Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Communication Breakdown


Recommended Posts

By the way, I went back and checked.

It was MARK who first brought up the "Castro did it" scenario on Post #61, on page 5 of this thread.  Prior to that time, not a single one of my posts on this thread had anything to do with the "Castro scenario".  I just was talking about how dumb it is, and immoral, in my opinion, to be accusing Douglas Dillon of murdering his close friend JFK. 

I am confident that if you check the other posts in which the "Castro scenario" came up you will find that I am not the one who started it.

Tim,

You're a slippery little rodent. My post was in response to your claim in Post#50 that there were posts on this thread which were garbage. Aghast at the thought that this thread might go places other than Trafficante/Castro/Pro-Castro Cubans, Tim thinks "how do I get my material onto centre stage?". Answer: just say those posts are garbage--someone's bound to respond 'cause I've got more garbage than anyone there. True genius. Then claims that this often happens, which translates as "I use this strategy lots".

Despite all that, this has turned into a very interesting thread, covering a good range of controversial issues. It's been fascinating to watch Robert clinically dispose of most of your assertions. Have you responded yet ? You see, I don't know as much as you on the Castro/Mob theory on the assassination. I doubt if I ever will as you've obviously devoted thousands of hours to it. Trouble is, those who do know what they're talking about on your theory don't appear to back you up. Robert Charles-Dunne and Mark Knight seem to know what they're talking about but still no backers. What conclusion do I draw?

The funny thing is that if anything new comes out of this thread, it might be some research into the background of C. Douglas Dillon. I've never seen such a tantrum about the naming of a suspect and there's been many patriotic Americans named as suspects including 2 Presidents and the joint chiefs. Fascinating.

***********************

Mark.....

There may be some information pertaining...to C.Douglas Dillon..in these links that you will find interesting...

Sorry I have not had the time to take it any further....

B.. B)

Clarence Dillon and his son C. Douglas Dillon were directors of USIS, which was spotlighted when Clarence Dillon was hauled before the Senate Banking Committee's famous "Pecora" hearings in 1933. USIS was shown to be one of the great speculative pyramid schemes which had swindled stockholders of hundreds of millions of dollars. These investment policies had rotted the U.S. economy to the core, and led to the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Note #b|"C. Douglas Dillon" was the boss of William H. Draper, Jr. in the Draper-Prescott Bush-Fritz Thyssen Nazi banking scheme of the 1930s and 40s. His father, Clarence Dillon, created the Vereinigte Stahlwerke (Thyssen's German Steel Trust) in 1926. C. Douglas Dillon made "Nicholas Brady" the chairman of the Dillon Read firm in 1971 and himself continued as chairman of the Executive Committee. C. Douglas Dillon would be a vital ally of his neighbor Prescott Bush during the Eisenhower administration.

Among the other team members were Bush's Hitler-era lawyer John Foster Dulles, and Jupiter Islander C. Douglas Dillon. Dillon and his father were the pivots as the Harriman-Dulles combination readied Ike for the presidency. As a friend put it: "When the Dillons ... invited [Eisenhower] to dinner it was to introduce him to Wall Street bankers and lawyers."

Note #b|"C. Douglas Dillon," neighbor of Bush on Jupiter Island, became undersecretary of state in 1958 after the death of John Foster Dulles. Dillon had been John Foster Dulles's ambassador to France (1953-57), coordinating the original U.S. covert backing for the French imperial effort in Vietnam, with catastrophic results for the world. Dillon was treasury secretary for both John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. /

http://www.patrickcrusade.org/new_page_2.htm

The Jupiter Island connection and father Prescott's Brown Brothers, Harriman/Skull and Bones networks are doubtless the key. Jupiter Island meant Averell Harriman, Robert Lovett, C. Douglas Dillon and other Anglophile financiers who had directed the US intelligence community long before there had been a CIA at all. And, in the back yard of the Jupiter Island Olympians, and under their direction, a powerful covert operations base was now being assembled, in which George Bush would have been present at the creation as a matter of birthright.

