Jump to content
The Education Forum

If not Oswald, who killed JFK and why?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 35
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

18 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

A must read article]

One of the best synopses of the case I've read. Surprisingly (for an MD anyway) it reads clearly and succinctly with no wasted words or confusing tics in the narrative. The personal side of it adds a dimension missing from many accounts. Not long ago I finished Joan Mellen's book on the USS Liberty and her account of  Captain McGonagle's submission to the ordered narrative is as distressing as that of Admiral Burke's fall on the sword. What about all the stuff we learned about the Nuremberg Trials and the obligation to act with one's conscience? Whistle-blowers of war crimes are still imprisoned and bureaucratic loyalty seems to be higher than that to the country itself. If anything is missing from the essay, I think it is  David Lipton's observations in his book Best Evidence.  Doug Horne's volume on Bethesda certainly drew from this, and I think history will show that the young UCLA student who sensed a trick at the hospital and then pursued that instinct as he wrote the book, will stand as a principal in the case. When I first read his book, I thought it was either the nuttiest thing written up to that point or one of the most important books of the past half century. At the time, I thought the former might be the case; I'm now convinced it was the latter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an excellent article.  Son of Burkley's neighbor in a duplex, friends with the son.  Surgeon, associate of Malcomb Perry, who told him the throat shot was an entry wound.  Comes right out and says Burkley lied about the casket(s).  This compliments James Jenkins statements in At the Cold Shoulder of History that Burkley directed the autopsy.  

It also makes me want to make the time to read Harvey and Lee.  I'd never seen the timeline on the "Oswald Project".  I thought it was supposed to have started in elementary school, I.E. before the CIA was created.  But in 1953 LHO would have turned 14.  Dulles became director in 1952.  I can see him conceiving or agreeing to/authorizing such.  But to what purpose at that point?

Nice to see something like this from a respected source outside the research community.  Between it, Rob's article, Mal Hyman's Burying the Lead, and a recent article by a Professor from I believe it was Georgia that passed recently, and whose name escapes me at the moment, it gives me hope.  Hope that the search for the Truth will continue, to the point that someday it can no longer be ignored.

Edited by Ron Bulman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:

This is an excellent article.  Son of Burkley's neighbor in a duplex, friends with the son.  Surgeon, associate of Malcomb Perry, who told him the throat shot was an entry wound.  Comes right out and says Burkley lied about the casket(s).  This compliments James Jenkins statements in At the Cold Shoulder of History that Burkley directed the autopsy.  

It also makes me want to make the time to read Harvey and Lee.  I'd never seen the timeline on the "Oswald Project".  I thought it was supposed to have started in elementary school, I.E. before the CIA was created.  But in 1953 LHO would have turned 14.  Dulles became director in 1952.  I can see him conceiving or agreeing to/authorizing such.  But to what purpose at that point?

Nice to see something like this from a respected source outside the research community.  Between it, Rob's article, Mal Hyman's Burying the Lead, and a recent article by a Professor from I believe it was Georgia that passed recently, and whose name escapes me at the moment, it gives me hope.  Hope that the search for the Truth will continue, to the point that someday it can no longer be ignored.

It’s been a while since I read it so don’t recall the dates but Armstrong has the Russian Oswald coming to the US with his mother right after WW2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Icing on the Secret Service cake.....

CE399 comes into existence as we know it when SS Chief Rowley hands SA Johnson a bullet....

... and Johnson finally says ce399 is the same bullet he gets from Rowley.....   all the others, not so much

img_1140_430_200.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1174&context=fac_pm

"In 1963 Secret Service practices required that buildings along a presidential motorcade route be inspected in advance if either the motorcade route was a standard one that had been used in the past or there was a specific reason to suspect the occupants or activities in a certain building. President Kennedy’s Dallas motorcade route had been the standard route for motorcades for years; President Franklin D. Roosevelt, for example, had visited Dallas in 1936 and traversed the same route in a motorcade (although in the opposite direction). For this reason alone, the buildings along the motorcade should have been subjected to inspection before the motorcade traveled past them."

President Franklin Roosevelt’s motorcade, took the same route according to the article linked in the OP. According to the link I've included, FDR did not take the same route, but went straight on Main, although from west to east, in reverse of JFK's route. Can anyone clear up the apparent discrepancy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the article:

"The CIA planned and staged JFK’s assassination. It was a palace coup, a coup d’état, the murder of a leader by forces within his own government, like Caesar and his senators."

Amen.

Megathanks to Dr. Miller for his understanding of Harvey and Lee and for his kind words about John Armstrong's book and our website.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Icing on the Secret Service cake.....

