Jump to content
The Education Forum

JFK and Watergate


Recommended Posts

I have heard of Dinkin, but I don't really know the story here?

Greg,

Eugene Dinkin was a U.S. Army private who worked as a code breaker in France. He went AWOL from his unit in Metz, France in early November 1963, telling reporters and embassies in Geneva, Luxembourg, and Frankfurt of a plot to assassinate JFK. Upon return to his unit, Dinkin was put under psychiatric care by the military, which diagnosed him as suffering from a rare mental condition called schizo-assassination prognostication.

In a civil action lawsuit filed in 1975, Dinkin wrote that he sent a letter on 10/22/63 to Attorney General Robert Kennedy warning him that “an attempt to assassinate President Kennedy would occur on November 28th, 1963; that if it were to succeed, blame would then be placed upon a Communist or Negro, who would be designated the assassin.” Dinkin also wrote in the letter that “believing that the conspiracy was being engineered by elements of the military, I did speculate that a military coup might ensue.”

The Dinkin story is covered well in Twyman’s Bloody Treason in addition to Russell’s book. There is also this government document:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/cia...10125_0001a.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

Greg,

As you can see, Ron's answered your question. Ron's a mine of information and a very helpful forum member. If you have a question re the assassination and he's online, you'll have your answer in no time. I must confess I haven't read Bloody Treason so I didn't know about Dinkin's lawsuit. This whole thing's a steep learning curve for me but I'm in for the long haul and as Maxwell Smart would say, "And loving it!". Like your posts, by the way.

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

Ron,

Thanks for that. For some reason, I thought the codebooks were on AF1. For this, I blame Tim :secret .

Anyway, I think it all still points to the military having foreknowledge, or more. What are your "prognostications"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have heard of Dinkin, but I don't really know the story here?

Greg,

Eugene Dinkin was a U.S. Army private who worked as a code breaker in France. He went AWOL from his unit in Metz, France in early November 1963, telling reporters and embassies in Geneva, Luxembourg, and Frankfurt of a plot to assassinate JFK. Upon return to his unit, Dinkin was put under psychiatric care by the military, which diagnosed him as suffering from a rare mental condition called schizo-assassination prognostication.

In a civil action lawsuit filed in 1975, Dinkin wrote that he sent a letter on 10/22/63 to Attorney General Robert Kennedy warning him that “an attempt to assassinate President Kennedy would occur on November 28th, 1963; that if it were to succeed, blame would then be placed upon a Communist or Negro, who would be designated the assassin.” Dinkin also wrote in the letter that “believing that the conspiracy was being engineered by elements of the military, I did speculate that a military coup might ensue.”

The Dinkin story is covered well in Twyman’s Bloody Treason in addition to Russell’s book. There is also this government document:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/cia...10125_0001a.htm

Thanks very much, Ron. I look forward to reading up on this aspect of the case.

:secret

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

Greg,

As you can see, Ron's answered your question. Ron's a mine of information and a very helpful forum member. If you have a question re the assassination and he's online, you'll have your answer in no time. I must confess I haven't read Bloody Treason so I didn't know about Dinkin's lawsuit. This whole thing's a steep learning curve for me but I'm in for the long haul and as Maxwell Smart would say, "And loving it!". Like your posts, by the way.

Hi Mark-

Ron certainly does make some great contributions here, and I really enjoy learning from him and so many of the other knowledgable members.

I haven't read Tyman or Russell either, but they are both on my list to purchase.

You certainly are correct about the learning curve. I thought I had a pretty good handle on things when I discovered this forum. Turns out, I didn't even know what I didn't know. Andy and John have a tremendous thing going here. Lots of motivated, intelligent people who all seem to bring something a little bit different to the table.

Take care, Mark. And thanks for the kind words. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dawn wrote:

. . . seen to it that LBJ appinted [sic] 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.

Dawn, I do not remember if I ever originally believed the "fairy tale" of the WC Report. I think from the get-go I, like many other Americans, suspected the murder of Oswald indicated he was being silenced.

I read the early critics of the WC, Lane, Epstein and Thompson are the ones I remember and concluded there was probably a conspiracy. But I thought LHO was a part of it.

Now I am fairly convinced he was not a shooter (because of the lady who observed him in the lunchroom at 12:15 and Truly and Baker finding him there only a few moments (was it ninety seconds) after the bullets stopped. I am less sure whether he played a part, witting or not, in the assassination. For instance, he may have smuggled his rifle into the building.

