The Communication Breakdown

[Ron Ecker]

Taylor looks like he's imitating Lansdale with that stooped right shoulder. Or does conspiracy just do that to you?

Ron

[James Richards]

Taylor looks like he's imitating Lansdale with that stooped right shoulder. Or does conspiracy just do that to you?

Ron

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Funny you should mention that, Ron.

I had always felt that the guy in the Tramps photo (supposedly Lansdale) actually looked somewhat like Max Taylor. I never posted anything regarding that given the strong support that Fletcher Prouty had/has in the research community with his ID of Lansdale. Basically I was afraid of being laughed at.

I can't get anything to attach at the moment so I will send you a comparison privately.

James

[Ron Ecker]

James,

Thanks for the comparison! I agree the resemblance is remarkable. The hair stands out, which never has seemed to fit Lansdale.

The problem is, if we are to believe Manchester, Taylor and the other Joint Chiefs were meeting with West German officers in the Pentagon that day. Taylor was reportedly "napping in his office" between sessions with the Germans when word came of the shooting. Are there any other sources to support this?

Also, it would be pretty brazen for Taylor himself to be there. But considering the guys down at the corner of Main and Houston, I guess it's believable. If Taylor was there, then this really was a military coup, pure and simple. The only question was whether it would turn out covert or overt, depending on how it all went down.

Ron

Edited June 14, 2005 by Ron Ecker

[James Richards]

Hi Ron,

I guess if these guys were going to be in Dallas they would have organized cover stories. I also don't think being visible would have been part of the plan but if one or all three of the Tramps were involved, he may have felt it was needed to make an appearance as an assurance that everything was under control.

If this is Taylor however, that does shed a new light on things. I do hope Jim Root sees this and offers a comment.

James

[Pat Speer]

I'll beat Tim to the punch and point out that Taylor and Kennedy were friends and friends don't kill each other.

[Stan Wilbourne]

Nice one, Pat.

Didn't Jean Hill say right after the murder, she was taken by agents (?) to the DalTex (?) building where there was a small theatre (an arrangement of chairs given to the view below) that overlooked the Plaza? Here she was asked what she heard and saw, then she was told what she heard and saw. Or, am I remembering that wrong?

The Lansdale figure looks more like Taylor to me as well. Did Taylor ever wear glasses?

[Mark Stapleton]

I've got Max Taylor and Curt LeMay. Can anyone ID the others? (Greg Wagner)

Hi Greg,

Yep, Taylor front left, LeMay front right. I believe that is Gen. Earle Wheeler behind Taylor and Adm. David McDonald behind LeMay. At the back on the left could be Gen. John McConnell but I'm not 100% on that one.

FWIW.

James

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi James,

The guy behind General Earle Wheeler (partially obscured by LeMay) might be General David Shoup (Marines). Hard to tell, but looks similar from the photos I've seen and he wore glasses. Nice photo, Greg--I'd love to see the one of a distressed Ike that you mentioned. A man of integrity, IMO.

[Ron Ecker]

I looked in the book An American Soldier: The Wars of General Maxwell Taylor, by Taylor's son John Taylor (Presidio Press, 2001). It tells the same story of Taylor taking a nap in his Pentagon office between sessions with German officers when word of the assassination came.

There is also this interesting passage (pp. 290-291):

"In mid-1964, just prior to his departure for Saigon, Taylor has several conversations with Elspeth Rostow, who interviewed him at his quarters for the Kennedy Library’s oral history series. All went smoothly until the subject of the assassination arose. According to Rostow, Taylor then broke down; for several minutes there was nothing on her tape but the sound of an occasional passing car. Once he had composed himself, the interview continued."

Ron

Edited June 14, 2005 by Ron Ecker

[James Richards]

Hi James,

The guy behind General Earle Wheeler (partially obscured by LeMay) might be General David Shoup (Marines). (Mark Stapleton)

Hi Mark,

I think you may be right about Shoup. Good call.

James

[Tim Gratz]

Re Ron's post re Maxwell Taylor, this emotion certainly tells me he had no involvement in the asssassination. He, a hard-bitten career military officet was presumably close to tears at the thought of the brutal murder if his friend.

He too is another man, most likely innocent, who has been indicted by certain members of this Forum on the scantest (if any) evidence.

Just caught Pat's post. Amen, Pat!

Edited June 14, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Pat's post 141 is very well stated and, I am convinced, is close to the truth.

I hope everyone gives it careful consideration.

As I have said before, if the cover-up was due to fear of the consequences of foreign involvement, it matters not in explaining the cover-up whether the evidence was genuine or planted. It also means that the motive for the cover-up was understandable and not nefarious. The only alternative is if LBJ was guilty and he used the spectre of foreign involvement to con Warren. But for several reasons mentioned before I do not believe LBJ was guilty even though he clearly was politically corrupt.

