Dealey Plaza Operation

[William Kelly]

JFK Assassination - Renegade Assassins or Full Fledged Coup d’etat ?– By Bill Kelly

Once it is accepted that what happened at Dealey Plaza was a covert intelligence operation, and foreign sponsorship is discounted, then the question becomes whether this operation was conducted by a renegade cell of a domestic network or was a full fledged coup d’etat.

This issues was addressed in a series of essays in the Dr. Jerry Rose’s Fourth Decade Journal beginning with Ken Thompson’s “Coup d’etat – A Critique” [May, 1998, Vol. 5, #4], and two followup articles, “Coup d’etat – A Response” by Christopher Sharrett [sept. 98, Vol. 5 #6] and Thompson’s comeback, “A Further Critique,” [Vol. 6, #2].

In his primary essay, Ken Thompson criticizes the models of the assassination that, like Vincent Salandria’s hypothesis of the “Transparent Conspiracy,” portray the murder as a “high cabal” or “coup d’etat,” which Thompson considers illogical because of magnitude and logistical problems in the planning stages.

As Christopher Sharrett points out in his response, Thompson’s critique is “deeply problematical,” because his points must be overcome as an initial hurdle before one can prove that the assassination was a full fledged coup d’etat, name those responsible for the crime and attempt to hold them legally responsible.

First off, Thompson’s “Definition and Preconditions Of A Coup d’etat” are

wrong. Thompson uses Britannica, “Coup - …the sudden, violent overthrow of an existing government by a small group. The chief perquisite for a coup is control of all or part of the armed forces, the police and the other military elements.”

I prefer Webster: “Coup -stroke, blow, a sudden, successful move or action, a brilliant stroke, a clever stratagem, a sudden, forceful overthrow of a government.”

Then Thompson muddies up the waters by bringing in Edward Litwack, whose handbook “Coup d’etat – A Practical Handbook,” is banned in most Latin American countries since it provides a “How To” manual for the taking over of a governments in Third World countries. Thompson himself, admits that the assassination of President Kennedy, if it was a coup, was a non-traditional coup, though one, I might add, not without historical precedent, as both Warren Harding and William McKinnley were assassinated in coups of similar stratagems.

I would like to address some of the issues that Thompson raises :

- “Logistical Problems. Mobilizing one’s forces without arousing suspicion would have been a colossal challenge.” They did arouse suspicion. Everyone was suspicious. All – everyone of JFK’s close advisors asked him not to go to Dallas. The alarms went off, the question should be, why didn’t the watch dogs bark?

- “How could their plan ever be kept secret from the eyes and ears of Big Brother?” It wasn’t They Are Big Brother.

- “Dirty tricks is one thing but murder is quite outside the bounds of legitimacy.” Quite so, and they murder as a matter of policy, routinely, they did it before Dealey Plaza – ie. Henry Marshall, and they’ve done it since, many times. They are, in a sense, serial killers.

- “A planned coup would have been detected by ethical people in any number of government departments.” It was and many tried to do the right thing, and in the future, many more will be asked to make the same decisions.

- “Imagine the petty bickering about the plan’s details, the rivalries, the massive communications network, the lengthy payroll of such an enterprise.” The MO, modus operandi was that of a Covert Intelligence Operation and handled like a military maneuver, those involved got orders, were not asked advice. The communications network was extensive [see “The Tale of the Tapes”] and the lengthy payroll of the enterprise was quickly made up in government contracts to the tune of many millions of dollars funneled through Collins Radio, Bell Hell and the Catherwood Foundation, just to name three of the conduits used.

- “According to the coup d’etat theory…the conspirators selected the TSBD…because…Oswald would be in proximity to one of the real shooters, a necessary requirement for a later frame up.” The JFK assassination is the only example known to history in which the victim is not stalked, but comes to his killer, one of the reasons why a logical investigator would suspect high level involvement. If not Oswald, other patsies were available.

- “A failed attempt would guarantee enhanced future protection sufficient to preclude a second chance.” Not only that, but if Jackie had pulled JFK down on her lap after the non-fatal first shot, he not only would have survived, but it would not have been a coup, LBJ would still be VP, and one by one, they would have fallen – pawn, patsy, gunmen, lawyers,…..and JFK’s guys would have rounded them all up and LBJ would have been sent to jail, not only for attempted murder, but for murder for Henry Marshall and for all the Billie Sole stuff.

