Richard Nixon and the Kennedy Assassination.

[Lynne Foster]

Try this then, it's fascinating.

[Duke Lane]

Tom, I believe you and I are on the same page here. I think that those behind the assassination had connections to Nixon, but I believe that Nixon, in 1963, wasn't in on the plot [at the level of a conspirator]. It just eventually turned out to be to his advantage, and I believe those responsible made sure of that.

1. Soft Drink Bottlers convention in Dallas on 11/21/63, thereby making the "best" location for a Presidential visit non-available, which of course also completely affected potential motorcade route.

2. Soft Drink Bottlers convention organized by Pepsi-Cola

3. Richard M. Nixon, guest speaker at convention

4. Richard M. Nixon, lawyer, representing Pepsi-Cola

5. Pepsi-Cola and direct relationship to various CIA endeavors.

6. Klein's Sporting Goods actually owned by Pepsi-Cola

The "best" location for Kennedy's speech was the Women's Building, so determined by the USSS. If memory serves, that was not where the bottlers' convention was held. As to Klein's, you have evidence of that?

The planning and conducting of the Soft Drink Bottlers Association meeting in Dallas, TX, on the day prior to the visit of JFK, effectively established the "stage" as to where JFK would go for the luncheon, as well as establishing the parade route and time of the parade.

In addition, the presence of RMN in Dallas at the exact same time as JFK created a situation in which the police forces of Dallas were drawn quite thin.

And, although those responsible for the actual event of the convention as well as the participation by Nixon have no direct connection to any part of the assassination, the manipulation of these persons and events which placed the convention in Dallas at the exact same time as the JFK visit, established the "ground rules" for the parade route which JFK would ultimately take through Dallas.

This is perceptive, but unfortunately does not reflect much knowledge of the convention industry.

First, no convention can be scheduled on short notice, not even small ones. One issue, of course, is the venue: other groups will want to use it, so you've got to have the space reserved well in advance (call the Dallas Convention & Visitors Bureau - 214-571-1301 - and ask them when the next available date for a convention of about 500 people will be, with, say, 75 vendors also having wares and services to display).

Other issues involve getting speakers, participants and vendors: guys (and gals) who run bottling operations are by no means your average blue-collar worker, nor entrepreneurs struggling to build a small business. Consequently, their time is valuable, and cannot (on a scale large enough to create a "convention") be co-opted on short notice because of a meeting that has to be held on the day the President is driving through town.

The same holds true of the speakers - there would have to be many more than just Nixon if you're going to call this a "convention" (otherwise, it was a bottler's junket just to hear Nixon speak? I think not) - as well as the vendors ... and there are always vendors at any trade convention: the fees they pay to exhibit their goods and services offset a very large portion of the rental costs!

Even a convention of relational database (software) manufacturers, wholesales and users (both corporate and consultive), of which I would bet there are no more of these guys than there were (or are) soft drink bottlers (we're talking bottlers here, not manufacturers), more than a year to put an event together. The November 1963 bottlers' convention was not put together in very much, if any, less time.

Second, no convention creates a situation where the police force of any but the smallest towns (that wouldn't be able to host a convention anyway) are "drawn quite thin." This was not a demonstration by potentially unruly people, and even today at a reasonably large convention, there are generally not more than a half-dozen to a dozen cops assigned to it, and most often they are off-duty officers hired by the convention organizers; I'd be quite surprised if there were even that many at the bottlers' convention. What was the need?

Furthermore, a look at police assignments for November 22 shows that, where officers were reassigned from their regular duties, it was because they were assigned to assist with the Presidential visit. There is no indication whatsoever that any officers were assigned to the bottlers' convention in lieu of their regular duties.

If the presence of the bottlers' convention "set the stage" for anything, it did so well in advance of anyone ever planning the Presidential trip and motorcade, and was likely no more than a small "blip on the screen" when it came to planning anything.

[Len Colby]

Great Lynee another 503 error!!!! You're really impresing me with your intelligence. You make a mistake I tell you about and then in response you make the exact same mistake again.

1] Stop trying to be fancy and just paste the URL for some reason the linked text thing just ain`t working out for you.

2] As I suggested before check your links after posting them.

You haven't bothered to reply to several of my points are you admiting that I'm right i.e that you're an immature asshole who despite a professed interest in education doesn't have the emotional intelligence to be an educator?

[Lynne Foster]

I really think that this thread is far more significant than anything that you and I have discussed. Let that be the final word between us.

A Harvard Law professor is far more capable, when it comes to unravelling the truth -even better than mat Wilson, who unravelled Nixon.

