What Did JFK Do that Caused Certain Powerful People to Have Him Killed?

[Joe Bauer]

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

MIKE,

Are you being for real about the ARRB and Prouty?

That was an ambush, which Fletcher sensed after about the third question. And he told Len Osanic about it when he got home.

This was exposed by the man who I think is the finest archival researcher there is right now: Malcolm Blunt. And if he had not unearthed this material we would never have known about people like the ARRB's Dennis Quinn and Tim Wray--who both left the Board after--who were setting up the ambush. (Quinn tried to halt the medical inquiry.) IMO, neither should have been employed by that body.

That material by Malcolm was then supplemented by communications with Doug Horne who gave us inside info on the perps--Wray and Quinn-- and why they did it.  For you to take that whole ersatz exercise at face value--a la Fred Litwin-- shows that you were willing to accept the worst implications about the whole set up--without digging behind the scenes to see how it was stage managed. I wrote this piece, but it could not have been written without Malcolm, Horne, Palamara, and Len Osanic.

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/fletcher-prouty-vs-the-arrb

 

I really do not see how you could have had no reservations about the Board, if you had studied anything about how it was set up, and who was on it.  Plus some of the things they said on the subject. Plus the fact that as Horne said, about 2/3 of the employees were WC supporters.

If you do not know this, Fletcher Prouty wrote a long essay back in about 1986 on the Vietnam War.  If you have not read it you don't know what you are talking about..  That long essay had all the major points that Newman brought out in 1992 in his over 400 page book: the intel deception, Kennedy's disagreement with his advisors, how NSAM 263 and the Taylor/McNamara report were written etc. The only way Fletcher  could have known this was  being on the inside.

And as shown above, unlike what Quinn said, there were military supplements for Kennedy's visits;  VInce proved that.  And Prouty did have evidence, as did the ARRB, that there was an offer to extend the same in Dallas. For whatever reason, it was not accepted.

 

PS William got the point about Johannides wrong.  That was not for the ARRB, it was the HSCA.

PPSS: Max Boot?  Please read this and take special note about near the end.   https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/max-boot-vs-jfk-revisited-202201021703

Boot tried to accuse JFK of attempting to topple Lumumba!  How can anyone take such a person seriously?  The man who never met a war he did not like.

 

 

 

 

Worthy of bumping.

[Gene Kelly]

Michael

You ask the crucial question.  I like Joe McBride's quote from Indira Gandhi. Some (like Doug Horne and James Douglass) have characterized JFK’s actions as being at war with his own National Security Establishment. And who could argue with Jim DiEugenio's point about JFK's foreign policy? 

It is instructive to recall Charles de Gaulle's reaction. When de Gaulle moved to end the French war in Algeria, he induced a strong reaction from his military and far-right circles, including several assassination attempts and a coup. De Gaulle was convinced that the French military coup attempts against him in spring 1961 were instigated by the CIA. President Kennedy told the French ambassador that he (JFK) was not in full control of his own intelligence agency. And when JFK was assassinated in Dallas, President de Gaulle confided that Kennedy was the victim of the same national security forces that had targeted him. David Talbot addresses this in "The Devil's Chessboard" and quotes the French President:

“What happened to Kennedy is what nearly happened to me ... His story is the same as mine ... It looks like a cowboy story, but it’s only an OAS story. The security forces were in cahoots with the extremists.”

Talbot also highlights the similarities of JFK's murder with the plot to bring down Charles De Gaulle - the people involved (retired French generals, rightwing French, poopoo sympathizers, and White Russians), the role of Allen Dulles, the motive behind it (Algerian independence and fear of Communist stronghold in strategic, oil-rich North Africa) - all bear an eerie similarity to the circumstances surrounding the assassination of JFK.  His summary quote about Dulles is right on the money ... Dulles’s job was to hijack the US government to benefit the wealthy. 

What has always struck me personally is the brutality of the killing ... blowing off the President's head in broad daylight, while sitting next to his wife, at noon, in a motorcade.  The assassination could've been accomplished many other ways, in a less dramatic and public fashion. But this was not just a murder, it was a statement.  And I can't help feeling that it had the angry overtones of revenge (i.e., Bay of Pigs betrayal). 

