Vince Salandria on "false sponsers" (Castro/ Mob)

[Tim Gratz]

How about James Richards? It is my understanding that he believes it was a relatively small conspiracy combining renegade CIA agents and anti-Castro Cubans. (I am hoping I am not misstating his position.) Is he then also a criminal because he does not accept the "party line"?

[Dawn Meredith]

How about James Richards?  It is my understanding that he believes it was a relatively small conspiracy combining renegade CIA agents and anti-Castro Cubans. (I am hoping I am not misstating his position.)  Is he then also a criminal because he does not accept the "party line"?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

____________________

No one here has called you a "criminal". Interesting choice of words. A bit defensive, Tim?

When Ruby spoke to Warren and Ford about "a whole new form of government " that was going to come about I daresay he was NOT referring to the Mob taking over the US government.

"Castro" and "the Mob" are "false sponsers".

Dawn

[Mark Knight]

Dawn, you have to look at Tim's line of reasoning:

All communists are liars;

The Mafia is the moral equivalent of the communists; and

Jack Ruby was part of the Mafiia.

Therefore, anything that Ruby said is a lie...or, mathematically:

Communist = xxxx;

Mafia = Communist;

Ruby = Mafia;

therefore, Ruby = xxxx.

Simple connect-the-dots...right, Tim?

Oh, if it was only that easy....

[Ron Ecker]

How about James Richards?  It is my understanding that he believes it was a relatively small conspiracy combining renegade CIA agents and anti-Castro Cubans. (I am hoping I am not misstating his position.)

I think James is also willing to believe that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was in Dallas. He has pointed out a photographic resemblance and in the discussion of Taylor has written this: "I have no problems with any level of the planning being present in Dealey Plaza. This was the President of the United States being assassinated on home soil and with that, I would think it was all hands on deck. Let's get the job done first and go from there."

Of course James may be trying to have his Kate and Edith too.

Ron

[Bill Sanders]

How about James Richards?  It is my understanding that he believes it was a relatively small conspiracy combining renegade CIA agents and anti-Castro Cubans. (I am hoping I am not misstating his position.)  Is he then also a criminal because he does not accept the "party line"?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Coming from down under, Jimmy has to be a criminal seeing thats where all the convicts were sent to.

Bill S

[Tim Gratz]

Dawn, no one here has called me a criminal (perhaps every perjorative but that) but my point was that Vincent Salandria accused "The Nation" , an old and well-respected but VERY leftist journal of CRIMINAL OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE because Chomsky did not support his theory of the assassination.

My point is that people of intellectual ability and integrity can disagree without being disinformation agents or intellectually dishonest. We need to respect other people's opinions about the assassination just as we should respect differing opionions about political matters and religious matters, etc. That is called tolerance. It is also the nature of debate. And I assume you agree with me that truth often emerges from the clash of ideas. Indeed, is that not the nature of our adversarial nature of justice rather than an inquisitorial system?

Edited June 29, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[John Simkin]

My point is that people of intellectual ability and integrity can disagree without being disinformation agents or intellectually dishonest.  We need to respect other people's opinions about the assassination just as we should respect differing opionions about political matters and religious matters, etc.  That is called tolerance.

It does not seem very tolerant to me to describe someone as a xxxx (Thomas Buchanan) because he is said by Joseph McCarthy to be a communist. Or is someone tolerant only if they don't criticize people on the far right?

[Tim Gratz]

John I suspect Sen Kennedy could prove Buchanan a xxxx.

On its face, Buchanan's statement that Sen Kennedy introduced him to Katzebach makes no sense. If Sen Kennedy wanted his brother's assassination investigated, he surely would not have turned to Buchanan whose reputation as a communist would have sullied his work product (as indeed it did).

[Pat Speer]

I believe it is a matter of record that the Nation printed a number of articles over the years which questioned the official government line on the assassination, some of them as early as December 63. The magazine was not part of Mockingbird or any other conspiracy. Just because the WC told a bunch of fibs, and the HSCA told a bunch of fibs, doesn't mean that every institution in America was part of some grand lie. It is this kind of thinking that alienates so many.

It seems clear to me Salandria is paranoid. In light of what he's seen and what he's been through, it's understandable. But it's destroyed his ability to see the case clearly. I believe he subscribes to the theory that the reason why the WC and HSCA reports don't make sense is because the CONSPIRATORS want us to know that logic no longer has meaning, because we are under THEIR control now, or some such thing. Yeah, and that' why O.J. left his blood on the fence.

[Tim Gratz]

The Mafia is indeed a "false sponsor". At least as to these murders (JFK, Tippitt and Oswald) their hands are clean.

Ruby was taking his orders not from Trafficante and/or Rosselli but from David Atlee Phillips. When Ruby went to Cuba to meet with Trafficante in Trescornia, it was really just a cover for his meeting with Phillips.

And it was not McWillie or Rosselli calling Melvin Belli's firm from the Desert Inn. It was David Morales. Vegas is just a few hours from Phoenix after all.

