If the CIA was involved at all, in any way...

[Cliff Varnell]

What you and Ashton Gray don't get is that the Kennedy assassination was a failure.

Well, Cliff, he looked fairly dead to me.

You might want to get a second opinion.

Ashton

I have to agree with Ashton on this.

The mugs who shot him really blew it.

Yes, they blew it when they didn't gun Oswald down before he could

be captured alive & proclaim his innocence.

For those familiar with Operation Northwoods, the Joint Chiefs required any

anti-Castro false flag operation to be able to submit "irrevocable proof" of

Castro's involvement.

On the afternoon of 11/22/63, Hoover was prepared to produce "proof" that

Oswald had been to Cuba.

But you knew that, right, Sid?

You are familiar with false flag operations?

If ALL they wanted to do was end JFK's life, it would have been much

easier and far less expensive to kill him in his sleep at his girlfriend's

house.

That was well within the capability of Helms/Angleton et al.

But that wasn't the idea, just to assassinate JFK.

The goal was to pin it on Castro, hence the sheep-dipped Oswald, etc.

43 years is a short time in politics.

I have a new policy, Sid: I don't discuss this aspect of the case with anyone

who hasn't read Larry Hancock's SOMEONED WOULD HAVE TALKED.

Have you read this crucial book, Sid?

If not, we're wasting each other's time.

I do make one exception to my policy: Ashton Gray, because he's soooo much

fun to fence with!

Edited February 13, 2007 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

What you and Ashton Gray don't get is that the Kennedy assassination was a failure.

Well, Cliff, he looked fairly dead to me.

You might want to get a second opinion.

Ashton

The last time I looked, Fidel Castro was still alive.

The Commies still run Cuba.

If you have any information to the contrary, Ashton, do share it.

Otherwise, I'll stand by my argument that the killing of Kennedy

failed in its primary objective -- to provide the pre-text for an invasion

of Cuba.

Edited February 13, 2007 by Cliff Varnell

[Michael Hogan]

What you and Ashton Gray don't get is that the Kennedy assassination was a failure.

Well, Cliff, he looked fairly dead to me.

You might want to get a second opinion.

Ashton seems to be dominating the phrases. His invitations have been telling and his touches are consistently on target in this thread. As a relative newcomer versus the wily veteran, Ashton seems to be holding his own.

[Don Jeffries]

Correct. What you and Ashton Gray don't get is that the Kennedy assassination was

a failure. The express purpose of the assassination was to pin the crime on Castro

and establish a pre-text for an invasion of Cuba.

Okay, I'm really missing something here. The latest theory has it that JFK had authorized a coup attempt against Castro for December 1, 1963. If they already had JFK's approval, why did they assassinate him? I understand that this may not be your belief, so forgive me if it's not.

Oswald's capture deprived the plotters of the "irrevocable evidence" required to

justify the invasion to the world.

Other than Oswald's rather tenuous ties to communism, much of which was supplied by the suspect testimony of people like Kerry Thornley and George DeMohrenschildt, and that centered on his defection to Russia, not Cuba, what "irrevocable evidence" was there to tie the assassination to Castro? The "Fair Play For Cuba" pamphlets? And what did Oswald's death do to change anything? According to your theory, they were already planning to knock him off right after the assassination, but failed. So, they had to wait an extra two days, but were able to kill him then. Are you saying they canceled the overthrow attempt of Castro, which was the purpose of assassinating the president of the United States, because their patsy-already guilty in the eyes of the vast majority of Americans just by virtue of being arrested as the "alleged" assassin-was claiming he was innocent during his brief snippets of conversation in the halls of the police station? Unless I missed something, he never mentioned anything about a coup attempt of Castro, so what reason did they have to cancel it once they'd succeeded in silencing him via Jack Ruby?

Not only was there no invasion of Cuba afterwards, the "hard-liners" who supposedly were so offended by our Cuban policy that they conspired to murder a sitting U.S. president, virtually vanished into the dark corners of our society, never to be heard from again.

