Mark Stapleton Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 Tim, I must take offence at you describing some of the posts here as garbage. There's speculation, I agree, but isn't the whole JFK debate speculation ? (based on the available facts) You've stated before how you "deplore" speculation (usually just before you embark on an orgy of speculation -- LHO being your favorite topic for speculation), but without the truth about the JFK asassination what else can we do? Everyone's speculating or offering their opinion--it's the same thing. Moreover, I speculate the most blatant garbage on this website is the theory put forward by you. The Castro did it theory. My contempt for such a contrived distortion of shared knowledge is supported by most of those on the Forum, among them John Simkin, a genuine authority on the case and not a mere speculator like me. Your theory has been comprehensively rebutted so many times on this Forum that it's rebuttals could be made into a thick book. Thick, Tim. One more point. Your ferocious defence of Dillon amuses me. I've also read that he was a friend of JFK's--I said as much on one of my first posts. However, as Treasury Secretary, the Secret Service answered to him. The Secret Service was nobbled (mere speculation) on November 22. So here lies the dilemma. On one hand he's a friend of JFK but counterbalancing that is the fact that he was boss of the SS and the SS didn't perform near well enough to save JFK. Close scrutiny of his associations might reveal he had friends he liked better than JFK. Like an ostrich, you hang your hat on your fervent hope that this apparent friendship precludes any involvement or foreknowledge and scald dissenters with pious accusations about bismirching reputations, then bury your head to any evidence to the contrary. The evidence may be circumstantial, but there's a lot of that coming from this site, especially from you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 (edited) Mark, it bothers me not one wit that people who have not read the entire history of the period (e.g. you and some others) dispute the "Castro did it" theory. In my opinion, it has NEVER been effectively rebutted. Mr. Charles-Dunne has made a valiant effort but his effort boils down into arguing that every CIA document pointing to Cuban involvement is falsified or based on false reports. If even one or two of those reports are accurate, then the evidence that Castro did it is strong. It does not seem like much of a rebuttal to me to simply assume every CIA report is incorrect. It is far more important to me that people who actually worked on JFK's Cuban policy, Joseph Califano and Alexander Haig, and lived through those times, believe that Castro probably did it, than what anyone who has only "second-hand" knowledge, believes. Okay, Mark, now is the time, if you think the Castro did it theory is "garbage" then would you please answer the following questions: (If you refuse, I will take it you cannot defend your position that my theory is "garbage"). Many of these questions can be answered "Yes" or "No". (1) Would you agree that if there were agents of Castro's intelligence organization in Dealey Plaza when Kennedy was assassinated, that is fairly persuasive evidence of Cuban involvement in the assassination? If your answer is "No", then please provide a non-sinister explanation for their presence. (2) The House Select Committee on Assassinations reported on the suspicious travels of Gilberto Policarpo Lopez (former Key West resident) which it characterized as "troubling", as I recall. Policarpo had moved from Key West to Tampa approximately six months before the assassination. Tampa was of course the home base of Santo Trafficante. So tell me, Mark, do you agree that Trafficante was a conspirator? If your answer is "No", tell me whether you dispute the report that Traf- ficante predicted in 1962 that Kennedy would be "hit" before the 1964 election? (3) Do you admit that after Giancana was murdered, the FBI picked up on electronic surveillance Trafficante stating that "now only two of us know who killed Kennedy"? (4) Do you admit that Trafficante admitted his involvement in the assassination to his attorney? (5) Do you admit that there is good evidence that members of Trafficante's organization killed Rosselli? (6) Now if you will admit that Trafficante was most likely a conspirator is it then your contention that Policarpo's move from Key West to Tampa six months before the assassination was mere happenstance? (7) Do you admit that Policarpo met with V. T. Lee prior to the assassination? (8) Do you admit that there was a close relationship between Trafficante and Rolando Cubela, and that Cubela in fact helped Trafficante get out of Trescornia? (By golly, I hope you know what Trescornia was. If not, let me know.) (9) Do you admit that Trafficante perjured himself before the House Select Committee on Assassinations by denying a relationship with Cubela? (10) Can you offer a non-sinister reason why Trafficante would deny his relationship with Cubela? (11) Do you admit that Cubela had met with Valery Kostikov? (12) Do you admit that there was reliable information that Trafficante had a secret relationship with Castro and was even using rigged bolita games to pay Castro intelligence agents on the US? (13) Do you admit that it is probable that Castro had knowledge that a man who claimed to be a personal representative of Robert Kennedy was encouraging one of Castro's cabinet members to murder Castro less than a month before the assassination of JFK? (14) Do you admit that Castro caught a bunch of CIA trained saboteurs and potential assassins attempting to enter Cuba in late October of 1963? (15) Do you admit that Castro scheduled a meeting with the French journalist that was bearing a "peace" message from JFK for the very hour that JFK was killed? I am not asking you to admit asignificance to the timing of the meeting, simply admit, if you will, that it was Castro who scheduled the meeting for that time. (16) State whether it would make any difference to you in your belief that the Castro did it scenario is "garbage" if Fabian Escalante was in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination? (17) Do you admit that there was a Cuban named Miguel Casas who was in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination? (18) Do you admit that Miguel was a member of Castro's intelligence organi- zation? It seems to me there is fairly convincing evidence that Trafficante was a conspirator. Castro's involvement is suggested by the belief held by many that Cubela was a double agent reporting to Castro. The