Problem For Researchers

[Pat Speer]

Pat, your last paragraph was very interesting!  Are you able to give some examples?

For what it is worth, when I first started to seriously research the JFK case in preparation for our first set of newspaper articles, I called a few people who I had heard of (one of which was Gordon Winslow; another James Lesar).  I had a brief conversation with Professor McAdams.  He was very cordial and helpful in suggesting pro-conspiracy writers I should contact. 

But I would be very interested in hearing more about your last paragraph!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe you could alert the professor to my just re-activated thread on Silencers and the CIA and have him respond. The two exhibits mis-labeled are F-113 and F-114.

[Greg Wagner]

Pat wrote: When you hit a wall, you have to examine the wall, see if it's real, and then follow the wall to where it leads.

Tim Wrote: I appreciate Greg's point and respect Jim Root's intelligence and integrity but the difficulty is that unlike Jim I do not think we can start with one assumption and then try to find the evidence to prove it. I think we need to run down all possible leads even if some may prove to be dead ends. And we have to recognize that our pet theories may be wrong.

I agree that ideally, in a case such as this, one would “examine the wall” every time. And ideally, in a case such as this, it would be wise to “run down all possible leads.” While I don’t mean to suggest that one should be selective in the walls they examine or the leads they run down based on how well they fit one’s pet theory, a person should be selective about what walls they examine and about what leads they run down based upon the source of the information.

As I stated above, in an ideal world, you’d run down the lead anyway, examine the source, and then assign a proper degree of weight to your findings based on your assessment of the source’s credibility. The problem with the Kennedy murder investigation is that it is not taking place in an ideal or even a typical environment. It is my contention that (and I believe that Pat may disagree with me on this) “they”, whoever you believe “they” are, have been and are currently engaged in a campaign, via print media (every year around 11/22, The Columbus Dispatch prints the same Warren Commission conclusion in their account of this event. As if it had been universally accepted long ago.) and the Internet. Clare Boothe Luce was merely one, obvious example. Most are probably not so obvious.

So, the “tightrope” to which I refer represents one’s decision on what leads to run down, or the amount of resources to commit to examining a given wall, based on one’s assessment of the source of the lead. This up front discrimination is made necessary by the misdirection campaign being employed by those who wish the truth to remain hidden. Tim helps to emphasize my point when he talks about not allowing pet theories to guide one’s decisions. True enough. But the other side to that coin is examining everything. If a researcher takes that approach, he will go to his grave with a vast amount of knowledge about this case. But time will run out on him, just as it did on the HSCA. He will have been buried under a mountain of “leads”. And he will have come no closer to the truth. So, that’s the difficulty here: one must keep an open mind and avoid the myopia of irrevocably lashing one’s self to a pet theory, while avoiding the certain futility and defeat that will result in the elastic tolerance of ideas that commits a researcher to chase down every rumor, and examine and define every wall.

Mr. Gratz, (and this is not a criticism of your political affiliations; a question really) I would suspect that you especially, being an arch conservative, strict-constructionist type, would be very well-schooled in the dangers and problems present in elastic tolerance of ideas. Correct me if I’m wrong here (and I know that you will if I am), but isn’t that an underlying fundamental difference between the labels “conservative” and “progressive”? Strict vs. loose construction; the inelasticity of ideas vs. the elasticity of them? Making the connection to our topic, using a conservative mindset, wouldn’t elastic tolerance of ideas (running down all leads, examining all walls, considering all possibilities) have the same problems that a conservative would claim plague progressive politics? I apologize for the tangent, but it seemed relevant given your position.

But credit where credit is due, Tim: “And we have to recognize that our pet theories may be wrong.” An absolutely true statement sir. Ipso facto, the tightrope.

Edited May 15, 2005 by Greg Wagner

[Jim Root]

Tim

Thank you for the compliment but I tend to disagree with your conclusion:

"...unlike Jim I do not think we can start with one assumption and then try to find the evidence to prove it."

Does one need to examine every tree to identify a forest?

Like you, Tim, I consider myself a conservative and am generally supportive of our government, although not always pleased. I do not vote a straight party ticket and in many ways feel that the conservative party in America has lost sight of its founders beliefs. I thank God daily that our "Cold Warriors" guided us into the 21st Century without destroying the planet and accept that they were not perfect nor did they always opperate in the most moral ways.