Tell that to the tens of thousands of Vietnamese slaughtered in Operation Phoenix.

Tell that to Bobby Kennedy. Tell that to Salvador Allende.

Tell it to all those heroin junkies and crack heads hooked on the product those

"hard liners" helped import all those years.

I think you made my point for me. Vietnam was the main motive behind the assassination. Allende was just another victim of the CIA. Don't know what his connection to Cuba would be. I guess I should have used another phrase instead of "vanished." Many of these fellows- people like Richard Helms and Angleton- continued on in their nefarious ways. Certainly many of the names associated with the JFK assassination were involved in Operation Phoenix, the assassination of RFK and the overthrow of Allende. However, they certainly seem to have given up on any idea of toppling Castro after JFK was assassinated.

If Kennedy infuriated them, why weren't they incensed at Johnson, who did absolutely nothing to overthrow Castro?

The plotters blew it -- Johnson didn't. They couldn't hold LBJ responsible for the

failure to kill Oswald 11/22/63, could they?

Again, I don't understand how the failure to kill Oswald on November 22, instead of November 24, would have stopped any plans to overthrow Castro.

Killing JFK was a winner-take-all proposition, the success of which depended on

Oswald's quick demise. They failed. And thus their dreams of invading Cuba

died Firday afternoon when Oswald was captured.

If the sole intent was to merely end JFK's life, there were many ways to do it quietly.

The manner of JFK's execution speaks to its purpose.

There was apparently no purpose to his death, according to this theory, because the conspirators gained nothing from it.

How about Nixon, who would have really been in their camp in regards to toppling the Castro regime?

He did nothing as well.

You assume that the plotters were only anti-Castro Cubans?

It wasn't a "rogue operation" -- you didn't get that idea from me.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you invented the term "rogue elements." It's been a popular phrase amongst JFK assassination researchers for a long time.

He did nothing as well. Those "rogue" elements stayed around for quite some time in the CIA;

did they somehow lose their power after murdering JFK?

Sigh.

I never said anything about "rogue elements."

I'll argue that the origin of the plot was "rogue" in the sense that the operatives

came up with the idea, which was then pitched to their betters, instead of the other

way around.

While being powerless to actually overthrow Castro, after killing JFK, they somehow managed to orchestrate a coverup that has been so effective it is still in effect over 40 years later.

Wrong. The assassins didn't mange the cover-up.

The plot was designed to look like a conspiracy. Oswald-as-lone-nut was

a contingency plan.

Johnson and Hoover had foreknolwedge that the assassination was going to

occur -- they signed off on it. But they weren't the driving force behind the

assassination -- they were the driving force behind the cover-up.

Not the same operation.

I understand this theory about the coverup being seperate from the conspiracy, which is popular among many researchers now. However, it makes little sense to me. The mainstream media has always been an essential part of the coverup; why would they do this, only to protect a group of hard-line anti-Castro operatives? The New York Times, The Washington Post and the major television networks were never overtly unfriendly in their coverage of Castro. They'd have absolutely no motive to lie repeatedly-which is what they have done for over 40 years now- about the assassination of JFK, if the only ones benefiting from it were anti-Castro zealots and their backers in the CIA.

A coverup so effective that Peter Jennings-certainly no friend of anti-Castro forces-was compelled to lie his sorry butt off on a ridiculous, anti-conspiracy ABC 40th anniversary special. But then again, there are others who claim that JFK had agreed to an overthrow attempt of Castro on December 1, 1963, but was assassinated anyway by the same "rogue"

/quote]

Stop. I have made it abundantly clear in my prior posts that I do not

use the word "rogue" in the manner you ascribe to me.

Tell you what, pal, read Larry Hancock's SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TALKED,

and then we can have a polite discussion.

I apologize if I've mischaracterized anything in Larry's book, which I haven't read. I need to read it. I do respect all the good work he's done.

Otherwise, this is a waste of my time.

I hope you don't really mean that. Forums like this are for discussing divergent points of view. But, you're free to respond to whomever you want.