chilling nexus is that Trafficante had a relationship with Cubela, a relationship of such importance that he decided to perjure himself in denying it. How can the Castro did it scenario be garbage when Castro himself warned of retaliation on September 7, 1963 if American efforts to kill him continued and within two months a CIA agent claiming to be a personal representative of Jack Kennedy's brother was encouraging a man who was probably a Castro double-agent to kill Castro for the US? And if Trafficante did it, for which there is strong evidence, then his ties to Cubela and possible relationship with Castro are ominous. Hardly a theory with no evidence. What I contend is "garbage", Mark, is when members of this forum accuse Americans who have no criminal record with conspiring to murder JFK with not a shred of evidence to support such a libel. And Dillon of all people did not even have policy differences with JFK. I think in fact it is far worse than "garbage"! Your statements about Dillon are just amusing. A close scrutiny of his associations might reveal he had friends he liked better than JFK? That's a motive for murder? You claim that I bury my head like an ostrich about any evidence that Dillon was a conspirator. No, sir. I do not. Name one fact--not speculation--that supports that libel. I'm all ears--well, all eyes, I guess I should say. I don't want your speculation--I want your EVIDENCE! If you have none, then I'd like to know how you can sleep at night blaspheming patriotic Americans. Just too bad that Dillon is not alive to sue you. At least Joe McCarthy made charges against people who could defend themselves. I suspect neither you or Shanet can offer a name of anyone close to JFK who believes that Dillon did it. Contrast that, of course, with Califano and Haig who worked on Cuban policy in the Kennedy Administration and both believe Castro did it. Edited June 10, 2005 by Tim Gratz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Stapleton Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 Mark, it bothers me not one wit that people who have not read the entire history of the period (e.g. you and some others) dispute the "Castro did it" theory. In my opinion, it has NEVER been effectively rebutted. Mr. Charles-Dunne has made a valiant effort but his effort boils down into arguing that every CIA document pointing to Cuban involvement is falsified or based on false reports. If even one or two of those reports are accurate, then the evidence that Castro did it is strong. It does not seem like much of a rebuttal to me to simply assume every CIA report is incorrect. It is far more important to me that people who actually worked on JFK's Cuban policy, Joseph Califano and Alexander Haig, and lived through those times, believe that Castro probably did it, than what anyone who has only "second-hand" knowledge, believes.Okay, Mark, now is the time, if you think the Castro did it theory is "garbage" then would you please answer the following questions: (If you refuse, I will take it you cannot defend your position that my theory is "garbage"). Many of these questions can be answered "Yes" or "No". (1) Would you agree that if there were agents of Castro's intelligence organization in Dealey Plaza when Kennedy was assassinated, that is fairly persuasive evidence of Cuban involvement in the assassination? If your answer is "No", then please provide a non-sinister explanation for their presence. (2) The House Select Committee on Assassinations reported on the suspicious travels of Gilberto Policarpo Lopez (former Key West resident) which it characterized as "troubling", as I recall. Policarpo had moved from Key West to Tampa approximately six months before the assassination. Tampa was of course the home base of Santo Trafficante. So tell me, Mark, do you agree that Trafficante was a conspirator? If your answer is "No", tell me whether you dispute the report that Traf- ficante predicted in 1962 that Kennedy would be "hit" before the 1964 election? (3) Do you admit that after Giancana was murdered, the FBI picked up on electronic surveillance Trafficante stating that "now only two of us know who killed Kennedy"? (4) Do you admit that Trafficante admitted his involvement in the assassination to his attorney? (5) Do you admit that there is good evidence that members of Trafficante's organization killed Rosselli? (6) Now if you will admit that Trafficante was most likely a conspirator is it then your contention that Policarpo's move from Key West to Tampa six months before the assassination was mere happenstance? (7) Do you admit that Policarpo met with V. T. Lee prior to the assassination? (8) Do you admit that there was a close relationship between Trafficante and Rolando Cubela, and that Cubela in fact helped Trafficante get out of Trescornia? (By golly, I hope you know what Trescornia was. If not, let me know.) (9) Do you admit that Trafficante perjured himself before the House Select Committee on Assassinations by denying a relationship with Cubela? (10) Can you offer a non-sinister reason why Trafficante would deny his relationship with Cubela? (11) Do you admit that Cubela had met with Valery Kostikov? (12) Do you admit that there was reliable information that Trafficante had a secret relationship with Castro and was even using rigged bolita games to pay Castro intelligence agents on the US? (13) Do you admit that it is probable that Castro had knowledge that a man who claimed to be a personal representative of Robert Kennedy was encouraging one of Castro's cabinet members to murder Castro less than a month before the assassination of JFK? (14) Do you admit that Castro caught a bunch of CIA trained saboteurs and potential assassins attempting to enter Cuba in late October of 1963? (15) Do you admit that Castro scheduled a meeting with the French journalist that was bearing a "peace" message from JFK for the very hour that JFK was killed? I am not asking you to admit asignificance to the timing of the meeting, simply admit, if you will, that it was Castro who scheduled the meeting for that time. (16) State whether it would make any difference to you in your belief that the Castro did it scenario is "garbage" if Fabian Escalante was in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination? (17) Do you admit that there was a Cuban named Miguel Casas who was in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination? (18) Do you admit that Miguel was a member of Castro's intelligence organi- zation? It seems to me there is fairly convincing evidence that Trafficante was a conspirator. Castro's involvement is suggested by the belief held by