Gene 

[Michael Griffith]

On 9/28/2022 at 9:54 PM, Denny Zartman said:

I personally think it may be just as simple as the Dulles brothers out of control. If Allen Dulles would authorize the assassination of the leader of a major allied country like France, why would we assume that some previously undetected sense of morality would prevent him from initiating a hit on the leader of his own country? Especially the guy who fired and humiliated him?

I think this is a great point, very well put. Yes, indeed: If Dulles would order the assassinations of Patrice Lumumba and Charles De Gaulle, he would have had no qualms about ordering, or backing, JFK's assassination. And, as you say, Dulles had the added motive that JFK had fired and humiliated him.

I don't think we can include John Foster Dulles, however, since he died in 1959.

Edited September 30, 2022 by Michael Griffith

[Denny Zartman]

26 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

I think this is a great point, very well put. Yes, indeed: If Dulles would order the assassinations of Patrice Lumumba and Charles De Gaulle, he would have had no qualms about ordering, or backing, JFK's assassination. And, as you say, Dulles had the added motive that JFK had fired and humiliated him.

I don't think we can include John Foster Dulles, however, since he died in 1959.

The reason I put both brothers is that a few months back someone here on the forum mentioned during that era there were low priced paperback books mass produced and marketed at convenience stores about how Godly the Dulles brothers were. It stuck in my mind. It seems to me either there was an honest to goodness grassroots fandom that emerged, believed the Dulles brothers were doing the Lord's work, and just wanted to get the word out - or it was a sponsored psyops propaganda campaign. If it was the latter, it seems to hint at possible messianic complexes to say the least. I'd imagine those types of people take it hard when they get fired from positions of power.

Thinking more about Allen, I am struck yet again thinking about how unique he seemed to be when it came to the WC. We know Warren and Russell really did not want to serve, but Dulles signed right up. Based on what I've read, there is no evidence or indication that Dulles was pressured at all. Is the difference between Dulles and the others significant? Maybe I'm wrong; I can't help but suspect it is.

I look at it this way: does anyone think Dulles volunteered to be on the W.C. to uncover the truth about the assassination? No, I would argue that he was there to participate in a cover up. So, assuming that for the sake of argument, was Dulles then working on his own behalf, or on the behest of someone else? If it was someone else, it seems to me the list of suspects must narrow to the peers and superiors who had similar attitudes. From what I've read, Helms would not have initiated such a thing as the assassination and would have signed off on it only after others had. I accept the conventional wisdom that James Angleton and William King Harvey played substantial roles, but I don't know if anyone has made a case for either of them being the top of the totem pole or the main person who initiated it all.

I don't know. It's an interesting question to consider. Dulles was at a CIA facility the weekend of the assassination, wasn't he?

[Joe Bauer]

10 hours ago, Gene Kelly said:

 

What has always struck me personally is the brutality of the killing ... blowing off the President's head in broad daylight, while sitting next to his wife, at noon, in a motorcade.  The assassination could've been accomplished many other ways, in a less dramatic and public fashion. But this was not just a murder, it was a statement.  And I can't help feeling that it had the angry overtones of revenge (i.e., Bay of Pigs betrayal). 

Gene 

Whoever blew JFK's head apart just 12 inches from his wife's face while she is looking right at him and spewing his blood and brain matter upon her body was a person no less sick than a rabid animal.

A Frankenstein's monster.

 

 

Edited September 30, 2022 by Joe Bauer

[Michael Griffith]

15 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

MIKE,

Are you being for real about the ARRB and Prouty?

That was an ambush, which Fletcher sensed after about the third question. And he told Len Osanic about it when he got home.

This was exposed by the man who I think is the finest archival researcher there is right now: Malcolm Blunt. And if he had not unearthed this material we would never have known about people like the ARRB's Dennis Quinn and Tim Wray--who both left the Board after--who were setting up the ambush. (Quinn tried to halt the medical inquiry.) IMO, neither should have been employed by that body.

That material by Malcolm was then supplemented by communications with Doug Horne who gave us inside info on the perps--Wray and Quinn-- and why they did it.  For you to take that whole ersatz exercise at face value--a la Fred Litwin-- shows that you were willing to accept the worst implications about the whole set up--without digging behind the scenes to see how it was stage managed. I wrote this piece, but it could not have been written without Malcolm, Horne, Palamara, and Len Osanic.

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/fletcher-prouty-vs-the-arrb

I really do not see how you could have had no reservations about the Board, if you had studied anything about how it was set up, and who was on it.  Plus some of the things they said on the subject. Plus the fact that as Horne said, about 2/3 of the employees were WC supporters.

