Jump to content
The Education Forum

JFK Conspiracy for Younger Generations


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I believe that a quick decision can be made to not escalate a situation to a potential nuclear war.

 

So if the US gov't publicly accused the Soviet Union in 1963 of killing Kennedy the Soviets would have launched a nuclear attack?

Of course not.

The US enjoyed clear nuclear superiority until 1965 (see Gareth Porter's The Perils of Dominance.)

The wise decision would have been to counsel restraint pending further investigation -- but that's not what happened.

The only way Harriman could honestly declare the Soviets innocent was if he knew who did it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'd like to take a time out to give a shout out to Denny Zartman, Paul Brancato, and Sandy Larsen for their challenging comments on this thread.  Denny and Paul's critiques directly influenced the final version of my essay.

Now, back to Sandy...Let's say Harriman discussed the case on the fly to the top Kremlinologists who were in Foggy Bottom around 4:30pm. 

All of them said the Soviets were innocent -- and yet none of these people have ever come forward to corroborate this snap decision?

Not one note in a memoir, or a memo in a file?

It would have been a well kept secret for reasons I cannot fathom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Oswald had actually met with Kostikov in MC in Sept. 1963 for any reason, let alone "anything" to do with Oswald's actions in Dallas in November, Kostikov would have known that we would have known of this Oswald visit.

Anyone coming and going into the MC embassy would have been recorded by us and Kostikov knew this.

My point being that any theory of Oswald personally meeting with someone like Kostikov or even his underlings in MC must confront the absurd premise that the Russians would have allowed their JFK hit man to be so visible in their circle to the Americans just two months before 11,22,1963.

American Mafia Godfathers would never have their selected hit men for a major job come to their main hangout in broad daylight just before their hit assignment where they could be seen and photographed by surveillance cameras if they knew they were being watched and recorded like this.

Mehmet Ali Agca was controlled, instructed and directed by people 20 times removed from the real power behind his Pope John hit.

Any mention of Kostikov and Oswald in the same discussion is crazy.

Now, Oswald and Phillips is less absurd imo.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

Any mention of Kostikov and Oswald in the same discussion is crazy.

What's crazy about discussing the historical fact that an Oswald meeting with Kostikov has been alleged?

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:
2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Vietnam was a world power?

Define "world power".

 

A "world power" is a powerful nation capable of doing great harm to another in a retaliatory measure.

 

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

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.

 

Because not all people are wise, Cliff. Wise people would have understood that killing the president of the United States was not something Khrushchev would have done. Or at least it was a highly unlikely thing.

In my hypothesis, Harriman was one of the wiser folks.

 

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

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?

 

I've wondered the same thing. Apparently it isn't a common understanding. It's easy to figure out though, IMO. Any reasonably intelligent ruler who is contemplating the murder of the leader of a world power would certainly figure it out.

 

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

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?

 

Cuba wasn't a world power. So yes, Cuba could have been blamed.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

A "world power" is a powerful nation capable of doing great harm to another in a retaliatory measure.

That's called a "nuclear power."

1 minute ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Because not all people are wise, Cliff.

What does that mean?

1 minute ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Wise people would have understood that killing the president of the United States was not something Khrushchev would have done. Or at least it was a highly unlikely thing.

Can you name one murder in the entire history of the human race where guilt or innocence was honestly determined prior to investigation?  I'm not talking about cases where the perp is caught in the act.

Name one.  Who ever draws a conclusion of guilt or innocence prior to investigation?

1 minute ago, Sandy Larsen said:

In my hypothesis, Harriman was one of the wiser folks.

Indeed.  More wise than anyone about the nuts and bolts of the plot (more than likely.)

1 minute ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I've wondered the same thing. Apparently it isn't a common understanding. It's easy to figure out though, IMO. Any reasonably intelligent ruler who is contemplating the murder of the leader of a world power would certainly figure it out.

You bet.  Vladimir Putin wanted to politically assassinate Hillary Clinton in 2016.  But he only succeeded because 16 million voters were purged by the GOP btw 2014 and 2016, James Comey directly assassinated Clinton politically, and the tee vee networks wanted a four year extension of the Donald Trump Show.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:
2 hours 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? 

 

I never said there were "deliberations." I said it was a quick decision.

 

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

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

 

Because that sounds better than "within 30 minutes I determined that there was no Russian involvement." It's always more convincing to invoke the opinions of experts.

 

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

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


Because he was convinced he was right.

 

BTW, in your hypothesis, why is it that nobody ever asked Harriman how t is he gathered together the top Kremlinologists so quickly and deliberated on the matter in such a short period of time? What were their names, etc.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:
2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I believe that a quick decision can be made to not escalate a situation to a potential nuclear war.