many that Cubela was a double agent reporting to Castro. The chilling nexus is that Trafficante had a relationship with Cubela, a relationship of such importance that he decided to perjure himself in denying it. How can the Castro did it scenario be garbage when Castro himself warned of retaliation on September 7, 1963 if American efforts to kill him continued and within two months a CIA agent claiming to be a personal representative of Jack Kennedy's brother was encouraging a man who was probably a Castro double-agent to kill Castro for the US? And if Trafficante did it, for which there is strong evidence, then his ties to Cubela and possible relationship with Castro are ominous. Hardly a theory with no evidence. What I contend is "garbage", Mark, is when members of this forum accuse Americans who have no criminal record with conspiring to murder JFK with not a shred of evidence to support such a libel. And Dillon of all people did not even have policy differences with JFK. I think in fact it is far worse than "garbage"! Your statements about Dillon are just amusing. A close scrutiny of his associations might reveal he had friends he liked better than JFK? That's a motive for murder? You claim that I bury my head like an ostrich about any evidence that Dillon was a conspirator. No, sir. I do not. Name one fact--not speculation--that supports that libel. I'm all ears--well, all eyes, I guess I should say. I don't want your speculation--I want your EVIDENCE! If you have none, then I'd like to know how you can sleep at night blaspheming patriotic Americans. Just too bad that Dillon is not alive to sue you. At least Joe McCarthy made charges against people who could defend themselves. I suspect neither you or Shanet can offer a name of anyone close to JFK who believes that Dillon did it. Contrast that, of course, with Califano and Haig who worked on Cuban policy in the Kennedy Administration and both believe Castro did it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Tim, Dear oh dear. I've seen you hijack threads before, but this is ridiculous. Why don't you give us a full seminar. I'll answer all your 18 questions at once--I believe anti-Castro Cubans may have been used in a minor way or to attract some suspicion as the blaming of the hit on Castro seems to be part of the big picture. But Castro didn't plan it. It's sad that your myopia prevents you from seeing why domestic interests had far more to gain by killing JFK than Castro did so I won't bother. This tired old argument which you are addicted to resurrecting is getting as boring as daytime television. Your meretricious display in posting 18 questions fools no-one. It only shows that you deserve a Bachelor's Degree in irrelevant information. OK Tim, now is your time. You answer my question now. Unlike your 18, mine relates to the thread. How can you be so certain that Dillon didn't have other friends--better friends, older friends--than JFK? Friends who suggested to Dillon that JFK's departure was in the best interests of all. Dillon was well connected with Eastern banking and finance interests was he not? This is no accusation, only a question. I'm saying it's possible that Dillon knew, nothing more. You are saying this is impossible--how so? Answer it, don't bury your head in the sand. Also, spare us the teary eyed speeches about bismirching the reputations of patriotic Americans. It's pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Charles-Dunne Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 Mark, it bothers me not one wit The word is "whit." I don't usually stoop to correcting other people's typos, etc., because I make enough mistakes of my own. However, since you cannot resist an opportunity to condescend toward other posters here regarding their use of English, perhaps it's time you were held to account to your own standard. that people who have not read the entire history of the period (e.g. you and some others) dispute the "Castro did it" theory. It is interesting that you assume what people here have and haven't read, without any basis for your assumptions. What is beyond "dispute" is that a person may have read every book known to man and still reach spurious and specious conclusions. You prove this point daily. In my opinion, it has NEVER been effectively rebutted. Mr. Charles-Dunne has made a valiant effort but his effort boils down into arguing that every CIA document pointing to Cuban involvement is falsified or based on false reports. This mischaracterizes my position completely, which should come as no surprise to anyone who reads your posts, as it is a recurring tic in your correspondence. My "valiant effort" consists of nothing more than two things: first, asking you to actually produce the [invariably CIA] documents you second-handedly cite, many of which you apparently haven't even seen; and, second, asking you to offer any non-CIA data which might confirm the contents of the documents you haven't seen. It doesn't seem an unreasonable position to take, given that you would indict Castro based not on actual evidence, but on CIA's demonstrably spurious say-so. You've yet to oblige me on either count, a fact not lost on others here. If even one or two of those reports are accurate, then the evidence that Castro did it is strong. We'd know a lot more about the accuracy and provenance of the reports if you were to actually produce them for our edification. Yet, instead we are treated to a dog and pony show in which you make the most astonishing leaps of faith, based upon documents you've never seen, and insist we take the jump with you. As I've pointed out for... what? a dozen times now?.... the mere existence of a document doesn't mean it is genuine, or accurate. Ask Dan Rather and Seymour Hersh. Recall the Hoover memo in which he reports that Oswald made frequent trips to Cuba, for purposes that he refused to divulge to FBI. Now, either Hoover knew something incredibly significant about Oswald that he never shared with the rest of the world, or the memo was just plain wrong. The same holds true for CIA documents, particularly CIA documents because so many of them are entirely spurious - knowingly spurious, as Jane Roman herself attested when confronted with a document she herself had signed. If some of us feel compelled to hold CIA paperwork even closer to the light, it might be because the organization seemed incapable of even getting the putative assassin's name right, despite his defection to the USSR, threat to reveal military secrets, etc. Lee "Henry" Oswald, indeed. You're free to reach whatever untenable and unsustainable conclusions that might amuse