[Stan Wilbourne]

I grabbed the following from Debra Conway over at Lancer -- hope I'm not breaking any rules, but I think it is interesting.

Peter Dale Scott introduced the layers of covert scenarios, using the Kennedy assassination as an example this way:

Group 1 wants a certain president gone from office, before he can be reelected and make radical changes that move them from the control they have enjoyed and want to continue. They wish another person as president, one that could possibly be president for even more than 8 years. They feel this other person can either be controlled or is so corrupt he is already controlled.

So they find an enemy of the president (Group 2) and give them direction emotionally and physically toward their already strong desires to also get rid of this president (JFK) and his brother, the Attorney General, whom they hate.

Group 2 (Intelligence/Rightwing/Oil group) finds Group 3 (Anti-Castro Cubans) and give them direction emotionally and physically toward their already stong desires to get rid of this president. This group thinks they have it over Group 2 because the Attorney General is helping them with their cause against their enemy (Castro).

Group 3 is suspicious of Group 2 and sets up a patsy (same patsy created by Group 2) to not only be patsied but to blame the assassination on their other enemy. Two birds with one stone.

Group 1 is aware but has no plans to let Group 3's plan succeed. After the assassination, they drop Group 3 and follow through with the new president.

Group 2 moves on to greener pastures.

Group 3 is pissed and continues to try to blame the assassination on their other enemy (Castro).

Group 1 has moved on to greener pastures.

To me this makes a lot of sense. The most sense, actually.

Now, who is "Group One"?

[Cliff Varnell]

I need to read it.

Otherwise, this is a waste of my time.

I hope you don't really mean that. Forums like this are for discussing divergent points of view. But, you're free to respond to whomever you want.

I'm sorry, Don, there are other more interesting discussions.

If I may be so bold to say -- if you aren't studying SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TALKED

you're not studying the JFK assassination.

Edited February 13, 2007 by Cliff Varnell

[Peter McGuire]

I agree with Ashton Gray's assessment that "Cuba" was not the motive behind the assassination of JFK. For all intents and purposes, Cuba died as an American political issue along with JFK. Not only was there no invasion of Cuba afterwards, the "hard-liners" who supposedly were so offended by our Cuban policy that they conspired to murder a sitting U.S. president, virtually vanished into the dark corners of our society, never to be heard from again. If Kennedy infuriated them, why weren't they incensed at Johnson, who did absolutely nothing to overthrow Castro? How about Nixon, who would have really been in their camp in regards to toppling the Castro regime? He did nothing as well. Those "rogue" elements stayed around for quite some time in the CIA; did they somehow lose their power after murdering JFK? While being powerless to actually overthrow Castro, after killing JFK, they somehow managed to orchestrate a coverup that has been so effective it is still in effect over 40 years later. A coverup so effective that Peter Jennings-certainly no friend of anti-Castro forces-was compelled to lie his sorry butt off on a ridiculous, anti-conspiracy ABC 40th anniversary special. But then again, there are others who claim that JFK had agreed to an overthrow attempt of Castro on December 1, 1963, but was assassinated anyway by the same "rogue" elements for being insufficiently anti-Castro. Hmm. To say this makes no sense is an understatement, especially when those "rogue" forces were compelled to kill JFK for not being hard enough on Castro (when he had supposedly agreed to a coup against him in little over a week from then), yet not motivated enough to then carry out the coup against Castro themselves.

