Dillon Vs. Castro

[Steve Mullard]

Tim, could you (if possible) answer my question posed under the "Lee Harvey Oswald" thread - namely if you believe that Castro or similar was behind the assassination then who has had the 'powerbase' to keep the lid on it for the last 40 odd years?

Thanks

[Tim Gratz]

Steve, see my post under the "Historians" thread.

The simple answer is the cover-up may very well have been orchestrated and effectuated by persons who had nothing to do with the conspiracy to kill.

Although neither Larry Hancock nor James Richards agree with me that Castro is the most likely suspect, I believe each has written that he believes it probable that the cover-up was unrelated to the assassination.

Interestingly, the cover-up may very well have been done to hide evidence of Cuban involvement--to prevent a war.

[Ron Ecker]

Dillon spelled backwards is Nollid. A perfect code word! Every Secret Service agent would know what it meant: "Keep a lid on the knoll."

Ron

[Tim Gratz]

Leave it to Ron to find the absolute proof of Dillon's complicity!

I notice this post occured at about 7 am eastern time. Wonder if he stayed up all night cracking the code?

Ron, what does DLAWSO mean?

[Ron Ecker]

Tim,

The best I can figure, DLAWSO means "De law? So?" (Oswald's reply to Fritz's statement, "You broke de law.")

Ron

[Tim Gratz]

Notice: that took Ron eight minutes!

Proving that Ron has a brilliant, if devious, mind!

BTW, where were you on November 22nd, Ron?

I am considering the possibility of hidden meanings in REKCE.

[Tim Gratz]

Perhaps?:

R obert [and]

E dward

Kennedy [next!]

Conspirator:

Ecker (Ron)

Edited June 19, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

kidding aside, Weberman posits that LHO was posting code-names for people in his address book.

Has any member considered the validity of weberman's claims in this regard?

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Leave it to Ron to find the absolute proof of Dillon's complicity!

I notice this post occured at about 7 am eastern time.  Wonder if he stayed up all night cracking the code?

Ron, what does DLAWSO mean?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim, For you this could mean, DONT LEAVE A WICKED SOVIET OUT.

[John Simkin]

One again you have cleverly (or not so cleverly) moved off the topic being discussed. I would like to return to Steve Mullard’s question. It is similar to other questions that you never really deal with.

Tim, could you (if possible) answer my question posed under the "Lee Harvey Oswald" thread - namely if you believe that Castro or similar was behind the assassination then who has had the 'powerbase' to keep the lid on it for the last 40 odd years?

The way you originally answered this question was as follows:

The simple answer is the cover-up may very well have been orchestrated and effectuated by persons who had nothing to do with the conspiracy to kill.

Although neither Larry Hancock nor James Richards agree with me that Castro is the most likely suspect, I believe each has written that he believes it probable that the cover-up was unrelated to the assassination.

Larry Hancock and James Richards will have to answer for themselves but I think you have misunderstood their argument. The point that we (I agree with Larry and James on this) make is that that the people involved in the cover-up might not have been the people who organized and carried out the assassination of JFK. However, the reason they took part in the cover-up was that they or their organizations were closely linked to the assassination. Therefore, they took part in the cover-up to protect the reputation of themselves and the organizations they represented.

It is because of this view that people like myself believe that the people who carried out the assassination were in some way linked to the CIA and the FBI. It is also possible they were linked to Lyndon Johnson, who was the key figure in organizing the cover-up.

It is the way the cover-up was carried out that convinces virtually every serious researcher into this case that Castro or the Soviets were not involved in the assassination of JFK.

This returns us to Steve’s original question: Why should the US government, the FBI, the CIA, etc. cover-up Castro’s involvement in the assassination over the last 40 years? Until you can explain this, members of the Forum will find it impossible to take your theory seriously.

[Tim Gratz]

John, I think there is a simple answer to this question. As I recently posted in another thread re the cover-up:

In another thread it was pointed out that Kenny O'Donnell helped assist in the fast removal of JFK's body from Dallas (if I remember the Garrison line from the "JFK movie: "It was more like a getaway. . ."). So if the cover-up was part of the assassination, then I guess Kenny did it. Not Fidel.

And Ron pointed out that it was O'Donnell that finally placed the luncheon at the Trade Mart, assuring the motorcade would go by the TSBD.

From the above two points, one could conclude that O'Donnell helped plan the assassination and jump start the cover-up.

But that is of course an absurd conclusion.

The simple answer is that LBJ wanted a lone gunman ("Phase Two" as Peter Dale Scott puts it) and the impetus for the cover-up was different (or may have been, at least) than the motive for the assassination. Moreover, LBJ may even have been blackmailed into the cover-up. You yourself have suggested as much. LBJ as patsy. And RFK could have been blackmailed as well.

If LHO was working for either the FBI or the CIA he was indeed the perfect patsy for outside conspiratorilists.

Like they say, it does not take a rocket scientist to formulate these scenarios.

Once you consider that the cover-up was not necessarily orchestrated by the assassins, the problem you suggest disappears.

And I want to repeat that while they may not agree with my scenario, there are well-respected researchers who agree that the cover-up was carried out by persons who were not the conspirators.

