JFK Conspiracy for Younger Generations

[Paul Brancato]

Cliff - what’s your explanation for why we never invaded Cuba? Are you saying the plotters changed their minds? Or perhaps, as I believe, it was never their actual goal.

[Cliff Varnell]

Just now, Paul Brancato said:

Cliff - what’s your explanation for why we never invaded Cuba? Are you saying the plotters changed their minds? Or perhaps, as I believe, it was never their actual goal.

How could they claim to the world that Oswald was an agent of Fidel and the KGB when he was alive and declaring his innocence?

 

[Jim Hargrove]

39 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Cliff - what’s your explanation for why we never invaded Cuba? Are you saying the plotters changed their minds? Or perhaps, as I believe, it was never their actual goal.

Paul,

I think LBJ put the kibosh on a Cuban invasion when he ordered the cover-up.   If the plotters didn’t want to invade Cuba, what was the point of the whole FPCC charade in New Orleans? How do you explain all those lies by David Atlee Phillips immediately after the hit?  And why to this day do so many “Kennedy assassination researchers,” at least the ones allowed to pontificate in main stream news outlets (Philip Shenon comes to mind) still try to blame Castro for the hit?

If it wasn't to provoke an invasion of Cuba, what do you think was the actual goal of the plotters?
 

[Ron Bulman]

JMO.  JFK was taken out because of seeking peace with the USSR/an end to the cold war, Vietnam, anti colonial policies, economic policies like printing U S govt. backed money/trying to eliminate the oil depletion allowance and more.  For not towing the line for the power elite/CFR.  Invading Cuba was a pretext spread around to deflect suspicion from the real reasons for the hit and from the upper level plotters.  Rumors of a invasion after JFK was dead before it happened would have placated the anti-Castro Cubans and they would have spread the rumor within the disinformation among themselves.  It would have done the same for many mid and lower level CIA people, all those guys who fell for the Lie Dulles sold after he was fired about JFK holding back the air strikes at the Bay of Pigs.  Further, the mafia would have been on board to help any way they could, between RFK going after them and thinking maybe they could finally get their Cuban casino's back.

But when Oswald was caught alive and his Russian defection / "Communism" came out, then the rumors about Castro being involved led to the possibility of a nuclear war with the Ruskie's, even the mafia didn't want that. (even though many higher up in the organization may have figured out what happened, they were in no position to push for an invasion at that point) 

[Sandy Larsen]

18 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Paul, Sandy, Robert

Let's game this out.

The news that Oswald had lived in Russia broke at 4:25 pm EST.  Harriman was glued to the TV.  He was going to leave for Andrews AFB within a half an hour.  At that point all that was known was that Kennedy and a police officer were murdered, and an ex-Marine who'd lived in Russia was in custody.

How many "top Kremlinologists" or "other sources" could Harriman contact in less than half an hour?

We're supposed to believe that there was a consensus on Soviet innocence formed without any meaningful deliberation or investigation?

Do you guys actually buy that scenario?

 

I think it's possible that there was talk among LBJ, Harriman, Bundy and others that the plot might have been a communist one. I think it's possible that one of them -- and I'm favoring Harriman for this role -- had serious doubts that a world power would be behind the assassination of another world power's leader, and conveyed those doubts to the others. And that the others would then see the folly in that idea and also the danger in allowing rumors like that to be believed by the public.

I think it's possible that when Harriman recollected how it was decided there was no communist plot, he fibbed by saying what he did about top Kremlinologists rather than reveal that it was just his idea. (Though I do believe that the top Kremlinologists would have agreed with Harriman.)

Not that your theory is without merit, Cliff. But for me to more seriously consider it, I would like to know what motive Harriman might have had to be in on the plot. And I can't think of any.

 

[Paul Brancato]

14 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Paul,

I think LBJ put the kibosh on a Cuban invasion when he ordered the cover-up.   If the plotters didn’t want to invade Cuba, what was the point of the whole FPCC charade in New Orleans? How do you explain all those lies by David Atlee Phillips immediately after the hit?  And why to this day do so many “Kennedy assassination researchers,” at least the ones allowed to pontificate in main stream news outlets (Philip Shenon comes to mind) still try to blame Castro for the hit?

If it wasn't to provoke an invasion of Cuba, what do you think was the actual goal of the plotters?
 

