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

[John Simkin]

In 1975 Vincent Salandria told Gaeton Fonzi: "I'm afraid we were misled. All the critics, myself included, were misled very early. I see that now. We spent too much time and effort microanalyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy. Don't you think that the men who killed Kennedy had the means to do it in the most sophisticated and subtle way? They chose not to. Instead, they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealey Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner. The cover story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiny. The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear: 'We are in control and no one - not the President, nor Congress, nor any elected official - no one can do anything about it.' It was a message to the people that their Government was powerless."

[Guest Robert Morrow]

In 1975 Vincent Salandria told Gaeton Fonzi: "I'm afraid we were misled. All the critics, myself included, were misled very early. I see that now. We spent too much time and effort microanalyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy. Don't you think that the men who killed Kennedy had the means to do it in the most sophisticated and subtle way? They chose not to. Instead, they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealey Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner. The cover story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiny. The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear: 'We are in control and no one - not the President, nor Congress, nor any elected official - no one can do anything about it.' It was a message to the people that their Government was powerless."

In my opinion, Vincent Salandria is the greatest JFK researcher/analyst of all time.

And having said that, he is wrong on that. The murder of John Kennedy was an act of desperation and a big reason for that was the Kennedys were on the verge of politically executing and personally destroying Lyndon Johnson. That is why Ed Tatro's 1,300 page manuscript is titled "Urgency to Kill."

Murdering anyone is a high risk proposition. But murdering the president is a high risk proposition to the 100th power. The folks who murdered JFK - LBJ, Texas oil executives, probably Hoover, and their friends in CIA/military (who ran the field operations) did it because they were desperate. Dallas was picked because other opportunities had failed and also because LBJ and his Texas oil executives could control the political and law enforcement scene in Dallas.

I totally reject Salandria's proposition that JFK's assassination was a demonstration murder. It was an act of desperation with the urgency of immediacy due to LBJ's dire straits.

However, Salandria is right about this: "We spent too much time and effort microanalyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy."

Edited December 18, 2012 by Robert Morrow

[John Simkin]

Salandria published his first article on the JFK assassination in the Legal Intelligencer on 2nd November, 1964. He suggested he had not been killed by a lone gunman. He argued: "First, with reference to the source of the shots, it is not central to my thesis that the Warren Commission erred in determining that three shots came from the Book Depository Building. On the contrary, I am willing to concede for the purposes of this presentation that three shots did come from the Book Depository Building. But I will endeavor to prove that all the evidence of the Commission's Report points up that another shot or shots came from a source other than the Depository Building." Gaeton Fonzi thought Salandria was crazy when he read the article. As he later explained: "You have to remember what a discordant thing it was in 1964 to hear that an official government report might be wrong - especially a weighty one issued by a panel of public stature."

[David Andrews]

I totally reject Salandria's proposition that JFK's assassination was a demonstration murder. It was an act of desperation with the urgency of immediacy due to LBJ's dire straits.

I think that LBJ and his crew could not have pulled this off alone and solely for their own motives, though their motives may well have dictated the timing.

It had to be done with the support of the economic establishment, and for their motives first. Even as V-P or Prez, LBJ could have no more dictated or survived the murder plotting and the immense coverup than the mob could have, as has been said.

It's a case of coinciding interests. Jim Marrs said the most accurate thing: It was not a right-wing or a left-wing coup, it was a centrist action, produced by a coalescence of ostensibly divided interests.

Edited December 21, 2012 by David Andrews

[Guest Robert Morrow]

"It's a case of coinciding interests. Jim Marrs said the most accurate thing: It was not a right-wing or a left-wing coup, it was a centrist action, produced by a coalescence of ostensibly divided interests."

The JFK assassination was most certainly a "right wing" coup but the plotters were in bed with the Democratic vice president. It was a right wing coup catering to the business interest of Texas oil executives (and very possibly the Rockefellers), the hard right ideological agenda of the CIA/military intelligence men who actually put a bullet in JFK's head, as well as the personal interests of Lyndon Johnson (most certainly) and personal interests of J. Edgar Hoover.

Post-assassination, it would be interesting to count up how many times Lyndon Johnson did something to pacify the liberals who rightfully suspected his role in the JFK assassination. LBJ was already taking care of the interests of Texas oil executives and the CIA/military hawks, but then the first thing

(1) he does post assassination is come out very strong for civil rights. That was LBJ's was of innoculating himself from the ire of the liberals.

(2) Before doing that, LBJ had told all of the Kennedy people "I need you more than Jack did." He was right. He need the JFK loyalists to keep him (Johnson) from hanging from the tallest tree in Dallas or the tallest tree in Washington, DC.

(3) In another appeasement of the liberals, during Christmas, 1963, Lyndon Johnson met with liberal economist Waller Heller and came up with the "War on Poverty" social spending plan and its coined by Jack Valenti and friends.

(4) Another appeasement of the liberals post assassination was LBJ telling Texas Democrats that he would not tolerate any right wing challenge to Sen. Ralph Yarborough in the 1964 Democratic primary.

Because the JFK asssassination was IN FACT a right wing coup, that is why LBJ moved to the left so swiftly in certain areas post - assassination as a way of appeasing the liberals. LBJ had to give them a bone and the biggest one of all was civil rights. Civil rights also kept the NY Times, Washington Post and Nation magazine from contemplating LBJ's involvement in the JFK assassination.

I also think the LBJ being extremely pro-Israel had a way of quieting many Jewish liberals who might cause problems for him if they had suspected Johnson in the JFK assassination.

Edited December 26, 2012 by Robert Morrow