Edited June 14, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Mark Stapleton]

Hey Mark, I see you're posting today.  The only conclusion I can draw is that you've done a little speed reading and made it through the Sorenson bio on JFK.  You're such a bad boy. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Stan,

lol. Yes, it's quite amusing. Tim apparently wants to make it a requirement. We're very lucky we have headmaster Tim to tell us what we must read (and presumably, what we must not read). Sorenson's bio must be the Holy Grail, the definitive work, the final word on the relationship between Douglas Dillon and JFK. He doesn't mention looking into Dillon's background and connections--that must be irrelevant.

According to Dallek, Ted Sorenson was a lawyer from Lincoln, Nebraska. He came from a progressive Republican family and his father was a former Nebraska Attorney General. I believe he was a good friend of JFK's and a great speechwriter. Some were surprised that JFK hired him, being non-Catholic. However, his apparent affirmation of (fellow Republican) Dillon's undying friendship with JFK must be considered in the context of all other information to be gathered about Douglas Dillon.

A small point re speed reading--Manchester mentions that JFK could speed read at 1200wpm. Can anyone confirm this to be true? It's not mentioned in Dallek's biography of JFK. Just curious.

[Mark Stapleton]

Hi James,

The guy behind General Earle Wheeler (partially obscured by LeMay) might be General David Shoup (Marines). (Mark Stapleton)

Hi Mark,

I think you may be right about Shoup. Good call.

James

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

James,

Thanks for the ID on the others. For me, it's always difficult to identify LeMay without his stogie.

[Tim Gratz]

Well, Mark, thanks for the sarcasm, as usual. Have I ever tried to tell anyone what not to read? Your remarks just seem to increase in stupidity with each passing day.

I gather, of course, that you have still not found the opportunity to read Sorenson.

I have no reason to believe he was a Republican, by the way. The fact that Sorensons' parents were Republican does not mean that he was (of course). So your implied suggestion that his book "builds up" Dillon because they were both Republicans is amusing.

He was a gifted speechwriter who at least helped JFK write "Profiles in Courage" and I believe he contributed a lot to JFL's success.

The two Kennedy biographers who were "present at the creation" (so to speak) were Sorenson and Scheslinger, but particularly Sorenson.

But apparently you lack the time to read Sorenson's biography of Kennedy. I understand it is easier, and probably more fun, to post sarcasm about me but let me respectfully suggest that reading will increase your knowledge while posting your irrelevancies accomplishes nothing.

I just find it incredible that someone can claim to be an "assassination researcher" without having read the basic books on the Kennedy administration by those who were involved with it. I suspect this would also surprise many other people who have "done their homework".

Edited June 14, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Mark Stapleton]

Well, Mark, thanks for the sarcasm, as usual.  Have I ever tried to tell anyone what not to read?  Your remarks just seem to increase in stupidity with each passing day.

I gather, of course, that you have still not found the opportunity to read Sorenson.

I have no reason to believe he was a Republican, by the way. 

He was a gifted speechwriter who at least helped JFK write "Profiles in Courage" and I believe he contributed a lot to JFL's success.

The two Kennedy biographers who were "present at the creation" (so to speak) were Sorenson and Scheslinger, but particularly Sorenson.

But apparently you lack the time to read Sorenson's biography of Kennedy.  I understand it is easier, and probably more fun, to post sarcasm about me but let me respectfully suggest that reading will increase your knowledge while posting your irrelevancies accomplishes nothing.

I just find it incredible that someone can claim to be an "assassination researcher" without having read the basic books on the Kennedy administration by those who were involved with it.  I suspect this would also surprise many other people who have "done their homework".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim,

You've done it again (why am I not surprised). I said Sorenson came from a Republican family, not that he was a Republican. He was working for a Democrat Presidential candidate so I think that might have crossed his mind as he stood in the ballot box in 1960. You see the way you misrepresent the posts of others? Subtle. Clever. Members take note.

JFK's hiring of Sorenson, appointment of Dillon etc, showed what an exceptional Chief Executive JFK was. He wanted the best people, political and religious affiliations being secondary considerations at best. I know he made Bobby AG, but Bobby was outstanding as well. JFK made a great joke about it when asked why he appointed his brother to be Attorney-General without having ever practised in a legal firm, "I wanted to give him some legal experience before he goes into practise" JFK said.

Tim, you seem obsessed about me reading the Sorenson bio of JFK. Why just me? And why just it? Apparently, my reading it is the only way of preventing you from throwing another tantrum. OK, I'll read it........maybe.