My personal C.T. (rife with flaws)

[Charles Black]

The following is my theory of the JFK assassination conspiracy. I am not an avid enough typist to go into great detail but I will outline my basic thoughts. In semi defense of my theory I would first like to state, that to the best of my knowledge, I am not certifiably insane, and I do realize that there are a "FEW" flaws!

After over some thirty years of looking pretty seriously into the evidence of this crime against all humanity, I have grown to believe, or as some might say, I have digressed to believe, a theory that is not particularly popular among most researchers. I very strongly believe that we, the people of the world, have allowed ourselves to be duped into believing that for such an act to have been commited against the bold and gallant knight who, not only was President of the United States, but the symbollic leader of the entire free world, it had to be the result of a conspiracy of enormous magnitude. Of such magnitude, that we have allowed ourselves to be buried, by those conspirators, in a sea of inky minutae in which we have for a long time been mired.

Many believe that this monstrous web of conspirators must at least include CIA, ONI, SS, FBI, NSA, Dallas Police, Cuba, Cuban exiles, USSR, Mafia, Corsican Mafia, the U.S. Army, Navy & Air Force, the DIA, OAS, the British Govt., the Govt. of Israel and possibly Miss Monica Lewinsky! Anything of this scale could not be solved. It also could not possibly have occured.

But please don't get me wrong. I definitely believe there was a conspiracy to murder and an on going conspiracy to cover and that LHO was `involved' in both. Involved yes, but as a pawn.

Despite the opinion of many, much more learned researchers than myself, I don't feel that the plan and the shooting went very well at all. Not military sharpshooters---- who would have set it up in a "no miss" scenario. Not Mafia thugs -- the Mafia couldn't absorb that type of exposure. Nor could Cuba, Cuban exiles nor the USSR.

Knowing the investigation would be handled only by the DPD and select Hoover Agency elements, the DPD and some of their criminal contacts could have been the shooters. With a little outside help with identity and escape it would never have been extremely high risk.

I believe that this conspiracy was Texas born, Texas bred, Texas fed and Texas executed! It was Texas born with the planning of the moneyed elite in the Texas oil business and the Texas defense industry. There were also other motives, but prime were both the issues regarding oil depletion allowance and defense contracts which of course would prosper with either conflict extension or war in general. We are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars!!

We are also talking about J.Edgar, who not only would remain for life as director of the investigating authority, but a J.Edgar who had ties to and was indebted to the mafia, but also had strong affiliations with the likes of Pawley, Martino, Angleton, William Harvey, Nixon, Hunt, both Dulles's, Secret Service heads,and the Texas "Big Boys". And standing there was the clincher. The man who would not only avoid disgrace and probably a jail sentence, but as icing on the cake, he would achieve his life long ambition and become arguably the most "POWERFUL" man in the world.

Who would oppose this plan? The CIA which Kennedy was already beginning to shred into a thousand pieces? The JCS who thought Kennedy too weak to pull the trigger? The Secret Service who knew much that they did not like? The State Dept. who was constantly being end sweeped?

It would be very easy to say that the Kennedy's had made few friends but some of the most powerful enemies in the country. Actually all of the most powerful enemies in the country. Enemies with Money, Motive, and endless power. I,try as I might, cannot elude the old principle of FOLLOW THE MONEY, BECAUSE THE MONEY IS THE POWER.

Regarding Jack Ruby. I strongly do not believe that the Mafia would have used Mr. Rubenstein for anything that required trust and for other obvious reasons, just as they would in no way have allowed individuals such as Nicolletti, Roselli or Files anywhere near the scene. If anything, they wanted absolutely low profile after the murder.

I do believe however that the DPD would have used Mr. Ruby. With the promise of mistrials, acquitals, possibly justifiable homicide, temp. insanity and a bushel of money from the bottomless pockets of the planners.

Now to Oswald and Tippit.