I now think he was probably working for American intelligence but I am concerned he may have been "doubled" during his stay in the Soviet Union. I think polygraphs are right more often than not and Nosenko flunked the polygraph question whether the KGB returned Oswald to the US on a mission. Of course, as I am sure you know, the usual idiots at the CIA did not ask Nosenko whether Oswald was on a KGB mission to kill Kennedy so Nosenko's deception would be consistent with LHO being on a relatively harmless mission for the KGB (if any KGB mission can be considered "relatively harmless").

Let me assure you I am not trying to "hijack" the Forum or "sabotage" it or turn every thread into a "Fidel did it" discussion and I will do my best to "stifle" myself (to borrow a phrase from a popular seventies TV show).

However what started the Fidel discussion on this thread was John's original post (#1 on this thread) claiming that JFK's assassin, former Key West resident Gilberto Policarpo Lopez, was a CIA agent!!! (An assertion with no basis whatsover, of course.)

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dawn wrote:

. . . seen to it that LBJ appinted [sic] 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.

Dawn, I do not remember if I ever originally believed the "fairy tale" of the WC Report.  I think from the get-go I, like many other Americans, suspected the murder of Oswald indicated he was being silenced.

I read the early critics of the WC, Lane, Epstein and Thompson are the ones I remember and concluded there was probably a conspiracy.  But I thought LHO was a part of it.

Now I am fairly convinced he was not a shooter (because of the lady who observed him in the lunchroom at 12:15 and Truly and Baker finding him there only a few moments (was it ninety seconds) after the bullets stopped.  I am less sure whether he played a part, witting or not, in the assassination. For instance, he may have smuggled his rifle into the building.

I now think he was probably working for American intelligence but I am concerned he may have been "doubled" during his stay in the Soviet Union.  I think polygraphs are right more often than not and Nosenko flunked the polygraph question whether the KGB returned Oswald to the US on a mission.  Of course, as I am sure you know, the usual idiots at the CIA did not ask Nosenko whether Oswald was on a KGB mission to kill Kennedy so Nosenko's deception would be consistent with LHO being on a relatively harmless mission for the KGB (if any KGB mission can be considered "relatively harmless").

Let me assure you I am not trying to "hijack" the Forum or "sabotage" it or turn every thread into a "Fidel did it" discussion and I will do my best to "stifle" myself (to borrow a phrase from a popular seventies TV show).

However what started the Fidel discussion on this thread was John's original post  (#1 on this thread) claiming that JFK's assassin, former Key West resident Gilberto Policarpo Lopez, was a CIA agent!!! (An assertion with no basis whatsover, of course.)

I'd be interested in sources to learn more about Gilberto Policarpo Lopez, if any Forum members can offer suggestions. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg,

Lopez is covered in the HSCA Final Report beginning at p. 118.

Ron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, You say that "Within hours of JFK’s assassination, Hoover had told LBJ that the assassination had been carried out by Oswald and Lopez and had been paid for by Fidel Castro"

I'm not sure how important it is to your overall theory, but I find this statement very difficult to believe. Is this a reference to a deletion from one of the Hoover-LBJ tapes? Does your theory propose that Hoover was part of a plot to kill JFK?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark wrote:

So, while I will not engage in the finger-wagging, condescending tone that you delight in using, I will suggest that while one could argue Kennedy’s post 11/62 policy re: Cuba was to support yet another attempt at an exile coup or invasion, such an argument would be short-sighted, and completely out of context.

Greg, the problem is you are arguing using logical analysis to support your position, but not the FACTS.  And your logic could be wrong.  But the facts, as they say, speak for themselves.

You have yet to investigate the financial commitment the Kennedy Administration was making to the Second Naval Guerilla, AMTRUNK and Manuel Artime.  With the time you spent formulating your post, you probably could have discovered those facts through the index in "Live By the Sword".

As an example why your logic could be wrong, let's just take two of your points:

*NSAM 263

There are other ways to interpret NSAM 263, but without getting into that debate, assuming arguendo JFK planned to reduce the troop commitment in Vietnam, what does that necessarily have to do with whether or not he intended an invasion of Cuba?  JFK could certainly have decided that America had an interest in getting rid of Communists within our backyard (heck, I'm closer to Fidel than I am to Luis Posada Carriles--geographically speaking, of course) but not to fight a war 10,000 miles away.