Imho, the many good researchers who continue to focus on "Cuba" and "anti-Castro forces," and the "Castro/Mob connection" to the JFK assassination, are looking at a smokescreen designed by the real conspirators to divert attention away from the primary motive for the assassination- which was our burgeoning war in Vietnam. We should be looking at the conspirators at the ground level, like Secret Service agents Emory Roberts, William Greer and Roy Kellerman. We can speculate about the motives of Angleton, Dulles, Helms, etc., all we want, but we have clear and obvious proof that Greer and Kellerman failed miserably on November 22, 1963, and were never punished for their complete lack of response, nor even questioned about the subject. As for Roberts, we have video proof that he called off an agent scheduled to run alongside the motorcade (Henry Rybka) and testimony that he called back agent Ready when he attempted to run towards the presidential limousine. They are all very suspect and should have been questioned rigorously by those "investigating" the assassination. We also know that presidential aide McGeorge Bundy told JFK's cabinet members, on the afternoon of the assassination, that there was "no conspiracy" and that the lone assassin had been apprehended. Bundy told them this from his position in Washington, D.C., only a few hours after Oswald was arrested, and when little about him was known (not to mention before any true investigation of the crime had been conducted). Bundy should have been confronted about this very suspicious behavior.

Keep up the good work, Ashton. Your posts are thought prokoving and entertaining.

Well written, Don.

[Pat Speer]

I agree with Ashton Gray's assessment that "Cuba" was not the motive behind the assassination of JFK. For all intents and purposes, Cuba died as an American political issue along with JFK. Not only was there no invasion of Cuba afterwards, the "hard-liners" who supposedly were so offended by our Cuban policy that they conspired to murder a sitting U.S. president, virtually vanished into the dark corners of our society, never to be heard from again. If Kennedy infuriated them, why weren't they incensed at Johnson, who did absolutely nothing to overthrow Castro? How about Nixon, who would have really been in their camp in regards to toppling the Castro regime? He did nothing as well. Those "rogue" elements stayed around for quite some time in the CIA; did they somehow lose their power after murdering JFK? While being powerless to actually overthrow Castro, after killing JFK, they somehow managed to orchestrate a coverup that has been so effective it is still in effect over 40 years later. A coverup so effective that Peter Jennings-certainly no friend of anti-Castro forces-was compelled to lie his sorry butt off on a ridiculous, anti-conspiracy ABC 40th anniversary special. But then again, there are others who claim that JFK had agreed to an overthrow attempt of Castro on December 1, 1963, but was assassinated anyway by the same "rogue" elements for being insufficiently anti-Castro. Hmm. To say this makes no sense is an understatement, especially when those "rogue" forces were compelled to kill JFK for not being hard enough on Castro (when he had supposedly agreed to a coup against him in little over a week from then), yet not motivated enough to then carry out the coup against Castro themselves.

Imho, the many good researchers who continue to focus on "Cuba" and "anti-Castro forces," and the "Castro/Mob connection" to the JFK assassination, are looking at a smokescreen designed by the real conspirators to divert attention away from the primary motive for the assassination- which was our burgeoning war in Vietnam. We should be looking at the conspirators at the ground level, like Secret Service agents Emory Roberts, William Greer and Roy Kellerman. We can speculate about the motives of Angleton, Dulles, Helms, etc., all we want, but we have clear and obvious proof that Greer and Kellerman failed miserably on November 22, 1963, and were never punished for their complete lack of response, nor even questioned about the subject. As for Roberts, we have video proof that he called off an agent scheduled to run alongside the motorcade (Henry Rybka) and testimony that he called back agent Ready when he attempted to run towards the presidential limousine. They are all very suspect and should have been questioned rigorously by those "investigating" the assassination. We also know that presidential aide McGeorge Bundy told JFK's cabinet members, on the afternoon of the assassination, that there was "no conspiracy" and that the lone assassin had been apprehended. Bundy told them this from his position in Washington, D.C., only a few hours after Oswald was arrested, and when little about him was known (not to mention before any true investigation of the crime had been conducted). Bundy should have been confronted about this very suspicious behavior.

Keep up the good work, Ashton. Your posts are thought prokoving and entertaining.

Well written, Don.

I hate to rain on anyone's parade here but there are a number of government documents relating to an assassination plot against Johnson, by anti-Castro Cubans, with Castro set-up as the fall guy. For this reason and others, Peter Dale Scott's scenario makes perfect sense. Johnson may have set them up and then betrayed them. His private statements of "Bobby tried to kill Castro but Castro got JFK first" could be classic misdirection designed to throw suspicion from himself, IMO.