I, of course do not believe that LHO was a lone gunman and most probably not a gunman at all. But I do believe that he was in over his head in a situation that it was meant for him to not understand. It was not until JFK was shot in the head that he realized that he had been "patsied". His pre planned escape transport did not materialize and he at this time realized that he had been abandoned and set up for the kill. This is when panic must have set in. He realized that he had no money, no transportation, no self protection and not one friend! It had to be a near crazed LHO that tried to appear to be calmly making his way home. A very confused young man who in less than five minutes rushed into his house, changed clothes, armed himself with an old pistol and rushed out of the house, possibly responding to the beep of a police car horn that was perhaps a part of a contingency plan that he didn't know whether to trust or not.

At this point, one of two things happened. 1) He was confronted by officer Tippit and fearful for his life, shot him and then as Johnny Brewer reported, darted into the Texas Theatre in panic. 2) Had no confrontation with Tippit and very early was in the Texas Theatre, hoping that he was wrong about being patsied, and hoping to meet an ally according to a contingency plan. He would have had no idea that an LHO impersonator would lead the police to him. With either scenario, when confronted by police he had no option but to fight. He drew his pistol and entered the halls of infamy.

Thanks for indulging me.

Charlie Black

[John Geraghty]

Hi Charles,

Interesting scenario indeed. DPD officers used as shooters would indeed explain badgeman and the lackof security in DP. The most convincing part of your scenario is the Jack Ruby angle, he would be quite an odd choice for the mob to use, but as we know that he was friendly with the Dallas Police (bringing them sandwiches and being generally well known). It makes sense that he was let into the Oswald transfer area.

Good post

John

[Tim Gratz]

Interesting scenario but why would Hoover risk his place in history and possible death in the electric church by dispatching JFK by pulling the trigger when he could have accomplished the same objective (the removal of JFK) in a safe manner, as well as a manner that would forever destroy forever the political viability of his nemesis RFK: sinmply pick up the phone and call the edotor of the Chicao Tribune (or Dealey at the Dallas Herald for that matter).

What would have happened if on November 22, 1963, rather than running that ridiculous right-wing black bordered ad the Dallas Herald would have had headlines detailing: 1) the Rometsch matter; 2) the Marilyn Monroe affair and JFK's sharing national secrets with her; and 3) the Judith Campbell/Giancana matter?

I'll tell you what: JFK would have been dead (politically) four hours before the assassination.

So why would Hoover, who had evidence of the "dirty secrets of Camelot" call on a corrupt cop to do his dirty work when all he had to do was call a few reporters?

Didn't someone once say "The pen is mightier than the Sword"?

[Charles Black]

Hi Tim

Yes someone did say that! That is why Hoover would not have dared to release sexual info on the Kennedys.

Pay back is hell! I don't think that Edgar wanted to go out being remembered as the transvestite "queen" of the dignified Bureau that he had created and so loved.

Also as 42 years have proven, there wasn't much risk!

Charlie Black

Edited May 18, 2005 by Charles Black

[Greg Wagner]

Interesting scenario but why would Hoover risk his place in history and possible death in the electric church by dispatching JFK by pulling the trigger when he could have accomplished the same objective (the removal of JFK) in a safe manner, as well as a manner that would forever destroy forever the political viability of his nemesis RFK:  sinmply pick up the phone and call the edotor of the Chicao Tribune (or Dealey at the Dallas Herald for that matter).

What would have happened if on November 22, 1963, rather than running that ridiculous right-wing black bordered ad the Dallas Herald would have had headlines detailing: 1) the Rometsch matter; 2) the Marilyn Monroe affair and JFK's sharing national secrets with her; and 3) the Judith Campbell/Giancana matter?

I'll tell you what:  JFK would have been dead (politically) four hours before the assassination. 

So why would Hoover, who had evidence of the "dirty secrets of Camelot" call on a corrupt cop to do his dirty work when all he had to do was call a few reporters?

Didn't someone once say "The pen is mightier than the Sword"?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Tim-

You are correct of course when you suggest that JFK's removal from power could have been executed in many other, less public, and much less risky ways than occurred in Dallas. He was extremely vulnerable because of the Rometsch and Campbell affairs.

