Jump to content
The Education Forum

JFK and Watergate


Recommended Posts

Tim,  your Castro did it scenario seems to be going on across a number of threads and I think I have to enter a couple of things into the mix.

__________________________-

You are too kind Larry. It is every thread. I am coming close to deleting Tim’s attempts to turn every thread to a “Castro” did it discussion. I thought your contribution deserved to be in this thread.

______________________________

I often feel it is out and our sabotage of this forum. Especially when we see a thread and he posts a long post in response to each sentence of the poster with whom he is disagreeing. And that is basically everyone here. NO ONE believes Castro did it unless they are part of a disinfo team or are very right wing Republicans who cannot deny conspiracy where it is SO obvious, but would not ever concede that it's OUR conspiracy. All of the evidence points to home grown but the pushers of the Jack Anderson fiction are blinded by their (im)moral superiority and defense of the near- fascist regeime that today rules Washingto.

Ultra Conservatives either say "who cares?" when it comes to the assassination, or say "I think it was Castro". Those in the media know better and are reading what they are told to read. But that Tim just takes over every single thread with this theory that NO ONE here agrees with makes some of us just totally avoid those threads.

And if we don't read just ONE book then we are pronounced ignorant by not agreeing with this propaganda. Someone needs to stand up to disinfo and to bullys. Many books are not in agreement, but your- (John) -initial thesis here on JFK and Watergate is very close to what most of us long ago concluded. (Of course I see LBJ in way at the start, his WH calls are for "history". Who's goona admit to murder on tape? Not even Nixon got THAT stupid..tho, close on 6/2372: "scab...whole BOP thing") tape.

JMHO on the "Gratz- takes- ovey- EVERY- thread- with- his- solo advancement of "Castro did it". Got very old months ago. We may not all be positive on WHO did it, but we are certain of who didn't and Castro and LHO lead that list.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I echo Dawn's sentiments. John Simkin's work here is tireless and appreciated. This is a great gathering of intelligent people, working and learning to find out what happened to this country and John Kennedy on 11-22-63. The search for the truth is what's important. Not arguing (ad nauseam) a point of view in every thread, over and over and over again. I find it to be (at best) an annoyance and intrusive to the work that goes here.

I don't particpate much in this forum, simply because I come here to listen and learn. I am not affliated with any group or party. I am a citizen of this country with small children that this land will someday inherit. I want to be able to educate them to the place in which they live, so as they enter adulthood, they have their eyes wide open. It is my job as their father.

The work here is very important. A lot of people have dedicated large portions of their lives in search of the truth of Kennedy's murder. To fritter that away seems tragic to me. We have already been sold a bill of goods with this case. Now, a small band of deligent truth seekers have gathered to discover what's behind the curtain. That is real patriotism in my view -- and not the ignorant chest thumping that is currently so fashionable. This forum should not be wasted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I, too, joined the forum here hoping that I might ask some questions that might help bring us further in our quest for truth. I don't push a specific agenda, but I believe that the political assassinations that occurred in the US between 1963 and 1972 appear to have a common thread--a connection to Nixon--and therefore, if one can gain some insight into Watergate, one might also gain some understanding of the JFK, RFK, MLK, and George Wallace shootings.

I just cannot get a handle, logically speaking, on Castro being behind the JFK assassination. With the knowledge that a faction of the NSC and joint chiefs preferred war to negotiations, and knowing that the assassination of the chief executive could be portrayed as an attack on American soverignity, Castro HAD to be aware that PROOF of his involvement in the JFK assassination would've not only signed his death warrant, but would've no doubt brought the full force and fury of the US military to bear on his tiny island. So...IF Castro was behind it...it must've been the most ingenious plan ever conceived, to have left so many clues behind implicating so many others. He would've had to have infiltrated the CIA, the FBI, the military...just about EVERY aspect of the US government, to have pulled off the massive coverup that occurred.

Personally, I don't bow at the altar of Castro's superior intellect. It would be easier to believe that it was a collection of chance occurrences that killed JFK--which is, essentially, the story the Warren Commission tried to sell.

What I find unusual is the way that Tim injects his politics into the discussion. I'd be hard pressed to even guess the political leanings of most of the other posters on the forum...but Tim appears to go out of his way to point out BB's [bush Bashers] and others who don't adhere to the 1984-speak coming out of Washington these days. [As in, "Patriots fought and died for your right of free speech...so if you use your right of free speech to disagree with the administration, you're unpatriotic...you're giving aid and comfort to the enemy, by your speech, so that's treasonous...so we'll use the "Patriot Act" to declare you an "enemy combatant," and strip you of your constitutional rights that the REAL patriots fought for...if you were a REAL patriot, you'd shut up and do what we tell you, and not question what we tell you. It's the TERRORISTS who want to take away your freedoms, and we're not gonna let 'em...so USE your right to free speech to stand up and tell the world that the administration is RIGHT! Or else you're not being patriotic..."]. Nixon's administration started the trend toward fascism in the United States, but the current administration has used 9/11 to put fascism--and doublespeak--into law.