 

So if the US gov't publicly accused the Soviet Union in 1963 of killing Kennedy the Soviets would have launched a nuclear attack?

 

Of course not.

Instead there would have been public outcry in America and around the world against the Russians. Mounting pressure in America to retaliate with a military strike. Generals in support of the action. The CIA doing naughty things to get whatever it was that they wanted.

And if a military strike did occur, that could have led to a nuclear war.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Of course not.

Instead there would have been public outcry in America and around the world against the Russians. Mounting pressure in America to retaliate with a military strike. Generals in support of the action. The CIA doing naughty things to get whatever it was that they wanted.

And if a military strike did occur, that could have led to a nuclear war.

 

They would have taken it out on Cuba.

That was the entire idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I never said there were "deliberations." I said it was a quick decision.

I'll ask you again -- name one murder in human history where guilt or innocence was determined prior to investigation?  Not talking about murders where the perp is caught in the act.

Name one.

Quote

 

 

Because that sounds better than "within 30 minutes I determined that there was no Russian involvement." It's always more convincing to invoke the opinions of experts.

Why would Harriman lie, tho?  Because he didn't think LBJ could handle the truth?

Quote

Because he was convinced he was right.

I'm sure he was convinced he was right.  But without investigation the only way he for sure could be right was if he had pre-knowledge of the plot.

You wrote above:

Those criminals, if identified, could be dealt with secretly at the right time and place. 

"If identified" connotes an investigation.

Quote

 

BTW, in your hypothesis, why is it that nobody ever asked Harriman how t is he gathered together the top Kremlinologists so quickly and deliberated on the matter in such a short period of time? What were their names, etc.

How is it that this entire subject is widely ignored?

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

I'd like to take a time out to give a shout out to Denny Zartman, Paul Brancato, and Sandy Larsen for their challenging comments on this thread.  Denny and Paul's critiques directly influenced the final version of my essay.

Now, back to Sandy...Let's say Harriman discussed the case on the fly to the top Kremlinologists who were in Foggy Bottom around 4:30pm. 

All of them said the Soviets were innocent -- and yet none of these people have ever come forward to corroborate this snap decision?

Not one note in a memoir, or a memo in a file?

It would have been a well kept secret for reasons I cannot fathom.

 

In my hypothesis, Harriman didn't confer with the top Kremlinologists in order to conclude that the Russians were not involved. He lied about that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

In my hypothesis, Harriman didn't confer with the top Kremlinologists in order to conclude that the Russians were not involved. He lied about that.

 

Okay.  We've reached consensus on the key issue!

That your mileage may vary outside of that is cool with me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/24/2019 at 4:50 PM, Cliff Varnell said:

I'd like to take a time out to give a shout out to Denny Zartman, Paul Brancato, and Sandy Larsen for their challenging comments on this thread.  Denny and Paul's critiques directly influenced the final version of my essay.

I'd also like to thank David Lifton for the crucial blurb that sparked my ambition for this essay.

I'd especially like to thank an un-named friend of mine who used to post here regularly and was/is my toughest constructive critic.

And I'd like to thank Greg Burnham for the excellent job compiling the Church Committee testimonies of Charles Senseney, William Colby and Richard Helms.  I could have easily compiled an expansion of what Greg put together but in the Penn Jones School of Micro-analysis original research carries a proprietary vibe.  By citing the work of someone other than myself it's less likely for the historical record to be ascribed an owner, the way Vince Palamara "owns" the Secret Service, David Lifton "owns" body alteration, Donald Thomas "owns" the acoustics evidence, Jim DiEugenio "owns" the provenance of CE 399 and Garrison.

I'm a student of the Vincent Salandria School of Research into the Obvious. 

In the School of the Obvious no one owns the historical record.

 

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 6/24/2019 at 2:43 PM, 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.

Spurred by Sandy's critique, and discussions with a good friend of mine who's my toughest constructive critic, I've been looking more into "the US government's top Kremlinologists" in 1963.

"Wise Men" Averell Harriman, Charles Bohlen, and George Kennan were by reputation the "US government's top Kremlinologists," but the top Soviet hand by title was Llewelyn Thompson, Ambassador at Large for Soviet Affairs.

Llewelyn had been Ambassador to the Soviet Union '57-'62.  Here's what he told the Warren Commission:

Mr. DULLES: Did you have any conversations at any time while you were Ambassador or after you returned to the United States with any Soviet official with regard to the Oswald case?

Ambassador THOMPSON: I discussed with the Soviet Ambassador the desire of the [Warren] Commission to receive any documentation that they might have available, but I did not in any way discuss the case itself, nor did the Soviet official with whom I talked.