However, the violent, public display that we saw in Dallas was not only designed to effect Kennedy's removal, but it was also meant to send a very clear message about who was in charge and the consequences of disobedience. The power in question of course being the right-wing militant reactionaries present in the national security structure at the time. The deal struck by Kennedy to end the missile crisis was the last straw.

Interesting Freudian slip there, Timothy: Hoover (a homosexual) risking "possible death in the electric church." I knew the Christian conservative base was anti-gay, but death in the electric church seems a bit harsh even for them!

Just kidding of course. I'm certain it was a simple typo.

Edited May 18, 2005 by Greg Wagner

[Tim Gratz]

May well have been a Freudian slip, Greg. I was once going to start a woman's lingerie company and call it Freud; its slogan would be "We make the greatest slips".

Were you aware that supposedly Garrison's first scenario was that the assassination was a homosexual thrill-kill? I suspect a very competent defense attorney would have succeeded in removing references to Shaw's sexual orientation on the legal theory that its prejudicial nature exceeded its probative value.

You wrote:

The deal struck by Kennedy to end the missile crisis was the last straw.

Greg, respectfully, you need to read your history. JFK and RFK were going to effect regime change in Cuba before the 1964 election (guaranteeing, of course, JFK's re-election) violating the spirit if not the letter of the agreement (the Kennedys tried to get around that by staging the efforts outside the US). There were meetings of the anti-Castro exiles involved in the proposed second invasion even in the week of the assassination. The second invasion was to be led, as you probably know, by Manuel Artime. But did you know that the last Sunday of his life JFK had a private meeting with Artime.

It is definitely true (certainly proved by the subsequent history) that the exiles' dreams of a free Cuba died with the assassins' bullets in Dallas.

(Parenthetically, one can of course tell if someone is a LN or a CT proponent by how one places the apostrophe in the possessive of the bullets of the assassin(s)!

You are suggesting that JFK was publicly assassinated (making him a martyr and assuring RFK's ultimate election unless he was also assassinated) to prove to who that the right-wing defense establishment was in control? Not to the punlic certainly. To LBJ? No, sorry, that dog won't hunt, I'm afraid!

Edited May 19, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Bill Cheslock]

The following is my theory of the JFK assassination conspiracy. I am not an avid enough typist to go into great detail but I will outline my basic thoughts. In semi defense of my theory I would first like to state, that to the best of my knowledge, I am not certifiably insane, and I do realize that there are a "FEW" flaws!

After over some thirty years of looking pretty seriously into the evidence of this crime against all humanity, I have grown to believe, or as some might say, I have digressed to believe, a theory that is not particularly popular among most researchers. I very strongly believe that we, the people of the world, have allowed ourselves to be duped into believing that for such an act to have been commited against the bold and gallant knight who, not only was President of the United States, but the symbollic leader of the entire free world, it had to be the result of a conspiracy of enormous magnitude. Of such magnitude, that we have allowed ourselves to be buried, by those conspirators, in a sea of inky minutae in which we have for a long time been mired.

Many believe that this monstrous web of conspirators must at least include CIA, ONI, SS, FBI, NSA, Dallas Police, Cuba, Cuban exiles, USSR, Mafia, Corsican Mafia, the U.S. Army, Navy & Air Force, the DIA, OAS, the British Govt., the Govt. of Israel and possibly Miss Monica Lewinsky! Anything of this scale could not be solved. It also could not possibly have occured.

But please don't get me wrong. I definitely believe there was a conspiracy to murder and an on going conspiracy to cover and that LHO was `involved' in both. Involved yes, but as a pawn.

Despite the opinion of many, much more learned researchers than myself, I don't feel that the plan and the shooting went very well at all. Not military sharpshooters----  who would have set it up in a "no miss" scenario. Not Mafia thugs -- the Mafia couldn't absorb that type of exposure. Nor could Cuba, Cuban exiles nor the USSR.

Knowing the investigation would be handled only by the DPD and select Hoover Agency elements, the DPD and some of their criminal contacts could have been the shooters. With a little outside help with identity and escape it would never have been extremely high risk.