you. However, in the absence of providing us with compelling reasons to do so, you cannot merely insist that we amuse ourselves along with you. It does not seem like much of a rebuttal to me to simply assume every CIA report is incorrect. Does it seem reasonable to ask you to actually see the reports upon which you base your fantasies? Can we see them, too? Please? It is far more important to me that people who actually worked on JFK's Cuban policy, Joseph Califano and Alexander Haig, and lived through those times, believe that Castro probably did it, than what anyone who has only "second-hand" knowledge, believes. Were there any degree of unanimity among Kennedy's Cabinet members and advisers regarding Castro's culpability, it would certainly strengthen your case. Yet, of all the people in Kennedy's inner circle, apparently only two junior members of the entourage share your pet theory. Either Kennedy was killed by Castro and only two people in the inner sanctum were bright enough to realize it, or there was a blatant attempt to fabricate false "evidence" of Castro's culpability, and only two people in Kennedy's entourage were too dim to see through the ruse. Okay, Mark, now is the time, if you think the Castro did it theory is "garbage" then would you please answer the following questions: (If you refuse, I will take it you cannot defend your position that my theory is "garbage"). Many of these questions can be answered "Yes" or "No". (1) Would you agree that if there were agents of Castro's intelligence organization in Dealey Plaza when Kennedy was assassinated, that is fairly persuasive evidence of Cuban involvement in the assassination? If your answer is "No", then please provide a non-sinister explanation for their presence. Actually, Tim, if you are the prosecutor, then the burden of proving that assertion falls to you. Please provide your evidence that there were such agents present in Dealey Plaza. If you cannot, please provide a non-sinister explanation for the unsubstantiated documents you claim cite this as fact. (2) The House Select Committee on Assassinations reported on the suspicious travels of Gilberto Policarpo Lopez (former Key West resident) which it characterized as "troubling", as I recall. Policarpo had moved from Key West to Tampa approximately six months before the assassination. Tampa was of course the home base of Santo Trafficante. So tell me, Mark, do you agree that Trafficante was a conspirator? Based on what? That he resided in the same town as a guy who has yet to be demonstrated to have made "troubling" travels, and who has yet to be proved to have been a Castro agent? If your answer is "No", tell me whether you dispute the report that Traf- ficante predicted in 1962 that Kennedy would be "hit" before the 1964 election? If the statement is so definitively obvious, why did Aleman not come forward with this assertion immediately, but instead wait for another dozen years? Well, according to his own testimony, it was because he didn't think Trafficante meant the President would be whacked, only that he would be defeated. Re-read his testimony, and tell us again why this limp-wristed, late-arriving assertion deserves our uncritical acceptance as truth? (3) Do you admit that after Giancana was murdered, the FBI picked up on electronic surveillance Trafficante stating that "now only two of us know who killed Kennedy"? I am privvy to many secrets, despite not having been a participant. This could mean much. Or nothing. (4) Do you admit that Trafficante admitted his involvement in the assassination to his attorney? We know only that's what Ragano claimed. A decade later. When he was diagnosed with a terminal illness and sought money. (5) Do you admit that there is good evidence that members of Trafficante's organization killed Rosselli? We know that somebody killed him, prior to another round of testimony. It's likely safe to assume - though not certain, given various Mob rivalries and vendettas - that he was killed to preclude further testimony. When somebody is actually convicted of the crime, it may be easier to reach definitive conclusions. (6) Now if you will admit that Trafficante was most likely a conspirator is it then your contention that Policarpo's move from Key West to Tampa six months before the assassination was mere happenstance? Unworthy of comment or rebuttal. Two men live in the same telephone area code? Wow!!! (7) Do you admit that Policarpo met with V. T. Lee prior to the assassination? Do you intend to prove "that Policarpo met with V. T. Lee prior to the assassination?" Or are we merely to assume along with you because you claim it to be so? (8) Do you admit that there was a close relationship between Trafficante and Rolando Cubela, and that Cubela in fact helped Trafficante get out of Trescornia? (By golly, I hope you know what Trescornia was. If not, let me know.) Proof? How do we know that McWillie, Ruby, Guiseppe di Giorgio, or other possible intermediaries didn't play a role in this? (9) Do you admit that Trafficante perjured himself before the House Select Committee on Assassinations by denying a relationship with Cubela? Proof? (10) Can you offer a non-sinister reason why Trafficante would deny his relationship with Cubela? Proof? (11) Do you admit that Cubela had met with Valery Kostikov? When? Where? Why? Proof? (12) Do you admit that there was reliable information that Trafficante had a secret relationship with Castro and was even using rigged bolita games to pay Castro intelligence agents on the US? Proof? (13) Do you admit that it is probable that Castro had knowledge that a man who claimed to be a personal representative of Robert Kennedy was encouraging one of Castro's cabinet members to murder Castro less than a month before the assassination of JFK? Since Castro demonstrated this knowledge by issuing his Brazil "warning," it's clear that he knew somebody in the US was plotting his demise. Did he know who? Or did he simply assume that a man claiming to be a US Senator - but wasn't - was credible? Or that he represented the Kennedys? (14) Do you admit that Castro caught a bunch of CIA trained saboteurs and potential assassins attempting to enter Cuba in late October of 1963? So the conclusion that Castro drew from this was what? That the assassins were sent by CIA? Or the Kennedys? Even Castro knew that the Agency's goals and White House goals - and methods employed to achieve them - were not synonymous or congruent. (15) Do you admit that Castro scheduled a meeting with the French journalist that was bearing a "peace" message from JFK for the very hour that JFK was killed? I am not asking you to