Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Communication Breakdown


Recommended Posts

Somehow I think it is unlikely given that he was beaten by JFK in the 1960 election and was probably viewed as washed-up and an also ran by the majority of the U.S. population.  What forces that could have pulled off an assassination would have realistically rallied to his cause in 1962-1963?  Even if he pulled off the assassination, what chance would he have of taking power, given that he was not next in line, and would have to win a national election to gain the presidency?  So all in all, to me, Nixon being behind the Kennedy assassination seems very much a long shot.

Best regards

Chris George

I don't think anyone actively believes that Nixon was behind the assassination per se, but I believe it's possible that Nixon was backed a group of investors--Texas Oil men, who themselves were behind the assassination, and that Nixon, and LBJ before him, were aware of this. Nixon was backed from the get-go by big oil, who had their hearts set on off-shore drilling, and needed Federal support in Washington. He used the commie tag to smear both Voorhis and Douglas on his road to the VP, lost to Kennedy, lost to Brown, and then the bodies began piling up. It's not beyond belief that his backers pushed a few men out of the way so they could collect on their investment. It's an unpleasant thought, but certainly possible.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 262
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Pat,

Anything is POSSIBLE, I guess (it's possible Nixon was framed for Watergate) but what good does mere speculation do? Besides, there is no evidence of which I am aware that "big oil" had anything to do with the assassination. And it seems highly unlikely Nixon would participate in the assassination merely for revenge for the stolen 1960 election.

To show how dangerous this speculation can be, one could make a much stronger case that Jackie Kennedy was behind the assassination than Douglas Dillon was. She certainly had "means, motive and opportunity". Her motive would be retaliation for JFK's numerous adulteries and financial gain (spouses have killed for such reasons before). In addition, she knew DeMohrenschildt, who many believe was probably a conspirator--in fact she met with him on one occasion in the years following the assassination. Dillon had no motive: to the contrary, he had no certainty of retaining his cabinet position after JFK was dead. And there was no link between Dillon and any possible conspirator.

So you add association with a probable conspirator with"means, motive and opportunity" and you start to build a case.

Do I seriously propose that scenario? Of course not, it's total nonsense if for no other reason than if she were behind the assassination she would not plan it so the assassin would be shooting bullets from afar into an open car in which she was seated next to the target.

But that just shows what can happen when one forgets common sense and starts down the speculation trail.

It does nothing to advance assassination research and in fact it gives a black mark to all of us. In fact, I know one very responsible assassination researcher who will not join any of these forums because of some of the looney tunes advanced, seriously, by some of the members.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark wrote:

Ron,

From the realms of wild speculation. Could the half hour delay be related the plotters being undecided as to the strategy they wished to implement.

In my opinion, this scenario is illogical.

The plotters carefuly plotted the assassination.

They spent months preparing the frame on the patsy.

Presumably, the only thing that went wrong with their careful plans was that LHO was caught alive.  Although I raise another possibility: if they were to frame LHO as the sole assassin (either as a Castro man or as a nut) they may not have wanted to have a frontal shot but it became necessary when the rear shooter did not finish JFK.

But to assume that they had not thought in advance what to do after the assassination, with all the careful thought that had gone into it, makes no sense, in my opinion.

Tim,

You really are a master of misattribution. I haven't assumed the plotters gave no thought to the aftermath of the assassination, as you incorrectly assert. On the contrary, a plan to shut down the DC telecommunications system shows great pre-planning, if this is what they did. My point was that with a scheme of this scope and complexity, a modicum of flexibility must be factored in, allowing the conspirators to, if necessary, modify their strategy as events transpire in the critical period following the assassination. Flexibility to adapt the plan at short notice would be the hallmark of any prudent plan. Don't forget the DPD was in the mix, performing with the clinical efficiency of the Keystone cops, so anything was possible. They may have been waiting to be informed of LHO's whereabouts and fate, for example. As I said, I'm only speculating, offering a suggestion. Frankly, after reading the posts of Robert, Larry and Ron, I'm inclined to think it might have been a coincidence, although I'm very suspicious of that word. What is no coincidence, however, is your habit of reading motives into the postings of others which aren't there. If your credibility shrinks any more, I'll have to start referring to you as Tiny Tim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.. :)

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark, have you nothing better to do than call names?