Having said that, when I first picked up the Warren Report my thought was to better prepare myself to defend its findings. Within 30 pages I was faced with a dilemma by the name of Major General Edwin Anderson Walker. I was not familier with this man and wondered why his name had been "covered up" to obsurity in the assassination debate. With that my journey within this forest did begin. My walk has allowed me to examin a remarkable amount of information that, to often, follows a trail that continues to lead back to Walker or his associates.

Two points:

A). The conclusions of the Warren Commission do not work without the attempt on the life of Walker being attributed to Oswald. If there was a conspiracy, the Walker event must have been a part; but it occured seven months before the assassination. If he was not part of a conspiracy, with his backround and important associations, why would "they" make him a part of the story?

. No one becomes a Major General in the post WWII downsizing of the military unless they played a "roll" in WWII.

When I first began my quest the only information readily available portrayed Walker as a "right wing" nut involved in "race riots" in Mississippi and as the leader of the Airborne Troops that protected the black students during the integration of schools in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Two point:

A). This is an unusual contridiction (as I was to learn was so much of his life).

. If Walker was the commander of Airborne Troops in 1957 he must have been a combat officer in WWII.

When I first found information about Walker's military backround, two things stood out:

A). He had commanded the 1st Special Services Force....a group that, as Gerry Hemming points out, produced alot of future UW men.

. He was traveling to Europe at the same time that Oswald was defecting to Russia.

Yes Tim, it is this single tree that I continue to scale and the higher I climb upon its branches the more of the forest I can clearly see!

If you are not hypsiphobic don't be afraid of the height of this tree.

Jim Root

PS If you are open to every possibility can you accept that Oswald might have shot at Walker?

[John Simkin]

Vincent Salandria is a first-generation critic of the official government story (LNT / WC) and his views influenced Gaeton Fonzi's approach to the case.

I just started re-reading Fonzi's The Last Investigation when I came across this insightful comment he made to Fonzi as GF was beginning his work for the HSCA: "He ventured that I would get mired in a quagmire of inconsequential details. They'll keep you very, very busy and eventually wear you down" (pg. 52).

Important post Greg. I have been away for a couple of days and was unable to contribute before this morning. I in fact raised this point before. See:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1734

To quote myself:

As Salandria points out: “The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear: 'We are in control and no one - not the President, nor Congress, nor any elected official - no one can do anything about it.' It was a message to the people that their Government was powerless. And the people eventually got the message."

Salandria implies that he eventually gave up the struggle because he realized he was powerless. It also raises the issue of why other important JFK researchers eventually fell silent or changed their mind that it was a conspiracy: Mark Lane, Edward Jay Epstein, Robert J. Groden, Henry Hurt, Joachim Joesten, Michael Kurtz, Gary Mack, Jim Marrs, Richard H. Popkin, Stephen Rivele, Dick Russell, David E. Scheim, Richard E. Sprague, Josiah Thompson, William Turner, Noel Twyman, etc. I know some of these people are dead, but they went quiet long before that happened. Even Gaeton Fonzi appears to be reluctant to talk about the case now.

Did they give up out of frustration? Did they sell out? Were they scared off the case? Or did they realize that the people in control of America would never allow the true story to be told?

[Tim Gratz]

John, did any of the above change their mind that it was a conspiracy?

An interesting discussion might be which "lone nut" adherents became conspiratorialists and vice versa, and an analysis of why their opinions changed.

Edited May 16, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Jim wrote:

Thank you for the compliment but I tend to disagree with your conclusion:

"...unlike Jim I do not think we can start with one assumption and then try to find the evidence to prove it."

I think one can find evidence to support several possible conspiracies. It might be more productive to look for evidence to EXCLUDE certain possibilities.

I do start off, however, by assuming some involvement by organized crime given Ruby's murder of Oswald. I think most would agree that the chance that Ruby was not part of a conspiracy is almost infintesimal. Someone within organized crime had the clout and enforcement ability to order Ruby to take out Oswald. Most likely Trafficante or Marcello. Ruby is thus the only known member of the conpiracy upon whom we can all agree. Most of us probably believe that LHO was not a shooter but it is not clear whether he was a complete patsy or if he played some role, even if only introducing the rifle into the TSBD.