admit asignificance to the timing of the meeting, simply admit, if you will, that it was Castro who scheduled the meeting for that time. It would further your cause greatly if you could prove Castro "scheduled" the itinerary of the gunmen in Dealey Plaza. (16) State whether it would make any difference to you in your belief that the Castro did it scenario is "garbage" if Fabian Escalante was in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination? The third-hand "proof" of this in the extant record is laughably, risibly spurious, unless you have something to offer other than the Russo-Underwood concoction. You'll note that there is no contemporaneous evidence that Win Scott told Underwood any such thing. And unless CIA heavily revised Scott's manuscript prior to its release of same [not that CIA would ever alter or fabricate evidence, surely], why did Scott not share so incendiary a nugget with his intended readers? Yet, this is the quality of "evidence" upon which we're asked to convict a man. Talk about desperation to make one's case. (17) Do you admit that there was a Cuban named Miguel Casas who was in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination? Proof? Can we expect anything probative from you in this regard in our lifetime? (18) Do you admit that Miguel was a member of Castro's intelligence organi- zation? Proof? Can we expect anything probative from you in this regard in our lifetime? It seems to me there is fairly convincing evidence that Trafficante was a conspirator. Castro's involvement is suggested by the belief held by many that Cubela was a double agent reporting to Castro. The chilling nexus is that Trafficante had a relationship with Cubela, a relationship of such importance that he decided to perjure himself in denying it. How can the Castro did it scenario be garbage when Castro himself warned of retaliation on September 7, 1963 if American efforts to kill him continued and within two months a CIA agent claiming to be a personal representative of Jack Kennedy's brother was encouraging a man who was probably a Castro double-agent to kill Castro for the US? And if Trafficante did it, for which there is strong evidence, then his ties to Cubela and possible relationship with Castro are ominous. Hardly a theory with no evidence. Actully, the Mob acted as CIA surrogates in this whack-Castro plotting. Assuming, arguendo, that the Mob killed Kennedy, why should we assume they were anything other than CIA surrogates once again? Because they owed a stronger allegiance to Castro, or expected greater personal gain from him? If so, they accomplished their mission. What was their payoff? What I contend is "garbage", Mark, is when members of this forum accuse Americans who have no criminal record with conspiring to murder JFK with not a shred of evidence to support such a libel. And Dillon of all people did not even have policy differences with JFK. I think in fact it is far worse than "garbage"! So, now we must not only have public utterances from the guilty parties in advance - per your prior insistence - but they must also have a criminal record in order to qualify for inclusion on the list of suspects? How positively quaint. Your statements about Dillon are just amusing. A close scrutiny of his associations might reveal he had friends he liked better than JFK? That's a motive for murder? You claim that I bury my head like an ostrich about any evidence that Dillon was a conspirator. No, sir. I do not. Name one fact--not speculation--that supports that libel. I'm all ears--well, all eyes, I guess I should say. I don't want your speculation--I want your EVIDENCE! If you have none, then I'd like to know how you can sleep at night blaspheming patriotic Americans. Just too bad that Dillon is not alive to sue you. At least Joe McCarthy made charges against people who could defend themselves. I suspect neither you or Shanet can offer a name of anyone close to JFK who believes that Dillon did it. Contrast that, of course, with Califano and Haig who worked on Cuban policy in the Kennedy Administration and both believe Castro did it. Two out of how many dozens who were infinitely better placed than the ones you cite? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 "...blaspheming patriotic Americans." I believe that "blasphemy" is a charge relating to religion. So is Tim now claiming diety for Dillon? If so, is Tim's claim for Dillon any higher or lower on the diety "ladder" than he apparently claims for any OTHER Republican? Tim, I suggest YOUR research should include a stop at Funk & Wagnall's...or is Webster the purveyor of Republican dictionaries? [i can NEVER get that one straight...] "...people who have not read the entire history of the period... Tim, the "entire history of the period" has yet to be written. As long as there are pertinent documents under seal, whether for "national security" reasons or for other purposes, the "entire history of the period" is only known to a select few who HAVE seen--or authored--these documents. I seriously doubt whether "the entire history of the period" will be revealed within our lifetimes, if history is our guide. Why, there are more hours of UNRELEASED Nixon tapes than there are hours that HAVE been approved for public consumption. Are we 100% positive that NOTHING of historical value is on them? Of course not. But are some being withheld on "national security" grounds? Of course. So the "entire history" of THAT era is unavailable to the general public...as is a great deal of the "entire history" of the JFK era. I sincerely doubt, on THAT basis alone, that YOU have read "the entire history of the period," either...since a lot of it is still unreleased. And as hijackings go, you just can't turn this one loose, can you? Ron Ecker raised a valid question about the nature of the disruption of the phone service in Washington DC on 11/22/63...I've tried to turn the attention back toward that discussion of the "communication breakdowns" on 11/22/1963, rather than focusing on the "communication breakdown" [of the Strother Martin/"Cool Hand Luke" variety] going on within this thread...to no avail. So again I ask...does anyone have any insight into the duration and severity of the Washington DC telephone system problems on 11/22/1963? I believe I've read an explanation that it was merely a system overload, trying to handle more calls than the system was designed for; but I don't have that reference readily at hand. Or does anyone have any insight as to whether that explanation was a smokescreen for something more sinister going on, the "overload" explanation used to possibly prevent public