Preparation for what was to become the Halloween massacre began in the Ford White House during the summer of 1975. The Ford Library in Ann Arbor, Michigan preserves a memo from Donald Rumsfeld to Ford dated July 10, 1975, which deals with an array of possible choices for CIA Director. Rumsfeld had polled a number of White House and administration officials and asked them to express preferences among "outsiders to the CIA." [fn 2]

Among the officials polled by Cheney was Henry Kissinger, who suggested C. Douglas Dillon, Howard Baker, Galvin, and Robert Roosa. Dick Cheney of the White House staff proposed Robert Bork, followed by Bush and Lee Iacocca. Nelson Rockefeller was also for C. Douglas Dillon, followed by Howard Baker, Conner, and James R. Schlesinger. Rumsfeld himself listed Bork, Dillon, Iacoca, Stanley Resor, and Walter Wriston, but not Bush. The only officials putting Bush on their "possible" lists other than Cheney were Jack O. Marsh, a White House counselor to Ford, and David Packard. When it came time for Rumsfeld to sum up the aggregate number of times each person was mentioned, minus one point for each time a person had been recommended against, the list was as follows:

Robert Bork [rejected in 1987 for the Supreme Court] White McGee Foster [John S. Foster of PFIAB, formerly of the Department of Defense] Dillon Resor Roosa Hauge

http://www.tarpley.net/bush8b.htm

SEVENTEEN YEARS OF BILDERBERGERS INCLUDING THE 2000 INVITEES AND ...

... Dewey BB/CFR John Diebold BB/CFR C. Douglas Dillon BB/CFR Christopher J. ...

Rockefeller BB/CFR Sharon Percy Rockefeller BB Inciarte Matias Rodriquez BB ...

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/bball.htm

CLARENCE DILLON (1882-1979)

Born in San Antonio, Texas, son of Samuel Dillon and Bertha Lapowitz. Harvard, 1905. Married Anne Douglass of Milwaukee. His son, C. Douglas Dillon (later Secretary of the Treasury, 1961-65) was born in Geneva, Switzerland in 1909 while they were abroad. Dillon met William A. Read, founder of the Wall Street bond broker William A. Read and Company, through introduction by Harvard classmate William A. Phillips in 1912 and Dillon joined Read's Chicago office in that year. He moved to New York in 1914. Read died in 1916, and Dillon bought a majority interest in the firm. During World War 1, Bernard Baruch, chairman of the War Industries Board, (known as the Czar of American industry) asked Dillon to be assistant chairman of the War Industries Board. In 1920, William A. Read & Company name was changed to Dillon, Read & Company. Dillon was director of American Foreign Securities Corporation, which he had set up in 1915 to finance the French Government's purchases of munitions in the United States. His righthand man at Dillon Read, James Forrestal, became Secretary of the Navy, later Secretary of Defense, and died under mysterious circumstances at a Federal hospital. In 1957, Fortune Magazine listed Dillon as one of the richest men in the United States, with a fortune then estimated to be from $150 to $200 million.http://www.cephas-library.com/nwo/federal_...iographies.html

C. DOUGLAS DILLON

http://www.ajweberman.com/nodules/nodule23.htm

JFK Lancer: The Investigations

http://www.jfklancer.com/Investigations.html

Council on Foreign Relations

http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/m...s/conspire.html

Information by Operation CHAOS

http://www.cia-on-campus.org/surveil/chaos.html

Gerald R.Ford Library

U.S. PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON CIA ACTIVITIES

WITHIN THE UNITED STATES:

Files, [1947-1974] 1975

http://www.ford.utexas.edu/library/guides/...20-%20Files.htm

Operation Mockingbird

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3054

Bilderberg Conference 2005 - 5-8th May, Rottach-Egern, Munich, Germany

http://www.bilderberg.org/2005.htm

The Modern History Project

http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/EntityIDList.php

B):):):):)

DILLON is named in these threads for the same reason as RICHARD HELMS

THOMAS KARAMESSINES and MARSHALL CARTER are named.

They were principle national security executives who are repeatedly linked to the murder and cover up.

Dillon's background, the security stripping, slow detour, halt during ambush,

windows and railroad overpasses unchecked..........executive sanction.

