Was Jackie a CIA Mole?

[Saintly Oswald]

I don't expect any positive reviews for this idea, but I think it should be considered. If the establishment elite saw Joe Kennedy grooming his son for the job he himself had wanted, but could never have, might they not have become concerned that a man of such wealth, ambition and arrogance might eventually get his way? What if this John Kennedy does become president? How will we deal with that? These people consider the CIA to be their own militia and intelligence organization, and they plant moles wherever they might be needed. William Greer was probably such a mole, the kid from Ireland who goes right to work for the establishment elite and somehow ends up assigned to the presidential yacht in WW2, and spends most of his time in FDR's White House. Did Greer handle any of FDR's food, I wonder? And, George De Mohrenschildt was certainly in with this crowd, doing favors for the CIA and being paid with juicy business deals. Jackie's family was also in with this crowd, and she even knew De Mohrenschildt from when she was a child. Is it so unthinkable that she might have taken a job in this private government and have been assigned to keep an eye on John Firepants Kennedy? I recently heard some taped interview from the Camelot days where the interviewer said something like, "You really do love him so!" And Jackie respond, extravagantly, "No, not really...Oh, I said 'No,' didn't I?" Does someone in love ever joke like that? This, on some ABC softball piece, was said to be her favorite picture of Jack, the B&W photo. It bears an eerie resemblance to the photo there I inserted, don't you think? https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-zkkJrUUBZNs/UIpgqzOGiWI/AAAAAAAAAYY/YHDejenbtv4/s719/A1stLadysFavoritePicture2.jpg I am sensing an evil presence in this upper class privileged gal whom JFK took as a wife because he didn't want voters to think he was a fag. How much love could there have been there?

[Anthony Marsh]

Why wait that long? Why not kill him in a plane crash? Why not bomb him
at church before he can get sworn in?

[Saintly Oswald]

Why not do what they did? After all, they got away with it.

[Saintly Oswald]

I didn't really mean to post this topic here. I thought I was in the
sillier group. Not that I'm not being serious, but this crowd here is so
reactionary, that I didn't plan it that way. Anyway, the establishment
elite probably don't go around killing prominent people lightly. Maybe JFK
would turn out to be a tolerable president. Maybe they could manipulate
him. Maybe the people would come to hate him. Why kill somebody before it
is necessary? Also, it takes time to get your ducks all in a row. There
may have been other considerations. Perhaps a healthy Joe Kennedy was to
be feared. Perhaps LBJ needed to be brought along. Perhaps LBJ needed
somebody else to be brought along. Perhaps Jackie needed to be brought
along. Even if she had been a mole, she might not have wanted to kill him.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/28/2012 11:20 AM, Saintly Oswald wrote:
> I didn't really mean to post this topic here. I thought I was in the
> sillier group. Not that I'm not being serious, but this crowd here is so
> reactionary, that I didn't plan it that way. Anyway, the establishment
> elite probably don't go around killing prominent people lightly. Maybe JFK
> would turn out to be a tolerable president. Maybe they could manipulate
> him. Maybe the people would come to hate him. Why kill somebody before it
> is necessary? Also, it takes time to get your ducks all in a row. There
> may have been other considerations. Perhaps a healthy Joe Kennedy was to
> be feared. Perhaps LBJ needed to be brought along. Perhaps LBJ needed
> somebody else to be brought along. Perhaps Jackie needed to be brought
> along. Even if she had been a mole, she might not have wanted to kill him.
>
>

Maybe they learned from the Bay of Pigs and Cuban Missile Crisis that
they couldn't control him and that he was a security risk who almost
started WWIII.

[Saintly Oswald]

Until I mentioned it here, I never gave much thought to Joe Kennedy
regarding the assassination. Of course, he had suffered a stroke in late
1961 and was incapacitated at the time of the assassination. That was
quite a lucky break for the conspirators. Imagine what a capable Joe
Kennedy might have done when his son the president had been murdered! That
could have been very messy. Yes, it was a lucky thing for the conspirators
that he had a debilitating stroke. Damn lucky.