I think Ron answered your question to me very well. I could imagine two plots. The first to blame an assassination attempt (unsuccessful) on Castro, the second to use the attempt as cover to stage a real assassination for reasons of state beyond Cuba. 

[Joe Bauer]

Wouldn't the assassination of your main adversary's leader be the ultimate act of war ( equivalent to bombing Pearl Harbor) if Russia were actually found to be behind the JFK assassination?

Does anyone in their right, logical and common sense mind think we would have done "nothing" to punish the Russians and/or Castro ( as we did ) if we TRULY BELIEVED they were behind this?

Of course we wouldn't want nuclear war but the hawks like Lemnitzer and LeMay in our highest JCS command would have been clamoring for at least some response if they believed Castro or Russia were truly the culprits.

The Russians and Castro would not have taken such an insane act of war risk like this imo , especially using such a character like LHO whose public recorded activities, words and pictures were so "overly incriminating" in his pro-Russia/Castro sentiments it was laughable.

Oswald couldn't be more Russia/Castro incriminating if he wore a Cossack cap and a "Hammer and Sickle" or "I Love Castro" T-shirt to work everyday and broke out in the traditional Russian "squat and kick" dance on his breaks!

JFK was hated much, much more by adversarial power groups "in his own country" than the Russians and Castro for sure. Truly to murderous degrees.

JFK was more of a life and death threat to these domestic groups than he was to Russia and Castro.

You name the groups ... White Council ( Joseph Milteer, Guy Bannister ) anti-communist obsessed nut cases, Texas oil, The Mob, our own provocative covert agents ( Bill Harvey's wife expressed this so perversely "JFK and Jackie were scum" ) and who would hate JFK and RFK  more that Carlos Marcello and General Walker whom the Kennedy's dumped in another country and committed to a mental institution?

And LBJ and Hoover and Dulles. All of whom were facing certain career banishment ( LBJ jail time ) with JFK and RFK remaining in power?

In my opinion, LBJ was very capable of going along with a plan as extreme as murder in regards to his greatest political and personal enemies.  I will always believe LBJ had ordered murders before JFK that were carried out to protect his wealth and power.

LBJ was as ruthless as any Mafia Godfather in my opinion in this regards.

And with help from Hoover ( another totally corrupted political power figure that hated JFK & RFK ) and whom LBJ was extremely close to personally ( "you and I are like brothers") you've got the perfect duo to cover up the deed.

The JFK assassination was a domestic plan versus a foreign one based on the facts of case clearly explaining who had more to gain or lose by it's implementation and our military, economic and covert response after.

 

 

Edited June 24, 2019 by Joe Bauer

[Cliff Varnell]

3 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

Wouldn't the assassination of your main adversary's leader be the ultimate act of war ( equivalent to bombing Pearl Harbor) if Russia were actually found to be behind the JFK assassination?

Does anyone in their right, logical and common sense mind think we would have done "nothing" to punish the Russians and/or Castro ( as we did ) if we TRULY BELIEVED they were behind this?

Of course we wouldn't want nuclear war but the hawks like Lemnitzer and LeMay in our highest JCS command would have been clamoring for at least some response if they believed Castro or Russia were truly the culprits.

The Russians and Castro would not have taken such an insane act of war risk like this imo , especially using such a character like LHO whose public recorded activities, words and pictures were so "overly incriminating" in his pro-Russia/Castro sentiments it was laughable.

Oswald couldn't be more incriminated if he wore a Ushanka cap and a red with yellow "Hammer and Sickle" or "I Love Castro" T-shirt to work everyday and broke out in the traditional Russian "squat and kick" dance on his breaks!

JFK was hated much, much more by adversarial power groups "in his own country" than the Russians and Castro for sure. Truly to murderous degrees.

JFK was more of a life and death threat to these domestic groups than he was to Russia and Castro.

You name the groups ... White Council ( Joseph Milteer, Guy Bannister ) anti-communist obsessed nut cases, Texas oil, The Mob, our own provocative agents ( Bill Harvey's wife expressed this so eloquently "JFK and Jackie were scum" ) and who would hate JFK and RFK  more that Carlos Marcello and General Walker whom the Kennedy's dumped in another country and committed to a mental institution?

And LBJ and Hoover and Dulles. All of whom were facing certain career banishment ( LBJ jail time ) with JFK and RFK remaining in power?