Thanks again Bernice........

Shanet

Edited by Shanet Clark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 262
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I double-checked my statement that Sorenson had been a socialist in college and found that he was not a socialist but that he had tried to avoid the draft by claiming to be a conscientious objector. This was what stopped him from replacing Bush. Well, that, and that he acknowledged in a statement he made in support of Ellsberg in The Pentagon Papers case that he'd used classified material on the Bay of Pigs when writing his book on Kennedy. Bing. End of career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shanet wrote:

They were principle national security executives who are repeatedly linked to the murder and cover up.

Shanet, it's rather obvious you aren't reading my posts.

The word you want in the above sentence is "principal" not "princip;e".

And, as I thought we had proven on a thread months ago, there was no "security stripping" in Dallas. As I recall I included a series of photos showing the same security, or lack thereof, on JFK's other motorcades, including his motorcade through down town Key West less than a month after the end of the missile crisis.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The word you want in the above sentence is "principal" not "princip;e".

I can understand why you adopt this school master tone but it does not help your case. As your quote above shows, all of us make spelling and grammatical mistakes. If you really want to convince members that you are right, I think you should concentrate on the content of what people are saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand your point, John, and I it is well-taken, but there is a difference between typographical and usage errors. I am not trying to be condescending or act like a school master and I apologize if I gave that impression to anyone.

It is intersting, however, that "principle" was used when the correct word was "principal" but someone else made the reverse error: used "principal" when what he or she meant was "principal".

The fault, of course, is with the English language using two words with the same pronunciation but different spellings for two different meanings. Why are there are not different words for each meaning to avoid this confusion?

And, by the way, I see an occasional but very infrequent, mistake in all of your posts. I think you once commented that it is a good idea to read the post and like for typos after you have posted, so you can immediately edit the error and avoid the embarrassment of, say, typing princip;e. As you know, the ; is one key over from the "l". Alas! Egg on my face!

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Tim,

I agree with Greg. How can you assume his innocence just on this. Quite ridiculous. As Greg suggested, it could be anything from sadness, regret, guilt or even cover. This is why Forum members take issue with you so often. You jump to conclusions when it suits you. True intellectual dishonesty.

On a more important point, namely the very important and as yet unresolved matter of C. Douglas Dillon and his possible involvement, I have a request. Since you are convinced that Sorenson's bio of JFK proves beyond doubt Dillon's innocence of any involvement and since I don't happen to have this book at the moment, perhaps you would be kind enough to quote the passages from which you derive your stunning conclusions. I assume the references to Dillon are only minor in the overall scheme of the work--after all, it's a book about JFK not Dillon, so it shouldn't give you writer's cramp. Just the important, conclusive sentences will do, then I can evaluate them for myself. I've seen some of your posts have been up to 1000 words at times so the collation of the relevant data and its transcription to this site would be child's play for a person of your prodigious output. I believe you are a super member. I know you won't let me down, Tim.

I would dearly love to see that proof vis-a-vis Douglas Dillon. Don't let me down now. Otherwise people might think that you're phony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I guess that is easier than if you read the entire book (God forbid!).

Again your logic defies comprehension. Jumping to an erroneous conclusion is the equivalent of intellectual dishonesty? Presumably jumping to a conclusion is a mistake in logic, which is far different than dishonesty.

Speaking of which, why don't you just be honest and state why you first implied you would read Sorenson's book, then changed it to maybe, and now presumably to no? Is the real answer you can't find it in your local library; can't afford to buy it; don't have time to read it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark wrote:

Fair call. My remark in parenthesis made it look as though I believed they were both Republicans. Sorenson was obviously not. You've scored a technical debating point (in duplicate). You're lucky day, Tim.

Not just luck, Mark.

Permit me, then, a friendly grammatical point.

"You're" is a contraction short for "you are".  Your sentence should read"

"Your lucky day, Tim."

If you refuse to learn about the assassination from me*, perhaps you will accept my grammatical points.

By the way, I think you will be glad that I pressed you to read Sorenson's book!

Tim,

*  By that I mean (for instance) that I may not know for sure who did it but I do know for sure some who did not, among them C. Douglas Dillon.