Your theory that the plotters being "undecided what to do" after the assassination speaks for itself.

You wrote:

What is no coincidence, however, is your habit of reading motives into the postings of others which aren't there.

All I did was question the logic of your theory; I never speculated that you had some "hidden motive" in posting it so I do not understand that comment.

You, by the way, are the person who wrote:

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".

You talk about reading a motive into something! You claimed I argued that the claims that Dillon was a conspirator "garbage", anticipating that someone would then claim my "Castro did it" scenario was garbage so that debate would restart on this thread. That is a preposterous theory! (But perhaps I wish I WAS that clever.)

Again, I suggest you quit posting until you read the history of the period. To quote a famous saying: "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great research on Dillon, Bernice!

Somehow, though, it appears that Mr. Gratz mysteriously has no comment on any of it...amazing, to me, since he's been Dillon's staunchest defender PRIOR to this point.

Perhaps Mr. Gratz could be so polite as to compare and contrast this material with Sorenson's information on Dillon...maybe he could even tell us whether this information is malodorous [as the "scent" screen was optional on MY computer, I didn't purchase it].

And going 'WAY back in this thread, Tim...you missed my point completely [intentionally, I'd presume] once again. I wasn't arguing that the JFK assassination was a "crime of passion," as that argument would be absurd. I was pointing out that your blanket statement that people don't kill their friends was an inaccurate and misleading generalization...and it STILL is. People don't kill their friends ONLY during crimes of passion; in America today, one is probably more likely to be killed by someone who is known by the victim, and MAY be assumed to be a friend, than one is likely to be killed by a stranger in a random act of violence. While friends don't routinely kill friends in MY neighborhood--and probably not in yours as well--it DOES occur, with alarming frequency, in America. Friends DO kill friends...so I submit that your argument to the contrary is based upon a fallacy, and is therefore invalid. THAT is my point.

But I fail to understand your perceived need to argue with ME on the point of Dillon's participation--or lack thereof--in JFK's assassination, since we APPEAR to be in agreement on this [one] point. However, I can't just stand idly by and let your blatantly false generalizations pass; that would be intellectually dishonest as well.

And Tim...before you cast stones at someone else for calling names, perhaps you should recall your own usage of such terms as "looney tunes" and "insane" in recent posts. I think we can ALL disagree without resorting to these tactics. If you'll notice, I have attacked your arguments, and upon occasion your transparent political motivations...but we need to get back on track regarding the JFK assassination, and not the character assassination of fellow researchers.

As far as the "communications breakdown''--remember that one? It was the original topic of this thread--it may have been planned; it may have been coincidental. But without further information, we may never know. Anyone have a clue where further information on the subject may be found?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great research on Dillon, Bernice!

Somehow, though, it appears that Mr. Gratz mysteriously has no comment on any of it...amazing, to me, since he's been Dillon's staunchest defender PRIOR to this point.

Perhaps Mr. Gratz could be so polite as to compare and contrast this material with Sorenson's information on Dillon...maybe he could even tell us whether this information is malodorous [as the "scent" screen was optional on MY computer, I didn't purchase it].

And going 'WAY back in this thread, Tim...you missed my point completely [intentionally, I'd presume] once again.  I wasn't arguing that the JFK assassination was a "crime of passion," as that argument would be absurd.  I was pointing out that your blanket statement that people don't kill their friends was an inaccurate and misleading generalization...and it STILL is.  People don't kill their friends ONLY during crimes of passion; in America today, one is probably more likely to be killed by someone who is known by the victim, and MAY be assumed to be a friend, than one is likely to be killed by a stranger in a random act of violence.  While friends don't routinely kill friends in MY neighborhood--and probably not in yours as well--it DOES occur, with alarming frequency, in America.  Friends DO kill friends...so I submit that your argument to the contrary is based upon a fallacy, and is therefore invalid.  THAT is my point.