Having said that, I don't allow my politics to cloud my view of the assassination. My family voted Democrat in 1964, but I think LBJ was a xxxx, a crook, a skunk, and had some level of involvement in the assassination--certainly as an accessory AFTER the fact, possibly some level of foreknowledge, but I don't give him credit for having set it up [as with Castro, LBJ didn't have the level of genius on his own to make it work].

Over the years, I've had to alter a lot of my ideas about how the assassination occurred, and my suspicions about the persons behind it have changed as well. But I don't buy the CIA's prepackaged "Castro-did-it" scenario any more than I bought the WC's "Oswald-did-it" package, and for many of the same reasons: too many unanswered questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree with the above members. Tim's efforts to stifle genuine progress are becoming a little tiring. I think John's work here is first class research pointing to a plausible scenario, well worth further enquiry. I don't think it's fair that the efforts of John and others be constantly diverted by having to always refute Tim's claims of Castro's involvement. Let's have a thread for Castro and contain all those theories within, including a poll of members on whether they believe Castro did it. Refer all 'Castro did it" arguments to that thread.

John, back to the question on US Military foreknowledge/involvement. What sways me towards believing they knew in advance (and may have been original conspirators) is the arrest and incarceration of the codebreaker Dinkin, who had apparently discovered details of the assassination in advance as well as the absence of the codebooks on AF1. Do you believe these events to be significant?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree with the above members. Tim's efforts to stifle genuine progress are becoming a little tiring. I think John's work here is first class research pointing to a plausible scenario, well worth further enquiry. I don't think it's fair that the efforts of John and others be constantly diverted by having to always refute Tim's claims of Castro's involvement. Let's have a thread for Castro and contain all those theories within, including a poll of members on whether they believe Castro did it. Refer all 'Castro did it" arguments to that thread.

John, back to the question on US Military foreknowledge/involvement. What sways me towards believing they knew in advance (and may have been original conspirators) is the arrest and incarceration of the codebreaker Dinkin, who had apparently discovered details of the assassination in advance as well as the absence of the codebooks on AF1. Do you believe these events to be significant?

Hi Mark-

I have heard of Dinkin, but I don't really know the story here? Could you direct me to a good resource to learn about it? Or if it's not too much trouble, could you give me the quick and dirty on it? Thanks! :secret

Edited by Greg Wagner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Mark-

I have heard of Dinkin, but I don't really know the story here? Could you direct me to a good resource to learn about it? Or if it's not too much trouble, could you give me the quick and dirty on it? Thanks!

The single best source is likely still Dick Russell's "The Man Who Knew Too Much" [preferably the original monster-sized edition.] FWIW...

:secret

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the absence of the codebooks on AF1

Mark,

The White House codebook was missing from the Cabinet flight to Japan, not from AF1.

As events played out that day, the missing codebook was not significant, as it did not prevent the Cabinet members aboard the flight from communicating with the White House. They did have to ask in at least one instance, however, who they were talking to by name because they didn't have the codebook.

I think that deliberate removal of the codebook from the plane would have been significant only in the event of a worst case scenario that day (i.e. the necessity of an overt military coup in Washington), in which case the Cabinet members might have no idea who were they were talking to, if anyone, in the White House.

This would point to some military person, or someone acting on the military's behalf, having removed the codebook. But I'm not sure what difference the codebook would really make, since any military interlopers in the White House wouldn't have White House code names anyway.

Ron

Edited by Ron Ecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dawn wrote:

I often feel it is out and our sabotage of this forum. Especially when we see a thread and he posts a long post in response to each sentence of the poster with whom he is disagreeing. And that is basically everyone here. NO ONE believes Castro did it unless they are part of a disinfo team or are very right wing Republicans who cannot deny conspiracy where it is SO obvious, but would not ever concede that it's OUR conspiracy.

Dawn, is Joe Trento a member of a disinformation team, or is he a very right wing Republican?

How about Joseph Califano? Well I guess we know he is a Democrat so he must be part of a disinformation team.

And how about Michael Kurtz?

How about Victor Marchetti? Disinformation agent? Right wing Republican?

To characterize everyone who disagrees with you as either a disinformation agent or a Republican simply illustrates the speciousness of your logic.

Well, you will be happy to hear I think I am about to quit wasting my time.