panic? Ron, I'm trying to keep your question from being buried...but it's taking a Herculean effort, and I'm beginning to wonder why that's necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Charles-Dunne Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 So again I ask...does anyone have any insight into the duration and severity of the Washington DC telephone system problems on 11/22/1963? I believe I've read an explanation that it was merely a system overload, trying to handle more calls than the system was designed for; but I don't have that reference readily at hand. Or does anyone have any insight as to whether that explanation was a smokescreen for something more sinister going on, the "overload" explanation used to possibly prevent public panic?Mark: Most of what Bernice Moore posted comes directly from the Shaw/Harris book, "Cover-Up." For the phone-disruption segment, the authors cite both Bishop's "The Day Kennedy Was Shot" and Manchester's "The Death Of A President" as sources. And a good thing too, since neither book can be accused of feeding conspiratorial paranoia, deliberately, at least. Though I'm not an expert on telephone technology back in '63, I've had the opportunity to probe this and other assassination-related issues with veteran Bell employees [they have a wealth of information among a group of retirees called the Pioneers.] I have yet to encounter one such Bell retiree who can explain, or would even venture an informed guess, how an event taking place at 12:31 in Dallas - even the assassination - could knock out all the DC phone circuits only two minutes later, or why it would take a full hour to remedy. I have been led to understand several points: a) that an extraordinary volume of calls might cripple a single exchange, such as one might perhaps expect to happen among US government workers all located within a single phone exchange, but not an entire city; that it is preposterous to assume such a volume of calls would be made within two minutes of the assassination being reported; c) that even in the event of being asked to do so by police, Bell would not voluntarily disrupt its service to subscribers, unless there were a signed court order requiring it; d) that the only entity which could rightfully [i.e. with legal authority] disable the phone system's service was the US military, citing national security emergency grounds, and even it couldn't have legally achieved this without far more than two minutes notice; e) that the US military has a series of kill-switches which it can activate via FEMA authority, unilaterally disabling phone service, but nobody could remember such an event ever coming to pass. Moreover, the entire DC phone disruption was either something the engineers had never heard of prior to our discussions, or had heard about but assumed had been an urban myth. All of my interviews with former Bell engineers and technicians incline me to believe that whatever happened to the DC phone system, it wasn't due to a sudden, crippling volume of calls, nor was it achieved via "legal" channels. If it's true that the entire system went down, it was done deliberately, and most likely by the Pentagon. Of course, it's one thing to state that belief, based upon research; proving it is another matter entirely. FWIW..... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 (edited) I'd been trying to stay out of this one, but thought that dipping my toe won't hurt. A couple of points: 1. Maybe we should warn Tim whenever we're gonna accuse a patriotic American of a crime, kind of like when movie reviewers warn you when they're gonna reveal the ending. 2. Tim, I know of at least one book YOU should read: "Robert Kennedy: In His Own Words," taken from previously unpublished interviews conducted for the JFK Library. In it he reveals that JFK DID NOT want to over-throw Diem, at least not until they found somebody better, and that he only agreed to it when Harriman and Hilsman misled him into thinking that Taylor and McNamara had signed off on it when they hadn't. The adminsitration was then paralyzed what to do--"do we tell the coup-plotters to forget it after they've put their lives at risk? Do we warn Diem?" Lodge, meanwhile, decided that the coup must go forward no matter what, and refused to talk to Diem or General Harkins, who was against the coup and wanted to stop it He just waited it out. (This is backed up by McNamara's book, which includes the pertinent cables.) Kennedy also says that Lodge had the CIA chief of station removed by publicly releasing his name (which would be a crime today--that would never be prosecuted). This indicates that Lodge was out of control, a fact supported by RFK's contention that JFK was preparing to fire Lodge when Lodge got back to the states. This feeds into some speculation of my own. If Lodge knew Kennedy was gonna fire him, perhaps some of his backers (the ones he talked to on the phone) arranged the assassination--these would be ultra-right wingers--the kind who believed, as Lodge, that Diem was soft on Communism and that we needed to bomb North Vietnam ASAP. On the other hand, since the military was against the coup in Nam, they may have viewed Kennedy's inability to control Lodge as a sure sign of his weakness, the third strike Kennedy referred to when discussing Seven Days In May, and taken things into their own hands. Or maybe neither happened. I love the smell of speculation in the morning. 3. Tim, as much as you complain about the speculation of others, you seem blind to the fact that much of your own theory revolves around speculation and/or highly disputed facts. So what if Trafficante had briefly met Cubela, or Cubela had met with Kostikov once upon a time--does that automatically mean they plotted a murder together? Your attacks on Escalante are every bit as distasteful as you find Shanet's attacks on Dillon (why do you attack Mark on this when it's Shanet's theory?). Have you done any research on whether or not Escalante was even in the intelligence business in 1964? He was certainly a minor figure if he was. He was only 23. That you seem hooked on this idea, when Escalante has been the only government official, U.S. or Cuban, to embrace the research community, comes across as petty, like a fight between Livingstone and Groden." "He suspects anti-Castro Cubans were involved, and I suspect pro-Castro Cubans were involved, and he's pro-Castro, so the killer must be...HIM!" FWIW, it appears that Escalante's co-operation with American researchers got him in hot water with Castro. For the sake of your credibility, I think you should figure out what Escalante was doing in 63, and