But I fail to understand your perceived need to argue with ME on the point of Dillon's participation--or lack thereof--in JFK's assassination, since we APPEAR to be in agreement on this [one] point.  However, I can't just stand idly by and let your blatantly false generalizations pass; that would be intellectually dishonest as well.

And Tim...before you cast stones at someone else for calling names, perhaps you should recall your own usage of such terms as "looney tunes" and "insane" in recent posts.  I think we can ALL disagree without resorting to these tactics.  If you'll notice, I have attacked your arguments, and upon occasion your transparent political motivations...but we need to get back on track regarding the JFK assassination, and not the character assassination of fellow researchers.

As far as the "communications breakdown''--remember that one? It was the original topic of this thread--it may have been planned; it may have been coincidental.  But without further information, we may never know. Anyone have a clue where further information on the subject may be found?

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

Washington Telephones...

At 1.41 p.m..( Washington time ) page boy, Richard Riedel told the Senator his brother the

Pesident had been shot.

"Ted Kennedy quickly departed from the Senate ,he broke his stride in the lobby at

the teletype machines, he couldn't see anything as the crowds had gathered around them..

"He swerved toward Lyndon Johnson's office..and dialed the AG's office from there..

government code..187,extension 2001..Nothing happened..There was no dial tone, no

sound at all."

"He dialed again and received a busy signal."

He reeled out into the street. a legislative asst. drove him the the half block to his suite.

in the Old Senate Office Building..Claude Hooten was waiting ,a Harvard classmate.

He had arrived for the Senator's anniversary party..

He led him to his suite.."The Telephone crisis was growing queerer and queerer."

"Calls could come in --Martin Argonsky of NBC ,was inquiring whether the Senator

planned a flight to Dallas--but when Ted retired to his private office and tried again

to reach his brother ,either at Justice or through the White House ,all the lines were

dead. After a pause one did briefly come to life.The White House switchboard ,however

told him that the Attorney General was talking to Dallas, and since Ted Kennedy ,unlike

Bob ,didn't have an executive extension ,there was no way of splicing him into the call."

"Like Bill Pozen at Interior ,he was left with a useless black plastic receiver ,and the task of

trying to assess the scope of the calamity."

( He ,Robert ,was talking to Clint Hill)..

Ted,Claude then streaked down Pennsylvannia Ave in Milt Gwirtzmann's Mercedes.

to Georgetown.."Twelve minutes after leaving the Hill the Mercedes skidded against the curb,

outside 1607 Twenty-eighth Street."

Milt then went for Joan at the beauty parlor..

"Ted waited for them...his face taut and drained." ""All the phones are gone"".he said.."He

and Claude had been going through the house ,picking up extensions."

They were unable to get dial tones."The Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Company was

deaf and dumb."" They began to wonder whether the failure of the system could be more than

an accident ." "Ted decided to conduct a door to door search, asking permission of strangers

to test instruments until they found one that worked. It seemed to be the only solution.He said

to Claude" We'll split up .You try the doors on the right .I'll take the left.If you get something

let me know." He had to reach Hickory Hill.pp..197-99

and Ted Kennedy and Claude kept on ringing door bells until in a new row of town houses

they found one funtioning..Ted called Robert, and he told him quietly the President was dead.

"The instant he hung up the housewife's line went dead."...p:254

"At 4.15pm. exactly fifteen minutes before the Gold Room adjournment ,the Chesapeake

& Potomac Telephone Company's Georgetown office, which served the Pentagon, had become

the last exchange in the capital to resume normal operations. The phone emergency was then

officially over. "..p:253

"The phone company was doing it's best...half the circuits in the entire Eastern half of the

United States had been reserved for Washington traffic--but Dallas' eighteen long distance

trunks were all overloaded...

