Did Fidel Kill Kennedy?

[Chris Cox]

Thank you John. Take a walk down presidential assassination alley and its a familiar path. John Wilkes Booth seems the mold used for LHO. All alone but not really.

Wise words from Mae Brussell: A coup d'etat, planned and financed in the U.S., would be informative to study as a protection against identical possibilities in this country.

[Ron Ecker]

George Wallace (failed) and John Lennon can be added to the list of political assassinations, with the beneficiary as usual being the U.S. government at the time.

Ron

[Tim Gratz]

To: Ron and John

Ron wrote about:

JFK

RFK

MLK

Attempt on Reagan’s life

Vince Foster

Ron Brown

9/11

Paul Wellstone

All connected conspiracies?

All commited by the U.S. government? Ron wrote: “. . .Is there a pattern here? It looks like the U.S. government as Murder, Inc.” With respect to the murder of JFK, how can you say it was the “U.S. government?” JFK himself was the head of the executive branch of the U.S. government, of which the CIA was a part. Is it your position that the CIA as an institution organized the assassination of JFK? If so, do you contend the assassination was approved by CIA Director John McCone, who had been appointed by JFK, or even by Deputy Director Richard Helms, without McCone's knowledge? If this is your contention, please provide what evidence you have that either McCone or Hems authorized the assassination.

For that matter, I have still not seen any proof whatsoever connecting anyone in the CIA to the JFK assassination (other than Morales’ drunken braggadocio). (I do not think the fact that there are faces in a photograph of Dealey Plaza that bear a resemblance to certain CIA employees rises to the level of proof..) The fact that Maurice Bishop, whoever that might be, let himself be seen with LHO, IMO, completely exculpates "Bishop". And the fact that (apparently) the conspirators sent an LHO impostor into The Cuban and Soviet Embassy in Mexico City completely exonerates all CIA operatives, since anyone in the CIA smart enough to plan an assassination would also be privy to the sophistication of the CIA’s surveillance techniques.

The U.S. government murdered MLK? Who in the U.S. government ordered the killing of MLK? LBJ? Someone else? There may very well have been a conspiracy to kill Rev. King, but by the U.S. government, or any part thereof? Where is your proof?

With respect to RFK, the same question: Who in the U.S. government authorized, sponsored or endorsed the murder of RFK? If you have any evidence, I am sure the attorneys for Sirhan Sirhan would love to hear it.

The attempt on Ronald Reagan’s life? You say the CIA would have benefited? What in the world do you mean by this? Are you aware that Reagan appointed his campaign chairman, William Casey, as the director of the CIA? And that Casey reinvigorated the CIA? (IMO, Casey is one of the unsung heroes who helped the West win the Cold War.) So how would the CIA have benefited from the death of Ronald Reagan? And do you think that Reagan’s old friend Bill Casey authorized his CIA agents to kill the President? Or was it renegade CIA agents?

Do you find it necessary to try to make the attempt on Reagan’s life part of a conspiracy Just to disprove the theory that a lone nut could kill a President? (Hinckley sure came darn close.) You can relax: the fact that lone nuts try (and sometimes do kill Presidents does not mean that LHO was a lone nut.

Speaking of lone nuts, what about the attempt on Gerald Ford’s life? Was that also part of some grand conspiracy too?

Do you seriously assert that Bill Clinton plotted the murders of Vince Foster and Ron Brown? I admit that Clinton may very well have benefited by their deaths but that is a far cry from saying he did it.

Let me show you by illustration just how ridiculous this “cui bono” nonsense is. Sen. Bill Heinz, a man who I greatly admired, died in a plane crash. Not only did that plane crash give John Kerry a good-looking new wife (I understand he was attracted to her even before Sen. Heinz’s death), it also gave him access to the Heinz fortune from which he funded his presidential campaign. So forget about any evidence, it simply must be that Sen. Kerry had Sen. Heinz’s plane sabotaged, if not for the wife for her money.