Thus one possible scenario that cannot be dismissed out of hand is that the Mafia, or portions thereof, constituted the entire conspiracy.

A second possibility is that LBJ did it. He certainly had the motive. And there is the possibility of the Wallace fingerprint. And LBJ had sufficient connections to organized crime. I do not think the LBJ scenario is a strong one and there are indications that Wallace was a Communist so the Wallace fingerprint could point to either a Communist conspiracy or a LBJ conspiracy.

I have, as you know, argued at some length the evidence suggesting Cuban involvement in the assassination, given the many CIA plots to kill Castro and the ongoing Cubela caper in November of 1963. There is evidence that Trafficante was dealing with Castro and Cubela. So the assassination could have been a partnership between organized crime and the Cubans.

The possibility of an alliance between rogue elements of the CIA, anti-Castro Cuban exiles and organized crime also exists. We have, of course, the "confession" of Morales and the alliance between Morales, Robertson and Rosselli that could have turned against Kennedy.

Reportedly, Jimmy Hoffa through Frank Ragano had asked Trafficante and Marcello to kill JFK on his behalf. So it is possible that "Hoffa did it", which is slightly different than saying the Mafia did it on its own account.

The list could go on, of course, and I do not mean to exclude anyone's pet theory here. I do suggest that a common denominator must involve some elements of organized crime due to Ruby's murder of Oswald.

Another important issue to be considered is whether Oswald was working for U.S. intelligence. The problem is that the answer to this question can cut in either direction depending on one's viewpoint. If LHO was linked to US intelligence, some would argue that such association demonstrates the involvement of US intelligence in the assassination, even if LHO was only a patsy. Others, myself included, would argue that an association of LHO with US intelligence would exclude any US intelligence involvement in the assassination since you do not use your own agent as a patsy. If Oswald was in fact a bona fide Castro supporter, then unless he did it I think that would support a scenario that some elements of US intelligence used him as a patsy.

The frustrating thing, of course, is that there is in fact evidence to support several of these scenarios, even scenarios that seem mutually exclusive. I am not aware of concrete evidence that EXCLUDES any scenario. The key points against certain scenarios seem to be arguments of logic (e.g. "Castro would have to be insane to kill JFK", my argument that the Johnson tapes demonstrate he was not "in the loop, etc.) It is difficult to think of what might constitute evidence to clearly exclude one scenario, other than evidence conclusively establishing a contradictory scenario.

I'm probably rambling. My point is simply that the research must go one but it is premature to exclude any reasonable scenario and that may remain true until there is solid evidence to prove who the "big fish" really was (or were). Again, any scenario to be reasonable must explain Ruby's murder of Oswald. In my opinion, this means Trafficante and/or Marcello had to be part of it.

Edited May 16, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Jim Root]

Tim

We may agree to disagree but here goes a few thoughts.

"It might be more productive to look for evidence to EXCLUDE certain possibilities."

I have attempted to exclude Walker's inclussion in this mess since I first began. He exists within the Warren Report and his biography touches many of the major players that surround potential government involvement in the assassination or the coverup of that important information (I look at the two events as separate "crimes", assassination/cover-up).

"I think most would agree that the chance that Ruby was not part of a conspiracy is almost infintesimal."

I agree but believe he was only part of the cover-up without pre-knowledge of the assassination.

"Someone within organized crime had the clout and enforcement ability to order Ruby to take out Oswald. Most likely Trafficante or Marcello."

While Trafficante or Marcello indeed had clout it is my opinion that Ruby's religion may have played a role in his decission to "take out" Oswald. The night of the assassination Ruby goes to his Synagogue. Ruby then shows up with three "reporters" and anounces that he is interpreting for the Israeli Press. When he finally takes a lie detector test he fails a question about the person who presented this information to the Warren Commission. This "problem" with the test is brushed off because it is decided that Ruby may have moved but if he did move it was not noticed or recorded. After conviction and for the remainder of his life, Ruby spoke of the Holocaust and treatment of Jews.

The Moussad would certainly have the "clout and enforcement ability to order Ruby to take out Oswald" and the record seems to support this possibility. Since the US intelligence community has had a close relationship with Israeli Intelligence (Angleton as contact) this suggestion would be consistant with involvement by US intelligence in the silencing of Oswald.

