more than one

[Randy Downs]

Over the years i've heard various reasons from average people on why JFK was killed. And i find it interesting to ponder: why not all of them?

I mean, the MIC has a serious problem with him 'cause he's trying to avoid war -well no wars means $0 in the profits of (building and destroying) war machines and support services.

His mistrust of the CIA and wanting to put a leash on them. Which directly effects the fortunes and actvities of certain persons in power there.

Someone else says it's because he was -not sure i'm wording this correctly- going to eliminate an oil depletion allowance rule. Bottom line, another set of people high on wealth and power will lose millions and millions of dollars. And another person (though i don't read this one very often, for some reason i've only come across written about in very few places) says it's 'cause he's going to put the dollar back on the gold standard so our bits of paper will actualy be backed up/based upon something of actual value.

And then there's the "betrayed Cubans" and the backlash/backfire of the Castro hit squad. I belive the definitive story of the Bay of Pigs is in "The Invisible Government" by David Wise. Wherein are minute details that somehow don't make it into the popular version of that fiasco. Though i will defer to some of our wiser scholars on that. The point being, JFK didn't lie or betray anybody back then.

I'm not saying all these disparete groups got together and had a meeting. But why not a sort of common confluence where the key players of (some) these groups realize that they all share a common solution to their problems? And where otherwise these groups have naught in commone with each other.

Not like, "Hey let's all whack the president", but a more nuanced, "If the president were gone, that solves my problem, and their problem, and their problem.." A word gets whispered here, and then there.

Anyway, it's not something i can remember being talked about, but i find it interesting as an idle speculation.

And it kind of makes sense why the suspect field becomes so huge and a bit confusing.

Just a thought.

Regards,

Randy

[Guest Stephen Turner]

"Who will rid me of this turbulant priest" Randy I believe that there are two distinct acts to this play, The assassination, and the cover up. I think it quite likely that Kennedys finacial enemies were responsible for the coup de grace. (with planning and balistic help from military/ cia officers) And his political enemies who, guessing what had happened, and finding it suited their purpose, covered it up, the Coup d etat.

[Jack White]

Over the years i've heard various reasons from average people on why JFK was killed. And i find it interesting to ponder: why not all of them?

I mean, the MIC has a serious problem with him 'cause he's trying to avoid war -well no wars means $0 in the profits of (building and destroying) war machines and support services.

His mistrust of the CIA and wanting to put a leash on them. Which directly effects the fortunes and actvities of certain persons in power there.

Someone else says it's because he was -not sure i'm wording this correctly- going to eliminate an oil depletion allowance rule. Bottom line, another set of people high on wealth and power will lose millions and millions of dollars. And another person (though i don't read this one very often, for some reason i've only come across written about in very few places) says it's 'cause he's going to put the dollar back on the gold standard so our bits of paper will actualy be backed up/based upon something of actual value.

And then there's the "betrayed Cubans" and the backlash/backfire of the Castro hit squad. I belive the definitive story of the Bay of Pigs is in "The Invisible Government" by David Wise. Wherein are minute details that somehow don't make it into the popular version of that fiasco. Though i will defer to some of our wiser scholars on that. The point being, JFK didn't lie or betray anybody back then.

I'm not saying all these disparete groups got together and had a meeting. But why not a sort of common confluence where the key players of (some) these groups realize that they all share a common solution to their problems? And where otherwise these groups have naught in commone with each other.

Not like, "Hey let's all whack the president", but a more nuanced, "If the president were gone, that solves my problem, and their problem, and their problem.." A word gets whispered here, and then there.

Anyway, it's not something i can remember being talked about, but i find it interesting as an idle speculation.

And it kind of makes sense why the suspect field becomes so huge and a bit confusing.

Just a thought.

Regards,

Randy

Randy...your idea coincides with mine. In history it is called

A CONCERT OF IDEAS...many people/groups with the same

objective. But it had to have leadership/initiators/approvers.

Thus the diverse groups were brought together by the cronies

of LBJ (business, oil, politics, military, mafia, Hoover, Dulles,

etc.) even though NO ONE of the group would have acted

alone. There is strength in numbers. A mob is bolder than any

individual.

Jack

[Terry Adams]

Steve,

It seems that you are you of the opinion that LBJ, and Hoover (as well as others) only participated after the fact. I feel very strongly that Johnson was in this from the very onset, or at least was brought into it very early on, and eagerly gave his blessings. I personally think that LBJ said that he would love to have this problem (JFK) go away, and found many who were eager to help. Would like to hear your thoughts.