[Saintly Oswald]

On Sunday, October 28, 2012 10:31:25 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 10/28/2012 11:20 AM, Saintly Oswald wrote:
>
> > I didn't really mean to post this topic here. I thought I was in the
>
> > sillier group. Not that I'm not being serious, but this crowd here is so
>
> > reactionary, that I didn't plan it that way. Anyway, the establishment
>
> > elite probably don't go around killing prominent people lightly. Maybe JFK
>
> > would turn out to be a tolerable president. Maybe they could manipulate
>
> > him. Maybe the people would come to hate him. Why kill somebody before it
>
> > is necessary? Also, it takes time to get your ducks all in a row. There
>
> > may have been other considerations. Perhaps a healthy Joe Kennedy was to
>
> > be feared. Perhaps LBJ needed to be brought along. Perhaps LBJ needed
>
> > somebody else to be brought along. Perhaps Jackie needed to be brought
>
> > along. Even if she had been a mole, she might not have wanted to kill him.
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
> Maybe they learned from the Bay of Pigs and Cuban Missile Crisis that
>
> they couldn't control him and that he was a security risk who almost
>
> started WWIII.

I don't think you or me or anybody else can always be absolutely sure of everything that might have motivated Oswald or others that could have been involved.

[Saintly Oswald]

The establishment elite may have learned from the Bay Of Pigs invasion and the Cuban Missile Crisis that they couldn't control JFK, but could they have reasonably concluded that he had almost started WW3? I know there are some who believe that the Cuban Missile Crisis developed as a result of continued attempts on Castro's life, but it seems more likely that the Soviet Union was more interested in countering the threat of US missiles in Turkey and Italy pointed at them. These missiles were deployed during the Kennedy administration, however the decision to deploy them was taken in 1959, during the Eisenhower presidency, and can anybody really believe that the establishment elite opposed these deployments? It seems to me that Kennedy was instrumental in avoiding nuclear war by agreeing to remove those missiles, contrary to the wishes of much of the establishment elite. The failure to support the Bay of Pigs invasion might have been viewed as a blunder by this crowd which allowed the Missile Crisis to develop, I suppose, but it seems very contorted reasoning to me to argue that JFK brought us to the brink of WW3 by failing to invade the sovereign nation of Cuba. His mistake was letting the establishment elite execute the plan at all. If anybody brought us to the brink of nuclear war, it was JFK's murderers, and JFK brought us back. The proof is in the deal. What did the Soviets want? Our missiles out of Turkey and Italy and a promise not to invade Cuba, the reversal of the establishment elite's own policies. Maybe they decided to kill him because they couldn't control him and he *avoided* WW3.

On Sunday, October 28, 2012 10:31:25 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/31/2012 1:56 PM, Saintly Oswald wrote:
> The establishment elite may have learned from the Bay Of Pigs invasion and the Cuban Missile Crisis that they couldn't control JFK, but could they have reasonably concluded that he had almost started WW3? I know there are some who believe that the Cuban Missile Crisis developed as a result of continued attempts on Castro's life, but it seems more likely that the Soviet Union was more interested in countering the threat of US missiles in Turkey and Italy pointed at them. These missiles were deployed during the Kennedy administration, however the decision to deploy them was taken in 1959, during the Eisenhower presidency, and can anybody really believe that the establishment elite opposed these deployments? It seems to me that Kennedy was instrumental in avoiding nuclear war by agreeing to remove those missiles, contrary to the wishes of much of the establishment elite. The failure to support the Bay of Pigs invasion might have been viewed as a blunder by this crowd which all
owed th
e Missile Crisis to develop, I suppose, but it seems very contorted reasoning to me to argue that JFK brought us to the brink of WW3 by failing to invade the sovereign nation of Cuba. His mistake was letting the establishment elite execute the plan at all. If anybody brought us to the brink of nuclear war, it was JFK's murderers, and JFK brought us back. The proof is in the deal. What did the Soviets want? Our missiles out of Turkey and Italy and a promise not to invade Cuba, the reversal of the establishment elite's own policies. Maybe they decided to kill him because they couldn't control him and he *avoided* WW3.
>

Your time frame is off. The Castro assassination attempts started in 1960
under and approved by Eisenhower. The Soviet Union did not attempt to put
nuclear missiles in Cuba in 1961 in reaction to the Castro assassination
plots. What sparked them was a combination of things in 1961 under
Kennedy. The Bay of Pigs invasion. The Soviets felt that they needed to
protect Cuba from US invasion. Thus the insertion of Russian jets and
tactical nuclear missiles. When the US put nuclear missiles in Italy and
Turkey Khrushchev decided to put nuclear missiles in Cuba to offset the US
missiles in Italy and Turkey. They were reacting to a threat by the US.

Kennedy considered those missiles in Turkey to be obsolete and had already
ordered them to be taken out BEFORE the Cuban Missile Crisis. But the
military was dragging its feet. Kennedy only took them out after the Cuban
Missile Crisis as a concession to get the Soviets to remove their missiles
from Cuba. And he promised that the US would not invade Cuba. The military
saw this as Kennedy backing down and a sign of weakness. He rejected their
plans to bomb and invade Cuba. The CIA knew that during the Cuban Missile
Crisis Kennedy was on drugs and they considered his judgement reckless and
impaired. They removed him as a security risk.