If you do not know this, Fletcher Prouty wrote a long essay back in about 1986 on the Vietnam War.  If you have not read it you don't know what you are talking about..  That long essay had all the major points that Newman brought out in 1992 in his over 400 page book: the intel deception, Kennedy's disagreement with his advisors, how NSAM 263 and the Taylor/McNamara report were written etc. The only way Fletcher  could have known this was  being on the inside.

And as shown above, unlike what Quinn said, there were military supplements for Kennedy's visits;  VInce proved that.  And Prouty did have evidence, as did the ARRB, that there was an offer to extend the same in Dallas. For whatever reason, it was not accepted.

PS William got the point about Johannides wrong.  That was not for the ARRB, it was the HSCA.

PPSS: Max Boot?  Please read this and take special note about near the end.   https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/max-boot-vs-jfk-revisited-202201021703

Boot tried to accuse JFK of attempting to topple Lumumba!  How can anyone take such a person seriously?  The man who never met a war he did not like.

Good heavens. Are you aware that Prouty spoke at the 1990 convention of Liberty Lobby, a far-right anti-Semitic group?  Are you aware that Prouty served on a Liberty Lobby advisory board? Are you aware that Prouty sold the rights to one of his books to the publishing arm of the Institute for Historical Review, a group that has skirted dangerously close to Holocaust denialism? Are you aware that Prouty claimed that Israel's Mossad was helping to push the U.S. Government into serving the Zionist cause? 

Are you aware that Prouty testified in behalf of the Church of Scientology huckster L. Ron Hubbard and claimed, without a shred of evidence, that Hubbard's military records had been doctored? Are you aware that Prouty served as a senior editor for Scientology's magazine?

Prouty's ARRB interview was an "ambush"? Jeremy Gunn participated in that interview; he certainly was not there to "ambush" Prouty. Anyone who reads the interview can see that Prouty royally back-peddled on many of his claims. When asked about the notes of his call with someone with/from the 316th MI unit that he had claimed--in writing--to have, he lamely said he didn't have them anymore. Prouty was forced to admit that he was never in charge of presidential protection schedules, that his trip to Antarctica was not suspicious or unusual, that he never actually worked on presidential protection, that he had no firsthand knowledge to confirm his claim that Oswald had worked in a program that Prouty had headed--and on and on we could go. 

Back in the '70s, Prouty made some sensational allegations about Alexander Butterfield as a CIA plant in the White House. Even the very liberal Senator Frank Church said his committee found no evidence whatsoever that supported Prouty's claims, and Prouty soon began to back-peddle on his claims. 

And then there is Prouty's ludicrous, shameful claim that Edward Lansdale orchestrated JFK's assassination. When the ARRB asked Prouty who had told him that one of the Tramps photos showed Lansdale with his back to the camera, Prouty refused to name the person. Prouty also made the astonishing claim that Lansdale staged the Huk Rebellion in the Philippines! 

I agree that Max Boot's review of JFK Revisited is ridiculous and erroneous. That review is a sad example of the fact that even solid scholars can have blind spots on some issues. Boot definitely has a major blind spot when it comes to the JFK case. However, his biography of Lansdale is, on balance, superb, enlightening, and thoroughly researched.  By the way, Boot is highly critical of the CIA and the Pentagon in the book.

Another example of how blind spots can cause studious, serious researchers to make erroneous claims on some issues is Howard Donahue. When it came to the ballistics and trajectory evidence relating to JFK's head wounds, Donahue was solid and insightful. He correctly noted that no FMJ bullet would have left  dozens of fragments in JFK's skull, that no FMJ bullet would have deposited a fragment below the entrance wound on the outer table of the skull, and that the trajectory from the sixth-floor window was impossible for the head shot. Yet, when it came to the SBT, Donahue was totally out to lunch, just awful, strained, and lame. 

 

 

 

[James DiEugenio]

Vince Salandria I think originated this concept.

He said that the dramatic way in which Kennedy was murdered--at high noon, on a spectator filled street, with his head blown off in front of his wife--it all indicated to him that this was more than just the assassination of Kennedy.  It was also meant as a warning and a reminder. A warning for no one else who followed to forge his own way, and a reminder of what was lurking in the shadows if they did.

The fact that they got away with it made those two aspects real.