"Another important issue to be considered is whether Oswald was working for U.S. intelligence. The problem is that the answer to this question can cut in either direction depending on one's viewpoint. If LHO was linked to US intelligence, some would argue that such association demonstrates the involvement of US intelligence in the assassination, even if LHO was only a patsy. Others, myself included, would argue that an association of LHO with US intelligence would exclude any US intelligence involvement in the assassination since you do not use your own agent as a patsy."

You have summarized my conundrum. The "important issue to be considered is whether Oswald was working for U.S. intelligence" and in what way? Without trying to draw bits and pieces from 200+ posts I do believe I can make a GREAT circumstantial case that Oswald's entry into the Soviet Union in 1959 was orchestrated by US intelligence assets. I also believe that Walker played a roll in Oswald's movements and I have more than enough information to place Walker within the relm of military intelligence operations (example Hemmings post about former Forceman that became Rangers that became UW experts).

There is one man, General Maxwell Taylor, who repeatedly used Edwin Walker for his most sensitive jobs. IF Walker was the man who passed information to Oswald on his way the the Soviet Embassy in Helsinki, Finland it is possible that only three men would have known. Oswald, Walker and the man who assigned him the task (Taylor?). Walker would not have known that Oswald had returned to the US so would have had no reason to suspect that Oswald may have shot at him in April. But Maxwell Taylor would have been in a position to know that Oswald was back in the US and (since he was being monitored by the FBI) that he was in Dallas at the time of the attempt on the life of Walker. And Taylor would be in the position to direct the motorcade past the TSBD where the CIA knew that Oswald worked.

I can imagine the shock on Walker's face whern he saw Oswald on television after his arrest (following the above scenario). This shock, and fear that he would be the patsy, would explain the Walker interview with the German newspaper, in less than 24 hours of the assassiantion and why Walker would have believed that Oswald would have shot at him in April.

Of the two crimes, the assassination and the cover-up, the use of Oswald would assure the cover-up. There is no way that US intelligence could admit that Oswald had been used as an asset while explaining that THEY had played no part in the assassination. This is the reason I believe that the "biggest guns" (Dulles, Warren and McCloy) were called in and willingly participated without actually knowing what had go wrong.

Tim, I understand this is very different from your theory but I have a hard time understanding how "Trafficante or Marcello" played a role in Oswald going to Russia.

There is a WHOLE FORREST out there!

Jim Root

[Tim Gratz]

Jim wrote:

You have summarized my conundrum. The "important issue to be considered is whether Oswald was working for U.S. intelligence" and in what way? Without trying to draw bits and pieces from 200+ posts I do believe I can make a GREAT circumstantial case that Oswald's entry into the Soviet Union in 1959 was orchestrated by US intelligence assets.

And:

Tim, I understand this is very different from your theory but I have a hard time understanding how "Trafficante or Marcello" played a role in Oswald going to Russia.

Jim, nothing is certain here except Ruby's involvement but my current thinking is that Oswald was associated with US intelligence and probably had nothing to do with the assassination. If the Mafia was behind it, it could have made Oswald the "patsy" without any knowledge of his link to US intelligence. Of course, neither Trafficante nor Marcello sent him to the Soviet Union.

It is also possible that Oswald was working for US intelligence but was "doubled" while he was in the Soviet Union. I understand that it was in Minsk that the KGB trained Cuban intelligence agents. The possibility that Oswald became a double agent is suggested by the fact that Nosenko flunked his polygraph question concerning whether Oswald was on a KGB mission in the US.

With due respect, how could the Mossad force Ruby to kill Oswald? Merely because he was a Jew? In my opinion, this does not make any sense. Also remember that there are reports that Rosselli engaged the Belli firm to represent Ruby--probably part of the deal that was made with Ruby to induce him to kill Oswald.

[Tim Gratz]

Greg wrote:

Making the connection to our topic, using a conservative mindset, wouldn’t elastic tolerance of ideas (running down all leads, examining all walls, considering all possibilities) have the same problems that a conservative would claim plague progressive politics? I apologize for the tangent, but it seemed relevant given your position.

Greg, in my opinion there is neither a "liberal" nor a "conservative" philosophy to be applied to crime investigations.

My home state (Wisconsin) is best known for two things (well, maybe three if you include diary products): 1. Darn cold (and long!) winters; and 2. Clean government.

