Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Three Prior Plots to kill JFK


James DiEugenio
 Share

Recommended Posts

I am posting this since its gotten some attention.  I think i had it up here before, but its worth looking at again, or if you did not read it, do so for the first time.

Paul Bleau does good work.  And I think this is really an important overview to understand what was really going on in 1963.  Whether these were dry runs or dress rehearsals or the real thing is not the main point IMO.  The main point is two fold:

1.) The similarity of the designs in the planning, especially Chicago. And

2.) Kennedy was begin stalked in 1963. There was no way he was going to get to run in 1964.  They knew he would win. And they did not want anymore of the guy.

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-three-failed-plots-to-kill-jfk-the-historians-guide-on-how-to-research-his-assassination

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 33
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The stand down is simply a JFK myth Ron,  it was something extensively explored by the ARRB.  Everyone should simply read the ARRB interview with Prouty on the subject.   I put all those ARRB documents on the 112th inquiry on a CD, its available from Lancer and I'll leave it at that...which I have here before but it never seems to stick...sigh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Some now include L.A. and Washington in the mix for potential sites, which I cant discount.  Tampa and Chicago are intriguing subjects but the Fort Hood Military stood down from protecting the president, under protest.  Why?

In the military files of JFK Collection at Archives, there is a very detail listing of who was to be active and those asked not to be used, Fort Hood Military was on the listing of not to be active, unless needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

The stand down is simply a JFK myth Ron,  it was something extensively explored by the ARRB.  Everyone should simply read the ARRB interview with Prouty on the subject.   I put all those ARRB documents on the 112th inquiry on a CD, its available from Lancer and I'll leave it at that...which I have here before but it never seems to stick...sigh.

Apologies for my ignorance Larry.  I've never read it was a myth, missed that post or topic.  I don't question what you say in any way.  I spent  about an hour looking here, googling, and looking at book indexes for multiple combinations of JFK Motorcade, protection, security, November 22 1963, Fort Hood, stand down and more and didn't even find what I thought I read years ago.  I.E. that a Colonel or Captain who was named (I thought) ready to leave with his troops early the morning of 11/22 protested vigorously  to his un named superior.  This is the education forum and I appreciate being re educated.  Googling ARRB Prouty interview finally I came across this enlightening (for me, though "old') and interesting thread.

 

Interesting how Mr. Root's opinion changes a bit over time.

Guess I need to go to Lancer and buy the CD.  Thanks to all there for your work over the years.

http://jfklancer.com/

Edited by Ron Bulman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Ron, its just one of those things....honestly at one point in time the purported stand down was just as interesting to me as dozens of other items that were circulating....of course back then the place to get such things was on the Compuserve JFK forum (which shows I have been doing this way too long..grin).  I pursued it as a lead for a good long time, as I did many of the others.  But it required digging deeply (from Lawson's meeting and security planning reports that I originally obtained a copy of from AMKW) on to a pretty extensive study of the 112th and records from NARA and ultimately on to the ARRB materials which sealed the deal, at least for me.  Lancer put all the documents I had obtained on CD and I'll edit in the link to the CD..

http://jfklancer.com/catalog/hancock/index.html

I would recommend the same diligence about of digging on Chicago as well,  I think I was the first one to actually put Vallees photo in a book, I obtained tons of documents on him, including both CPD and SS documents - some eleven years of follow up Secret Services interviews since he had ended up on a PRS list (arguably the dullest stuff I ever read, not to mention the cost).  Followed up all the more sensational leads related to Vallee, Oswald and Chicago and found the HSCA had as well.  Talked with some of Masen's relatives too. And again the ARRB documents on Chicago finally helped a great deal.  And then there was the Bolden story, which turned out to have the most legs of anything about Chicago.

All I'm really saying is that so many stories have been in play for so long that its hard not to get lost in them - it would be nice if the internet solved it all but at times it only makes it worse...

For a list of prior attempts, not necessarily related to Dallas, you should definitely have LA in the spring and DC in the fall....both demonstrating that more than one set of folks were at least considering an attack on JFK well before Dallas came into the picture.

 

 

Edited by Larry Hancock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"so many stories have been in play for so long that it's hard not to get lost in them".  Amen Sir.  Thanks for the link.