Edited December 5, 2005 by Lynne Foster

[Lynne Foster]

There were many people who believed that Nixon and the Mafia were bedfellows. Martha Mitchell, wife of the former Attorney General told UPI reporters, "Nixon is involved with the Mafia." Nixon’s chief of staff, General Haig, even ordered an investigation into the president’s Mob ties through the Army’s Criminal Investigation Unit.

In 1972, Richard Nixon arranged an unprecedented presidential pardon for New Jersey mobster, Angelo DeCarlo, a feared killer and capo in the Genovese crime family. It seemed that Nixon was paying back favours for more financial contributions to his re-election campaign. If Nixon was linked to the Mob, there can be little doubt that one of his connections to it was Marcello.

Did Nixon also help Jim Garrison avoid jail? No doubt, he didn't want him to expose anything about the Kennedy assassination.

[Lynne Foster]

I am amazed that Dawn, who pretends to be a Nixon hater, has nothing to say about his criminal activity.

[Lynne Foster]

Stephen, don't worry, these links work:

Truth is about situation, it is not about all the false stories that control freaks like

JIM GARRISON,

RICHARD NIXON

J.EDGAR HOOVER

and all the hypocrites who repeatedly claim that they do not respond to my threads.

[Lynne Foster]

According to Mark Knight:

"Now, I believe that Nixon was connected to both Kennedy assassinations, the MLK assassination, and the Wallace shooting.

Instead, I keep reading and researching, hoping to find that piece of irrefutable evidence that either proves or disproves my theory once and for all. After almost 35 years, I still haven't found it. Oh, I can build a circumstantial case, but I CAN'T [yet] WRAP THIS ONE UP."

Why don't you outline your circumstantial case Mark?

[Tim Gratz]

Gee, for a couple of million I could say Sprague was right and indict the dead and defenseless.

And change my name to J. Timothy Wheaton.

[Lynne Foster]

I didn't know you were Mark, hey, maybe that makes sense.

Give us your circumstantial case Mark, or are you just trying to be like Garrison?

[Lynne Foster]

This is the Nixon thread Mark, your reluctance to contribute is too modest.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Tom, I believe you and I are on the same page here. I think that those behind the assassination had connections to Nixon, but I believe that Nixon, in 1963, wasn't in on the plot [at the level of a conspirator]. It just eventually turned out to be to his advantage, and I believe those responsible made sure of that.

1. Soft Drink Bottlers convention in Dallas on 11/21/63, thereby making the "best" location for a Presidential visit non-available, which of course also completely affected potential motorcade route.

2. Soft Drink Bottlers convention organized by Pepsi-Cola

3. Richard M. Nixon, guest speaker at convention

4. Richard M. Nixon, lawyer, representing Pepsi-Cola

5. Pepsi-Cola and direct relationship to various CIA endeavors.

6. Klein's Sporting Goods actually owned by Pepsi-Cola

The "best" location for Kennedy's speech was the Women's Building, so determined by the USSS. If memory serves, that was not where the bottlers' convention was held. As to Klein's, you have evidence of that?

The planning and conducting of the Soft Drink Bottlers Association meeting in Dallas, TX, on the day prior to the visit of JFK, effectively established the "stage" as to where JFK would go for the luncheon, as well as establishing the parade route and time of the parade.

In addition, the presence of RMN in Dallas at the exact same time as JFK created a situation in which the police forces of Dallas were drawn quite thin.

And, although those responsible for the actual event of the convention as well as the participation by Nixon have no direct connection to any part of the assassination, the manipulation of these persons and events which placed the convention in Dallas at the exact same time as the JFK visit, established the "ground rules" for the parade route which JFK would ultimately take through Dallas.

This is perceptive, but unfortunately does not reflect much knowledge of the convention industry.

First, no convention can be scheduled on short notice, not even small ones. One issue, of course, is the venue: other groups will want to use it, so you've got to have the space reserved well in advance (call the Dallas Convention & Visitors Bureau - 214-571-1301 - and ask them when the next available date for a convention of about 500 people will be, with, say, 75 vendors also having wares and services to display).

Other issues involve getting speakers, participants and vendors: guys (and gals) who run bottling operations are by no means your average blue-collar worker, nor entrepreneurs struggling to build a small business. Consequently, their time is valuable, and cannot (on a scale large enough to create a "convention") be co-opted on short notice because of a meeting that has to be held on the day the President is driving through town.

The same holds true of the speakers - there would have to be many more than just Nixon if you're going to call this a "convention" (otherwise, it was a bottler's junket just to hear Nixon speak? I think not) - as well as the vendors ... and there are always vendors at any trade convention: the fees they pay to exhibit their goods and services offset a very large portion of the rental costs!