In Wisconsin, the county coroners were elected on non-partisan tickets. If I recall correct, so was the register of deeds and county clerk. A lot less political patronage.

Presumably Republican coroners employ the same methodology in investigation deaths as do Democrats. There is no such thing as a partisan pathology.

The Florida Keys are known for: 1. IMO, best weather in continental United States; and 2. mosquitos. Here there is an elected Mosquito Control Board and, yes, you guessed it, you run for the Board on a partisan basis! Republicans spray mosquito poison in a different manner than Democrats, I guess.

Long-winded way to illustrate my point: criminal investigations ought not involve partisan political considerations. And another point I have made before: Republicans who disagreed with JFK politically should be as intererested in solving his murder as Democrats. Someone once posted (Mr. Charles-Dunne if I recall) that had Reagan or Bush I have ever been assassinated, he would have investigated that with the same interest as he investigates the Kennedy assasination. I regret the apparent fact that many who share my political philosophy are not as interested in solving the assassination as I am. For any assassination is a crime against the rule of law and a crime against our country.

Edited May 17, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Greg Wagner]

Greg wrote:

Making the connection to our topic, using a conservative mindset, wouldn’t elastic tolerance of ideas (running down all leads, examining all walls, considering all possibilities) have the same problems that a conservative would claim plague progressive politics? I apologize for the tangent, but it seemed relevant given your position.

Greg, in my opinion there is neither a "liberal" nor a "conservative" philosophy to be applied to crime investigations.

My home state (Wisconsin) is best known for two things (well, maybe three if you include diary products): 1. Darn cold (and long!) winters; and 2. Clean government.

In Wisconsin, the county coroners were elected on non-partisan tickets.  If I recall correct, so was the register of deeds and county clerk.  A lot less political patronage.

Presumably Republican coroners employ the same methodology in investigation deaths as do Democrats.  There is no such thing as a partisan pathology.

The Florida Keys are known for:  1. IMO, best weather in continental United States; and 2.  mosquitos.  Here there is an elected Mosquito Control Board and, yes, you guessed it, you run for the Board on a partisan basis!  Republicans spray mosquito poison in a different manner than Democrats, I guess.

Long-winded way to illustrate my point:  criminal investigations ought not involve partisan political considerations.  And another point I have made before:  Republicans who disagreed with JFK politically should be as intererested in solving his murder as Democrats.  Someone once posted (Mr. Charles-Dunne if I recall) that had Reagan or Bush I have ever been assassinated, he would have investigated that with the same interest as he investigates the Kennedy assasination.  I regret the apparent fact that many who share my political philosophy are not as interested in solving the assassination as I am.  For any assassination is a crime against the rule of law and a crime against our country.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well said, Tim.

[Mark Stapleton]

Pat wrote:  When you hit a wall, you have to examine the wall, see if it's real, and then follow the wall to where it leads.

Tim Wrote:  I appreciate Greg's point and respect Jim Root's intelligence and integrity but the difficulty is that unlike Jim I do not think we can start with one assumption and then try to find the evidence to prove it. I think we need to run down all possible leads even if some may prove to be dead ends. And we have to recognize that our pet theories may be wrong.

I agree that ideally, in a case such as this, one would “examine the wall” every time. And ideally, in a case such as this, it would be wise to “run down all possible leads.” While I don’t mean to suggest that one should be selective in the walls they examine or the leads they run down based on how well they fit one’s pet theory, a person should be selective about what walls they examine and about what leads they run down based upon the source of the information.

As I stated above, in an ideal world, you’d run down the lead anyway, examine the source, and then assign a proper degree of weight to your findings based on your assessment of the source’s credibility. The problem with the Kennedy murder investigation is that it is not taking place in an ideal or even a typical environment. It is my contention that (and I believe that Pat may disagree with me on this) “they”, whoever you believe “they” are, have been and are currently engaged in a campaign, via print media (every year around 11/22, The Columbus Dispatch prints the same Warren Commission conclusion in their account of this event. As if it had been universally accepted long ago.) and the Internet. Clare Boothe Luce was merely one, obvious example. Most are probably not so obvious.