"Both the signal board in the east basement and the NAtional 8-1414 board on the fourth

floor of the Executive Office Building were in a bind ." The Chesapeake Potomac dial tones

grew progressively slower until they ceased altogether .For the first time in memory the Signalmen

discovered that ""we could not dial out"".

"As expert technicians they realized that the trouble lay in over burdened exchanges."p:254

"It was a few minutes after 1.pm Dallas, (2pm Wash.) that Dr.Burkley stepped into the passage

way of Parkland Hospital and told Kellerman the President was dead.."

At 1.05 Dallas (2.05pm Washington) Sergeant Philip Tarbell ,who was the key signalman at the White House

switchboard ..(Kellerman had ordered Clint Hill to inform Jerry Behm that the President was dead.)

(Hill suggested that the Attorney General be told at the same time, before he heard from the press......Kellerman nodded

and Clint went ahead ( and called ) asking first for Behm.

"Tarbell recollected " at 2.05p.m.(Wash) --1.05 (Dallas pm) in the hospital .Anyone, the eavesdropping operators chose to

tell knew within the next few minutes." p" 244..

this they said caused and internal crisis..In the Sergeants

words ."" The switchboard went completely wild ,with everyone attempting to call out ."".

" The big wave broke within the next half hour." p: 244.

But this was at 2.05 pm Washington time....but .....

At 1.41 p.m..(Washington time) page boy,Richard Riedel told the Senator his brother the Pesident had been shot.

"Ted Kennedy quickly departed from the Senate ,he broke his stride in the lobby at

the teletype machines, he couldn't see anything as the crowds had gathered around them..

"He swerved toward Lyndon Johnson's office..and dialed the AG's office from there..

government code..187,extension 2001..Nothing happened..There was no dial tone, no

sound at all."

"He dialed again and received a busy signal." at 1.41pm (Wash)

..

The phones were already down...?????... the timing does not correlate ??????

From" "The Death of a President "..William Manchester .67

B: :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim, I really don't want to get side-tracked, but if you go through and create a list of reasons to suspect Castro, and cite sources, I'll create a list of reasons to suspect Nixon, and cite sources, and I venture mine will be just as credible.

Trafficante is only rumored to have been in bed with Castro. There is no evidence whatsoever that Trafficante ever took orders from Castro. It is a historical fact that Trafficante was in bed with Meyer Lansky, and there is substantial evidence, probably stronger than your evidence linking Trafficante to Castro, that Lansky and Nixon were in bed together. Or have you never heard of Paradise Island?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat, can we get this far and agree that Trafficante was probably a conspirator?

This may not be the place for it but one item that suggests an alliance between Trafficante and Castro is the repeated failure of the Mafia plots to kill Castro. Someone was clearly giving Castro advance knowledge of the plots, which is how he survived them all. I believe Rosselli finally concluded that Trafficante had been deliberately botching the plans to kill Castro.

Of course there is no "hard evidence" that a deal was made between Trafficante and Castro but many historians believe that to be the case. As you know, the deal probably involved Castro allowing Cuba to be used as a port of entry for Trafficante's drugs.

I have never read anything linking Lansky to the JFK assassination. Do you contend he was so linked?

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea what Dillion may or may not have done, since he has never entered my areas of research. Therefore, I am neutral. I believe I may read Sorenson, as Tim suggests.

I am just no longer into the Political picture as I once was. I will also add that I am in fact, a registered Republican and I also voted for Nixon. At the time. I believed Nixon was the best man for the job, so to speak. I did not approve of the Kenendy's and their lifestyles. Most likely I also believed all the Right Wing Propaganda of that era....although nothing extreme.

  I also believed that because Nixon had been VP under Ike, that he would be the best President. I was also a very different type person, then I am today. Today, I do not stick to the Republican nor the Democrat platform If I choose to vote, I darn sure would vote for whomever I choose to vote for. I did not vote for our current President, nor am I pleased with him. I have had some major exchanges with close relatives who believe our current President is the greatest thing, this country has ever had. and exactly what this country needs. Needless to say I do not agree!!