Edited June 20, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

John my post #18 ansered the question Steve posted in #17.

The humorous exchange about last names was started by Ron in Post 19.

[Tim Gratz]

John wrote:

Larry Hancock and James Richards will have to answer for themselves but I think you have misunderstood their argument. The point that we (I agree with Larry and James on this) make is that that the people involved in the cover-up might not have been the people who organized and carried out the assassination of JFK. However, the reason they took part in the cover-up was that they or their organizations were closely linked to the assassination. Therefore, they took part in the cover-up to protect the reputation of themselves and the organizations they represented.

John, I have raised a similar point but to a different end. If LHO was involved in the CIA this would have guaranteed a cover-up by the CIA, to protect the reputation of the organization, as you pointed out. (Regardless of how compartmentalized the operation was, there was bound to be at least one person with knowledge of LHO's true status who might come forward.

Therefore, LHO was the "perfect patsy" if he was set up by someone NOT affiliated with the CIA, e.g., for instance, the Mob. Now I hate speculation but this scenario might also be possible: The Mafia sets up LHO believing him to be a true left-wing Castro supporter (remember how Ruby had the correct name of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee). Unbeknowst to the Mafia, LHO was an agent of one or more US intelligence organizations, thus motivating their involvement in the cover-up. The Mafia could very well have black-mailed LBJ into the cover-up, and RFK as well.

I do agree with you that the existence of a cover-up presents initial difficulty with a scenario of foreign involvement, but it is a difficulty that may be more apparent than real.

The other issue that is inconsistent with foreign involvement is whether there was "security stripping" in Dallas but I am very confident that the answer to this question is no, there was not.

Edited June 20, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

James wrote (in a different thread):

I think that to try and assign any one particular group as responsible for the assassination will just run one around in circles trying to make things fit. I also submit that the murder and the cover-up were two different things.

IMO, individuals who had affiliations with different groups were behind it. Primarily the killing was personal with political opportunism playing a solid part.

Grand conspiracies don't make a whole lot of sense as keeping a handle on it would be nigh on impossible. The fact that the plotters have gotten away with this for 40 plus years says to me that the foundation of the plan was simple and containable.

James' point is one of the reasons I reject a "grand" conspiracy by the MIC, the establishment power structure, etc.

I believe James considers the assassination was the work of the mafia and "renegade" CIA agents including Morales and Robertson. If Castro was not involved, I could accept James' scenario as possible if not probable.

Now we know that Hoffa through Ragano had asked Trafficante ad Giancana to kill Kennedy on his behalf. If Trafficante had received a similar request from someone either acting or claiming to be acting on Castro's behalf, and Trafficante did organize the assassination, was he then acting on behald or Hoffa or Fidel?

Why not both? But Trafficante need not have disclosed the Cuban component to either Rosselli or Giancana.

Interestingly, historian Michael Kurtz suggests a coalition of Castro, Trafficante, and renegade CIA agents unaware of the Cuban component. He suggests Harvey rather than Morales.

Edited June 20, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Mark Stapleton]

John, I think there is a simple answer to this question.  As I recently posted in another thread re the cover-up:

In another thread it was pointed out that Kenny O'Donnell helped assist in the fast removal of JFK's body from Dallas (if I remember the Garrison line from the "JFK movie: "It was more like a getaway. . ."). So if the cover-up was part of the assassination, then I guess Kenny did it. Not Fidel.

And Ron pointed out that it was O'Donnell that finally placed the luncheon at the Trade Mart, assuring the motorcade would go by the TSBD.

From the above two points, one could conclude that O'Donnell helped plan the assassination and jump start the cover-up.

But that is of course an absurd conclusion.

The simple answer is that LBJ wanted a lone gunman ("Phase Two" as Peter Dale Scott puts it) and the impetus for the cover-up was different (or may have been, at least) than the motive for the assassination. Moreover, LBJ may even have been blackmailed into the cover-up. You yourself have suggested as much. LBJ as patsy. And RFK could have been blackmailed as well.

If LHO was working for either the FBI or the CIA he was indeed the perfect patsy for outside conspiratorilists.

Like they say, it does not take a rocket scientist to formulate these scenarios.

Once you consider that the cover-up was not necessarily orchestrated by the assassins, the problem you suggest disappears.

And I want to repeat that while they may not agree with my scenario, there are well-respected researchers who agree that the cover-up was carried out by persons who were not the conspirators.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim,

This is no answer, just a lot of bs. Truth is, you have no answer to this question put by Steve Mullard, do you? Namely, if Fidel did it, then how in the world did he orchestrate such an effective cover-up for 42 years--and from outside America?

It's no use replying that someone else did the coverup--you've got to explain why this "other" group would carry out such an elaborate public hoax for Fidel's benefit.

It's also useless stating that "Once you consider that the cover-up was not necessarily orchestrated by the assassins, the problem you suggest disappears". No it doesn't. How?

You never bother explaining these glaring incongruities which erode the foundation of your case. You just fly off to post messages on a dozen different threads, hoping that scrutiny of the numerous flaws in your scenario can be put off with something like "I answered that on another thread". For a member who ridicules other's suggestions so vigorously, it's blatant hypocrisy.