In my opinion, LBJ was very capable of going along with a plan as extreme as murder in regards to his greatest political and personal enemies.  I will always believe LBJ had ordered murders before JFK that were carried out to protect his wealth and power.

LBJ was as ruthless as any Mafia Godfather in my opinion in this regards.

And with help from Hoover ( another totally corrupted political power figure that hated JFK & RFK ) and whom LBJ was extremely close to personally ( "you and I are like brothers") you've got the perfect duo to cover up the deed.

The JFK assassination was a domestic plan versus a foreign one based on the facts of case clearly explaining who had more to gain or lose by it's implementation and our military, economic and covert response after.

I don't disagree with your analysis, Joe, I'm only pointing out that a half an hour isn't sufficient time to conduct such weighty deliberations among multiple  principles.

[Cliff Varnell]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I think it's possible that there was talk among LBJ, Harriman, Bundy and others that the plot might have been a communist one.

 Not according to the historical record.  LBJ had been in the White House ten minutes before he had a ten minute meeting with Harriman and William Fulbright.

When was there an opportunity for serious deliberation among foreign policy experts?

Quote

I think it's possible that one of them -- and I'm favoring Harriman for this role -- had serious doubts that a world power would be behind the assassination of another world power's leader, and conveyed those doubts to the others. And that the others would then see the folly in that idea and also the danger in allowing rumors like that to be believed by the public.

When?  In the half hour before Harriman split for Andrews?

Quote

I think it's possible that when Harriman recollected how it was decided there was no communist plot, he fibbed by saying what he did about top Kremlinologists rather than reveal that it was just his idea. (Though I do believe that the top Kremlinologists would have agreed with Harriman.)

So how does that conversation go?

"I just heard the man in custody spent a couple of years in the Soviet Union.  That certainly lets the Russians off the hook!"

"Indeed.  Since this man Oswald had been in the Soviet Union we can rule out the Russians!"

Absurd.

Quote

Not that your theory is without merit, Cliff. But for me to more seriously consider it, I would like to know what motive Harriman might have had to be in on the plot. And I can't think of any.

Vietnam.

From Spanning the Century: The Life of W. Averell Harriman, by Rudy Abramson, pg 624:

<quote on, emphasis added>

Some of Averell's friends, including [Roger] Hilsman, who had heard Bob Kennedy muse about the possibility of Harriman as secretary of state, thought there was still a chance that Averell might yet get the Foggy Bottom job he long coveted.  But that had been before the notorious coup cable [243 authorizing Diem coup 8/24/63].

    Though the President had avoided criticism of Averell in the episode, Harriman knew Kennedy's confidence in him was shaken.  After working his way to the seventh floor, he was suddenly viewed as a problem.  Almost overnight, he looked ten years older.  Privately, the President and the attorney general talked of finding a way to rehabilitate him, to find a job that would get him out of the Vietnam business.  There was a need to put more emphasis on hemispheric matters, and the President thought that one way to solve two problems might be to create a new post of undersecretary for Latin American affairs for him.

As deeply as the administration had involved itself in the machinations against Diem, Kennedy still appeared stunned when the long-anticipatred coup ended with the assassination of Diem and Nhu on November 1.  The United States could technically claim that it had been a Vietnamese affair; but the administration had conditioned the atmosphere, beginning with the Harriman-Hilsman cable to Lodge.

<quote off>

Harriman's deepest personal desire was to be Secretary of State.  He sacrificed that personal ambition when he instigated the ouster of Diem, whose brother Nhu was secretly negotiating peace with the North Vietnamese.  Since Kennedy was maneuvering to withdraw from Vietnam, it's not hard for me to imagine Harriman was willing to sacrifice JFK to maintain the American presence in SE Asia.

I speculate that Harriman was at the top of a supra-institutional cabal seeking to gain control of the international narcotics market, which required a partitioned Laos and a militarized So. Vietnam.  Restoring Havana as the epicenter of narcotics distribution would have been a secondary goal, but the capture of Oswald killed that part of the plot.

Who negotiated the partition of Laos in 1962 over the objections of JFK's national security team?  W. Averell Harriman...

Edited June 24, 2019 by Cliff Varnell

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I think it's possible that there was talk among LBJ, Harriman, Bundy and others that the plot might have been a communist one. 

Not according to the historical record.  LBJ had been in the White House ten minutes before he had a ten minute meeting with Harriman and William Fulbright.