It was for a long time, very hard for me to even think that Nixon would do all that has been proclaimed about him in Watergate. I wanted to believe there were other answers that would hopefully exonerate him. But then one day, I did accept the truth. He was not whom, or what I had believed him to be. For sure, I did not want to believe he may have had, at the very least, prior knowledge, about JFK's Assassination. Yet, the more I have looked at what all went down in regard to Nixon and the day of the Assn. I do accept the possibility, he may have had prior knowledge. I do not know this to be fact and even hate to believe it might be true, but I do now have to re-evaluate my previous beliefs.

Just because I did not vote for JFK, does not indicate that I was not distraught over his assn.

In fact, I have been studying the Assn for many years. ...probably since the day it occurred. This was our country's President and he was assn. right on the street for the world to see. This was unreal....such things do not occur in our country. Yet they do, and they did. Perhaps my nievenes changed on that day!

Now on to friend turning against friend! I have to believe it does happen...a whole lot.

Lets play, "what if"......

You are a Member of a Board of Directors and the Chairman, who is also your friend, is making some very bad decisions. He just will not listen to reason from the rest of the board directors. Somehow, this is affecting the whole Company. They are all screaming at the board to do something! Eventualy the board members decides to have a secret meeting, although probably unethical. Yet you all do feel justified, under the circumstances.

It is unanimous that somehing has to be done and matters taken into your own hands. Could be, since he is your friend you might volunteer to speak with him just one more time. So you do so and it is to no avail.

Another secret meeting is held and it is decided he has to go, in the best interests of the company. This hurts you very much, to turn against your friend and to be involved in a conspiracy to get rid of him. Then, another meeting is called, with the Chairman invited this time to be there. He is going to be asked to resign and if he refuses to do so, then other measures will need to be taken.

So......the day before the planned meeting, this Chairman has been found murdered. Now what? You did plot to get rid of him, even though murder was not in your head at all. ..and after all, this was your friend. So, it has never been proven who murdered him or even the reason. Perhaps there is also a cover up, among the board members, who do not ever reveal that there was a plan to get rid of him. Even if you decided to come clean and tell the truth, who is actually going to believe you? It is only your word against the rest of the board members. You even feel that one among you, did murder him, yet you really don't even know which board member it was, or even if it might have been the real plan and you were not privy to it.

It is very easy to say that we would speak out...but then there is also our family to think about. besides maybe our own life and livlihood. So, you had turned against your friend and conspired to get rid of him and yet you had belived it was for the right reasons and you also had no pre-knowledge that murdering him was involved. So, in this instance, are you guilty or not? You are definitely, at least guilty of a cover-up...and you cannot prove you had no pre-knowledge of a murder plan.

I believe this actualy did occur among some factions who believed that JFK had to go. I also believe this was all brought about, by the Fascist Regime., all the way up to the Military, to implement. Perhaps to some, this meant an impeachment by the Judicial process and not as a murder on the street. Yet, it did happen and was a real coup. ...and some who would not have gone along with such a plan, were perhaps caught up in the coversup, even though they have no idea what actually occurred, or I should also say, who was actually involved in the coup.

Friends do turn on friends, but usually it is for a bigger purpose, then the friendship can support. Unfortunately, sometimes there is, (whether right or wrong) a matter of principals before personalities.

What I am trying to say is that we cannot always make a blanket statement that a friend will not turn on a friend. I have no idea if Dillion turned on JFK or not. He may have or may not have. However, we always do need to research more then one or two books, that might actually be slanted one way or the other. If I choose to study about Dillion, (or anyone else) I will check out several sources of information, before even attempting to make a decision about him.

I do realize these are only my own opinions which I felt compelled to express in this thread.

Dixie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dixie, although I disagree with many of your opinions, I appreciated your post and thoughts.