Even a convention of relational database (software) manufacturers, wholesales and users (both corporate and consultive), of which I would bet there are no more of these guys than there were (or are) soft drink bottlers (we're talking bottlers here, not manufacturers), more than a year to put an event together. The November 1963 bottlers' convention was not put together in very much, if any, less time.

Second, no convention creates a situation where the police force of any but the smallest towns (that wouldn't be able to host a convention anyway) are "drawn quite thin." This was not a demonstration by potentially unruly people, and even today at a reasonably large convention, there are generally not more than a half-dozen to a dozen cops assigned to it, and most often they are off-duty officers hired by the convention organizers; I'd be quite surprised if there were even that many at the bottlers' convention. What was the need?

Furthermore, a look at police assignments for November 22 shows that, where officers were reassigned from their regular duties, it was because they were assigned to assist with the Presidential visit. There is no indication whatsoever that any officers were assigned to the bottlers' convention in lieu of their regular duties.

If the presence of the bottlers' convention "set the stage" for anything, it did so well in advance of anyone ever planning the Presidential trip and motorcade, and was likely no more than a small "blip on the screen" when it came to planning anything.

1. Effectively point the finger back to Kleins, and one effectively would be directing one to what was, according to a relatively reliable resource, a Pepsi subsidary.

2. Effectively point the finger to WCC 6.5mm ammunition, and one would effectively be pointing the finger back at some form of US Government armament contract, for a weapon not in the standard US Inventory, and one thereby points the finger at some type of CIA type operation.

3. Effectively point the finger towards CIA contracts for ammunition, potential CIA front companies, and one points directly to the CIA, it's Pepsi associations, and thereafter as collateral damage, would ultimately point directly to Richard Nixon, up to and including a visit to Dallas and speaking for the Soft Drink Bottlers Association, as arranged by Pepsi, which was set to coincide with the visit of JFK to Dallas.

Most of which is why I have never expended too much time following this trail, as it is too plainly marked.

Kind of like someone was "pointing" the way and wanting to lead one here.

Massad Ayoob is responsible for having uncovered the "Pepsi" connection to Kleins, and although verified with him of this association, it is only worthwhile for those who wish to blame the assassination on the BAD old CIA.

[Scott G. Edwards]

Tom, I believe you and I are on the same page here. I think that those behind the assassination had connections to Nixon, but I believe that Nixon, in 1963, wasn't in on the plot [at the level of a conspirator]. It just eventually turned out to be to his advantage, and I believe those responsible made sure of that.

Ah, What if RMN had full knowledge of what took place on November 22, 1963 and also knew that LBJ was pulling the strings and somewhere down the line told LBJ that if he (Nixon) did not get into office soon that he would blow the whistle on the whole shebang, and so LBJ picked up his dogs and went back to the lone star state! Just some food for thought, Scott

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Ah, What if RMN had full knowledge of what took place on November 22, 1963 and also knew that LBJ was pulling the strings and somewhere down the line told LBJ that if he (Nixon) did not get into office soon that he would blow the whistle on the whole shebang, and so LBJ picked up his dogs and went back to the lone star state! Just some food for thought, Scott[/b]

That is a very logical thought, but I really question whether Nixon had the street smarts/toughness to pull off something that big. I do not hate Nixon, as some people seem to do, and I see him as just a bit of a wuss. I think that is how JFK saw him too.

[Dawn Meredith]

[quote name='J. Raymond Carroll' date='May 29 2006, 07:38 AM' post='63797']

Ah, What if RMN had full knowledge of what took place on November 22, 1963 and also knew that LBJ was pulling the strings and somewhere down the line told LBJ that if he (Nixon) did not get into office soon that he would blow the whistle on the whole shebang, and so LBJ picked up his dogs and went back to the lone star state! Just some food for thought, Scott[/b]

That is a very logical thought, but I really question whether Nixon had the street smarts/toughness to pull off something that big. I do not hate Nixon, as some people seem to do, and I see him as just a bit of a wuss. I think that is how JFK saw him too.

Interesting Ray. Then what is your theory about what was really behind Watergate? Do you not believe that he was threatening to blow the lid on what he knew about the Kennedy assassination (omitting perhaps his own complicity, of course, if such existed)? I knew his reference to "the whole Bay of Pigs thing" was a reference to the assassination decades before Haldamen (sp) spilled that little ditty.

I think Scott's post bears considering. Tho, by 68 LBJ was also really close to cracking up, so that could better explain why he left. His concession to the brass on Vietnam really was his undoing, both politically and, I think mentally.

Dawn