It would make no difference to you if it could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Fabian Escalante was in Dealey Plaza.

It would make no difference to you if it could be proven beyond any doubt that Rolando Cubela was meeting in Mexico City with Valery Kostikov.

It makes no difference to you that Nosenko flunked his polygraph examination.

You show no interest whatsoever in any fact that is contrary to your totally unsupported pet theory. I therefore can only conclude that you have NO INTEREST in really solving the assassination (or you would want to know and understand ALL the facts, not just those not inconsistent with your theory).

You desire neither a debate or a discussion. Anyone who dares to disagree with your views is a saboteur!

So why don't you start a thread saying it was an internal coup--"our conspiracy". Everyone can post two words: "I agree." Then you can all get a good night's sleep. And so can the killers of our martyred president.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron, in another thread Larry Hancock answers this question:

The cover-up was completely separate from the conspiracy and was conducted in order to avoid a conflict with the Russians.....and justified based on some of the immediate evidence that suggest contact by Oswald with the Russians and Cubans as well as by many of the indications that Oswald himself had contacts with lots of suspicious people and was in no way a "lone nut".

The simple answer is the cover-up had nothing to do with the assassination.  I agree with Larry.  Note it makes no difference if the planner was Morales, Phillips, Rosselli or Castro.  But Larry's analysis does answer what is otherwise the cogent objection you raised to the "Fidel did it" scenario.

I don't always agree with Tim and Larry and this time I think they've got it wrong. I don't buy the argument that the conspiracy and cover-up were separate. What the evidence says to me is that the cover-up was in place to blame it on Castro. All the "contact by Oswald with the Russians and Cubans" was manufactured by the CIA. I believe it's called sheep-dipping. It wasn't even Oswald who went to the Mexico City embassies. After the shooting, the conspirators quickly went with Plan B, lone nut, when Oswald got away from the scene alive and was arrested by 2 pm. By 2:30 they were hastily mutilating JFK's body or taking it somewhere where they could. I don't buy the notion that one group of people pulled off the conspiracy, then almost immediately another group out on Stemmons on the way to Parkland figured that the Russians or Castro must have done it, so we've got to cover up fast to avoid war. That just makes no sense to me, which of course means it may be true.

Ron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron wrote:

That just makes no sense to me, which of course means it may be true.

Ron, love your humour! It is a sign of your intelligence.

Your line reminds me of something Paul Hoch once wrote in response to the objection that some scenario (cannot remember what it was) did not "make sense". Not quoting exactly but he said to the effect how then do we explain all the ridiculous schemes seriously proposed by presumably intelligent men to kill Castro with exploding seashells, poisoned diving uniforms, etc, etc.

I understand your objection but a problem I see with your theory is it means a lot of presumably loyal employees of the government had to agree to become accessories after the fact (if not before the fact) and then keep their mouths shut.

In Larry's book "Someone Would Have Talked" he suggests that only a few conspirators did talk. If the conspiracy was so vast, why did not more members confess as, for instance, they faced death?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark Stapleton wrote:

I have to agree with the above members. Tim's efforts to stifle genuine progress are becoming a little tiring.

Mark, why let FACTS get in the way of pet theories?

And why not read my mind. You think I am deliberately attempting to stifle genuine progress? Well I guess there is as much basis for you to say that as there is for many of the other speculations based here.

I can only conclude that, just like Dawn,

It would make no difference to you if it could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Fabian Escalante was in Dealey Plaza.

It would make no difference to you if it could be proven beyond any doubt that Rolando Cubela was meeting in Mexico City with Valery Kostikov.

It makes no difference to you that Nosenko flunked his polygraph examination.

And I would also conclude that you are only interested in propogating your pet theories, that have no basis in fact, rather than solving who really killed Kennedy.

Every single point John has made here, from what I can understand, is based SOLELY on speculation, not on research. But it is consistent with the popular theories of the assassination, so who cares that there are no facts to support the scenario. Policarpo's presence in Dealey Plaza makes it difficult to avoid a conclusion of Cuban participation, so get around that little (?) issue by assuming (without any basis) that he was working for the CIA!