I did work for Nixon in 1960 although I was too young to vote for him. Like you, I was strongly influenced by his association with President Eisenhower. My family was not anti-Catholic (in fact I think my father voted for JFK) but I remember all of the anti-Catholic propaganda against JFK and I had an uncle who was very ant--JFK because of JFK's Catholicism. But I always remember the famous Harry Truman quote: "I'm not worried about the Pope; I'm worried about the pop."

I also became disillusioned with Nixon when the Watergate scandal unfolded. I am sure when Segretti first approached me I could not conceive that Nixon or his aides would engage in such unethical and, in my opinion, stupid activities. Even after Watergate started to unfold, I do not believe I related my December 1971 experience with Segretti util news of the "dirty tricks" operation began to unfold.

I recently read Lasky's "It Didn't Start with Watergate" and the book makes a persuasive point that many if not most of Nixon's excesses had also been practiced by Kennedy and Johnson, however. As I recall, LBJ even had the FBI bug Goldwater's campaign plane. So political corruption was not limited to Nixon by any means.

Even in 1963 I had a very "nuanced" view of JFK. I loved his intellect and wit and speeches, and some of his programs, but I believed he had made many mistakes. Nevertheless, his assassination both shocked me and grieved me to the core and I shed many a tear that week-end. And I think it should be solved whether the conspirators were Fidel and crew; the Mafia; the CIA; oil barons or whoever.

Despite Nixon's political corruption, I do not believe he was involved with or had preknowledge of the assassination. As I said before, it would have been better for him to run against a non-incumbent in 1968 and he had no way of predicting how LBJ would self-destruct. But for Vietnam, LBJ probably would have been a very popular president who would have easily defeated Nixon in 1968. In fact, but for Vietnam, I think Nixon would have been smart enough not to run against a popular LBJ and would have waited until 1972 to run against a non-incumbent.

And if Nixon was not a conspirator, it would have made no sense, in my opinion, to apprise him of the plot. How could the conspirators know he would not reveal the plot?

Regarding your "What If" scenario, is it possible for a friend to decide he should oppose the policies of a friend? You use the example of a company. And the answer is yes. Certainly a director has a fiduciary obligation to the shareholders to place their interest above friendship. But I never argued that friends cannot differ politically. I have often times had close friends who were Democrats. Friendship should be able to transcend political differences.

What I said was friends do not KILL friends. And in your example I note that you do not make the friend a party to the murder plot, or even give him prelnowledge of the plot. I am sure in your example even if the friend believed the CEO had to be replaced, had he become aware of a murder plot he would have gone straight to the police.

Is the rest of your scenario possible? Again, anything is possible. But where is the evidence? Is anyone who participates in a "cover-up" an accessory after the fact? I think so. But I see no evidence that anything like you suggest happened. And I think if Dillon suspected an "inside job" had killed the president, he would have come forward even at personal risk to himself.

Finally, I should note this sentence in your post:

Unfortunately, sometimes there is, (whether right or wrong) a matter of principals before personalities.

Several other members improperly used the word "principle" when they meant "principal". In your sentence, the correct word is "principles".

Thanks, though, for your post.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark, have you nothing better to do than call names?

Your theory that the plotters being "undecided what to do" after the assassination speaks for itself.

You wrote:

What is no coincidence, however, is your habit of reading motives into the postings of others which aren't there.

All I did was question the logic of your theory; I never speculated that you had some "hidden motive" in posting it so I do not understand that comment.

You, by the way, are the person who wrote:

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".

You talk about reading a motive into something!  You claimed I argued that the claims that Dillon was a conspirator "garbage", anticipating that someone would then claim my "Castro did it" scenario was garbage so that debate would restart on this thread.  That is a preposterous theory!  (But perhaps I wish I WAS that clever.)

Again, I suggest you quit posting until you read the history of the period.  To quote a famous saying:  "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

And to quote another famous saying, "How many forum members concur with your theory, Tim?

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...