CE399 comes into existence as we know it when SS Chief Rowley hands SA Johnson a bullet....

... and Johnson finally says ce399 is the same bullet he gets from Rowley.....   all the others, not so much

img_1140_430_200.jpg

 

I've suspected for a while since Survivor's Guilt that the subject went deeper.  The plan couldn't have succeeded without SS acquiescence.  jmo.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the CIA / US Military killed JFK because they wanted their war in Vietnam and JFK would have stopped that war. The CIA / US Military believed in the Domino theory, which said we needed to stop communism in Vietnam, or the rest of Asia would fall to the communists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chuck Schwartz said:

I believe the CIA / US Military killed JFK because they wanted their war in Vietnam and JFK would have stopped that war. The CIA / US Military believed in the Domino theory, which said we needed to stop communism in Vietnam, or the rest of Asia would fall to the communists.

The players involved in the acquisition of Bell Helicopter “wanted” their war due to the immense profits war generates and how it refuels the Cold War with Russia.

I see the CIA simply as the fallguy for the military.  While the big bad CIA is accused and stonewalls, military intelligence.... ONI, MID, etc continued to do whatever they wanted with CIA as the tip of the spear ... so to speak.

The CIA nor anyone there could, IMO, ORDER LeMay, Galloway, Burkley and the rest of the military medical staff to follow their orders... but they had to follow the orders of rear admirals and 4 star generals....

we can have a Domino theory discussion yet that starts with George Kennan and makes its way to Eisenhower.   The Dulles brothers also pitched this bs theory to explain away their actions on the world stage.

Chuck, search for TEXTRON in this forum.... the players in Bell lead back to General Cabell... the brother a the Dallas Mayor and CIA Deputy Director

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am seeing the CIA as stealing the show, the budget and taking the best and brightest men from the Military branches. By 1963, the CIA had it own planes, ships and soldiers. When the President was killed there were, what, 15-20 thousand “advisors” in Vietnam. It is repeatedly said that there were no “soldiers”. Well, that many men constitutes an entire division.

I don’t see how the other branches could have been too happy about this situation, unless the CIA’s main function was to foment war and  eliminate political opposition to war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

I am seeing the CIA as stealing the show, the budget and taking the best and brightest men from the Military branches. By 1963, the CIA had it own planes, ships and soldiers. When the President was killed there were, what, 15-20 thousand “advisors” in Vietnam. It is repeatedly said that there were no “soldiers”. Well, that many men constitutes an entire division.

I don’t see how the other branches could have been too happy about this situation, unless the CIA’s main function was to foment war and  eliminate political opposition to war.

Pretty sure the best source for info would be Prouty.....  without the backing of military intervention, I fail to see how the CIA can operate on large scales like Vietnam.  One a small scale the CIA was much more maneuverable than the behemoth ONI/MID orgs.

The first 4 directors were military men, Navy-AF-Navy-AF in fact... Admiral Hillenkotter went from last DCI to first Dir CIA

And he totally blew it on the Korean War...

ONI and MID had been around since the late 1800’s.... FBI SIS was given the intel job in the Western Hemisphere from 1940-1945... I think the military sees Hoover and his organizational skills a threat to their already existing intel establishment...

Under the National Security Act of 1947 he was nominated and confirmed by the U.S. Senate as DCI, now in charge of the newly established Central Intelligence Agency (December 1947). At first, the U.S. State Departmentdirected the new CIA's covert operations component, and George F. Kennan chose Frank Wisner to be its director. Hillenkoetter expressed doubt that the same agency could be effective at both covert action and intelligence analysis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Pretty sure the best source for info would be Prouty.....  without the backing of military intervention, I fail to see how the CIA can operate on large scales like Vietnam.  

That’s kind of my point. Qualitatively, the CIA sucked the other services dry of talent.

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/202-10002-10121.pdf

By November of 63 a quantitative leap was needed in Vietnam, according to CIA. JFK was poised to deny the latter and pull the former.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By October 1963 the war between JFK and the CIA had spilled over into the pages of the Washington Daily News and the New York Times. Kennedy Administration officials complained that CIA agents had infiltrated the military. One official, published in Washington and New York newspapers, predicted the possibility of a CIA coup d’état, just weeks before the CIA coup d’état  actually occurred.

Why do we deny the reality that has been staring us in the face for more than 50 years?

Here’s the original Richard Starnes piece from 10/2/63 that so appalled the Times' Arthur Krock:

 

'SPOOKS' MAKE LIFE MISERABLE FOR AMBASSADOR LODGE

'Arrogant' CIA Disobeys Orders in Viet Nam

By Richard T. Starnes

SAIGON, Oct.2 - The story of the Central Intelligence Agency's role in South Viet Nam is a dismal chronicle of bureaucratic arrogance, obstinate disregard of orders, and unrestrained thirst for power.