I could argue that the international communist conspiracy benefited by the unrest in this country generated by the assassinations of JFK, RFK and MLK. Therefore, the Communists must have killed not only JFK but RFK and MLK. Now there is real evidence that Castro may have plotted the death of JFK (not only his motive (self-preservation) but the suspicious presence in Texas of two Cubans who fled to Havana shortly after the assassination. I could certainly argue that the Communists would have benefited from the death of Ronald Reagan. I could also argue that there is good reason to suspect KGB in the attempted murder of the Pope, a person who I believe shares the credit with Reagan for the defeat of Communism. But to argue, without any evidence, that Hinckley was secretly manipulated by the KGB to kill Reagan is as ridiculous as positing that Hinckley was controlled by the CIA (shh!! don’t let Casey know!) or by George H. W. Bush-heck, G.H.W. Bush wasn’t even smart enough to know that with a closely fought re-election battle looming you don’t alienate all the broccoli farmers in the country (let alone all the mothers trying to get their kids to eat broccoli)-or, more seriously, wasn’t smart enough to not raise taxes after he had so graphically pledged “no new taxes”--how in the world could he plan an assassination, for heaven’s sake?

IMO it is such open-ended, conspiracy allegations, made without a shred of evidence, that discredit the assassination research community. Let’s figure out who killed JFK and not engage in vain speculation that Clinton whacked Vince Foster and Ron Brown. (Let me tell you, any president who will only engage in fellatio so he can engage in semantic gymnastics that he did not “have sex with that woman” is not, IMO, a murderer.).

And to John: what do you mean that it is “not a coincidence that Lincoln was murdered by a group of Southerners who got what they wanted out of the assassination”? First, how, in the long run, did the South benefit by Lincoln’s death? I think most historians believe that Lincoln would not have imposed the draconian reconstruction laws on the South. Second, your most recent argument is not that JFK was killed not by Southern racists but by the MICC. Well, in 1865 there was no “industrial complex” in the agrarian south.

I believe the phrase “not a coincidence” means there is some logical connection or nexus between the two events. Even if JFK was killed by Southern racists as was Lincoln, what is the connection? Does that prove that all presidential assassins are southern racists? Of course not. (Let’s not forget the other presidents who were also assassinated.) Does that prove that all southern racists are murderers? No.

Can any conclusion at all regarding the JFK assassination be drawn from the fact that Lincoln was killed by Southern racists? No. Not one. Nada.

This is so simple to illustrate. Let us assume that we conclude that the Grand Dragon of the KKK (or whatever they call themselves) planned the JFK assassination and, by golly, he is still alive and is brought to trial in Texas. Could the DA introduce into evidence the fact that Lincoln was killed by a group of Southern racists? Of course not. It has no evidentiary value whatsoever. One might as well argue that because Vice-President Andrew Johnson, a Southerner, plotted the Lincoln assassination (if that could be proved) that therefore Vice-President Lyndon Johnson must have plotted the Kennedy assassination.

I do not want to characterize Ron’s implicit argument that the CIA or George Bush may have orchestrated Hinckley to kill Ronald Reagan as “insane”; let me simply say it makes as much sense as speculating that Sen. Kerry killed Sen. Heinz.

[Dawn Meredith]

A mention was made in this thread about the assassination of presidential candidates and civil rights leaders. I think this is highly relevant to the question of whether Castro had JFK assassinated.

I think it is safe to say that the same agencies that killed JFK also killed MLK and RFK. These political assassinations of the 1960s were not copy-cat crimes. They involved the same means (shooting the victim and framing a lone nut), motive (Vietnam and civil rights were issues connecting all three victims, plus RFK posed the threat of reopening the JFK case), and opportunity (who was going to stop them?), plus the power, virtually absolute, to cover up the crime in all three cases.

So the question: Did Castro have King and RFK killed too? I doubt it. I think the fingerprints of a couple of homegrown U.S. agencies are all over these crimes.

Ron

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

______________________________________

Ron:

Absolutely the same powers that be killed all three of these men. And for the reasons you post. Dr Phil Melanson has done very good work on the other two murders:. "The Assassination of MLK" reads like a true crime novel. I read it in one day. His book on the murder of RFK (Same title) is equally compelling. Phil teaches at Southeastern U. in Mass. and is the director of the Robert F Kennedy Assassination Archives, at this university.