Terry

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Steve,

It seems that you are you of the opinion that LBJ, and Hoover (as well as others) only participated after the fact. I feel very strongly that Johnson was in this from the very onset, or at least was brought into it very early on, and eagerly gave his blessings. I personally think that LBJ said that he would love to have this problem (JFK) go away, and found many who were eager to help. Would like to hear your thoughts.

Terry

Hi Terry. Its a concept I have been considering for some time, (far from resolved in my mind though)It will probably be easier for me to lay it out in a seperate thread, rather than take this one too far off topic. in a nutshell, I believe the Hunts(Murchison, Brown et al) provided the funding, and the setting, certain members of Military intel, possibly under the urging of the JCS, provided the plan, and shooters, and elements within the CIA provided the patsy. Johnsons telephone calls with Hoover, a few days after the assassination, seem to me like two men desperately trying to figure out what happened, and slowly turning it to their own advantage. Steve.

[Charles Black]

Hello Stephen

I tend to disagree with you on one major aspect of

the assassination.....that being the roles of JBJ and JEH !

I place absolutely no value in "any" recorded conversations of LBJ and JEH. These conversations were not covertly recorded. They absolutely knew their words were being recorded, therefore they can be considered as having no more true validity than a pre-scripted "announcement". They knew what was being recorded and what message that that they were sending. It was after the fact "propaganda" and a part of the cover.

Since I believe the occurrance in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63, to be nothing less than a fully orchestrated Coup d' Etat, which of course insured who and what was to be the new leadership, I feel it very naive to even suggest that the new leadership which was necessary to provide the cover up, was not the MOST important part of the original planning.

Why change a government unless you are "fully assured" of what will follow. The new order would not have been left to chance. The conspiracy was for the reason of satisfying certain monetary, personal and military interests which could only be assured with the REMOVAL of JFK and his REPLACEMENT

by successors with those same exact interests.

Besides this, I don't feel that it would have been at all difficult to enlist the support of JEH and LBJ since they were both "assured" of losing much if JFK were re-elected in 1964. The re-election of Kennedy assured at least their political and public deaths....and possibly much more.

I feel therefore that the words and actions of both JFK and LBJ were "nesessarily" pre scripted. They were, in my absolute opinion, the most important aspects of the Coup. The were not merely cogs in a gear....they were the non slip axle upon which everything else was dependent.

Without the support of JEH and LBJ, the only guaranteed success would have been a military coup with the establishment of immediate martial law.

This type of U.S. unrest would have very likely led to Soviet agression against the "severely weakened" United States.

The Coup was planned to "advance" certain interests. Not to plunge the U.S. into any type of conflict that would DENY those interests.

AS far as two separate plans...I disagree ! IMHO, the "getaway" car is a part of an overall plan of the bank robbery. NOTHING is left to Chance !

Charlie Black

[Charles Black]

Sorry folks. I "double posted" !

Charlie Black

Edited October 30, 2006 by Charles Black

[Randy Downs]

2 things were widely known (especialy to those in the real power structure) that LBJ really didn't like Kennedy and he was one of most crooked, corrupt persons in the history of our political structure. I would be surprised if he had any in depth knowledge of the key players - if only for the simple reason that if i were one of the key players i wouldn't trust him to keep his big yap shut. I'm sure he was glad to be part of the process -his name goes down in the history books, any/all investigations relating to him are shut down, and he made millions of dollars.

Some pieces of information appear frequently, others appear here and there, and some you only read/hear about once or twice. This falls into the latter, at least for me: That the attack helicopter (Sikorsky?) was specificaly invented for the Vietnam War, said helicopter being exclusively built by Bell Helicopter. Of course for every one that went down, another was bought to replace it. I believe the total number of choppers bought was in the ten thousands range. Who was the major shareholder in Bell Helicopter then? Mrs. LBJ.

Both Anthony Summers and Athan Theoharis (seperately) wrote outstanding -and fascinating- books on Hoover. With his "do-not-file" file system (one has to admit that was clever), and having blackmail material on either everyone in the Congress or the Senate (i forget which one, sorry). Which i found both amazing and really sad. (Makes you wish he was spying for us). Warren initialy turned down LBJ's offer to head the Comission, that's common knowledge. What's not so common is that Hoover also had blackmail material on Warren. And after a phone call with Hoover, Warren called LBJ saying he changed his mind and he'll head the commission out of a sense of duty and patriotism or whatnot.

You know, if they'd taught us real history in school, i'd never miss a day of class.

As i muse further on this "concert of ideas", i realize that ultimately this idea leads to the Deep Politics system described/explained by Peter Scott. No fanfare revelation, i just found that interesting.

Regards,

Randy