And another point you make:  why would JFK plan an invasion of Cuba in late 1963 when he did not choose to invade when he had the chance during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962?  Well, there are several answers to this.  One, JFK might not have wanted to invade when all of the nuclear warheads were still 90 miles from our shore (even though there was a question whether they were yet operational.  Second, Khruschev's response to the Cuban missile crisis might have convinced him that the Soviet Union would never go to war over Cuba.

So as you yourself said "talk is cheap" and so is arguing by inferential logic.  Look at the facts, man.  Huge amounts of money were going into the Second Naval Guerilla and Artime's operation.  The CIA was still trying to kill Castro, and there are certainly indications the Kennedys were aware of Cubela. 

I am sorry to sound condescending but it is frustrating beyond belief that you assume a position that is totally contrary to what was happening; at least a week has gone by since our original exchange and you have yet to research the level of the Kennedy Administration's commitment to Second Naval Guerilla and Artime.  The facts seem to make no difference to you, or you would have followed up on my suggestion to research the monetary commitment.   Nothing will interfere with your preconceived theories.  At least that is the way it appears.   

Why was Kennedy secretly funding the plans for the Second Naval Guerilla?  Just to fool the limited number of Cuban exiles who were privy to those plans?  Does that make any sense whatsoever?

Hi Tim-

Well I certainly don’t mean to frustrate you, but I do understand where you’re coming from, as I too have felt that same frustration at times. And I will make an effort to read Live By The Sword this summer. Perhaps that will help me to better understand your point-of-view.

You use the word “fact” repeatedly in your effort to point out what you perceive to be errors in my thinking:

“…you are using logical analysis to support your position, but not the FACTS.”

“…you probably could have discovered those facts through the index…”

“Look at the facts, man.”

“The facts seem to make no difference to you…”

You are right in suggesting that the weight of an argument should stand on the facts, as truth and inquiry are a process related to fact, logic, and argument. However, as I’m sure you’ve noticed, the facts in this case are often contradictory and ultimately inconclusive. This is largely, but not entirely, due to disinformation and governmental secrecy, the result of which renders deductive logic (the process of reaching a conclusion that is guaranteed to follow, eg. mathematics) unavailable in many instances. Or as the Talking Heads so eloquently put it:

Facts are simple and facts are straight

Facts are lazy and facts are late

Facts all come with points of view

Facts don't do what I want them to

When the nature of the evidence renders deductive reasoning impossible, we are left with abductive reasoning (reasoning based on the principle of inference to the best explanation). The key to understanding abductive reasoning lies in the “inference to the best explanation” part. It appears that this is where you and I view things differently.

Tim, you made the very true statement that there are different ways to interpret evidence (I think your reference was to NSAM 263). That is an absolutely true statement. However, I would suggest that some methodologies of interpreting evidence are inherently more reliable, and I would argue more correct, than others. For example, with regard to my reference to NSAM 263, you ask, “…what does that necessarily have to do with whether or not he (Kennedy) intended an invasion of Cuba? JFK could certainly have decided that America had an interest in getting rid of Communists within our backyard….” To support my premise that Kennedy’s true agenda regarding Cuba, the one that began in October 1962, was one seeking coexistence with Castro’s Cuba rather than eradication, I utilized abductive reasoning. That is, I used several other facts, matters of historical record, to establish context: NSAM 263, Kennedy’s signing of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1963, Kennedy’s decision to opt for blockade during the missile crisis, Kennedy’s intensive back-channel communications with Khrushchev while publicly taking a firm, no-negotiations stance toward the Soviet Union, Jean Daniel’s meeting with Castro, the deal Kennedy made to resolve the missile crisis, and Khrushchev’s 12/11/62 letter to Kennedy. These are matters of fact, that when viewed in relation to one another, form a very clear, logical basis for understanding Kennedy’s foreign policy. This is where understanding abductive reasoning and inference to the best explanation is valuable. The “dual track” appearance Kennedy’s Cuba policy had on the surface (going forward from 11/1962) forces historians to decide which “track” Kennedy was truly supporting, and would have supported had he lived. In my view, since the nature of the evidence precludes the use of deductive reasoning (deductive logic), abductive reasoning (abductive logic) is the correct method to employ. Given the established framework I cited, which clearly establishes Kennedy’s tendencies and over-arching philosophy with regard to conflict and foreign policy, abductive reasoning tells us that Kennedy’s ultimate “track” with regard to Cuba was one of dialogue and peaceful co-existence. This is true because it is the “track” that is most congruent with the many Kennedy foreign policy decisions which frame this issue in historical context.