I think John that a sep thread on both RFK and MLK is an excellent idea as there has been so much good work on both cases. Judge Joe Brown, who presided over the trial re. the testing of the alledged James Earl Ray rifle was brilliant, until he was REMOVED from the case. This trial was accomplished thru the efforts of the researchers, Ray's atty and primarily backed by the family of MLK.

Sadly Ray died before he could ever be exonerated.

But SIrhan is still alive and well and has a wonderful attorney who has worked tirelessly to demonstrate this conspiracy. I have watched his parole hearings on Court tv and am disgusted by them. They truly makes me ashamed to be involved in the "legal (in)justice system". But the RFK case is so simple. Straightforward.

Can easily be solved BUT FOR the powers that be, and the corrupt LAPD who actively participated in the coverup. (I am not saying the entire police force of LA is corrupt, but the men who "assisted" in this case destroyed evidence and, those who are still alive remain unindicted co-conspirators.)

Dawn

[Dawn Meredith]

A mention was made in this thread about the assassination of presidential candidates and civil rights leaders. I think this is highly relevant to the question of whether Castro had JFK assassinated.

I think it is safe to say that the same agencies that killed JFK also killed MLK and RFK. These political assassinations of the 1960s were not copy-cat crimes. They involved the same means (shooting the victim and framing a lone nut), motive (Vietnam and civil rights were issues connecting all three victims, plus RFK posed the threat of reopening the JFK case), and opportunity (who was going to stop them?), plus the power, virtually absolute, to cover up the crime in all three cases.

So the question: Did Castro have King and RFK killed too? I doubt it. I think the fingerprints of a couple of homegrown U.S. agencies are all over these crimes.

Ron

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

______________________________________

Ron:

Absolutely the same powers that be killed all three of these men. And for the reasons you post. Dr Phil Melanson has done very good work on the other two murders:. "The Assassination of MLK" reads like a true crime novel. I read it in one day. His book on the murder of RFK (Same title) is equally compelling. Phil teaches at Southeastern U. in Mass. and is the director of the Robert F Kennedy Assassination Archives, at this university.

I think John that a sep thread on both RFK and MLK is an excellent idea as there has been so much good work on both cases. Judge Joe Brown, who presided over the trial re. the testing of the alledged James Earl Ray rifle was brilliant, until he was REMOVED from the case. This trial was accomplished thru the efforts of the researchers, Ray's atty and primarily backed by the family of MLK.

Sadly Ray died before he could ever be exonerated.

But SIrhan is still alive and well and has a wonderful attorney who has worked tirelessly to demonstrate this conspiracy. I have watched his parole hearings on Court tv and am disgusted by them. They truly makes me ashamed to be involved in the "legal (in)justice system". But the RFK case is so simple. Straightforward.

Can easily be solved BUT FOR the powers that be, and the corrupt LAPD who actively participated in the coverup. (I am not saying the entire police force of LA is corrupt, but the men who "assisted" in this case destroyed evidence and thopse who are still alive remain unindicted co-conspirators.)

Dawn

[Dawn Meredith]

A mention was made in this thread about the assassination of presidential candidates and civil rights leaders. I think this is highly relevant to the question of whether Castro had JFK assassinated.

I think it is safe to say that the same agencies that killed JFK also killed MLK and RFK. These political assassinations of the 1960s were not copy-cat crimes. They involved the same means (shooting the victim and framing a lone nut), motive (Vietnam and civil rights were issues connecting all three victims, plus RFK posed the threat of reopening the JFK case), and opportunity (who was going to stop them?), plus the power, virtually absolute, to cover up the crime in all three cases.

So the question: Did Castro have King and RFK killed too? I doubt it. I think the fingerprints of a couple of homegrown U.S. agencies are all over these crimes.