I believe that this conspiracy was Texas born, Texas bred, Texas fed and Texas executed! It was Texas born with the planning of the moneyed elite in the Texas oil business and the Texas defense industry. There were also other motives, but prime were both the issues regarding oil depletion allowance and defense contracts which of course would prosper with either conflict extension or war in general. We are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars!!

We are also talking about J.Edgar, who not only would remain for life as director of the investigating authority, but a J.Edgar who had ties to and was indebted to the mafia, but also had strong affiliations with the likes of Pawley, Martino, Angleton, William Harvey, Nixon, Hunt, both Dulles's, Secret Service heads,and the Texas "Big Boys". And standing there was the clincher. The man who would not only avoid disgrace and probably a jail sentence, but as icing on the cake, he would achieve his life long ambition and become arguably the most "POWERFUL" man in the world.

Who would oppose this plan? The CIA which Kennedy was already beginning to shred into a thousand pieces? The JCS who thought Kennedy too weak to pull the trigger? The Secret Service who knew much that they did not like? The State Dept. who was constantly being end sweeped?

It would be very easy to say that the Kennedy's had made few friends but some of the most powerful enemies in the country. Actually all of the most powerful enemies in the country. Enemies with Money, Motive, and endless power. I,try as I might, cannot elude the old principle of FOLLOW THE MONEY, BECAUSE THE MONEY IS THE POWER.

Regarding Jack Ruby. I strongly do not believe that the Mafia would have used Mr. Rubenstein for anything that required trust and for other obvious reasons, just as they would in no way have allowed individuals such as Nicolletti, Roselli or Files anywhere near the scene. If anything, they wanted absolutely low profile after the murder.

I do believe however that the DPD would have used Mr. Ruby. With the promise of mistrials, acquitals, possibly justifiable homicide, temp. insanity and a bushel of money from the bottomless pockets of the planners.

Now to Oswald and Tippit.

I, of course do not believe that LHO was a lone gunman and most probably not a gunman at all. But I do believe that he was in over his head in a situation that it was meant for him to not understand. It was not until JFK was shot in the head that he realized that he had been "patsied". His pre planned escape transport did not materialize and he at this time realized that he had been abandoned and set up for the kill. This is when panic must have set in. He realized that he had no money, no transportation, no self protection and not one friend! It had to be a near crazed LHO that tried to appear to be calmly making his way home. A very confused young man who in less than five minutes rushed into his house, changed clothes, armed himself with an old pistol and rushed out of the house, possibly responding to the beep of a police car horn that was perhaps a part of a contingency plan that he didn't know whether to trust or not.

At this point, one of two things happened. 1) He was confronted by officer Tippit and fearful for his life, shot him and then as Johnny Brewer reported, darted into the Texas Theatre in panic. 2) Had no confrontation with Tippit and very early was in the Texas Theatre, hoping that he was wrong about being patsied, and hoping to meet an ally according to a contingency plan. He would have had no idea that an LHO impersonator would lead the police to him. With either scenario, when confronted by police he had no option but to fight. He drew his pistol and entered the halls of infamy.

Thanks for indulging me.

 

Charlie Black

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Charlie:

Alot of thought has been put into your post and it is appreciated. You've

managed to narrow down the number of suspects from your original number of

sixteen to a mere nine. It is indeed difficult to eliminate any number of suspects isn't it?

Your claim that he was in over his head has been solidly brought up before, and I think it's a valid argument. The fact that he was being "sheep dipped" in New Orleans, that an impostor was working his name in Mexico City,

and he was in two places at once in Dallas prior to the assassination leads me to believe that this man was indeed being set up for the patsy that he said he was.

I'm still not convinced that Oswald killed Officer Tippit. There are too many loose ends here to convict a man on. The timing factor between his rooming house and the murder scene is, in my opinion, too short a time for Oswald to arrive at the scene of the murder. If he left his rooming house at 1:03, and Tippit, from accounts was murdered as early as 1:10, I don't know how he could've arrived on the scene in seven minutes, traveling almost a mile on foot.