As opposed to abductive reasoning, the methodology you employ to interpret the evidence in this instance is interpolation. Interpolation is a message (spoken or written) that is introduced or inserted. For example, in your prior post you stated, “…Khruschev’s response to the Cuban missile crisis might have convinced him (Kennedy) that the Soviet Union would never go to war over Cuba.” While certainly a possibility that one might consider, the facts as they exist today simply do not provide any contextual framework or support to that idea. In fact, Khrushchev’s 12/11/62 letter to Kennedy candidly and forcefully stated just the opposite (see an excerpt of the text of this letter in my prior post). Additionally, in another letter between the two of them during the same period (I can’t seem to locate it at the moment, but perhaps another Forum member can recall the date of this communication), there is a passage that expresses a truth that they both understood to the effect that there are forces in their respective governments that they themselves may become powerless to control should tensions escalate. So, while the idea that Kennedy might have concluded that the Soviets would not go to war over Cuba based on the outcome of the missile crisis sounds plausible on an elementary level, closer examination using sound logical reasoning methodology renders such a suggestion devoid of merit. Such are the pitfalls associated with interpolation.

Abductive reasoning versus interpolation.

With regard to Kennedy’s funding of the Second Naval Guerilla, I believe I addressed that in my earlier post. Call it leverage to be used in the dialogue Kennedy was seeking, call it temporary placation of the militant exile community and the hawks in his administration, call it a “carrot and stick” approach, or call it a combination of all of the above. But common sense and the employment of sound methodology in interpreting the facts clearly prevent one from calling it Kennedy’s true policy toward Cuba.

And no, I have not researched the amount of money Kennedy pledged to the Second Naval Guerilla. However, simply providing funding doesn’t tell us anything about the motivation behind such financial support.

Abductive reasoning versus interpolation.

With regard to Kennedy’s funding of the Second Naval Guerilla, I believe I addressed that in my earlier post. Call it leverage to be used in the dialogue Kennedy was seeking, call it temporary placation of the militant exile community and the hawks in his administration, call it a “carrot and stick” approach, or call it a combination of all of the above. But common sense and the employment of sound methodology in interpreting the facts clearly prevent one from calling it Kennedy’s true policy toward Cuba.

And no, I have not researched the amount of money Kennedy pledged to the Second Naval Guerilla. However, simply providing funding doesn’t tell us anything about the motivation behind such financial support.

BRAVO, Greg! You most definitely deserve an "atta boy!" for your astute observation.

:unsure:

But seriously folks, I think Tim does serve a worthy purpose in keeping us on our toes around here. We could view his role in this debate as similar to one whose part is in playing Devil's Advocate. My Sociology of Law professor always stressed the importance of reading both sides of the coin, if for no other reason than to, "Know thine enemy." This was crucial to the process of assured success in honing ones skills prior to engagement of the opposition in the debating arena. And, from what I've been observing so far, this thread is bringing out the best in everyone here. Rock on!

Edited by Terry Mauro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the comment, Terry.

I have always enjoyed reading the Oscar Wilde quote found on all of James Richards' posts:

"Arguments are to be avoided; they are always vulgar, and often convincing."

Most Forum members possess both great intelligence and great knowledge of the details of the assassination. I agree with Terry that a sprited give-and-take may help us make progress in solving the assassination; moreover, it may also serve to sharpen our minds.

Many of you probably know that most law schools use what is called the Socratic method of teaching which boils down to back-and-forth argument. This is similar to playing "devil's advocate" and a good student was expected to be able to effectively argue both sides of any issue.

It is the assumption of the American appellate judicial system that truth will best come out through spirited oral argument. Sometimes an appellate judge will ask the hardest question of the counsel whose position he or she will ultimately adopt.

I think this Forum has value to all of us not only with respect to assassination research but also as a valuable intellectual experience both in formulating cogent arguments and then articulating them intelligently. At my age, I am mindful of the research that shows that intellectual exercise is as important for the preservation of the mind as physical exercise is for the body.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim,

What sources do you have that Escalante was in DP?

And your source for Cubela meeting with Kostikov?

Didn't Cubela also meet with Harold Benson, aka David Philips in Mexico?

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; B) 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

A few things, I don't think Interpen as an organization was involved. I do believe however that some of the guys who were connected to Interpen at one point in time found themselves mixed up in what happened in Dallas.