Ron

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

______________________________________

Ron:

Absolutely the same powers that be killed all three of these men. And for the reasons you post. Dr Phil Melanson has done very good work on the other two murders:. "The Assassination of MLK" reads like a true crime novel. I read it in one day. His book on the murder of RFK (Same title) is equally compelling. Phil teaches at Southeastern U. in Mass. and is the director of the Robert F Kennedy Assassination Archives, at this university.

I think John that a sep thread on both RFK and MLK is an excellent idea as there has been so much good work on both cases. Judge Joe Brown, who presided over the trial re. the testing of the alledged James Earl Ray rifle was brilliant, until he was REMOVED from the case. This trial was accomplished thru the efforts of the researchers, Ray's atty and primarily backed by the family of MLK.

Sadly Ray died before he could ever be exonerated.

But SIrhan is still alive and well and has a wonderful attorney who has worked tirelessly to demonstrate this conspiracy. I have watched his parole hearings on Court tv and am disgusted by them. They truly makes me ashamed to be involved in the "legal (in)justice system". But the RFK case is so simple. Straightforward.

Can easily be solved BUT FOR the powers that be, and the corrupt LAPD who actively participated in the coverup. (I am not saying the entire police force of LA is corrupt, but the men who "assisted" in this case destroyed evidence and thopse who are still alive remain unindicted co-conspirators.)

Dawn

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

_______________________

Sorry, did not mean to post this twice. When I checked it was not yet posted, so I went back and found it and reposted, resulting in a double post, not my intent, sorry.

D.

[Ron Ecker]

Tim,

I'm not going to review all the evidence of government complicity in these serial assassinations because I don't have the time and because this forum is about the JFK assassination. Suffice it to say that the latter is part of (the beginning of) a pattern. There are books on these other cases, but you want me to spell all of it out for you here? Melanson, for one, has written excellent books on the MLK and RFK hits. See also Pepper's An Act of State. If you want to know the evidence of murder in the Foster case, read The Strange Death of Vincent Foster. If you want to know the evidence of murder in the Brown case, read Ron Brown's Body. On the Reagan attempt, I said that the CIA and Bush would have benefited simply due to the fact that it would have put the CIA's man Bush in the White House. I call that benefit. There may have been additional motives, or that benefit alone could have been enough for the likes of Bush and his bloody organization to bump off another victim. They have no compunction about it, and who's going to stop them? The Reagan shooting fits the pattern, another patented lone-nut government hit including another magic bullet. There is clear evidence that Hinckley didn't shoot Reagan. Almost nothing has been written on this, due to America's controlled corporate media, but here's a good link:

http://www.parascope.com/mx/articles/hinckley.htm

Ron

[Tim Gratz]

Ron, I attempted to say in my original post that you cannot brand someone a murderer (or attempted murderer) simply because they benefited from the crime. Heck, half the husbands of good looking wives in the DC area may have benefited from the death of JFK (at least their wives were safe from his charms).

As Paul Hoch once said, (paraphrasing his thought) if we tried to solve the JFK assassination on the cui benefit theory, there would be eight different assassins (at least) lined up behind the picket fence, including both anti-Castro Cuban exiles and members of the DGI.

And like I said, John Kerry benefited from the death of Sen. Heinz, but that does not prove he sabotaged Heinz's plane.

Do you know anything about this Parascope organization? I read to the bottom of one of its articles and it tries to link George H. W. Bush to the CIA's BOP by noting that two of the ships in the BOP were named Houston (Bush's adopted town) and Barbara (Barbara Bush, get it?). I accuse this organization of deliberstely falsifying information. The name of the boat involved in the BOP was not the Barbara. It was the Barbara J. Check the history books. I have. Before the BOP the CIA had a front organization in Stock Island, Florida, less than five miles from where I am now composing this. We wrote a story about it for the Key West newspaper and read several boks about the BOP, including the book by Grayston Lynch. The name of the boat was the Barbara J. There is no way to relate the initial J. to Barbara Bush, so now, conveniently, your Parascope source drops the initial J from the name of the boat. If that is not disinformation, I don't know what is!