Twice the CIA flatly refused to carry out instructions from Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge, according to a high United States source here.

In one of these instances the CIA frustrated a plan of action Mr. Lodge brought with him from Washington because the agency disagreed with it.

This led to a dramatic confrontation between Mr. Lodge and John Richardson, chief of the huge CIA apparatus here. Mr. Lodge failed to move Mr. Richardson, and the dispute was bucked back to Washington. Secretary of State Dean Rusk and CIA Chief John A. McCone were unable to resolve the conflict, and the matter is now reported to be awaiting settlement by President Kennedy.

It is one of the developments expected to be covered in Defense Secretary Robert McNamara's report to Mr. Kennedy.

Others Critical, Too

Other American agencies here are incredibly bitter about the CIA.

"If the United States ever experiences a 'Seven Days in May' it will come from the CIA, and not from the Pentagon," one U.S. official commented caustically.

("Seven Days in May" is a fictional account of an attempted military coup to take over the U.S. Government.)

CIA "spooks" (a universal term for secret agents here) have penetrated every branch of the American community in Saigon, until non-spook Americans here almost seem to be suffering a CIA psychosis.

An American field officer with a distinguished combat career speaks angrily about "that man at headquarters in Saigon wearing a colonel's uniform." He means the man is a CIA agent, and he can't understand what he is doing at U.S. military headquarters here, unless it is spying on other Americans.

Another American officer, talking about the CIA, acidly commented: "You'd think they'd have learned something from Cuba but apparently they didn't."

Few Know CIA Strength

Few people other than Mr. Richardson and his close aides know the actual CIA strength here, but a widely used figure is 600. Many are clandestine agents known only to a few of their fellow spooks.

Even Mr. Richardson is a man about whom it is difficult to learn much in Saigon. He is said to be a former OSS officer, and to have served with distinction in the CIA in the Philippines.

A surprising number of the spooks are known to be involved in their ghostly trade and some make no secret of it.

"There are a number of spooks in the U.S. Information Service, in the U.S. Operations mission, in every aspect of American official and commercial life here, " one official - presumably a non-spook - said.

"They represent a tremendous power and total unaccountability to anyone," he added.

Coupled with the ubiquitous secret police of Ngo Dinh Nhu, a surfeit of spooks has given Saigon an oppressive police state atmosphere.

The Nhu-Richardson relationship is a subject of lively speculation. The CIA continues to pay the special forces which conducted brutal raids on Buddhist temples last Aug. 21, altho in fairness it should be pointed out that the CIA is paying these goons for the war against communist guerillas, not Buddhist bonzes (priests).

Hand Over Millions

Nevertheless, on the first of every month, the CIA dutifully hands over a quarter million American dollars to pay these special forces.

Whatever else it buys, it doesn't buy any solid information on what the special forces are up to. The Aug. 21 raids caught top U.S. officials here and in Washington flat-footed.

Nhu ordered the special forces to crush the Buddhist priests, but the CIA wasn't let in on the secret. (Some CIA button men now say they warned their superiors what was coming up, but in any event the warning of harsh repression was never passed to top officials here or in Washington.)

Consequently, Washington reacted unsurely to the crisis. Top officials here and at home were outraged at the news the CIA was paying the temple raiders, but the CIA continued the payments.

It may not be a direct subsidy for a religious war against the country's Buddhist majority, but it comes close to that.

And for every State Department aide here who will tell you, "Dammit, the CIA is supposed to gather information, not make policy, but policy-making is what they're doing here," there are military officers who scream over the way the spooks dabble in military operations.

A Typical Example

For example, highly trained trail watchers are an important part of the effort to end Viet Cong infiltration from across the Laos and Cambodia borders. But if the trailer watchers spot incoming Viet Congs, they report it to the CIA in Saigon, and in the fullness of time, the spooks may tell the military.

One very high American official here, a man who has spent much of his life in the service of democracy, likened the CIA's growth to a malignancy, and added he was not sure even the White House could control it any longer.

Unquestionably Mr. McNamara and Gen. Maxwell Taylor both got an earful from people who are beginning to fear the CIA is becoming a Third Force co-equal with President Diem's regime and the U.S. Government - and answerable to neither.

There is naturally the highest interest here as to whether Mr. McNamara will persuade Mr. Kennedy something ought to be done about it.

And here’s Krock’s infamous defense of the CIA from the pages of the New York Times:

Krock_CIA.jpeg

Edited by Jim Hargrove
Originally wrote "By Oct. 1962" which should have been "1963."
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...