"Three - Prior - Plots"  Speculation (reasoned?) on my part.  A progressive Sequence of developing events? Not independent of each other?

   

Edited by Ron Bulman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron, the best that I can offer is that as Nagell describes, as early as the winter of 63/63 there were exiles flaming mad at JFK over the missile crisis settlement and they began talking and even plotting an attack on him...maybe one small group, perhaps two or three small groups over time with some of the same members.  First they tried the ex marine in LA and that didn't work, ultimately maneuvering Oswald towards DC,  they got on the FBI radar as a threat,  some went to Chicago and the FBI informed the SS and Bolden heard about that,  ultimately some may or may not have been pulled into the Dallas plot which I think specifically grew out of Miami and was incited by CIA officers carrying word of the backchannel Castro talks.  Does that make it "progressive",  sort of, were they all independent actions, hard to know without being absolutely certain of the names of those involved in all of them.  Dallas was the final action in a way, certainly JFK had been at risk virtually all year, increasingly so as time went on and later the Secret Service covered up that to a certain extent including destruction of files.  Just my opinion, obviously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying these were 100% rumor and innuendo.  But I'm having a hard time reconciling the IL and FL plots to what actually happened.

The reason is because according to Simpich's State Secret, someone impersonated Oswald and Duran when he supposedly was in MC.  We know that there was a plan to murder Castro and some how this plan was hijacked by possibly Morales.

If they knew many things already about the supposed patsy back in September, and they eventually steered him into the book building in October for a job to set him up as the patsy, and because they may already have had a plan with the police to drop fake evidence against him, I find it hard to believe that theses IL and FL plans were legitimate.

And the so-called "stalking" of Kennedy seems far-fetched to me.  And now I'm reading that LA and even DC had big plans as well?  It seems like this is getting a little bit out of hand here.

Edited by Michael Walton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, if you take a close look at my post you will not see any discussion of "big plans"....as to "getting out of hand", the history of the period is quite complex, with agendas and cliques changing almost month by month.  I think I document those changes pretty well in both Someone Would Have Talked and NEXUS - you will certainly find more than rumor and innuendo there....and I'm pretty sure my friend Bill would agree that State Secret only tackles part of the larger context for what happened in Dallas.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎17‎.‎09‎.‎2017 at 3:35 PM, Michael Walton said:

I'm not saying these were 100% rumor and innuendo.  But I'm having a hard time reconciling the IL and FL plots to what actually happened.

Hello Michael,

if you compare the backgrounds of both Oswald and Gilberto Lopez you'll find striking similarities:

On ‎01‎.‎09‎.‎2017 at 8:44 PM, Sandy Larsen said:


Mathias,

Do you therefore believe that the other plots had their Mexico Cities?

 

Sandy,

yes, I think that is possible, at least in the case of Lopez:

"Like Oswald, Lopez was also of interest to Naval Intelligence. Also similar to Oswald, Gilberto Lopez made a mysterious trip to Mexico City in the fall of 1963, attempting to get to Cuba. Lopez even used the same border crossing as Oswald, and government reports say both went by car, though neither man owned a car. Like Oswald, Lopez had recently separated from his wife and had gotten into a fist-fight in the summer of 1963 over supposedly pro-Castro sympathies.

Declassified Warren Commission and CIA documents confirm that Lopez, whose movements parallel Oswald in so many ways in 1963, was on a secret "mission" for the US involving Cuba, an "operation" so secret that the CIA felt that protecting it was considered more important than thoroughly investigating the JFK assassination. Our high Florida law-enforcement source confirmed that Lopez was an asset for another agency, though he did not say whether Lopez was a "witting" or "unwitting" asset)."

--> Ultimate Sacrifice, page 305

"Oswald was linked to Lopez via Informant reports of a visit by Oswald to Tampa and someone with its small Fair Play for Cuba Committe chapter, the same Group Lopez visited on November 17,1963, the day before JFK's Tampa trip."

--> page 307

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Larry - could you address a point I keep making on various threads with no response? Backdrop - Cubans and their American handlers were hopping mad at JFK, though their real target was Castro. They wanted Castro out, dead or alive. 

Why would they, if they were behind the assassination of JFK, think that killing JFK was their best option? Wouldn't a failed attempt, perpetrated by a Castro sympathizer be good enough?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...