Let us not forget about Carter and the Oswald guy in 1979.

[James DiEugenio]

Mike:

Did you read the article?  I don't think you did.

Fletcher realized from his past experience what the Board was up to.  And he decided to play along with the game.  He told this to Len Osanic when he got home.  Did you call Len and ask him about this?   Fletcher did have the notes from McKinney about the controversy that erupted at the base after Kennedy was killed.  Fletcher had handwritten notes that he refused to provide the Board since he knew what they were up to. In other words, he had written evidence to support his position.  Which apparently you are not interested in .

Now McKinney knew that Prouty had a role in this since he had been trained in parade protection at Fort Holabird. Another error by the Board.  So he knew what should have happened in these situations.  But beyond that, the Board knew also since they had two other witnesses to this effect, who they hid from the record; and I mention them in the article. But Wray and Quinn decided to hide them to make their ambush work.  Again, this was new information uncovered by Mr. Blunt and means nothing to you. This does not speak well for you Mike.  As our side is supposed to be data based and not bias based.

The Board also used false information about the Secret Service never requesting or accepting military supplements on presidential visits in order to frame Prouty.  VInce P proved this was simply false, so Fletcher was correct about that also.  Again, you ignore this.

Its odd that you bring up Gunn's name.  Jeremy Gunn has been a real disappointment to many of us since the ARRB closed down.  In all those years, 24 of them to be exact, he has made one speech that I know of since he left the Board.  That is correct, in nearly a quarter century, one talk.  You can see it online and its pretty anodyne.  He made up every excuse he could think of not to appear in our film.  So in that light, it is fitting that  he let Tim Wray and Dennis Quinn conduct this charade, clearly meant to defame Oliver Stone, without cross checking the information.  Its one of his lower acts while on the Board. He was scoring points with people like Marwell.

As per Max Boot, this is part of your "We Should have won the Vietnam War" syndrome. To me this is below argument.  Ed Lansdale was part of the whole propping up of Diem, including shipping about a million Catholics south to try and bolster his hollow regime.  He helped rig elections to  show that DIem was wildly popular with the citizenry--which was another mirage. Whatever vote count Diem wanted, even if Lansdale thought it was too much, he got for the guy.  As high as 90 per cent, at times with more votes than what existed in a district.  When this was all exposed as a front, Lansdale later said to the journalist Mr. Pilgrim words to the effect: I don't know why people complain about me setting up a fascist regime. That was what I was supposed to do, nobody ever wanted a republic.

Oliver Stone never said he thought Lansdale was in charge of the plot.  What he meant was that someone like Lansdale would be brought in to run the operational side.  And if one listens closely, that is what is said in the film. And Lansdale was in the Dallas/Fort Worth area at that time.

As per the rest of your smear of  Prouty, which sounds out of Epstein, read the second half of this reply to Ed Epstein:https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-abstract-reality-of-edward-epstein

Edited September 30, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[W. Niederhut]

Michael Griffith is repeating all of the exact Lansdale/CIA/McAdams tropes used to smear Fletcher Prouty after he went public with his revelations about Lansdale, the CIA, Vietnam, and JFK 30 years ago-- that Prouty was a "quack" who once spoke at the Liberty Lobby, etc.

It's Swiftboat Vetting-- repeating the defamatory Mockingbird tropes without studying the author's own work.

I've seen this movie before, many times, and I have noticed that none of the guys who repeat these tropes, to date, have ever read Prouty's book about the CIA, Vietnam, and JFK's assassination.  Not one.

When Swiftboat Vetters repeat false tropes, history teaches that we need to repeat the facts.

Edited September 30, 2022 by W. Niederhut

[John Kennedy White]

3 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Whoever blew JFK's head apart just 12 inches from his wife while she is looking right at him and spewing his blood and brain matter upon her face and body was a person no less sick than a rabid animal.

A Frankenstein's monster.

 

 

Most assassins would need to be psychopaths. None of that would bother them in the slightest.

[Matthew Koch]

I am of the opinion that the Kennedy's secret missile crisis deal and secret withdrawal of Vietnam is what allowed people in the upper echelon to deem JFK a threat to national security and "intervene" as John McCain Said.

 I believe that the plotters than used operatives from groups that had been disaffected by decisions made by JFK and his administration: Cubans, Bay of Pigs veterans, Mafia, CIA, and very likely every foreign assets to obscure the role of who done it. 