There is the additional possibility that the CIA had planned a failed attack on Kennedy as a pretext for Second Naval Guerrilla, whatever, but that someone infiltrated it and made it the real deal. This is what Phillips alluded to late in life. This also makes sense, IMO. If you're the CIA and you know it's you're op that has gone awry, what would you do? You'd CYA and make the whole thing go away, burn the tapes etc. And then, if you're worth squat, you'd hire a few people to track down the infiltrators and waste them. This may have been what happened to Banister, Ferrie, Del Valle, Giancana, Rosselli, etc... Perhaps Santos Trafficante turned stoolie to the CIA and whacked the others to save himself.

Or maybe, just maybe, Rosselli and Harvey hatched a plan, designed to kill three birds with one stone from Marcello's shoe, JFK RFK and Castro. Only the brass at the CIA smelled a rat, refused to give the bona fides to the pre-fab stories coming out of the DRE, and convinced Johnson no retaliation was necessary against Castro.

In any event, however, I agree with Larry and Cliff. The invasion of Cuba was part of the plan.

[Dawn Meredith]

I agree with Ashton Gray's assessment that "Cuba" was not the motive behind the assassination of JFK. For all intents and purposes, Cuba died as an American political issue along with JFK.

Correct. What you and Ashton Gray don't get is that the Kennedy assassination was

a failure. The express purpose of the assassination was to pin the crime on Castro

and establish a pre-text for an invasion of Cuba.

Cliff I agree with you that this was ONE express purpose, but that it was "the " express purpose is your opinion. Kennedy was killed for many reasons. Trying to stand up to the CIA, plans to pull out of Viet Nam. I'd say those were pretty "express" reasons as well. And it was no "rogue" anything; this was the top of the top.

Dawn

ps Ashton:

Edited February 13, 2007 by Dawn Meredith

[Cliff Varnell]

Stan, did PDS write this before the release of the Operation Northwoods

documents in 2001 via James Bamford's BODY OF SECRETS?

I grabbed the following from Debra Conway over at Lancer -- hope I'm not breaking any rules, but I think it is interesting.

Peter Dale Scott introduced the layers of covert scenarios, using the Kennedy assassination as an example this way:

Group 1 wants a certain president gone from office, before he can be reelected and make radical changes that move them from the control they have enjoyed and want to continue. They wish another person as president, one that could possibly be president for even more than 8 years. They feel this other person can either be controlled or is so corrupt he is already controlled.

So they find an enemy of the president (Group 2) and give them direction emotionally and physically toward their already strong desires to also get rid of this president (JFK) and his brother, the Attorney General, whom they hate.

Group 2 (Intelligence/Rightwing/Oil group) finds Group 3 (Anti-Castro Cubans) and give them direction emotionally and physically toward their already stong desires to get rid of this president. This group thinks they have it over Group 2 because the Attorney General is helping them with their cause against their enemy (Castro).

Group 3 is suspicious of Group 2 and sets up a patsy (same patsy created by Group 2) to not only be patsied but to blame the assassination on their other enemy. Two birds with one stone.

Group 1 is aware but has no plans to let Group 3's plan succeed. After the assassination, they drop Group 3 and follow through with the new president.

Group 2 moves on to greener pastures.

Group 3 is pissed and continues to try to blame the assassination on their other enemy (Castro).

Group 1 has moved on to greener pastures.

To me this makes a lot of sense. The most sense, actually.

Now, who is "Group One"?

Edited February 13, 2007 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

I agree with Ashton Gray's assessment that "Cuba" was not the motive behind the assassination of JFK. For all intents and purposes, Cuba died as an American political issue along with JFK.

Correct. What you and Ashton Gray don't get is that the Kennedy assassination was

a failure. The express purpose of the assassination was to pin the crime on Castro

and establish a pre-text for an invasion of Cuba.