Mr. DULLES: And do you know of any conversations of that nature that any other official of the Department had in connection with the Oswald case?

Ambassador THOMPSON: I do not myself know of any.

Mr. DULLES: You probably would, would you not, if that had taken place-of any importance?

Ambassador THOMPSON: Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. DULLES: Your testimony is you have no knowledge of any other conversations other than that of the Secretary of State [Dean Rusk], in connection with communications to and from the Soviet Government on this case?

Ambassador THOMPSON: That is correct.  I know of no other cases where it was discussed with Soviet officials. </q>

Thompson acknowledged discussions with Dean Rusk, but nothing about Harriman or other "top Kremlinologists".  Rusk didn't return to Washington until after Harriman's meeting with Johnson.

Here's what Rusk told the Warren Commission (Vol 5), emphasis added:

<quote on>

Mr. RANKIN. In your opinion, was there any substantial interest or interests of the Soviet Union which would have been advanced by the assassination of President Kennedy?

Secretary RUSK:I   would first have to say on a question of that sort that it is important to follow the evidence. It is very difficult to look into the minds of someone else, and know what is in someone else’s mind. I have seen no evidence that would indicate to me that the Soviet Union considered that it had an interest in the removal of President Kennedy or that it was in any way involved in the removal of President Kennedy. If I may elaborate just a moment.

Mr. RANKIN: If you will, please.

Secretary RUSK: As the Commission may remember, I was with several colleagues in a plane on the way to Japan at the time the assassination occurred. When we got the news we immediately turned back. After my mind was able to grasp the fact that this event had in fact occurred, which was the first necessity, and not an easy one, I then, on the plane, began to go over the dozens and dozens of implications and ramifications of this event as it affects our foreign relations all over the world. I landed briefly in Hawaii on the way back to Washington, and gave some instructions to the Department about a number of these matters, and learned what the Department was already doing. But one of the great questions in my mind at that time was just that question, could some foreign government somehow be involved in such an episode. I realized that were this so this would raise the gravest issues of war and peace, but that nevertheless it was important to try to get at the truth-to the answer to that question-wherever that truth might lead; and so when I got back to Washington I put myself immediately in touch with the processes of inquiry on that point, and as Secretary of State had the deepest possible interest in what the truthful answer to those questions would be, because it would be hard to think of anything more pregnant for our foreign relations than the correct answer to that question. I have not seen or heard of any scrap of evidence indicating that the Soviet Union had any desire to eliminate President Kennedy nor in any way participated in any such event. Now, standing back and trying to look at that question objectively despite the ideological differences between our two great systems, I can’t see how it could be to the interest of the Soviet Union to make any such effort. Since I have become Secretary of State I have seen no evidence of any policy of assassination of leaders of the free world on the part of the Soviets, and our intelligence community has not been able to furnish any evidence pointing in that direction. I am sure that I would have known about such bits of evidence had they existed but I also made inquiry myself to see whether there was such evidence, and received a negative reply. I do think that the Soviet Union, again objectively considered, has an interest in the correctness of state relations. This would be particularly true among the great powers, with which the major interests of the Soviet Union are directly engaged.

Mr. RANKIN: Could you expand on that a little bit so that others than those who deal in that area might understand fully what you mean?

Secretary RUSK: Yes; I think that although there are grave differences between the Communist world and the free world, between the Soviet Union and other major powers, that even from their point of view there needs to be some shape and form to international relations, that it is not in their interest to have this world structure dissolve into complete anarchy, that great states and particularly nuclear powers have to be in a position to deal with each other, to transact business with each other, to try to meet problems with each other, and that requires the maintenance of correct relations and access to the leadership on all sides. I think also that although there had been grave differences between Chairman Khrushchev and President Kennedy, I think there were evidences of a certain mutual respect that had developed over some of the experiences, both good and bad, through which these two men had lived. I think both of them were aware of the fact that any Chairman of the Soviet Union and any President of the United States necessarily bear somewhat special responsibility for the general peace of the world. Indeed without exaggeration, one could almost say the existence of the Northern Hemisphere in this nuclear age. So that it would be an act of rashness and madness for Soviet leaders to undertake such an action as an active policy. Because everything would have been put in jeopardy or at stake in connection with such an act. It has not been our impression that madness has characterized the actions of the Soviet leadership in recent years. I think also that it is relevant that people behind the Iron Curtain, including people in the Soviet Union and including officials in the Soviet Union, seemed to be deeply affected by the death of President Kennedy. Their reactions were prompt, and I think genuine, of regret and sorrow. Mr. Khrushchev was the first to come to the Embassy to sign the book of condolences. There were tears in the streets of Moscow. Moscow Radio spent a great deal of attention to these matters. Now they did come to premature conclusions, in my judgment, about what this event was and what it meant in terms of who might have been responsible for it-and ideological effect has crept into that. But I had the impression that the regret was genuine and that the ordinary Soviet citizen joined with ordinary people in other parts of the world in feeling the loss of the President in a very genuine sense.