I agree. I should have made that clearer. I was not suggesting that Gerry Hemming as leader of Interpen helped to arrange this. (Although I suspect he now knows who was involved in this operation). What I was trying to say that the people who were recruited were either members of Interpen or had worked with the organization against Castro.

Also regarding E. Howard Hunt, maybe he wasn't involved on the level Morales was. I think this is a study all on its own as it gets very complicated indeed. Hunt is a professional xxxx and an opportunist, not someone to initiate a competent plan and to be trusted with its execution. 

I agree about his competence but believe he had the imagination to develop such a plan. However, he was clearly subordinate to Morales. After studying Hunt for some time I have concluded that he overcomplicated things. He also did not know as much as he thought he knew. For example, one of the reasons I don’t believe any senior figures in the CIA were involved in the original conspiracy is that they would not have gone along with the “Castro did it” plan. Like LBJ, they would have known that JFK was involved in secret negotiations with Castro. They knew that he did not have a motive.

In time I think it is well worth starting up a thread on Hunt. However, in the meantime I would like to discuss him in relation to this particular theory. After all, he is still alive. He is also someone who has shown that he cares what his children think of him (that was the reason he gave for the libel action against Spotlight). Maybe he will like Gerry join us in this discussion. It will be interesting to know if he believes in the “lone gunman” theory.

Where does Cubela in Paris and RFK and his promises to his select Cubans fit in here?

I think we have to separate the plots against Castro from the assassination of JFK. I do not think these two events are related. Although those involved in the cover-up tried to do this. There were several reasons for leaking information about the CIA/Mafia plots to kill Castro. One was to suggest a motive. For example, Castro seeking revenge (a theory much loved by Tim Gratz). This of course was completely undermined when it was revealed that JFK was having secret talks with Castro. JFK might have initially been in favour of having Castro assassinated, but clearly he did not hold this view in 1963.

The other main reason was to bring the Mafia into the frame. As I said earlier, the “Mob did it” theory became Plan B during the Garrison investigation. In reality, this is all part of the cover-up that attempts to confuse those who have not accepted the conclusions of the Warren Report.

I believe the historical record will indicate that "militarial-industrial" spending (including spending on the space program) increased dramatically in the JFK Administration.  Some Forum members may be old enough to recall that JFK campaigned against Nixon by arguing that a dangerous "missile gap" had developed under Eisenhower-Nixon.

Shouldn't  JFK have been made an honorary member of Suite 8F for all of his contributions to the defense budget?

It is no doubt true that JFK presented himself as more of a Cold War warrior than Nixon in 1960. He even got his CIA friends to help him with this and severely embarrassed Nixon over Cuba during the presidential campaign. As Victor Marchetti has argued, JFK was the CIA candidate in the election. Suite 8F Group had no problems with JFK. He showed his goodwill to them by appointing Fred Korth as his Navy Secretary (a vitally important post to the Suite 8F Group). Nor did JFK attempt to deal with 8F’s main source of power (the chairmanships of the key Congressional committees).

My main point is that JFK changed policy as a result of the Cuban Missile Crisis. This is not surprising as the Cold War came very close to destroying the world. The problem for JFK was that he could not tell the American public this. He knew that he would be defeated in 1964 if he revealed his true thoughts about the Cold War. Therefore his speech in Dallas makes perfect sense. However, as he told his close aides, get me elected and I will pull out of Vietnam. I believe JFK’s second term would have been very different from the first one. The conspirators knew that and that is why he had to die.

John:

It 's interesting that, as you wrote above, JFK told his close aides, get me

elected and I will pull out of Vietnam. On the other extreme, we have Lyndon

Johnson, after the assassination and securely in the Oval Office, telling the JCS,

"get me elected and you can have your war (Vietnam)." (Source: "Vietnam: A History" by Stanley Karnow, p. 342)

Kennedy's NSAM 263 and Johnson's NSAM 273 seem to validate what each

President said. But that's for another post. Let's stay on topic with your excellent

discussion.

Bill Cheslock

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim,

What sources do you have that Escalante was in DP?

And your source for Cubela meeting with Kostikov?

Didn't Cubela also meet with Harold Benson, aka David Philips in Mexico?

[

Tim, I've gotta side with David here. Your insistance that Escalante was in DP is without any substance, as far as I can determine. Escalante was what, 22? His rise to the top of Castro's counter-intelligence didn't take place for 15 years. What evidence is there that he was in DP besides your wanting to believe it so?

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...