Tim,

Sorry to disappoint you but I did say "maybe". At the moment I'm going through some of the material Bernice linked to her post (#124). There's a mile of stuff there including some from Weberman. Some of it I've read before but I recommend forum readers give it more than a passing glance. The Rockerfeller Commission is interesting and probably doesn't receive sufficient coverage on the Forum, IMO.

I don't know if Dillon had foreknowledge of JFK's assassination but as I've stated ad nauseum, he can't be ruled out as a suspect, IMO. Thus I disagree with your iron clad conviction of his innocence.

Among the many problems I have with your perspective on the assassination is your tendency to claim certain sources as justification of your position. One example is the LBJ tapes, which you claim as proof of LBJ's non involvement.

John Simkin and Ron Ecker say they prove no such thing. You don't have the credibility to carry your arguments.

******************

Hi Mark:

Well I found Sorenson, dusted it off, and reread the Dillon passages...

there is nothing in such to claim any great love, nor friendship, it does not spell out either....however..It is a study of the years that JFK was in office, and what was accomplished....the work does not go into this type of personal area,in any real sense,.. nor of the perhaps likes and dislikes in any great depth, it is a History book.....IMO....

It does make mention that the McNamaras and Dillons were invited by the Kennedys to social gatherings more often than other members of the cabinet..we also must keep in mind, that some wives got on better with some than others, and in that case they were not invited to private gatherings...the same in all society it seems at times....and also that JFK did work closely with the Treasury, but also with the other members of the Cabinet as a one on one...

Also as far as the the book, that I have read on the LBJ tapes, by Holland, ..I did come to the conclusion at that time, that it neither shows any guilt of the man nor his innocence .....though to me, many questions did arise within the said conversations....I also wonder if, and what was not released on the tapes...??

But in the LBJ tapes book, by Holland there are a few references to Dillon..one I did want to pass along as I found it interesting....

p: 216...."The only thing preventing more real and imagined slights between the two men ( RFK & LBJ) is the fact that over Thanksgiving Kennedy sequestered himself in Treasury Dillon's Hobe Sound, Florida ,compound, and has been literally in communicado since."..appears to be Wed. Dec.4th/63..

I also think that Tim is simply practicing the (his) floccinaucinihilipilification process. :blink: which can become rather tedious and boring very quickly,and a form of diversion from the information that anyone is trying to extend to the membership..IMO... :D

B)

Edited by Bernice Moore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting...it's apparently not Tim's fault that he's playing self-appointed language cop:

The fault, of course, is with the English language using two words with the same pronunciation but different spellings for two different meanings. Why are there are not different words for each meaning to avoid this confusion?

Whether Tim realizes it or not, most of us here know the difference between "your" and "you're", and between "principal" and "principle." I tend to believe that Tim's "principal" reason to point these things out isn't the "principle," but it's Tim's desire to (1) position himself as being above the person who posted; (2) discover yet another avenue to find fault with a post; (3) distract the discussion from the point being made by the person posting and make himself the center of attention, rather than the topic under discussion.

And THAT is, in itself, yet another "communication breakdown."

[And Tim: in case you weren't aware, it IS still considered impolite to inquire whether one has the means to purchase something--unless you are implying that you will purchase it FOR them--as this is an invasion of one's right to privacy in their own financial matters. I would've thought that I shouldn't have to remind you of this, as I'm sure you had a proper upbringing available to you, but perhaps I'm mistaken. I doubt that you'd intentionally be this inconsiderate.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But to answer your question, in the next day or two I shall try to type in the relevant passages (or at least summarize them).

Tim,

Thank you. I would prefer you to quote the author verbatim rather than any summaries, though. It only has to be the main points, perhaps only a couple of sentences--the main points which convinced you that Dillon's involvement was not possible. I eagerly await your response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bernice wrote:

p: 216...."The only thing preventing more real and imagined slights between the two men ( RFK & LBJ) is the fact that over Thanksgiving Kennedy sequestered himself in Treasury Dillon's Hobe Sound, Florida ,compound, and has been literally in communicado since."..appears to be Wed. Dec.4th/63..