And re the fact that the BOP code-name was Zapata, which was the name of Bush's company, do you know why the CIA picked Zapata as the code name? Do you know of Emiliana Zapata, a famous Mexican freedom fighter whose life was chronicled in the film Viva Zapata? He also happened to be assassinated on April 10, 1919 (April 10TH being very close to the sceduled date for the BOP invasion.)

So do you think Bill Clinton killed Vince Foster and Ron Brown? Come on, how does this relate to JFK, RFK, MLK and the attempt on Reagan's life? I mean, maybe I'm dense, but this makes no sense at all to me.

Edited January 22, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Ron Ecker]

Tim,

I know all about the Barbara J, and yes I know you can find things wrong with all of these websites that cover things that the established corporate media will not cover. But I don't care if Parascope says somewhere on its site that the world is being run by aliens at Area 51 or in Madison Square Gardens. That doesn't invalidate what the link I provided contains about the Reagan shooting. You have to find this kind of info wherever you can, if it can be found at all. The only place to find good 9/11 independent research, for example, is on websites many of which are run by people who have all kind of weird or wacko ideas about things in general. That's the way it is when the mainstream media in this country won't do its job.

I did not say Bill Clinton murdered Foster or Brown. I said that his regime benefited, in that these were members of the regime whom someone clearly felt needed to be gotten rid of. And why do I say the U.S. government was involved in all these assassinations that have been discussed? Because in every case it's the U.S. government, through whatever investigative bodies are involved, that covers up the crime, in one of three ways: it was a lone nut, suicide, or accident. But in every case there is left the same type of unanswered questions, improbabilities, absurdities, and coincidences, and the controlled media will not touch them, the cases are closed. Well, they're not closed as far as I'm concerned, but I don't want to argue about it. This is clearly a waste of time.

Ron

[John Simkin]

Trento names the members of the Politburo who he says formed a cabal to first eliminate Kennedy and then Khruschev.  Many of these names are not familiar to assassination researchers.  He has some basis for what he says--I am assuming he did not make up the whole thing.  How can a person intelligently dismiss his scenario without reading his book?

I received my copy of Joseph J. Trento’s The Secret History of the CIA yesterday and I am now able to comment on his theory that the KGB killed JFK. In fact, Trento does not actually say this. What he does is to report James Jesus Angleton’s theory. He does this without examining the flaws in Angleton’s theory. Nor does he look at any other theory concerning the assassination.

Let us first look at what we can agree with Trento/Angleton about. There is no doubt that Khrushchev was indeed seen by the KGB and the Politburo as a dangerous leader. He was very different from the people who had previously ruled the Soviet Union. He was indeed a maverick politician who caused the system to become unstable. His famous condemnation of Stalin and his policies clearly triggered off the Hungarian uprising. It also encouraged other satellite countries to start demanding more autonomy.

Khrushchev also upset the KGB and the Politburo with his policies over Cuba. Although gains were made as a result of the Cuban Missile Crisis, they were aware that the world came close to having its first nuclear war. The Soviet Union, more than any other country, had most to lose from such a war.

It was in 1963 that the KGB (led by Andropov) and the Politburo (led by Brezhnev) decided to get rid of Khrushchev. However, these things take time and Khrushchev was finally forced to resign in October 1964.

Now, according to Angleton, the KGB could not wait to oust Khrushchev in the conventional way. Instead they had this fantastic idea to bring an end to these Cold War negotiations with the United States, they had to kill JFK. Of course, they could not be seen as the organization behind the conspiracy. Therefore, they had to set-up others to take the rap. The obvious thing to do was to blame an organization as distant from the KGB as possible. For example, a right-wing group in America such as the John Birch Society or the Ku Klux Klan. They rejected that idea, instead they chose to set up Lee Harvey Oswald, a man who was already linked to the KGB and the Soviet Union. What is more, during 1963 was doing all he could to be seen as a supporter of Fidel Castro.