And Ruby's strippers were undercover agents for the CIA.

It's all becoming clear to me now! The Mafia had nothing to do with it!

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

The Mafia is indeed a "false sponsor".  At least as to these murders (JFK, Tippitt and Oswald) their hands are clean.

Ruby was taking his orders not from Trafficante and/or Rosselli but from David Atlee Phillips.  When Ruby went to Cuba to meet with Trafficante in Trescornia, it was really just a cover for his meeting with Phillips.

And it was not McWillie or Rosselli calling Melvin Belli's firm from the Desert Inn.  It was David Morales.  Vegas is just a few hours from Phoenix after all.

And Ruby's strippers were undercover agents for the CIA.

It's all becoming clear to me now!  The Mafia had nothing to do with it!

What the foregoing fails to account for is a discernable difference between being a CIA proxy and being a "false sponsor."  When CIA wished to have dirty work attended to, it recruited killers from the criminal milieu.  In the event the killers were caught, or their operations were somehow compromised, CIA could disclaim all responsibility, per "plausible deniability."  That is why Mobsters were selected to go after Castro.

So, should it come to pass that Mobsters were involved in killing Kennedy, perhaps you could provide your basis for believing that they were acting as something other than CIA proxies, yet again....? 

And while I have your attention, Tim, perhaps you'd also be so kind as to respond to my last post in the "Familiar Faces" thread.  If it's escaped your notice, I'd be glad to take my last post in that thread and start a new thread, until you finally get around to responding to it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[John Simkin]

I believe it is a matter of record that the Nation printed a number of articles over the years which questioned the official government line on the assassination, some of them as early as December 63.  The magazine was not part of Mockingbird or any other conspiracy. Just because the WC told a bunch of fibs, and the HSCA told a bunch of fibs, doesn't mean that every institution in America was part of some grand lie.  It is this kind of thinking that alienates so many.

It is of course true that the Nation did publish some critical articles on the Warren Commission but eventually fell into line. This is a similar pattern to what happened in other “liberal” newspapers and journals. There were brief revivals during the House Select Committee of Assassinations investigation. Despite the HSCA discovering that there was a conspiracy the media soon lost interest. It was as if it never happened.

The same goes for liberal newspapers in the UK. The Guardian was the one that most questioned the Warren Report when it was first published. Even though it still employs several investigative journalists they will not touch the JFK assassination with a barge-poll.

In November 2003 the BBC put out a documentary arguing that the Warren Commission got it right. It was actually an American documentary that had been repackaged to give the impression that it had been made by the BBC. The next day the Guardian ran an article claiming that the documentary had at last proved that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman that killed JFK.

Recently we have had a discussion about why so few historians who have written about JFK and LBJ show so little interest in the assassination. Although they rarely say that they agree with the Warren Commission, they are unwilling to investigate the actual assassination. The only one to do this over the last few years is Richard D. Mahoney (Sons & Brothers) and I am told he is no longer willing to discuss the case.

One only has to carry out a brief investigation into the JFK assassination to know that he was killed as a result of a conspiracy. Why have our historians and journalists ignored this evidence?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4061

[Mark Knight]

John I suspect Sen Kennedy could prove Buchanan a xxxx.

You "suspect."

So that's the level of proof you require? Only of yourself, it seems.

Yet again, it's perfectly OK for Tim to "suspect" the truth, but the rest of us must show HIM some "evidence."

I "suspect" that Dillon is innocent, but I won't "conclude" that he is until I see more evidence.

I also "suspect" that Tim's "Castro-did-it" scenario MIGHT someday be proven to be the truth, but I don't have enough evidence to sustain that suspicion.

Truth be told, I think we can all agree that the evidence shows there was a conspiracy after the fact, and the only disagreement is in the length, the breadth, and the height of the coverup.

I also believe that we can conclude that there was a conspiracy before the fact, based upon the evidence that there was more than one shooter in DP.

So the disagreement center on who the conspirators were, and whether the conspiracy before the fact and the one after the fact were overlapping. And so the clear question is not so much of CIA involvement, but the depth of their involvement [whether it includes involvement before the fact--and to what degree--as well as the CIA's documented involvement after the fact].

Does that not sum up the discussion here?

And a big part of the disagreement here is of the "chicken-or-the-egg" variety, i.e., did the CIA recruit the Mafia, or did the Mafia recruit the CIA [the term "CIA" in this context referring both to the agency as well as "rogue" agents]? Another part is whether or not the slip-ups of the SS, DPD, FBI et al were accidental or whether they were intentional...and how complicit was the press in the coverup?

In a nutshell, that's where we are, from my perspective.

Sometimes, when we attempt to impeach the source of evidence, we inadvertently [i [i]hope[/i] it's inadvertent!] throw out what may have actually been good, solid evidence that could be corroborated by another source, if we choose to search out that other source.

So, rather than "suspect" that someone could prove someone else a xxxx, I suggest we search out the evidence. That, after all, is how an honest inquiry functions.

