective political trust mind set went dark through and after those tragic killings.

We've never been the same since.  Very tentative trusting - that's for sure.

Paul, many would classify Trump as the ultimate "profiteer."  Do you agree?

[Andrej Stancak]

An interesting discussion. I think the assassination plot was elaborate. There were multiple shooters in Dealay Plaza, and an advance planning of a cover-up. This cannot be achieved by a handful of people.

How did the plotters come together? First, there surely was no paper trail left which would document the plotter’s decisions and deals. Even after all JFK documents are released in about three-week time, it is unlikely that they would contain any decisive evidence of a plot. There is no such evidence because it never existed in the first place.

So, how did the plotters succeed to put all together? The question is who and how would be invited to take part in the assassination plot. 

 A person could be invited to the plot:

1. If he or she had an influence on some of the essential components of the plot, such as manipulating Lee Harvey Oswald, deciding about the motorcade route, knowing about his rifle, covering up physical evidence, or recruiting the shooters.

2. If the person had previous contacts with the chief plotters. Only people who talked together and had a history of financial, political or intelligence collaboration on a personal basis would be invited. Organising together the Bay of Pigs invasion or training anti-Castro Cubans, or having tampered together the election results are good examples of a collaboration justifying an invitation to the plot. A past collaboration resulted in unconditioned trust which was necessary for conducting the operation. It is therefore very important to untangle the deep personal connections between the potential plotters. Only those people having the right personal history could take part.

3. If a plotter having influence in a specific part of the plot was also able to cover up his steps on the fly.

4. None of the plotters did anything which s/he could not defend later based on the ground of a likely-looking and innocent statement, or by pointing to other people who in turn had pointed to still other people. The individual responsibility of a plotter was therefore impossible to trace, and his or her role often appeared senseless. In essence, the small but important plotters were innocent and later even believed it.

The Umbrella man is a good example. Or, Mrs. Paine found a job for Lee Harvey Oswald in the Book Depository just five weeks prior to the assassination. However, Mrs. Paine claimed that she has gotten an echo from Mrs. Randle, who in turn learned from Buell Wesley Frazier. Buell was a nineteen year old boy who came to Dallas recently. Somehow, it evaporated here.

5. If a plotter was able to do as little as possible towards the final success of the operation, and could disappear soon enough and far enough to be able to escape any suspicion.

George De Mohrenschildt is a good example. Mohrenschildt was overseeing Oswalds for about a year and left for Haiti after transferring Oswalds to Mrs. Ruth Paine. His role was to learn about Lee and Marina’s vulnerabilities and to incite Lee politically. De Mohrenschidt did not have any contacts with Lee Harvey Oswald after April 1963. After the assassination, the time elapsing between the assassination and his separation from Oswalds gave him good grounds for playing a role of not more than an interesting witness.

6.   If there would be no paper trail allowing to prove later involvement of a particular person in the plot.

 The plotters did not need to communicate too much. If they did, it would be on a personal basis and by using coded phrases or allusions. This is a sample fiction conversation between an intermediate level plotter and someone in position to influence Kennedy’s programme in Dallas.

“Would you agree that Johnson would be a better president than Kennedy?

“Sure. I hate Catholics who will be going to ask the Pope what to do. He does not understand that Negros will spoil Texas forever. He makes us an easy prey to the Communists who are systematically encircling us.

“It can happen.”

“Can it?”

“Yes, but only if good countrymen like yourself would help”.

“Shoot.”

“It is a minor but important thing. Kennedy’s luncheon meeting in November needs to take place in Trade Mart and nowhere else.”

“I will see to it”.

“Thanks. Forget we ever talked. No one will speak to you from now on. Just do your job and get him the best venue possible in Dallas”.

7. If plotters contributing to different and non-overlapping tasks would know nothing about each other.

 The FBI and the Police department showed a genuine animosity in the aftermath of the assassination. This was all right. Any signs of collusion between the two institutions would raise a great deal of suspicion of an institutional plot. A phone call from the White House to Captain Fritz asking him to stop the investigation, which Fritz obliged, is another good example. Thanks to the phone calls from Johnson’s aids, it looked that Fritz had stopped the investigation not because he wanted but because he was forced. To return the favor, Fritz would not say any details about his calls with the White House. The people just played some roles which did not make them culpable at all.

I hope it makes some sense.

 

 

[Jason Ward]

13 hours ago, George Sawtelle said:

Jason

"Firing Dulles does not cause Dulles to think the electric chair is a reasonable risk."

Your speculation or do you have documentation?

Dulles is a well educated wealthy men with zero history of murder or any other serious crime.

Take Criminology 101.  Read Mindhunter by John Douglas or any of his other books.  

Read anything by Robert Ressler.

... no one kills their boss at age 70 who isn't already a criminal.  No one becomes a murderer at age 70.  A 70 year old killer has a long history of murder and violent crime.  Dulles has nothing of the sort.

A major problem with Conspiracy Theorists is that they don't bother to study criminology, murder, criminal investigation, motive, and evidence outside of the assasination.  

There is zero history of someone like Dulles killing the president and risking his own life to kill his boss in 200+ years of the American story.  There is no evidence whatsoever that men like Dulles lack basic morality and regard for their own life as you suggest - he would have to be wildly atypical to kill the president as you imagine.  Such imaginary men literally do not exist in our history.   He has every bit the same aversion to murder and fear of the electric chair as every other socialized healthy American until evidence is shown to the contrary - in my book.

If Dulles wants LBJ as president he forces Kennedy to resign in a political scandal like what was done to Nixon; he snares him with sexual entrapment; or conjures up an international event designed to fail Kennedy out of office.  The bloody fireworks show of Dallas with it's roulette wheel of success is in no way the proven method of calculating, precise men like Dulles.  

Dallas was an act of desperation performed by men with no other way to influence the occupant of the White House, authored by men who were willing to gamble everything.   That's not Dulles.

 

Jason

Edited October 11, 2017 by Jason Ward

[Jason Ward]

10 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

We can agree that we have a difference of opinion, and there's no sense in arguing about that. I remain interested in documents, whether CIA or other. 

Good.

I'll continue to post the evidence as I find it and share my opinion from time to time - although we have too many opinions and not enough raw evidence here.  In part to show that I don't cherry pick evidence that helps Paul Trejo or which helps defeat the Dulles-CIA-did-it crowd, here's something I just found that probably helps the classic 50 year old Garrison version of the assassination:

[TS = Tad Szulc]

 

Edited October 11, 2017 by Jason Ward