Yet, we are told that it took him about 35 minutes to travel a mere 8 blocks from the Tippit scene to the Texas Theater. Where was he for all that time?

One more thing, Charlie. The jacket that was found and was alleged to be Oswald's that he discarded after the Tippit killing was found by a phantom Dallas police officer. It was turned in as evidence found near a gas station, but the officer who found it cannot be identified to this day. Tainted evidence? Perhaps.

However, witnesses who saw the alleged murderer run from the scene could not identify that jacket as the one that was worn by him.

A conspiracy to set up Oswald as the "patsy?" It seems that way.

Bill Chelsock

Edited May 19, 2005 by Bill Cheslock

[Greg Wagner]

Hi Tim-

It's good to see that you still have your sense of humor. But with regard to Cuba, I believe that Kennedy's actions here revealed his true intent, regardless of what lip service he was feeding Artime in an effort to placate the exiles:

Tim Wrote: Were you aware that supposedly Garrison's first scenario was that the assassination was a homosexual thrill-kill?

No, that’s a new one on me. Never heard that… it’s a good thing Garrison got on track in attempting to expose Shaw’s truly incriminating associations; those with the CIA, Bannister, Ferrie, et al.

Tim Wrote: Greg, respectfully, you need to read your history. JFK and RFK were going to effect regime change in Cuba before the 1964 election...

I understand that Kennedy was paying lip service to Artime and the Cuban exiles, but whether you or I believe that Kennedy was going to act to effect “regime change” (that term is hilarious, by the way) before 1964 or at any other time is a moot point. The groups in question didn't believe it. The exile community and their Agency partners ONCE AGAIN felt betrayed by Kennedy’s placation of the communist Castro. Kennedy had lost much of his credibility with them after the BOP. So, Mongoose was started later in '61 and basically went nowhere (there had been no acts of sabotage, and even the one which had been attempted had failed twice).

Are you suggesting that then, after these perceived betrayals and failures, Kennedy’s refusal (despite pressure from within his administration) to either invade or bomb Cuba once the missiles were discovered, and then his public pledge to NOT invade Cuba in order to resolve the crisis, was well-received by the exile community, their allies, and the Agency faction running them? I’ll bet Felipe Vidal Santiago’s declarations to the exile groups operating out of south Florida about the Kennedy administration’s olive branch to Castro went over very well. Perhaps Felipe and David Morales discussed it over tea and decided to just scrap their plans re: Cuba and open a flower shop together in Little Havana. On second thought, I'll bet they didn't. Do you think that the Kennedy government’s arrest of groups of exiles and mercenaries training in the Keys in late 1962 for further action against Castro was evidence to the anti-Castro Cubans, et al. of Kennedy’s continued support of their cause? According to a December 1962 article in the Miami Times Herald, “Cuban exile leaders speculated that the crackdown indicates a stiffened U.S. policy toward anti-Castro resistance forces....”

Kennedy’s credibility with the groups in question was certainly shaky before the resolution to the missile crisis, but when this occurred- their patience with JFK went to zero then and there.

As someone with the experience in politics that you possess, you of all people must certainly realize that politicians on both sides of the aisle frequently say what they need to say and promise the moon to placate one group or another, while executing contradictory policy and then employing their spinners to put a happy face on it. That’s politics. So, while Kennedy may have been trying to find a way to placate the exile community post 10/62 through promises of this or that, Kennedy’s actions were clear and deliberate. The exiles’ dreams were finished! The right-wing hawks had been collared since 4/1961 and now they were shut down. Further evidence of the direction of the Kennedy Foreign Policy agenda came in October 1963 in the form of NSAM 263 and with the Jean Daniel meeting. The missile crisis changed the views of both JFK and RFK on Cuba and foreign policy in general. In Thirteen Days, Bobby (I can’t immediately recall if this was a conversation he had with someone, or simply his own introspection) was questioning whether invading a sovereign nation, one that had committed no act of aggression against the U.S., nor any treaty violations, was consistent with the values that America wished to demonstrate to the world. To me, that doesn’t sound like a man still committed to “regime change” in Cuba.