Trento/Angleton explain this by selecting Oswald in order to “link him to Castro and not the Soviet Union” (page 260). To reinforce this idea the KGB employs two Cuban agents called Policarpo and Casas. For the first time Trento gives us a source other than Angleton to justify this claim. He quotes CIA documents to show that Policarpo and Casas were in the United States in 1963. Policarpo was in Mexico City on 25th November and he left for Cuba soon afterwards.

Another CIA document dated 9th December has Casas’s aunt saying he was in Dallas on the day of the assassination. According to Angleton, Raul Castro personally selected Casas for the mission (page 267). Therefore, Angleton is claiming it was a joint KGB/Cuban conspiracy. This completely undermines the theory why Oswald was set-up as the patsy. Of course, Oswald’s links to both the Soviet Union and Cuba make him the worse sort of patsy for the KGB to use. Trento ignores this point and appears to hope the reader will fail to see the flaw in the argument.

Trento/Angleton are therefore arguing that the KGB and Castro’s government planned the assassination of JFK in order to get Khrushchev removed from power. It did not seem to worry them that the United States authorities might discover the people involved in this plot. What did the KGB think would happen if this story got out? It would for a start had been a great propaganda coup for the United States. Can you imagine how the rest of the world would have responded to this news? Lyndon Johnson would have ordered an invasion of Cuba in order to bring the men to justice. Non-Soviet controlled countries would have universally agreed to this action but would have pleaded with Johnson not to launch a nuclear attack on the Soviet Union. This he would have agreed to do but would have insisted on concessions from the Soviet government.

Yet the authors of this theory claim that Johnson discovers details of this KGB/Castro plot and instead of taking advantage of this information, decides to put pressure on the CIA, FBI and the Warren Commission in order to cover up the plot.

Angleton had clearly lost his mind to come up with such a theory (he was not the first senior CIA official to suffer a mental breakdown). However, it is difficult to see what reason Trento has for pushing this theory. Maybe I will find out when I read the rest of the book.

[Shanet Clark]

So Trento's theory came straight from James Jesus Angleton?

Run away! Run 180 degrees in the other direction!

[Tim Gratz]

There is one thing John's analysis of the Trento book LHO does not, apparently, consider. I admit I do not think the scenario is expressly discussed in Trento's book, however.

Many people believe, with some basis, I think, that when LHO defected to the Soviet Union he was acting as an agent for some United States intelligence agency, whether CIA or military intelligence.

Shortly after the Kennedy assassination, a high-ranking KGB agent named Yuri Nosenko defected to the U.S. He claimed that he was familiar with the KGB's Oswald file and asserted that Oswald was never a KGB agent. Many people in the CIA considered Nosenko might be a false defector because it had evidence he was lying about his rank in the KGB and other things. When the CIA gave him a polygraph examination in 1966, that polygraph examination indicated he was lying when he denied that the KGB had recruited LHO as an agent.

So the possibility exists, I think, that LHO was an agent for a US intelligence agency but he was "doubled" while he was in the Soviet Union.

If this was the case, it would make perfect sense for the KGB to use LHO in the assassination: the US would know that one of its own agents had killed the president. A cover-up and hurried investigation would be imperative. The KGB knew the US would never be able to use LHO to pin the assassination on the Soviet Union since, as far as the US knew, LHO was a faithful U.S. agent

who must have "gone mad".

This scenario fits the evidence linking Oswald to US intelligence with the results of the Nosenko polygraph (see below).

We have had previous discussions of what role if any LHO played in the assassination and what agency (if any) was controlling

him. We really need to consider all of the possible scenarios. Let me try again.

(i) LHO was not connected to any agency either when he defected to the Soviet Union or thereafter. And he killed JFK acting on his own. (I believe we have one participating forum member who believes this.)

(ii) LHO was not connected to any agency either when he defected to the Soviet Union or thereafter. He was a patsy. Presumably, made a patsy because he had defected to the Soviet Union and was a member of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. This scenario presumably fits if JFK was killed by Southern racists, people trying to maintain the oil depletion allowance, the CIA, the FBI, LBJ, the MICC, or any combination thereof.