The people who almost sparked WWIII were the loose talkers and hoaxers who
claimed that Oswald was working for Fidel Castro. Most people do not
remember that WWI was started by the assassination of a head of state.
Assassination is a CASUS BELLI. I would suggest that you read the
Operation Northwoods documents and the plans for Operation AMWORLD on Dec.
1, 1963.

[Saintly Oswald]

My time frame is not off. I was referring to the assertion made by some that continuing attempts by the JFK administration to kill Castro were what caused the CMC. Most of the rest of what you said is what I said, except for JFK being on drugs, and the fact that I unite the CIA and the military under the "establishment elite" umbrella. It is an annoying characteristic of yours that you must tell people that they are wrong even when you agree with them. I mean, we disagree on so much, anyway, there's no need to fabricate disagreements.

You need not run your "JFK was on drugs" program. I am aware of that. But, could you tell me what judgements in particular did the "CIA," as you put it, consider to be the reckless products of JFK's drug-addled brain? What was it that JFK did in the Bay of Pigs invasion which caused the CIA, as you say, to murder him?

[Saintly Oswald]

I do hope that you will respond to each one of my posts separately. It's
not often that I get a live one.

Regarding your assertion that the CIA decided to "remove" JFK as a security
risk, I assume that this means you think the CIA at least had a hand in
killing him. Am I right about that? Surely, you have heard the name Rip
Robertson, one so learned as you. Is that not dear old Rip standing on Houston
Street tipping his hat to Kellerman and Greer?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6b8awLUL5bU&feature=plcp

If you agree, is it really so hard to believe that Kellerman and Greer
were in on the "removal," or was Rip just saying "hi?"

[Saintly Oswald]

And your timeline about who almost sparked WW3, while not wrong, is different than mine. I was talking about the Cuban Missile Crisis, not the assassination. The CMC was a result of Cold War hawkish policies which predated the Kennedy administration. It was the "drug-addled security risk" JFK's changing of those policies which brought us back from the brink. As for the post-assassination Castro rumors, those may have been genuine attempts to make trouble, but I think they were probably intended as inducement to Earl Warren and others to cover up the removal process. LBJ in a phone call to Richard Russell bragged about how he had Warren in tears saying he's do whatever LBJ wanted after waving the Oswald-In-Mexico evidence in his face. Very handy, those rumors.

On Saturday, October 27, 2012 12:32:01 PM UTC-4, Saintly Oswald wrote:

[Saintly Oswald]

Also, if the CIA "removed" JFK as a security risk by gunning him down on
Elm Street, how could they have been reasonably certain of getting away
with it? Could they be confident of being able to fool J. Edgar Hoover?
They didn't fool you. Wouldn't Hoover have been on top of this pretty
soon, if he hadn't already known in advance? And is LBJ just some big baby
who can be bamboozled so easily? They would have to know that they could
depend on Hoover and LBJ to cover up the removal. How could they know
that? And how do Kellerman and Greer end up taking cues from Rip
Robertson? Did Rip Just walk up to them one day and say, "How about we get
together and kill the guy you're supposed to protect?" It seems to me that
some kind of common authority is needed here, one that the CIA,the Secret
Service, J. Edgar Hoover and Lyndon Johnson would all respect. That
authority could have been Johnson himself, or it could have been the
oligarchy of the establishment elite.

[Saintly Oswald]

And that's probably why many nutters must hysterically deny all evidence
of a conspiracy; they understand that such a conspiracy must go at least
as high as Lyndon Johnson, and that is not acceptable.

But, if the CIA was acting out of a genuine concern that JFK was a
security risk, a dubious proposition itself, and the conspiracy goes
higher than the CIA, then is the CIA's motivation even relevant to the
conspiracy's motive? Isn't it the motive at the top of the power structure
which really says why this happened? If LBJ is the top, then JFK was
killed to keep LBJ out of prison and to make him president. If the
oligarchy is the top, then JFK was killed so that the oligarchy could take
control of the government through their stooge, LBJ.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/1/2012 3:31 PM, Saintly Oswald wrote:
> Also, if the CIA "removed" JFK as a security risk by gunning him down on
> Elm Street, how could they have been reasonably certain of getting away
> with it? Could they be confident of being able to fool J. Edgar Hoover?

Easy. By blaming it on Castro. Make it too dangerous to investigate.