The Kennedy administration's actions, as outlined above, are a much more accurate indicator of intent than what JFK may have been telling Artime.

Tim Wrote: You are suggesting that JFK was publicly assassinated (making him a martyr and assuring RFK's ultimate election unless he was also assassinated) to prove to who that the right-wing defense establishment was in control? Not to the punlic certainly. To LBJ?

To make that fact clear and to dissuade future challenges to their authority, as JFK had done. No, certainly not to the public. They had Lyndon right where they wanted him. NSAM 273 was signed 4 days after Kennedy’s murder.

Tim Wrote: No, sorry, that dog won't hunt, I'm afraid!

Whoof!

Edited May 19, 2005 by Greg Wagner

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Charlie..

The part that I find most compelling is the limited number of conspiritors,

I have argued on a seperate thread that this is the only scenario that makes sence. A small number of ruthless, dedicated men in on the planning, and an

even smaller number of ruthless, expendible men at the kill zone. It also helps

with the cover up to limit numbers. Steve..

[Greg Wagner]

Charlie..

The part that I find most compelling is the limited number of conspiritors,

I have argued on a seperate thread that this is the only scenario that makes sence. A small number of ruthless, dedicated men in on the planning, and an

even smaller number of ruthless, expendible men at the kill zone. It also helps

with the cover up to limit numbers.  Steve..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Steve-

You make an excellent point and one that I keep going over in my head.

On the one hand, you have a much simpler operational plan with a small group (such as Cuban exiles and JM/WAVE types, for example). And perhaps it's safer, and easier to keep under wraps.

On the other hand, if there were an existing relationship between someone in said small group and someone, say in the Pentagon (Lansdale, Gen Walker, etc.) who was of like mind re: Kennedy and his foreign policy, would it be a less risky proposition to ally with that level of power than to go it alone? This goup would form the nucleus that could not only whack Kennedy, but exercise greater span and control of aspects like security in DP, the route, the patsy, the gathering of evidence in the aftermath and the "management" of witnesses, the autopsy, and most importantly to them, a cover-up that would work as well as this one has.

It seems riskier in some ways to seek such an alliance. But once successfully formed, it seems like it might make it much easier to exercise a high degree of control over the events they were planning, thus reducing the overall risk.

And on the one hand, the fewer people that are in the loop, the lower the risk of the plan being discovered. Unless the potential allies possessed such authority that they could in fact insulate the group from official scrutiny.

But pre-existing, trusted relationships would be the key to any such alliance, in my view.

So, which is the riskier proposition? Which scenario would better enable the perps to carry-out the op as they did?

An interesting question indeed.

Edited May 19, 2005 by Greg Wagner

[Mark Knight]

"You are suggesting that JFK was publicly assassinated (making him a martyr and assuring RFK's ultimate election unless he was also assassinated) to prove to who that the right-wing defense establishment was in control?"

Tim, it would appear to me that you're attempting to alter the historical record here. "...assuring RFK's ultimate election unless he was also assassinated..."

???

Are you SURE you were a Republican in '68 ???

In 1968, RFK's election was ANYTHING BUT assured. Gene McCarthy had the nomination all but sewed up going into California, and Bobby sure as hell didn't have any "momentum" going from the primaries in the northwest. At best, Bobby could hope to challenge at the convention in Chicago, but in all reality he just didn't have enough delegates to wrest the nomination from McCarthy. Some folks bought into the "second coming of Camelot" myth, and some were true believers in Bobby on his own merit. But there was a LOT of backlash in the Democrat community, as it seemed to a large number of voters that Bobby was running on Jack's legend more than on the issues, and they were plenty skeptical of both Bobby AND his motives.

And Bobby's largest group of potential supporters couldn't help him...as the 18-year-olds didn't get the vote in presidential elections until 1972. So "Bobby the giant-killer" didn't actually exist--except in the imaginations of his supporters--until the gunfire began in the pantry of the Ambassador Hotel.