In his follow up article Thompson is not convinced by Sharratt’s logic and reason, but persists in projecting the assassination as a “small group of conspirators enlisting the aid of a couple of gunmen, one of whom is set up to be a guilty patsy…conspirators who were both unsophisticated and outside the established political system.”

Thompson lists a number of people who expressed foreknowledge of the crime – Milteer, Jarnagin and Cheramie, and uses them as examples of the fact that they “hardly” constitute evidence of a coup d’etat. There are other examples of foreknowledge – that do lead to national security levels of government, that Thompson doesn’t mention.

Thompson believes, “The source of the conspiracy would appear, based on current research, to be either the anti-Castro Cubans or the Mafia. That we still don’t know who the assassins were is certainly true. But at least our basic evidence is credible, and therefore points in the direction in which Warren Commission critics need to be focusing their research…and if we further judge other coup d’etat ‘evidence’ as either irrelevant or too vague to be of any value, then we must conclude that the coup d’etat or state crime theory of the assassination is not particularly credible.”

Now Thompson can go research what he wants, but I propose to flip this contention and propose the hypothesis that because the assassination was not just a conspiracy, but a full-fledged coup d’etat, it was an “inside job” and is thus easier to solve. Certainly our suspects are limited if the President was killed by the people who took over the government, since we know who they are.

I accept Salandria’s hypothesis on the assassination being an “inside job” of the “national security state,” and take up E. Martin Schotz’s challenge that, “The honest person should be able to put his hands easily on material that shows that the ‘theory’ that there was a conspiracy is not a theory at all. It is a proven fact. And no one, no how, and no where, can unprove such a fact. (The fact that the honest person may not be able to easily put his hands on such material is the really profound failure of the ‘critical community.’”

It is my contention that the evidence is there, and can be located by any independent investigator, both at the street level of the homicide as well as the in the corridors of the “high cabal.”

xxxyyyzzz

[Jack White]

Excellent, Bill. I agree.

Jack

[Guest Mark Valenti]

It is my contention that the evidence is there, and can be located by any independent investigator, both at the street level of the homicide as well as the in the corridors of the “high cabal.”

xxxyyyzzz

I think your work on the Collins connection is a perfect example. People move about and leave a trail.

MV

[Thomas Graves]

JFK Assassination - Renegade Assassins or Full Fledged Coup d’etat ?– By Bill Kelly

Once it is accepted that what happened at Dealey Plaza was a covert intelligence operation, and foreign sponsorship is discounted, then the question becomes whether this operation was conducted by a renegade cell of a domestic network or was a full fledged coup d’etat.

This issues was addressed in a series of essays in the Dr. Jerry Rose’s Fourth Decade Journal beginning with Ken Thompson’s “Coup d’etat – A Critique” [May, 1998, Vol. 5, #4], and two followup articles, “Coup d’etat – A Response” by Christopher Sharrett [sept. 98, Vol. 5 #6] and Thompson’s comeback, “A Further Critique,” [Vol. 6, #2].

In his primary essay, Ken Thompson criticizes the models of the assassination that, like Vincent Salandria’s hypothesis of the “Transparent Conspiracy,” portray the murder as a “high cabal” or “coup d’etat,” which Thompson considers illogical because of magnitude and logistical problems in the planning stages.

As Christopher Sharrett points out in his response, Thompson’s critique is “deeply problematical,” because his points must be overcome as an initial hurdle before one can prove that the assassination was a full fledged coup d’etat, name those responsible for the crime and attempt to hold them legally responsible.

First off, Thompson’s “Definition and Preconditions Of A Coup d’etat” are

wrong. Thompson uses Britannica, “Coup - …the sudden, violent overthrow of an existing government by a small group. The chief perquisite for a coup is control of all or part of the armed forces, the police and the other military elements.”

I prefer Webster: “Coup -stroke, blow, a sudden, successful move or action, a brilliant stroke, a clever stratagem, a sudden, forceful overthrow of a government.”