So, the “tightrope” to which I refer represents one’s decision on what leads to run down, or the amount of resources to commit to examining a given wall, based on one’s assessment of the source of the lead. This up front discrimination is made necessary by the misdirection campaign being employed by those who wish the truth to remain hidden. Tim helps to emphasize my point when he talks about not allowing pet theories to guide one’s decisions. True enough. But the other side to that coin is examining everything. If a researcher takes that approach, he will go to his grave with a vast amount of knowledge about this case. But time will run out on him, just as it did on the HSCA. He will have been buried under a mountain of “leads”. And he will have come no closer to the truth. So, that’s the difficulty here: one must keep an open mind and avoid the myopia of irrevocably lashing one’s self to a pet theory, while avoiding the certain futility and defeat that will result in the elastic tolerance of ideas that commits a researcher to chase down every rumor, and examine and define every wall.

Mr. Gratz, (and this is not a criticism of your political affiliations; a question really) I would suspect that you especially, being an arch conservative, strict-constructionist type, would be very well-schooled in the dangers and problems present in elastic tolerance of ideas. Correct me if I’m wrong here (and I know that you will if I am), but isn’t that an underlying fundamental difference between the labels “conservative” and “progressive”? Strict vs. loose construction; the inelasticity of ideas vs. the elasticity of them? Making the connection to our topic, using a conservative mindset, wouldn’t elastic tolerance of ideas (running down all leads, examining all walls, considering all possibilities) have the same problems that a conservative would claim plague progressive politics? I apologize for the tangent, but it seemed relevant given your position.

But credit where credit is due, Tim:  “And we have to recognize that our pet theories may be wrong.”  An absolutely true statement sir. Ipso facto, the tightrope.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Greg,

Sorry for the double post. Your post was a very insightful comment and should be read by all researchers, especially the newer ones.

[John Simkin]

Over the last year I have read and studied a lot of the work of Robert Artwohl, Kenneth Rahn, Chad Zimmerman, Joseph Riley, Paul Seaton, John McAdams and Larry Sturdivan.  I believe more likely than not they are all sincere.  I think you can learn more by figuring out where these men are wrong (and they are) than by deciding that everything they say is disinformation.  If there are disinformationalists out there, working for the government, they would have to know that a certain percent of conspiracists will fall for almost anything, and that by falling for the bizarre, they drive a certain percentage of undecideds back towards the lone-nut position.  That's just the way it works.  As a result, I would suspect that the REAL disinformationalists don't adopt a lone-nut position at all, but create web-sites in which they try and blame the evils of the world on vast right-wing conspiracies against the ever-noble left, etc...  Oh when oh when will John Simkin finally step forward and admit his real role...

Pat is right to suggest that John McAdams and myself have similar objectives. We both want other people to share our view of the world. I can’t exactly say what McAdams’ view of the world is, although he definitely takes a more positive view of government agencies than I do.

My view is that there has been a giant conspiracy in operation throughout the western world since the early 19th century. It became necessary when mass communications made it possible for people to organize themselves into groups in order to demand more democratic societies. This posed a serious threat to the power elite in these different countries and they therefore conspired against those demanding democracy. In most cases these groups worked independently but in times of real crisis they have worked together. The controllers of newspapers played an important role in this conspiracy. Later, other forms of media became just as important. Sometimes reforms were allowed to take place. However, they only took place to enable the power elite to remain in control.

The most dangerous threat to the status quo was the Russian Revolution in 1917. There was a fear that these demands for equality would spread to all nations. Combined with the consequences of the First World War, the possibility of democracies in the west being restructured was very strong. It was now important for the state to develop intelligences agencies to counteract this historical development.

The disintegration of the Russian Revolution into a police state meant that the Russia would not be able to offer a good example for other people to follow.

For the rest of the 20th century the control of the mass media has been the best weapon of the power elite. In this way they have supported political parties that posed no threat to the status quo. In times of crisis, like in Italy in the 1920s and Germany and Spain in the 1930s, the power elite have been willing to support fascist movements. However, usually, the best option has been to support mildly reformist politicians and parties that pose no real threat to the status quo.

The only real threat to the power elite since the defeat of fascism is the possibility of the emergence of a charismatic leader that breaks out of the current party system. This includes both those on the left or the right. For example, a right-wing leader who manages to persuade a large number of people to abandon our flawed democratic system would create the danger of a civil war and the possibility of a real democratic revolution.

So far this has not happened. Neither on the right or left. I suppose our experience of Hitler makes us distrustful of dynamic charismatic leaders.