(iii) LHO was an agent of a U.S. agency when he defected and also when he returned to the U.S. But he "went nuts" and killed JFK on his own, but his previous connections demanded a "cover-up".

(iv) LHO was an agent of a U.S. agency when he defected and also when he returned to the U.S. The agency used him to kill JFK. IMO, it would be an act of lunacy for any agency of the US to use LHO since he could possibly be linked back.

(v) LHO was an agent of a U.S. agency when he defected and also when he returned to the U.S. But he was a patsy set up by the agency for which he worked. I would reject this scenario for the same reason I would reject a scenario that the agency actually employed LHO in the assassination.

(vi) LHO was an agent of a U.S. agency when he defected and also when he returned to the U.S. But he was a patsy set up by some group, not associated with the U.S., who believed that LHO was a left wing nut. E.g., Southern racists, oil barons, the MICC, anti-Castro Cubans, etc.

(vii) LHO was not an agent of any U.S. intelligence group when he defected to the Soviet Union but he was recruited by the KGB. However, he "went nuts" and killed JFK on his own.

(viii) LHO was not an agent of any U.S. intelligence group when he defected to the Soviet Union but he was recruited by the KGB. The KGB employed him in the assassination.

(ix) LHO was not an agent of any U.S. intelligence group when he defected to the Soviet Union but he was recruited by the KGB. However, he was a patsy, but the people who made him a patsy were unaware of his connections to Soviet intelligence. They saw him as a left wing nut, a convenient scapegoat. In this case, the true conspirators could, IMO, hypothetically include the CIA.

(x) LHO was an agent of US intelligence when he defected but was doubled in the Soviet Union. However, he "went nuts" and killed JFK on his own.

(xi) LHO was an agent of US intelligence when he defected but was doubled in the Soviet Union. The KGB used him in the assassination, knowing his connections with U.S. intelligence would guarantee a cover-up. Perhaps he was employed by the KGB only as a "patsy".

I think there is a lot of evidence indicating LHO may have defected to the U.S. as an agent of U.S. intelligence.

In my opinion, IF this is true, it is highly unlikely that any U.S. agencies were involved in the assassination, since the last thing they would want to do would be to actually use or use as a patsy one of their own agents.

Unless Nosenko's polygraph resulted in false positives on the relevant questions, it seems probable that LHO was a KGB agent (meaning scenarios (vii) through (xi) apply). Given the evidence of LHO's possible connections to U.S.

intelligence, scenarios (iv) and (v) seem possible, with (v) perhaps the most probable.

There may very well be other evidence linking LHO to Soviet intelligence. But the Nosenko polygraph by itself is sufficient to support a conclusion, for the reasons set forth below, that LHO was, more likely than not, a KGB agent when he returned to the U.S.

* * * * * *

i previously posted the report prepared by the panel of experts who reviewed the polygraph tests conducted on Yuri Nosenko by the CIA. The panel determined that Nosenko showed signs of deception when he was asked the following question:

"Was Lee Harvey Oswald an agent for the KGB?" (words to that effect) With respect to polygraphs, it is important to understand the following terminology:

(1) false positive: a false positive is an indication that the person being tested is lying when in fact he or she is being truthful; (2) false negative: a false negative means a person is able to lie and beat the machine. That is, the person being tested answers the question with a lie, but the test shows no reaction (i.e. its "negative reaction") is false.

Robert Charles-Dunne attacked the Nosenko polygraph test by arguing, in part, that polygraph tests are inherently unreliable. He notes, correctly, that polygraph tests are not accepted in the American judicial system. It is my recollection, however, that one of the reasons ploygraph examinations are not accepted is not neccesarily that they are unreliable but that the jury will consider them so reliable the jury will place an inordinate weight on the polygraph to the exclusion of other evidence.

There are reports available indicating how often polygraphs render false positives. The highest I recall seeing is a 15 (maybe 20) per cent false positive rate. If anyone has data indicating the false positive rate on polygraphs is higher than that, let me know.