If I am wrong, you tell me that it WOULD make a difference to you:

a) if it could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Fabian Escalante was in Dealey Plaza; :secret if it could be proven beyond any doubt that Rolando Cubela was meeting in Mexico City with Valery Kostikov.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark Knight wrote:

What I find unusual is the way that Tim injects his politics into the discussion. I'd be hard pressed to even guess the political leanings of most of the other posters on the forum...but Tim appears to go out of his way to point out BB's [bush Bashers] and others who don't adhere to the 1984-speak coming out of Washington these days. [As in, "Patriots fought and died for your right of free speech...so if you use your right of free speech to disagree with the administration, you're unpatriotic...you're giving aid and comfort to the enemy, by your speech, so that's treasonous...so we'll use the "Patriot Act" to declare you an "enemy combatant," and strip you of your constitutional rights that the REAL patriots fought for...if you were a REAL patriot, you'd shut up and do what we tell you, and not question what we tell you. It's the TERRORISTS who want to take away your freedoms, and we're not gonna let 'em...so USE your right to free speech to stand up and tell the world that the administration is RIGHT! Or else you're not being patriotic..."]. Nixon's administration started the trend toward fascism in the United States, but the current administration has used 9/11 to put fascism--and doublespeak--into law.

I beg to differ, sir. Never once have I questioned the patriotism or integrity of any member of this Forum, nor have I attempted to stifle their discussion.

Whereas, I have been accused of attempting to sabotage assassination research and stile genuine progress. How? Simply by posting facts and my opinions what inferences can be drawn from those facts. Not once have I even implied that someone is a Castro sympathizer merely because he or she does not think Castro did it. Have I, as you implied, suggested to anyone that he is he "shut up", regardless of how baseless and abhorrent I may find his or her theory? Not to my recollection. I value honest debate, especially when it occurs with someone (e.g. Larry, Pat , Ron, James, etc) who have truly studied the facts. For instance, Ron disagrees with Larry's position (and mine) that the cover-up was performed by people unrelated to the assassins. His idea has great significance to who did it (if true it would of course exclude our bearded neighbor) and I respect and attempt to understand Ron's opinion. He has demonstrated a sincere interest in understanding and assessing everything that was happening.

I am very confident that Ron, Pat, James and Larry would be honest to change their opinions if the facts demonstrated, otherwise. So, I hope (and believe) would I. (In fact,I have: I used to think Oswald was a shooter; now I am quite confident he was not.) I cannot say this about people who do not seem to have ANY interest in hearing facts contrary to their pet theory.

But I am frankly tired of trying to point out differing facts to people who clearly cannot care less what the facts are. As I said before, that shows me they are not sincerely interested in discovering who killed our thirty-fifth president. To ignore inconvenient facts that don't fit your theory--say, isn't that EXACTLY what the Warren Commission did?

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Mark-

I have heard of Dinkin, but I don't really know the story here? Could you direct me to a good resource to learn about it? Or if it's not too much trouble, could you give me the quick and dirty on it? Thanks!

The single best source is likely still Dick Russell's "The Man Who Knew Too Much" [preferably the original monster-sized edition.] FWIW...

:secret

Thanks RCD, I'll add it to my list. :D

Edited by Greg Wagner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Larry's book "Someone Would Have Talked" he suggests that only a few conspirators did talk.  If the conspiracy was so vast, why did not more members confess as, for instance, they faced death?

First of all, a few did talk. Second, if it was basically a CIA/military operation, which it appears to have been, it's easy to see why more didn't talk. The CIA and military are two cultures that are simply not prone to "talk." In the case of the military, people follow orders because it's what they do. And in the case of the CIA, when spooks do talk they're usually lying. (Maybe some of them did make deathbed confessions, but their family members figured they were lying as usual.) You also have to remember that to "confess" something as when you face death, it implies some remorse or guilt. Most of the conspirators were probably proud of what they did and died proud. You also have to remember too that a lot of people were murdered, particularly during the HSCA days. Perhaps there was a psychological profile of who might talk, and if you fit the profile you were no longer with us. And almost all the people who were involved are now in fact dead and can't talk.

Ron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim:

The problem for me and some others is not your opinions, but the fact that you have to TAKE OVER EVERY SINGLE THREAD with your view that Castro killed JFK.

You have your own tread that you could continue to post this on, but that did not satisify you. You could have started yet a third thread, (after Castro you moved onto the Soviets) and this too would have been just fine. But to inject this view into every thread and go on and on about it feels like a form of sabotage.

Castro knows that JFK and he were in the process of PEACE negotiations when JFK was shot down. Not a single President has even attempted this since JFK. Castro could NOT have removed JFK's body from Dallas in violation of State law, seen to it that LBJ appinted a Warren Commission to make sure LHO was found to be the official killer. You have just stated here that you originally believed this fairy tale.

If ANY foreign leader were able to assassinate a sitting US president our military would take out that leader in a heartbeat.

So you find a few writers who support the position that you are comfortable with, one that lets the powers that be off the hook completely. But you realize that the US government and press covered up this crime. Why on earth would they cover up for a man W calls a "terrorist"?

LHO was the first phony story, Castro the second and the mob the third.

The Mob or Castro had no power to tell the Secret Service to stand down on 11/22/63.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...