[Joe Bauer]

3 hours ago, John Kennedy White said:

Most assassins would need to be psychopaths. None of that would bother them in the slightest.

Was Oswald that psychopathic?

Had he ever killed anyone before his alleged murders of JFK and Tippit?

What could tip someone who never even hurt someone physically before ( except maybe a couple of shoving skirmishes and an accidental gun discharge in Japan ) to then in one day go all psychopathic and in such brutal way?

Blowing JFK's head off inches from his wife's face? 3 or 4 bullets into Tippit with a final mafia hitman kill shot into his head?

 

 

Edited September 30, 2022 by Joe Bauer

[Tony Krome]

7 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Whoever blew JFK's head apart just 12 inches from his wife while she is looking right at him and spewing his blood and brain matter upon her face and body was a person no less sick than a rabid animal.

A Frankenstein's monster.

On the Sunday, we saw another example of this type of gutless action. Shooting an unarmed and handcuffed man in the belly, and putting others at great risk.

[Joe Bauer]

Just now, Tony Krome said:

On the Sunday, we saw another example of this type of gutless action. Shooting an unarmed and handcuffed man in the belly, and putting others at great risk.

Ruby said he wanted to show the world that Jews had guts.

But his shooting the handcuffed, defenseless Oswald was one of the most cowardly acts imaginable.

[Paul Brancato]

23 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

MIKE,

Are you being for real about the ARRB and Prouty?

That was an ambush, which Fletcher sensed after about the third question. And he told Len Osanic about it when he got home.

This was exposed by the man who I think is the finest archival researcher there is right now: Malcolm Blunt. And if he had not unearthed this material we would never have known about people like the ARRB's Dennis Quinn and Tim Wray--who both left the Board after--who were setting up the ambush. (Quinn tried to halt the medical inquiry.) IMO, neither should have been employed by that body.

That material by Malcolm was then supplemented by communications with Doug Horne who gave us inside info on the perps--Wray and Quinn-- and why they did it.  For you to take that whole ersatz exercise at face value--a la Fred Litwin-- shows that you were willing to accept the worst implications about the whole set up--without digging behind the scenes to see how it was stage managed. I wrote this piece, but it could not have been written without Malcolm, Horne, Palamara, and Len Osanic.

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/fletcher-prouty-vs-the-arrb

 

I really do not see how you could have had no reservations about the Board, if you had studied anything about how it was set up, and who was on it.  Plus some of the things they said on the subject. Plus the fact that as Horne said, about 2/3 of the employees were WC supporters.

If you do not know this, Fletcher Prouty wrote a long essay back in about 1986 on the Vietnam War.  If you have not read it you don't know what you are talking about..  That long essay had all the major points that Newman brought out in 1992 in his over 400 page book: the intel deception, Kennedy's disagreement with his advisors, how NSAM 263 and the Taylor/McNamara report were written etc. The only way Fletcher  could have known this was  being on the inside.

And as shown above, unlike what Quinn said, there were military supplements for Kennedy's visits;  VInce proved that.  And Prouty did have evidence, as did the ARRB, that there was an offer to extend the same in Dallas. For whatever reason, it was not accepted.

 

PS William got the point about Johannides wrong.  That was not for the ARRB, it was the HSCA.

PPSS: Max Boot?  Please read this and take special note about near the end.   https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/max-boot-vs-jfk-revisited-202201021703

Boot tried to accuse JFK of attempting to topple Lumumba!  How can anyone take such a person seriously?  The man who never met a war he did not like.

 

 

 

 

Great article on Prouty and ARRB. 
Question - the identification Colonel Robert Jones as Operations Chief of the 112th (by the way, never mentioned, he couldn’t have been there more than a few months as he is officially listed in 1963 as stationed in Germany) rather than Intelligence Chief. You mention Larry Hancock referring to him, as did many others, as Operations Chief. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen and responded to posts here on the forum about this, and that Larry thinks he was misidentified and was actually Intelligence not Operations. Perhaps he’ll confirm or deny. Not sure what this means, how it supports or compromises his testimony (to the HSCA?). But the article you wrote suggests that the big guns at ARRB are the cause of this confusion, done deliberately to impugn Jones’ testimony to ARRB that supported Prouty’s claim that the SS refused the 112th offer to aid in securing Dallas during JFK’s ill fated visit. Do I have this right?