share it with us, or stop accusing the man. 4. Citing Califano and Haig as proponents of the Castro-did-it theory is a bit of an exaggeration. Neither man wrote about it extensively, and certainly neither has studied the case as much as most of us on this forum. If they had said Castro didn't do it would it have meant anything to you? Now, back to the thread. Was there or was there not an actual black-out? I've heard it both ways. Doesn't Ted Kennedy factor into this story somehow? Edited June 11, 2005 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Hancock Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 Well OK, having worked with electromechanical and computerized phone switches and taught switching systems and traffic / load engineering for a few years, a couple of thoughts occur to me. First, you tie up individual building switches (PABX's), or individual office switches (key systems) or local telco exchanges or local or long distance trunks. You can shut them down of course but that's not all that easy and there is no on/off switch -you would have to do a lot of manual work or more likely just shut down the power to the system(s) in question. And that would be at lots of local exchanges and trunk/transmission facilities. Everyone who has read Seven Days in May will require that the bad guys were training a whole strike force just to take over communications in D.C.....and much of that was going to happen by taking over long distance relay facilities. The problem is that as far as a given number of users are concerned, you would have the same appearance (the phone system is down) if their individual PABX, Key System, Local Exchange, or destination trunk facilities were busy. The net result of all of it is either no dial tone or most likely a fast busy. There are a couple of fairly easy "saturation" things that can happen, for example everyone around the country could start placing calls to destinations in D.C. that are served by a couple of exchanges - at the same time a fair number of folks in those exchanges try to call each other or call out (gets worse with lots of folks calling and nobody answering because they are tied up with the news). At that point in time most of the switching equipment was mechanical and some of it actually used the same relays to place and hold the call. Not that hard to tie it up with a spike in calls being placed or received for that matter. Even today with computerized switching that has much better loading capability, its still possible to run into fast busys during a major event - and it only gets better when enough people tire out and stop trying to place calls. Bottom line, an observation like the saying DC System telephone system went down requires a lot more detail - a person in one of the Bell switching control centers could say that because they would be monitoring switches, trunks and traffic. Or individuals might say it if they they simply encountered busy signals. The key would be knowing who, when and where felt the system was down. And by the way, if it truly were down due to some planned action, there should be a number of telephone traffic people not only in D.C. but in other regional control centers who would have observed how and when it went down - and came back for that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Wilbourne Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 >>Lodge, meanwhile, decided that the coup must go forward no matter what, and refused to talk to Diem or General Harkins, who was against the coup and wanted to stop it He just waited it out. (This is backed up by McNamara's book, which includes the pertinent cables.) Kennedy also says that Lodge had the CIA chief of station removed by publicly releasing his name (which would be a crime today--that would never be prosecuted). This indicates that Lodge was out of control, a fact supported by RFK's contention that JFK was preparing to fire Lodge when Lodge got back to the states. This feeds into some speculation of my own. If Lodge knew Kennedy was gonna fire him, perhaps some of his backers (the ones he talked to on the phone) arranged the assassination--these would be ultra-right wingers--the kind who believed, as Lodge, that Diem was soft on Communism and that we needed to bomb North Vietnam ASAP.<< Nice post, Pat. I've often wondered if those that ousted Diem then removed Kennedy. Who would've been Lodge's backers at the top of the power pyramid? The Rockefellers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 FWIW, it appears that Escalante's co-operation with American researchers got him in hot water with Castro. Pat, I hadn't heard about that. Any details? I assumed that Escalante did it with Castro's blessing, if in fact Castro didn't put him up to it. (That's based just on what I know about dictatorships.) Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 Re Escalante, Gordon Winslow, who was at the researchers' conference at which Escalante spoke, doubted his credibility. Escalante was asked to produce documents which should have been available to substantiate some of his claims, and he stonewalled Winslow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 Mark wrote: Your meretricious display in posting 18 questions fools no-one. It only shows that you deserve a Bachelor's Degree in irrelevant information. Gee, Mark, does it surprise me that you were not able to answer a single one of my questions? What is most interesting is that you characterize the information as "irrelevant" At least Mr. Charles-Dunne realizes why the information is so damning which is why he fights it so hard. You find it "irrelevant" if agents of Castro's intelligence service were in Dealey Plaza? That you would characterize that as irrelevant more than adequately demonstrates who the ostrich is. At least Mr. Charles-Dunne recognizes how damning that information is, if true. By your standard, if someone had caught Fidel holding a recently discharged rifle standing behind the picket fence that would be irrelevant. Your apparent idea of "proof" is to suggest that one of Dillon's friends in the banking community asked him to kill his friend JFK and Dillon's response was: "Sure. Why not? I like you better then him anyway." And then ask me how I know that did NOT happen. That is just so preposterous it boggles the mind. I might as well ask you how you know your uncle did not kill Kennedy. I am sticking my head in the sand because I cannot acknowledge that a law-abiding citizen and patriotic American would not agree to participate in a plot to kill his friend the president. This is so absurd it is pathetic. And so is your