Then Thompson muddies up the waters by bringing in Edward Litwack, whose handbook “Coup d’etat – A Practical Handbook,” is banned in most Latin American countries since it provides a “How To” manual for the taking over of a governments in Third World countries. Thompson himself, admits that the assassination of President Kennedy, if it was a coup, was a non-traditional coup, though one, I might add, not without historical precedent, as both Warren Harding and William McKinnley were assassinated in coups of similar stratagems.

I would like to address some of the issues that Thompson raises :

- “Logistical Problems. Mobilizing one’s forces without arousing suspicion would have been a colossal challenge.” They did arouse suspicion. Everyone was suspicious. All – everyone of JFK’s close advisors asked him not to go to Dallas. The alarms went off, the question should be, why didn’t the watch dogs bark?

- “How could their plan ever be kept secret from the eyes and ears of Big Brother?” It wasn’t They Are Big Brother.

- “Dirty tricks is one thing but murder is quite outside the bounds of legitimacy.” Quite so, and they murder as a matter of policy, routinely, they did it before Dealey Plaza – ie. Henry Marshall, and they’ve done it since, many times. They are, in a sense, serial killers.

- “A planned coup would have been detected by ethical people in any number of government departments.” It was and many tried to do the right thing, and in the future, many more will be asked to make the same decisions.

- “Imagine the petty bickering about the plan’s details, the rivalries, the massive communications network, the lengthy payroll of such an enterprise.” The MO, modus operandi was that of a Covert Intelligence Operation and handled like a military maneuver, those involved got orders, were not asked advice. The communications network was extensive [see “The Tale of the Tapes”] and the lengthy payroll of the enterprise was quickly made up in government contracts to the tune of many millions of dollars funneled through Collins Radio, Bell Hell and the Catherwood Foundation, just to name three of the conduits used.

- “According to the coup d’etat theory…the conspirators selected the TSBD…because…Oswald would be in proximity to one of the real shooters, a necessary requirement for a later frame up.” The JFK assassination is the only example known to history in which the victim is not stalked, but comes to his killer, one of the reasons why a logical investigator would suspect high level involvement. If not Oswald, other patsies were available.

- “A failed attempt would guarantee enhanced future protection sufficient to preclude a second chance.” Not only that, but if Jackie had pulled JFK down on her lap after the non-fatal first shot, he not only would have survived, but it would not have been a coup, LBJ would still be VP, and one by one, they would have fallen – pawn, patsy, gunmen, lawyers,…..and JFK’s guys would have rounded them all up and LBJ would have been sent to jail, not only for attempted murder, but for murder for Henry Marshall and for all the Billie Sole stuff.

In his follow up article Thompson is not convinced by Sharratt’s logic and reason, but persists in projecting the assassination as a “small group of conspirators enlisting the aid of a couple of gunmen, one of whom is set up to be a guilty patsy…conspirators who were both unsophisticated and outside the established political system.”

Thompson lists a number of people who expressed foreknowledge of the crime – Milteer, Jarnagin and Cheramie, and uses them as examples of the fact that they “hardly” constitute evidence of a coup d’etat. There are other examples of foreknowledge – that do lead to national security levels of government, that Thompson doesn’t mention.

Thompson believes, “The source of the conspiracy would appear, based on current research, to be either the anti-Castro Cubans or the Mafia. That we still don’t know who the assassins were is certainly true. But at least our basic evidence is credible, and therefore points in the direction in which Warren Commission critics need to be focusing their research…and if we further judge other coup d’etat ‘evidence’ as either irrelevant or too vague to be of any value, then we must conclude that the coup d’etat or state crime theory of the assassination is not particularly credible.”

Now Thompson can go research what he wants, but I propose to flip this contention and propose the hypothesis that because the assassination was not just a conspiracy, but a full-fledged coup d’etat, it was an “inside job” and is thus easier to solve. Certainly our suspects are limited if the President was killed by the people who took over the government, since we know who they are.

I accept Salandria’s hypothesis on the assassination being an “inside job” of the “national security state,” and take up E. Martin Schotz’s challenge that, “The honest person should be able to put his hands easily on material that shows that the ‘theory’ that there was a conspiracy is not a theory at all. It is a proven fact. And no one, no how, and no where, can unprove such a fact. (The fact that the honest person may not be able to easily put his hands on such material is the really profound failure of the ‘critical community.’”