If my recollection is right, this means the chances that the Nosenko polygraph had a "false positive" (i.e. false indication of deception) on the "LHO as KGB agent" question is no more than 20%. Ergo, more likely than not, LHO was a KGB agent

(the probability that he was a KGB agent being 80% under this analysis. It should also be remembered that there were other reasons why the CIA considered Nosenko a xxxx.

Considering the evidence, I think the following may be true: LHO was an agent of U.S. intelligence, doubled in the Soviet Union as a KGB agent. The KGB orchestrated the assassination. LHO was a patsy. What could he say? "I was a

KGB agent, but I didn't do this; the KGB set me up." How far would that get him?

When LHO knew he was a patsy, the only thing he could do was try to callout to his connections within the U.S. system.

In summary, I think the possibiity that LHO was a "double agent" must not be lightly dismissed.

[Tim Gratz]

John, you remember the Hugh McDonald book that argued that while LBJ was in Europe the KGB had approached him, advised him that JFK was to be hit, and told him his part was to cover it up.

Obviously had this happened it would have been LBJ's patriotic duty to advise JFK, the Secret Service, the FBI, the CIA, etc etc.

But you yourself have argued persuasively that LBJ had important selfish reasons to want to become President in the fall of 1963 (to cover up evidence that may have implicated him in jailable offenses).

So perhaps there could be some element of truth in McDonald's scenario, as far-fetched as it might first appear.

Even if this is not true, the record, anyway, indicates that LBJ and our government did everything it could to cover up any evidence of foreign involvement in the assassination. Why would LBJ desire a war with the Soviet Union to avenge the death of a man whose brother, he suspected, was trying to send him to jail?

Had LBJ suspected that Brezhnev did it (note: Brezhnev, not Khruschev), under YOUR scenario of the events being played out in the fall of 1963, LBJ would have probably wanted to thank Brezhnev, not kill him. (Or, LBJ: "That damn Brezhnev! He killed the man whose brother was going to put me in jail! This means war!" No, that dog don't hunt!)

[John Simkin]

And to John: what do you mean that it is “not a coincidence that Lincoln was murdered by a group of Southerners who got what they wanted out of the assassination”?    First, how, in the long run, did the South benefit by Lincoln’s death?  I think most historians believe that Lincoln would not have imposed the draconian reconstruction laws on the South.  Second, your most recent argument is not that JFK was killed not by Southern racists but by the MICC.  Well, in 1865 there was no “industrial complex” in the agrarian south.

I have started a new thread on the Abraham Lincoln assassination.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3001

[Tim Gratz]

Victor Marchetti was a disenchanted CIA agent who resigned and co-wrote a book called "The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence". Dick Russell, in his book "The Man Who Knew Too Much" states that Marchetti had offered "a theory he claimed to have heard that fits with his own picture of the chaos in the CIA: that the KGB had so infilitrated the CIA and the CIA had so infilitrated the KGB so that it was impossible to tell who was who.Marchetti "thinks it is the KGB branch of the CIA that killed Kennedy and that the U.S. CIA is too embarrassed to investigate and reveal the state of affairs." In 1976, Russell interviewed Marchetti, who told Russell that he believed the CIA had been penetrated somewhere near the top in the Soviet Russia Division.

Of course, it was Angleton's theory (based in part on the defector Golitsin) that there was a least one high level "mole" in the CIA.

Russell's book also quotes a publication that states that the death of three European CIA agents (one clearly a murder; one could be a suicide; and one an apparent heart attack) resulted from their discovery of a Soviet spy ring within the CIA. Russell states that he believes the evidence he uncovered did reveal the existence of a Soviet spy ring within the CIA (although he does not believe that the "KGB branch of the CIA" killed Kennedy).

Does the existence of a KGB spy ring within the CIA PROVE that the KGB killed Kennedy? In itself, no. But does it lend support to other evidence of possible KGB involvement in the assassination? Surely that answer is yes.

And of course it is the premise of Russell's book that the KGB had advance knowledge of the planned assassination of JFK--knowledge it did not report to U.S. authorities. More on this later.

John, Angelton might not be as nuts as you think he was!