[Mark Stapleton]

I believe it is a matter of record that the Nation printed a number of articles over the years which questioned the official government line on the assassination, some of them as early as December 63.  The magazine was not part of Mockingbird or any other conspiracy. Just because the WC told a bunch of fibs, and the HSCA told a bunch of fibs, doesn't mean that every institution in America was part of some grand lie.  It is this kind of thinking that alienates so many.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is of course true that the Nation did publish some critical articles on the Warren Commission but eventually fell into line. This is a similar pattern to what happened in other “liberal” newspapers and journals. There were brief revivals during the House Select Committee of Assassinations investigation. Despite the HSCA discovering that there was a conspiracy the media soon lost interest. It was as if it never happened.

The same goes for liberal newspapers in the UK. The Guardian was the one that most questioned the Warren Report when it was first published. Even though it still employs several investigative journalists they will not touch the JFK assassination with a barge-poll.

In November 2003 the BBC put out a documentary arguing that the Warren Commission got it right. It was actually an American documentary that had been repackaged to give the impression that it had been made by the BBC. The next day the Guardian ran an article claiming that the documentary had at last proved that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman that killed JFK.

Recently we have had a discussion about why so few historians who have written about JFK and LBJ show so little interest in the assassination. Although they rarely say that they agree with the Warren Commission, they are unwilling to investigate the actual assassination. The only one to do this over the last few years is Richard D. Mahoney (Sons & Brothers) and I am told he is no longer willing to discuss the case.

One only has to carry out a brief investigation into the JFK assassination to know that he was killed as a result of a conspiracy. Why have our historians and journalists ignored this evidence?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4061

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is the big point, the major abberation in this whole sordid affair. Why, why won't the mainstream media seriously investigate this unsolved crime. Yes, basically every media institution in America was (and is) part of a grand lie. I feel that every media institution in America fell into two categories; those who participated in the coverup and those who said as little as possible. There were no others. IMO, there are many people who don't want to look into this closely because of what a stinking pandora's box it might--no,will open. Corruption and worse of the highest level of American institutions--Government, military and corporate. And it may not be only American institutions.

[Pat Speer]

[

This is the big point, the major abberation in this whole sordid affair. Why, why won't the mainstream media seriously investigate this unsolved crime. Yes, basically every media institution in America was (and is) part of a grand lie. I feel that every media institution in America fell into two categories; those who participated in the coverup and those who said as little as possible. There were no others. IMO, there are many people who don't want to look into this closely because of what a stinking pandora's box it might--no,will open. Corruption and worse of the highest level of American institutions--Government, military and corporate. And it may not be only American institutions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think you hit the nail on the head, Mark. The DPD, FBI, CIA, WC, CBS, HSCA, AMA, and ABC etc. have all made major mistakes in their various investigations, and are so unnerved by the fervor of the voices against them that they have in a way banded together, to protect the status quo and its aura of invincibility. That is why a doctor like Lattimer, who believed Kennedy's lungs were in his neck, is propped up as the voice of reason, while a doctor like Wecht, who has performed and supervised thousands of autopsies, is presented as a bit of an obsessed wacko. That is why Bugliosi, who is no more an expert than either one of us, is presented over and over as the voice of responsible authority, while Harold Weisberg, Mark Lane, and Sylvia Meagher, each of whom knew the case better than the entire WC combined, have often been presented as attention-crazed or obsessed.

A book by Stephen White, the writer of CBS' 1967 4 part special on the assassination, put it all in perspective for me when it discussed the response to the programs. The break down went something like this: 40% positive, 20% negative, 5 % completely out there wacko bizarre, 35% assassination buff. Get it? CBS thought they did a good job because those without a built-in bias by a 2 to 1 margin liked the show. In other words, anyone who has studied the case didn't count! In the eyes of CBS, our opinions do not matter because we know too much!

I'm afraid this blind spot continues. In his 2003 special on the assassination, Peter Jennings said they could prove that Oswald acted alone to anyone who was not "beyond the pale." I assume this is the same special John alluded to as being broadcast in Britain disguised to appear as being from the BBC. "Beyond the pale!!!" In other words we're hopeless and our opinions don't matter. I wrote ABC an e-maill offering to help point out the rash of inaccuracies and deceptions in the special and received no response. I'm not aware of any CT who complained about the special to ABC who did receive a response or acknowledgement of any kind. They simply don't care.

This is part of the reason I side with Tim on some of these issues. While it's possible there was a grand conspiracy involving elements of the government and the media I am 100% positive this conspiracy will NEVER be exposed. I feel that the best way to handle the case is to PROVE mistakes were made, and make these PROOFS air-tight.

In this way, the media will eventually come to terms with these mistakes, much as they came to terms with the fact that the autopsy doctors made some mistakes. It's my contention that only with time will the media begin to see the bigger picture--that they were part of the problem.

Edited June 30, 2005 by Pat Speer