attitude that it bothers you not to accuse people of murder most foul with no evidence whatsoever. Frankly, Mark, it is attitudes like yours that discredit the assassination research committee and that is unfortunate because there are many people who unselfishly spend substantial time actually researching and attempting to solve the assassination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 FWIW, it appears that Escalante's co-operation with American researchers got him in hot water with Castro. Pat, I hadn't heard about that. Any details? I assumed that Escalante did it with Castro's blessing, if in fact Castro didn't put him up to it. (That's based just on what I know about dictatorships.) Ron <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The book JFK, Nixon, Oliver Stone and Me by Eric Hamburg details several meetings with Escalante, and notes that Escalante appeared to have fallen out of favor shortly after he began talking to researchers. I could be wrong, but I inferred from this that Castro was displeased. And, Tim, I agree that Escalante can't be accepted at face value. It's possible he is exploiting the assassination to discredit the anti-Castro movement. But it seems like he has been doing this without goverment sanction (perhaps because Castro is afraid where it will lead...hmm). They have no FOIA in Cuba, and Escalante has been limited in what records he has been able to make public. In Claudia Furiati's ZR/Rifle book, there are a few documents, undoubtedly provided by Escalante, including Jack Ruby's imigration papers, and Oswald's visa application, with a picture attached of the real Oswald. Unfortunately, I don't read Spanish so I can't tell you what most of them say.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 I wrote: It is far more important to me that people who actually worked on JFK's Cuban policy, Joseph Califano and Alexander Haig, and lived through those times, believe that Castro probably did it, than what anyone who has only "second-hand" knowledge, believes. Robert Charles-Dunne replied: Were there any degree of unanimity among Kennedy's Cabinet members and advisers regarding Castro's culpability, it would certainly strengthen your case. Yet, of all the people in Kennedy's inner circle, apparently only two junior members of the entourage share your pet theory. Either Kennedy was killed by Castro and only two people in the inner sanctum were bright enough to realize it, or there was a blatant attempt to fabricate false "evidence" of Castro's culpability, and only two people in Kennedy's entourage were too dim to see through the ruse. Well, sir, in terms of unanimity, can you name a SINGLE member of Kennedy's administration who has publicly written advocating a sponsor other than Castro? Am I correct that the ONLY members of the Kennedy Administration who have gone "on the record" with their opinion of who the master conspirator was are Califano and Haig? And what about John F. Kennedy, Jr.? Although he never publicly advocated a position, his magazine "George" did publish a piece by Edward J. Epstein re the Cubela caper which was consistent with a "Castro did it" scenario. Also, as I am sure you know, Califano and Haig were the members of the Kennedy administration who, together with Cyrus Vance, were responsible for implementing the Kennedy Cuban policy. So while neither may have held the "rank" as high as say the Postmaster General they were the ones most knowledgeable about the Cuban policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Stapleton Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 Mark wrote:Your meretricious display in posting 18 questions fools no-one. It only shows that you deserve a Bachelor's Degree in irrelevant information. Gee, Mark, does it surprise me that you were not able to answer a single one of my questions? What is most interesting is that you characterize the information as "irrelevant" At least Mr. Charles-Dunne realizes why the information is so damning which is why he fights it so hard. You find it "irrelevant" if agents of Castro's intelligence service were in Dealey Plaza? That you would characterize that as irrelevant more than adequately demonstrates who the ostrich is. At least Mr. Charles-Dunne recognizes how damning that information is, if true. By your standard, if someone had caught Fidel holding a recently discharged rifle standing behind the picket fence that would be irrelevant. Your apparent idea of "proof" is to suggest that one of Dillon's friends in the banking community asked him to kill his friend JFK and Dillon's response was: "Sure. Why not? I like you better then him anyway." And then ask me how I know that did NOT happen. That is just so preposterous it boggles the mind. I might as well ask you how you know your uncle did not kill Kennedy. I am sticking my head in the sand because I cannot acknowledge that a law-abiding citizen and patriotic American would not agree to participate in a plot to kill his friend the president. This is so absurd it is pathetic. And so is your attitude that it bothers you not to accuse people of murder most foul with no evidence whatsoever. Frankly, Mark, it is attitudes like yours that discredit the assassination research committee and that is unfortunate because there are many people who unselfishly spend substantial time actually researching and attempting to solve the assassination. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Tim, Your arrogance is truly breathtaking. You hijack a thread, after asserting that it was full of garbage, you then make a rude demand that I answer 18 questions, then you fail to address the one question I asked you (saying it's "preposterous" is no answer) and just for good measure you say my attitude discredits the assassination research community. I would never bother answering a question asked by you. That would be playing into your hands by turning the thread into another tedious debate about Castro. I'm far more interested in the questions being posed in this thread by the genuine researchers. Also, I consider your credibility to be permanently damaged. This is because you attempt to prevent all discussion from going anywhere but Cuba or Russia. IMO, you're not a genuine researcher, just a pest running an agenda. Also, judging by the replies from Robert Charles Dunne and others, it appears your speculations on Castro are just that--speculation. It's amazing how many times your arguments have been strafed on this site, yet you always come back claiming your theory is the lead contender. Are you related to Mike Tyson ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now