Hold it! Does that not show a closeness between the Kennedys and Dillon?

Does anyone suspect that RFK was sequestering himself at the home of his brother's assassin?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bernice wrote:

p: 216...."The only thing preventing more real and imagined slights between the two men ( RFK & LBJ) is the fact that over Thanksgiving Kennedy sequestered himself in Treasury Dillon's Hobe Sound, Florida ,compound, and has been literally in communicado since."..appears to be Wed. Dec.4th/63..

Hold it!  Does that not show a closeness between the Kennedys and Dillon?

Does anyone suspect that RFK was sequestering himself at the home of his brother's assassin?

**********************************

It shows IMO, that Dillon loaned, RFK his home after the assassination of his brother,perhaps for some solitude ....?...That is what the documentation states, nothing more...as seen above ...

Edited by Bernice Moore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark wrote:

Fair call. My remark in parenthesis made it look as though I believed they were both Republicans. Sorenson was obviously not. You've scored a technical debating point (in duplicate). You're lucky day, Tim.

Not just luck, Mark.

Permit me, then, a friendly grammatical point.

"You're" is a contraction short for "you are".  Your sentence should read"

"Your lucky day, Tim."

If you refuse to learn about the assassination from me*, perhaps you will accept my grammatical points.

By the way, I think you will be glad that I pressed you to read Sorenson's book!

Tim,

*  By that I mean (for instance) that I may not know for sure who did it but I do know for sure some who did not, among them C. Douglas Dillon.

Tim,

Sorry to disappoint you but I did say "maybe". At the moment I'm going through some of the material Bernice linked to her post (#124). There's a mile of stuff there including some from Weberman. Some of it I've read before but I recommend forum readers give it more than a passing glance. The Rockerfeller Commission is interesting and probably doesn't receive sufficient coverage on the Forum, IMO.

I don't know if Dillon had foreknowledge of JFK's assassination but as I've stated ad nauseum, he can't be ruled out as a suspect, IMO. Thus I disagree with your iron clad conviction of his innocence.

Among the many problems I have with your perspective on the assassination is your tendency to claim certain sources as justification of your position. One example is the LBJ tapes, which you claim as proof of LBJ's non involvement.

John Simkin and Ron Ecker say they prove no such thing. You don't have the credibility to carry your arguments.

******************

Hi Mark:

Well I found Sorenson, dusted it off, and reread the Dillon passages...

IMO, there is nothing in such to claim any great love, nor friendship, it does not spell out either....however..

It does make mention that the McNamaras and Dillons were invited by the Kennedys to social gatherings more often than other members of the cabinet..and also that JFK did work closely with the Treasury, but also with the other members of the Cabinet as a one on one...

Also as far as the the book, that I have read on the LBJ tapes, by Holland, ..I did come to the conclusion at that time, that it neither shows any guilt of the man nor his innocence .....though to me, many questions did arise within the said conversations....I also wonder if, and what was not released on the tapes...??

But in the LBJ tapes book, by Holland there are a few references to Dillon..one I did want to pass along as I found it interesting....

p: 216...."The only thing preventing more real and imagined slights between the two men ( RFK & LBJ) is the fact that over Thanksgiving Kennedy sequestered himself in Treasury Dillon's Hobe Sound, Florida ,compound, and has been literally in communicado since."..appears to be Wed. Dec.4th/63..

I also think that Tim is simply practicing the (his) floccinaucinihilipilification process. :blink: which can become rather tedious and boring very quickly,and a form of diversion from the information that anyone is trying to extend to the membership..IMO... :D

B)

Bernice,

Thanks again. I would be surprised if Sorenson's book proved Dillon's innocence but Tim's the one making this wild claim, so let him prove it. This should all be very interesting. It's great that you have the book, because we can check his accuracy.

From what I've been reading about CDD (and I'm only just beginning), there's no valid reason to cross him off, IMO. His connection to big banking and the fact that he's ex OSS and was boss of the SS are important matters for consideration. They might mean not much but to claim his involvement is not possible, well, that claim can't be sustained.

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...