The nearest we have come to a charismatic leader is John F. Kennedy. Although elected as a right of centre politician in 1960, he became a new person after the Cuban Missile Crisis. He therefore posed a serious threat to the power elite in America, but ultimately, throughout the western world. Given time, it is possible that Kennedy would have turned out like other politicians. However, in 1963, he posed a real threat as it looked almost certain that he would win the 1964 election. This could have brought an end to the Cold War. If that happened the western world, without the distorted fear of communism, might have started thinking about out to create a more rational society. Therefore, I believe that the power elite had no option but to kill Kennedy.

The system was also threatened with the fall of communism in the late 1980s. It was therefore necessary to create new enemies that would insure that rational societies were not created. An important part of this strategy was to make sure the problems in the Middle East were not solved. This created a new threat, the Muslim Fundamentalist terrorist.

Over the last 20 years I have attempted to research the role that intelligence agencies have played in the giant conspiracy that has involved creating an “external” and “internal” enemy. My website and forum are attempts to reveal these interlocking conspiracies. As you can see, my scope is wider than John McAdams. After all, he only appears interested in the JFK assassination.

[Christopher T. George]

The nearest we have come to a charismatic leader is John F. Kennedy. Although elected as a right of centre politician in 1960, he became a new person after the Cuban Missile Crisis. He therefore posed a serious threat to the power elite in America, but ultimately, throughout the western world. Given time, it is possible that Kennedy would have turned out like other politicians. However, in 1963, he posed a real threat as it looked almost certain that he would win the 1964 election. This could have brought an end to the Cold War. If that happened the western world, without the distorted fear of communism, might have started thinking about out to create a more rational society. Therefore, I believe that the power elite had no option but to kill Kennedy. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi John

Do you seriously believe Kennedy would have or could have ended the Cold War? That he would have made peace with the USSR? Remember it was Nixon in the kitchen with Krushchev and it was Nixon who went to China. I don't believe Kennedy would have ended the Cold War. If he would have lived and been reelected in 1964, I suspect we would have seen the same type of nuclear brinkmanship as seen in the 1950's through the fall of Communism. In other words, as long as the USSR remained strong and was faced with a strong United States and NATO, the Cold War could not have possibly ended.

Where your thoughts about Kennedy vis a vis what caused his assassination might have some basis is in the thought that he might not have invested US military resources in Southeast Asia as happened under Johnson. That could be the key to why he was assassinated, that the Military Industrial complex felt he might not follow through with backing South Vietnam and would withdraw US advisers from Southeast Asia. But to end the Cold War? No, not possible or even plausible as a scenario in my opinion.

All my best

Chris

[John Simkin]

Do you seriously believe Kennedy would have or could have ended the Cold War? That he would have made peace with the USSR?  Remember it was Nixon in the kitchen with Krushchev and it was Nixon who went to China.  I don't believe Kennedy would have ended the Cold War.  If he would have lived and been reelected in 1964, I suspect we would have seen the same type of nuclear brinkmanship as seen in the 1950's through the fall of Communism.  In other words, as long as the USSR remained strong and was faced with a strong United States and NATO, the Cold War could not have possibly ended.

Yes, I do. See my postings here:

JFK’s Foreign Policy and the Assassination

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4227

[Christopher T. George]

Do you seriously believe Kennedy would have or could have ended the Cold War? That he would have made peace with the USSR?  Remember it was Nixon in the kitchen with Krushchev and it was Nixon who went to China.  I don't believe Kennedy would have ended the Cold War.  If he would have lived and been reelected in 1964, I suspect we would have seen the same type of nuclear brinkmanship as seen in the 1950's through the fall of Communism.  In other words, as long as the USSR remained strong and was faced with a strong United States and NATO, the Cold War could not have possibly ended.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, I do. See my postings here:

JFK’s Foreign Policy and the Assassination

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4227

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi John

I very much doubt if Kennedy would have been able to end the Cold War at that moment in history. Forces were in motion on such a massive basis with the build-up of missile arsenals, nuclear warships and new bombers on both sides, just like the trains on the brink of the First World War. A possible Kennedy accomodation with Cuba, it is true, might have been feared and unwanted by the CIA and Cuban exiles, and your point about that does, I believe, have merit as a possible element that led to the assassination.

All my best

Chris