It is my contention that the evidence is there, and can be located by any independent investigator, both at the street level of the homicide as well as the in the corridors of the “high cabal.”

xxxyyyzzz

_____________________________________________

Bill,

I'm just "nitpicking" here:

"The JFK assassination is the only example known to history in which the victim is not stalked, but comes to his killer..."

What about Operation Anthropoid in Prague? (Ironacally (?) and FWIW, it also involved a near-hairpin turn.)

Sincerely, Thomas

____________________________________________

[Thomas Graves]

JFK Assassination - Renegade Assassins or Full Fledged Coup d’etat ?– By Bill Kelly

Once it is accepted that what happened at Dealey Plaza was a covert intelligence operation, and foreign sponsorship is discounted, then the question becomes whether this operation was conducted by a renegade cell of a domestic network or was a full fledged coup d’etat.

This issues was addressed in a series of essays in the Dr. Jerry Rose’s Fourth Decade Journal beginning with Ken Thompson’s “Coup d’etat – A Critique” [May, 1998, Vol. 5, #4], and two followup articles, “Coup d’etat – A Response” by Christopher Sharrett [sept. 98, Vol. 5 #6] and Thompson’s comeback, “A Further Critique,” [Vol. 6, #2].

In his primary essay, Ken Thompson criticizes the models of the assassination that, like Vincent Salandria’s hypothesis of the “Transparent Conspiracy,” portray the murder as a “high cabal” or “coup d’etat,” which Thompson considers illogical because of magnitude and logistical problems in the planning stages.

As Christopher Sharrett points out in his response, Thompson’s critique is “deeply problematical,” because his points must be overcome as an initial hurdle before one can prove that the assassination was a full fledged coup d’etat, name those responsible for the crime and attempt to hold them legally responsible.

First off, Thompson’s “Definition and Preconditions Of A Coup d’etat” are

wrong. Thompson uses Britannica, “Coup - …the sudden, violent overthrow of an existing government by a small group. The chief perquisite for a coup is control of all or part of the armed forces, the police and the other military elements.”

I prefer Webster: “Coup -stroke, blow, a sudden, successful move or action, a brilliant stroke, a clever stratagem, a sudden, forceful overthrow of a government.”

Then Thompson muddies up the waters by bringing in Edward Litwack, whose handbook “Coup d’etat – A Practical Handbook,” is banned in most Latin American countries since it provides a “How To” manual for the taking over of a governments in Third World countries. Thompson himself, admits that the assassination of President Kennedy, if it was a coup, was a non-traditional coup, though one, I might add, not without historical precedent, as both Warren Harding and William McKinnley were assassinated in coups of similar stratagems.

I would like to address some of the issues that Thompson raises :

- “Logistical Problems. Mobilizing one’s forces without arousing suspicion would have been a colossal challenge.” They did arouse suspicion. Everyone was suspicious. All – everyone of JFK’s close advisors asked him not to go to Dallas. The alarms went off, the question should be, why didn’t the watch dogs bark?

- “How could their plan ever be kept secret from the eyes and ears of Big Brother?” It wasn’t They Are Big Brother.

- “Dirty tricks is one thing but murder is quite outside the bounds of legitimacy.” Quite so, and they murder as a matter of policy, routinely, they did it before Dealey Plaza – ie. Henry Marshall, and they’ve done it since, many times. They are, in a sense, serial killers.

- “A planned coup would have been detected by ethical people in any number of government departments.” It was and many tried to do the right thing, and in the future, many more will be asked to make the same decisions.

- “Imagine the petty bickering about the plan’s details, the rivalries, the massive communications network, the lengthy payroll of such an enterprise.” The MO, modus operandi was that of a Covert Intelligence Operation and handled like a military maneuver, those involved got orders, were not asked advice. The communications network was extensive [see “The Tale of the Tapes”] and the lengthy payroll of the enterprise was quickly made up in government contracts to the tune of many millions of dollars funneled through Collins Radio, Bell Hell and the Catherwood Foundation, just to name three of the conduits used.

- “According to the coup d’etat theory…the conspirators selected the TSBD…because…Oswald would be in proximity to one of the real shooters, a necessary requirement for a later frame up.” The JFK assassination is the only example known to history in which the victim is not stalked, but comes to his killer, one of the reasons why a logical investigator would suspect high level involvement. If not Oswald, other patsies were available.