Mr. RANKIN: There has been some suggestion that possibly the leadership of the Soviet Union would not have been politically interested in the death of the President but possibly a distant wing of the Party might have been so involved. Can you give us any light on that, Mr. Secretary.

The CHAIRMAN: By suggestion you mean rumor?

Mr. RANKIN: In the newspapers, and things of that kind, rumor.

Secretary RUSK: I haven’t been able to put a rational structure behind that possibility. If there are dissident elements their primary problem is within the Soviet Union. If these dissident elements were aiming to change the present Government of the Soviet Union or its leadership or to return to an early range of policy by the elimination of present leadership or seizure of control, I don’t quite see how the elimination of the President of the United States could contribute to that purpose. I would also suppose that in their kind of system such elements would be under pretty close supervision and surveillance and they would have limited opportunities for the kind of action that would be organized in a way in this direction, although that is a matter of some speculation. But, I would doubt very much that such dissident elements would have a motive or very much of an opportunity. Again, I have seen no evidence pointing in that direction.

Mr. RANKIN: How could you tell us in regard to Cuba in the same general way, your opinion and knowledge of any information or credible evidence?

Secretary RUSK: Well, I would again repeat that the overriding consideration is to make every possible effort to find evidence and follow the evidence to wherever it leads. I think it is, at least for me, more difficult to try to enter into the minds of the present leadership in Cuba than, perhaps, even of the present leadership of the Soviet Union. We have had very few contacts, as the Commission knows, with the present Government of Cuba. But again, I have seen no evidence that seems to point in that direction. There were some exchanges, with which the Commission is familiar, that seemed to be-seemed to come to another conclusion. But I would think that objective considerations would mean that it would be even greater madness for Castro or his government to be involved in any such enterprise than almost for anyone else, because literally the issue of war and peace would mean the issue of the existence of his regime and perhaps of his country might have been involved in that question. We were under the impression that there was very considerable concern in Cuba as to whether they would be held responsible and what the effect of that might be on their own position and their own safety. But I have seen no evidence that points to involvement by them, and I don’t see objective facts which would seem to make it in their interests to remove Mr. Kennedy. You see, this embarks upon, in any event it would embark upon, an unpredictable trail for them to go down this path, but I would think again the Commission would wish to examine the evidence as it has been doing with meticulous care and follow the evidence in these matters. </q>

For Rusk the question of Soviet guilt or innocence remained an open question until he returned to DC.

By then the decision was already made without "meticulous care."

 

 

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Llewelyn Thompson WC testimony:

<quote on>

Mr. SLAWSON: …Ambassador Thompson has been asked to testify today on any contacts he may have had with Lee Harvey Oswald while the Ambassador was in his post with the American Embassy in Moscow and on any knowledge he may have on pertinent Soviet practices or American practices at that time which might relate to the treatment of 1Mr. Oswald. Ambassador Thompson, could you state all of the times and describe them when you heard about Lee Harvey Oswald’s dealings with your Embassy at Moscow while he was in Russia, either in late 1959 or thereafter?

Ambassador THOMPSON Yes; the only recollection I have is that when I returned from a trip to the United States in November 1959, or some time after that, the consul informed me about the case, and said this man had asked to renounce his citizenship. I recall asking him.

Mr. DULLES:  Was that Consul Richard E. Snyder?

Ambassador THOMPSON. Yes; I am almost certain of that. I recall asking him why he didn’t accept the renunciation, and he explained that in cases of this kind he normally waited to make sure the man was serious, and also in order to normally consult the State Department. I believe he told me at that time that the man had not come back again. And I believe that is the only recollection I have of the case at all at the time I was in Moscow.

Mr. SLAWSON: And that includes any other time thereafter, including through 1962?

Ambassador THOMPSON: Yes: of course I read the press and was aware of the case when it came up in the Department. There was some discussion of it. But no knowledge that I think would bear on the case. </q>

Ambassador Thompson could have heard the name Oswald around 3:00pm EST if he’d received a call from the Dallas PD.

That gave US Kremlinologists about two hours to answer the question of Soviet complicity.

And we’re to believe they never called Soviet officials about the matter, or discussed it with each other?

Please…

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...