 

I didn't say they were all talking together at the same time. Certainly there was talk among key people between the time they first learned Oswald had lived in Russia till the time LBJ met with Harriman and Fulbright. And that the discussion continued during that meeting.

 

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

When was there an opportunity for serious deliberation among foreign policy experts?

 

A quick decision was made. It's not hard to understand that Khrushchev simply would not  have ordered a hit on the leader of another world power. He'd have to be insane to have done so, particularly against America

 

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Quote

I think it's possible that one of them -- and I'm favoring Harriman for this role -- had serious doubts that a world power would be behind the assassination of another world power's leader, and conveyed those doubts to the others. And that the others would then see the folly in that idea and also the danger in allowing rumors like that to be believed by the public.

When?  In the half hour before Harriman split for Andrews?

 

Yes.

 

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Quote

I think it's possible that when Harriman recollected how it was decided there was no communist plot, he fibbed by saying what he did about top Kremlinologists rather than reveal that it was just his idea. (Though I do believe that the top Kremlinologists would have agreed with Harriman.)

So how does that conversation go?

"I just heard the man in custody spent a couple of years in the Soviet Union.  That certainly lets the Russians off the hook!"

"Indeed.  Since this man Oswald had been in the Soviet Union we can rule out the Russians!"

Absurd. 

 

Rulers of world powers do not kill rulers of other world powers. Do I need to explain why?

 

[Cliff Varnell]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I didn't say they were all talking together at the same time. Certainly there was talk among key people between the time they first learned Oswald had lived in Russia till the time LBJ met with Harriman and Fulbright. And that the discussion continued during that meeting.

The meeting lasted ten minutes.  You call that a deliberative discussion?

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

 

A quick decision was made. It's not hard to understand that Khrushchev simply would not  have ordered a hit on the leader of another world power. He'd have to be insane to have done so, particularly against America

How does that preclude a rogue faction of the KGB or Soviet military ordering the hit?

Or a faction within the Politburo opposed to Khrushchev?

There were too many potential variables to deliberate in less than half an hour.

Quote

Yes.

So you're convinced that normally cautious Foggy Bottom bureaucrats could reach an instananeous consensus on Soviet innocence on the basis of almost no information?

It's interesting how the concept of "rush to judgment" has become so normalized that in the face of a rush to judgment on steroids people swallow it.

Quote

 

 

Rulers of world powers do not kill rulers of other world powers. Do I need to explain why?

 

Tell it to Diem and his brother.

Edited June 24, 2019 by Cliff Varnell

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Quote

 

Rulers of world powers do not kill rulers of other world powers. Do I need to explain why?

 

Tell it to Diem and his brother.

 

Vietnam was a world power?

 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Quote

Yes.

So you're convinced that normally cautious Foggy Bottom bureaucrats could reach an instananeous consensus on Soviet innocence on the basis of almost no information?

 

I believe that a quick decision can be made to not escalate a situation to a potential nuclear war. Even if the instigator might have been a rogue KGB agent or group of Russians. Those criminals, if identified, could be dealt with secretly at the right time and place.

 

[Cliff Varnell]

47 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Vietnam was a world power?

 

Define "world power".

If it was axiomatic that in 1963 that there was no way under any circumstances the Soviets could have been involved in the murder of JFK why was that scenario whispered relentlessly to people like Chief Justice Earl Warren and Dallas DA Henry Wade?  Looks like a lot of folks didn't get the memo, Sandy.

What was the point of tying Oswald-in-Mexico-City to KGB agent Kostikov if the common understanding was that there was no way the Soviets could have a hand in the assassination?

Seems like the plotters went to a lot of trouble to sheep-dip Oswald if there was no way anyone could buy the Red Agent LHO scenario.

According to your analysis Cuba never could have been blamed for the assassination even if Oswald had been killed right after JFK.

So what was the point of sheep-dipping him?

[Cliff Varnell]

41 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I believe that a quick decision can be made to not escalate a situation to a potential nuclear war. Even if the instigator might have been a rogue KGB agent or group of Russians. Those criminals, if identified, could be dealt with secretly at the right time and place. 

 

And what is your evidence that any such deliberations took place? 

Why would Harriman lie about a consensus among "top Kremlinologists"?

Why didn't he straight tell LBJ that further investigation was required, as you suggest?

 

Edited June 24, 2019 by Cliff Varnell