Cliff I agree with you that this was ONE express purpose, but that it was "the " express purpose is your opinion. Kennedy was killed for many reasons. Trying to stand up to the CIA, plans to pull out of Viet Nam. I'd say those were pretty "express" reasons as well. And it was no "rogue" anything; this was the top of the top.

Dawn

ps Ashton:

Of course it's my opinion, Dawn. And I'm not even 100% on it -- I'm 95%

convinced that JFK was murdered in a false flag operation designed to incite

a US military invasion of Cuba.

Have you read SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TALKED?

As I've argued in prior posts on this thread, there were a lot of individual

agendas served by killing Kennedy. But the one unifying agenda was to

overthrow Castro.

Do you think that Gen. Curtis LeMay gave a rat's ass about the bureaucratic

vulnerability of the CIA?

Do you think the anti-Castro Cubans involved gave a rat's ass about Vietnam?

And, again, if the goal was merely to end JFK's life why didn't they snuff him

in his sleep -- which would have been a hell of a lot easier than what transpired

in Dallas.

[Cliff Varnell]

Pat Speer:

In any event, however, I agree with Larry and Cliff. The invasion of Cuba was part of the plan.

Thanks for chiming in, Pat.

I'm following my own advice and re-reading SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TALKED.

The book deserves study -- and debating the merits of it with people

who haven't read it yet seems like a waste of time, imo.

http://www.larry-hancock.com/

Edited February 13, 2007 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

What you and Ashton Gray don't get is that the Kennedy assassination was a failure.

Well, Cliff, he looked fairly dead to me.

You might want to get a second opinion.

Ashton seems to be dominating the phrases. His invitations have been telling and his touches are consistently on target in this thread. As a relative newcomer versus the wily veteran, Ashton seems to be holding his own.

Michael,

The Parlor Game aspect of my discussions with Ashton are of fleeting interest.

Let me put the following into evidence, a passage from the Feb. 4 post by Robert Howard:

"A Letter to the American People...on the Unspeakable, by James W. Douglass"

Myron Billett was a messenger and go-between for Chicago Mafia don, Sam Giancana.

In January l968 Giancana asked Billett to make the arrangements for "a very important

meeting" between New York Mafia leader Carlo Gambino and some government

representatives. Billett set up the meeting at a motel in Apalachin, New York, the site

of an early l960s mob summit.

Billett said that at the meeting (which he attended) the three representatives of the CIA

and FBI asked Carlo Gambino if he would accept a $l million contract to assassinate

Martin Luther King. Billett recalled the exact words of Gambino's reply: "In no way would

I or the family get involved with you people again. You messed up the Cuba deal. You

messed up the Kennedy deal."

The CIA and FBI men said they would make "other arrangements" and departed.

This speaks to the failure of the JFK assassination. The "Cuba deal" got messed up.

How?

The patsy survived to proclaim his innocence, which destroyed the under-pinning

of the case against Castro.

[Pat Speer]

Pat Speer:

In any event, however, I agree with Larry and Cliff. The invasion of Cuba was part of the plan.

Thanks for chiming in, Pat.

I'm following my own advice and re-reading SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TALKED.

The book deserves study -- and debating the merits of it with people

who haven't read it yet seems like a waste of time, imo.

http://www.larry-hancock.com/

The original thread on Someone Would Have Talked is what drew me to this forum. It remains, I believe, the most viewed thread in the history of this forum, and is probably the most informative, with a number of us sharing information, and not just picking at each other. Anyone interested in the book, or the potential of this forum, should take a look at the books section and curl up for a few hours.

[Ashton Gray]

If the CIA was involved at all, in any way, in the Kennedy murder, it was not taking orders from, or acting in the exclusive interests of, or beholden to, or doing the bidding of, or reduced to a parity with, or in any way junior to:

• Texas oil men

• Texas politicians

• The Vice President of the United States

• Pro-Castro forces

• Anti-Castro forces

• Cubans

• Castro

• The Mafia, or any part thereof

So was the CIA involved or not?

Ashton Gray