- “A failed attempt would guarantee enhanced future protection sufficient to preclude a second chance.” Not only that, but if Jackie had pulled JFK down on her lap after the non-fatal first shot, he not only would have survived, but it would not have been a coup, LBJ would still be VP, and one by one, they would have fallen – pawn, patsy, gunmen, lawyers,…..and JFK’s guys would have rounded them all up and LBJ would have been sent to jail, not only for attempted murder, but for murder for Henry Marshall and for all the Billie Sole stuff.

In his follow up article Thompson is not convinced by Sharratt’s logic and reason, but persists in projecting the assassination as a “small group of conspirators enlisting the aid of a couple of gunmen, one of whom is set up to be a guilty patsy…conspirators who were both unsophisticated and outside the established political system.”

Thompson lists a number of people who expressed foreknowledge of the crime – Milteer, Jarnagin and Cheramie, and uses them as examples of the fact that they “hardly” constitute evidence of a coup d’etat. There are other examples of foreknowledge – that do lead to national security levels of government, that Thompson doesn’t mention.

Thompson believes, “The source of the conspiracy would appear, based on current research, to be either the anti-Castro Cubans or the Mafia. That we still don’t know who the assassins were is certainly true. But at least our basic evidence is credible, and therefore points in the direction in which Warren Commission critics need to be focusing their research…and if we further judge other coup d’etat ‘evidence’ as either irrelevant or too vague to be of any value, then we must conclude that the coup d’etat or state crime theory of the assassination is not particularly credible.”

Now Thompson can go research what he wants, but I propose to flip this contention and propose the hypothesis that because the assassination was not just a conspiracy, but a full-fledged coup d’etat, it was an “inside job” and is thus easier to solve. Certainly our suspects are limited if the President was killed by the people who took over the government, since we know who they are.

I accept Salandria’s hypothesis on the assassination being an “inside job” of the “national security state,” and take up E. Martin Schotz’s challenge that, “The honest person should be able to put his hands easily on material that shows that the ‘theory’ that there was a conspiracy is not a theory at all. It is a proven fact. And no one, no how, and no where, can unprove such a fact. (The fact that the honest person may not be able to easily put his hands on such material is the really profound failure of the ‘critical community.’”

It is my contention that the evidence is there, and can be located by any independent investigator, both at the street level of the homicide as well as the in the corridors of the “high cabal.”

xxxyyyzzz

____________________________________________

Double post. Sorry.

--Thomas

____________________________________________

Edited September 16, 2006 by Thomas Graves

[William Kelly]

Bill,

I'm just "nitpicking" here:

"The JFK assassination is the only example known to history in which the victim is not stalked, but comes to his killer..."

What about Operation Anthropoid in Prague? (Ironacally (?) and FWIW, it also involved a near-hairpin turn.)

Sincerely, Thomas

____________________________________________

Thomas, Are you refereing to the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand and the start of WWI?

If so, that motorcade is a good example, however while not being familair with the details, the assassins didn't live or work on the motorcade route, they still had to go there and wait and stalk the target, and didn't rely on one attack but had more than one attack lined up in case the first one failed.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

BK

[Frank Agbat]

Thomas, Are you refereing to the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand and the start of WWI?

If so, that motorcade is a good example, however while not being familair with the details, the assassins didn't live or work on the motorcade route, they still had to go there and wait and stalk the target, and didn't rely on one attack but had more than one attack lined up in case the first one failed.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

BK

Bill,

Operation Anthropoid was the plot that resulted in the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich in Prague during WWII. It involved Czech resistance and British agents, if memory serves me correctly. The car was poorly escorted (Heydrich was in a hurry), and had to make a sharp corner near a bus station. One of the assailants jumped into the road to open fire. The gun jammed, but the car was forced to stop. Another resistance fighter got a grenade into the car which caused fatal wounds to Heydrich.

[William Kelly]

Thomas, Are you refereing to the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand and the start of WWI?