Surely, as a Republican, you know your election history better than that. Or was this a test, meant to elicit a response from those of us who remember that campaign so well? [i still have my '68 "Kennedy for President" button, thank you very much...although I originally supported former Republican NYC mayor John Lindsay, who ran as a Democrat in '68.]

Tim, you can do better than that.

Edited May 19, 2005 by Mark Knight

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Hi Greg.

The short answer is, power recognises power when it acts. I belive that the

original plotters, would have been a relatively small group ( Texas oil IMHO)

but once the deed was done, all the Kennedy haters jumped on board, to ensure

a high level cover up took place. Steve..

[Greg Wagner]

Hi Greg.

The short answer is, power recognises power when it acts. I belive that the

original plotters, would have been a relatively small group ( Texas oil IMHO)

but once the deed was done, all the Kennedy haters jumped on board, to ensure

a high level cover up took place.  Steve..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And there were sure plenty of haters at the time. That's part of the difficulty... so many people/groups with motive. But good stuff Steve, thanks!

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Hi Greg.

The short answer is, power recognises power when it acts. I belive that the

original plotters, would have been a relatively small group ( Texas oil IMHO)

but once the deed was done, all the Kennedy haters jumped on board, to ensure

a high level cover up took place.  Steve..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And there were sure plenty of haters at the time. That's part of the difficulty... so many people/groups with motive. But good stuff Steve, thanks!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The key here Greg is the nature of political assassination.

Almost always carried out by a small, dedicated, ruthless group. your right in that

we could argue about which group/groups did the deed, as I say my hunch is Texas oil men. but in the end many benifited from Kennedys death, LBJ got to be

president,rather than seeing the inside of a court,Hoover got to retain his power

& job, Oilmen got to keep their profits high( Money, always a good reason for

murder.) The military got its war, & on & on. I belive a small group had Kennedy

murdered for finacial-personal hate reasons, but the many that benifited from

this act of treason, allowed it to go unpunished.

[Mark Stapleton]

Hi Greg.

The short answer is, power recognises power when it acts. I belive that the

original plotters, would have been a relatively small group ( Texas oil IMHO)

but once the deed was done, all the Kennedy haters jumped on board, to ensure

a high level cover up took place.  Steve..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And there were sure plenty of haters at the time. That's part of the difficulty... so many people/groups with motive. But good stuff Steve, thanks!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The key here Greg is the nature of political assassination.

Almost always carried out by a small, dedicated, ruthless group. your right in that

we could argue about which group/groups did the deed, as I say my hunch is Texas oil men. but in the end many benifited from Kennedys death, LBJ got to be

president,rather than seeing the inside of a court,Hoover got to retain his power

& job, Oilmen got to keep their profits high( Money, always a good reason for

murder.) The military got its war, & on & on. I belive a small group had Kennedy

murdered for finacial-personal hate reasons, but the many that benifited from

this act of treason, allowed it to go unpunished.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Interesting discussion here. I agree with all those groups listed, Steve. There's others, too. Consider JFK's plan to circumvent the Federal Reserve and print money directly as property of the U.S. Government, with no interest payable to the Federal Reserve. The owners of the Federal Reserve ie. Rothschilds, Rockerfellers etc. wouldn't have been throwing their hats in the air at the prospect of losing this cosy little tax exempt arrangement. The business community were also aghast at the way JFK handled his dispute with the steel industry in 1962. In a classic but effective example of overkill, some industry executives had their expense accounts examined by the FBI while Kennedy ran an aggressive media campaign to force them to back down, which they did. An insight into how many senior businessmen viewed JFK can be found in an interview shortly after the assassination, where a senior executive's opening words to a journalist were, "Now that we have a President who understands business..."

JFK's radical but equitable plans to redistribute wealth were a great concern to many at the fat end of the wealth spectrum. He broke the political speed limit for change. There's nary a power group in the U.S. he didn't alienate. And ol' Tim keeps telling us it was Fidel.