If so, that motorcade is a good example, however while not being familair with the details, the assassins didn't live or work on the motorcade route, they still had to go there and wait and stalk the target, and didn't rely on one attack but had more than one attack lined up in case the first one failed.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

BK

Bill,

Operation Anthropoid was the plot that resulted in the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich in Prague during WWII. It involved Czech resistance and British agents, if memory serves me correctly. The car was poorly escorted (Heydrich was in a hurry), and had to make a sharp corner near a bus station. One of the assailants jumped into the road to open fire. The gun jammed, but the car was forced to stop. Another resistance fighter got a grenade into the car which caused fatal wounds to Heydrich.

So, Is this an example of the victim coming to his stationary - positioned assassin?

BK

[Robert Howard]

It has been said regarding the Kennedy Assassination, that there is a ton of circumstantial evidence establishing there was a conspiracy regarding 11/22/63, but that there are no smoking guns.

My response to that sentence is that, there were smoking guns of various type's which have since that day, been destroyed, are missing or, the individuals who could have revealed their knowledge of the assassination,were murdered.

Example: July 24, 1963 [or thereafter] Lake Ponchartrain Training Camp film discovered at Georgetown Univesity cited by Robert Tannenbaum, which later "disappeared" ostensibly included Lee Oswald, Allen Dulles, David Atlee Phillips and David Ferrie assembled all in one place.......That Ruby and Oswald, [and a few 'false Oswald's; one Jack Ruby had known since 1955, with a tatoo on his arm] were in part of a loop that involved David Ferrie, the DPD, JBS, Edwin Walker, the intelligence agencies and Ruth and Michael Paine and certain members of the White Russian Community [including DeMohrenschildt, and George Bouhe.]

Robert Tannenbaum stated to the AARB: There's no Republican/Democratic way to analyze evidence. So, in the compromise of what the Congress does, as it was designed by the Constitution, you can't compromise on a criminal investigation. That is to say, it's okay if we tell the American people 70 percent of the truth, but they can't handle the other 30 percent. And that gets me back to what his Honor said with respect to classified material. I don't believe that -- and this is from my own experience and during a period time in the homicide bureau in New York County, I was responsible for thousands of homicide regrettably that occurred on the streets of Manhattan on a yearly basis -- that some people I don't believe are injected with gold in their veins and stamp a document top secret or secret or otherwise, and therefore it should remain that way in perpetuity and we poor John Doe Americans are unable to look at them. Not with the track record I will say with respect to those individuals at that time who were in the executive intelligence agencies with that record of deceit and deception. It is a said commentary, and it's heartbreaking for me to have seen it. And its the primary reason why Richard Sprague and I left.The reason was I wanted the Committee to go forward."

Serious researchers are the only ones who are educated about the subject, the dis-informationist's Hall of Shame - Schiller, Aynesworth, Belin, Specter, Posner are the other side and we are at a proverbial dis-advantage knowing they are literally parrots or mouthpieces for what the government want's people to think, it's called Manufacturing Consent In a sense we are both playing to an audience that has already made up its mind about, who are the bad guy's and vice-versa.

In that 43 subsequent years we have all known there is a damn big rat in the National Archives eating the most damning and incriminating documents WE know of. The FBI seized a smoking gun of sorts from Hale Bogg's Collection at Tulane several years ago, according to Joan Mellen's AFTJ.

THE GOOD NEWS is that the current dillema for the Bush Administration, Neocon, Fiddling while Rome burn's crowd is that the American people are [finally] catching on to the fact that THEY CANNOT TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT ANYTHING, which segues back to the beginning, in this case Iran-Contra because that's when the neo-con's began to take control.

There was nothing good about 11/22/63. But in the aftermath; the legacy regarding American Public Opinion, there is the saving grace that the American people are good at knowing when they are being lied to, they knew in 1963 when the investigation was burying the truth, just as they know it now.

IMO Until all the pieces are fitted together, it is simply speculative as to whether the assassination was a literal coup 'd etat, or an act of violently removing a President from Power who was seen by some strata of the right in American society [and in Washington, i.e. hands of power, intelligence agencies] as taking America into [their fantasy perception] one world, communistic government. The irony is that to those left of a very far right America at the moment, we probably feel like the far right did in 1963, but the last comment is simply an opinion.

It's time to put the final pieces of the puzzle together, gentlemen.

Edited September 17, 2006 by Robert Howard