> They didn't fool you. Wouldn't Hoover have been on top of this pretty

So what if they didn't fool me? I don't matter. They fooled Hoover and
LBJ. Hoover was such a moron that he really thought that Castro hired
Oswald to kill the President for $6,500.

> soon, if he hadn't already known in advance? And is LBJ just some big baby
> who can be bamboozled so easily? They would have to know that they could
> depend on Hoover and LBJ to cover up the removal. How could they know
> that? And how do Kellerman and Greer end up taking cues from Rip
> Robertson? Did Rip Just walk up to them one day and say, "How about we get
> together and kill the guy you're supposed to protect?" It seems to me that
> some kind of common authority is needed here, one that the CIA,the Secret
> Service, J. Edgar Hoover and Lyndon Johnson would all respect. That
> authority could have been Johnson himself, or it could have been the
> oligarchy of the establishment elite.
>

You don't need to recruit Greer and Kellerman. Just assign the oldest
and most incompetent SS agent on duty to drive the car.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/1/2012 3:30 PM, Saintly Oswald wrote:
> And your timeline about who almost sparked WW3, while not wrong, is different than mine. I was talking about the Cuban Missile Crisis, not the assassination. The CMC was a result of Cold War hawkish policies which predated the Kennedy administration. It was the "drug-addled security risk" JFK's changing of those policies which brought us back from the brink. As for the post-assassination Castro rumors, those may have been genuine attempts to make trouble, but I think they were probably intended as inducement to Earl Warren and others to cover up the removal process. LBJ in a phone call to Richard Russell bragged about how he had Warren in tears saying he's do whatever LBJ wanted after waving the Oswald-In-Mexico evidence in his face. Very handy, those rumors.
>
>

Not handy. A planned hoax to short circuit the investigation.
You also left out another factor. Polaris. We didn't need those obsolete
missiles in Turkey. Kennedy had already ordered them to be removed.

History and development

The Polaris missile replaced an earlier plan to create a submarine-based
missile force based on a huge surfaced submarine carrying four "Jupiter"
missiles, which would be carried and launched horizontally. This Navy
"Jupiter" missile is not to be confused with the U.S. Army Jupiter
Intermediate-range ballistic missile. At Edward Teller's prompting,[1]
the Navy's "Jupiter" missile plans were abandoned in favor of the much
smaller, solid-fuel-propelled Polaris.

Originally, the Navy favored cruise missile systems in a strategic role
as deployed on the earlier USS Grayback, but a major drawback of these
early cruise missile launch systems (and the Jupiter proposals) was the
need to surface, and remain surfaced for some time, to launch.
Submarines were very vulnerable to attack during launch, and a fully or
partially fueled missile on deck was a serious hazard. Rough weather was
another major drawback for these designs, but rough sea conditions did
not unduly affect Polaris launches.

It quickly became apparent solid-fueled ballistic missiles had
advantages over cruise missiles in range and accuracy, and unlike both
Jupiter and cruise, were able to be launched from a submerged submarine,
improving submarine survivability.

The prime contractor for all three versions of Polaris was Lockheed, now
Lockheed Martin.

The Polaris program started development in 1956. The USS George
Washington, the first US missile submarine, successfully launched the
first Polaris missile from a submerged submarine on July 20, 1960. The
A-2 version of the Polaris missile was essentially an upgraded A-1, and
it entered service in late 1961. It was fitted on a total of 13
submarines and served until June 1974.(1). Ongoing problems with the
W-47 warhead, especially with its mechanical arming and safing
equipment, led to large numbers of the missiles being recalled for
modifications, and the U.S. Navy sought a replacement with either a
larger yield or equivalent destructive power. The result was the W-58
warhead used in a "cluster" of three warheads for the Polaris A-3, the
final model of the Polaris missile.
Polaris A-3

This missile replaced the earlier A-1 and A-2 models in the US Navy, and
also equipped the British Polaris force. The A-3 had a range extended to
2,500 nautical miles (4,630 km) and a new weapon bay housing three Mk 2
re-entry vehicles (ReB or Re-Entry Body in US Navy and British usage);
and the new W-58 warhead of 200 kt yield. This arrangement was
originally described as a "cluster warhead" but was replaced with the
term Multiple Re-Entry Vehicle (MRV). The three warheads were spread
about a common target and were not independently targeted (such as a
MIRV missile is). The three warheads were stated to be equivalent in
destructive power to a single one-megaton warhead. Later the Polaris A-3
missiles (but not the ReBs) were also given limited hardening to protect
the missile electronics against electromagnetic pulse effects while in
the boost phase. This was known as the A-3T ("Topsy") and was the final
production model.
Polaris A-1
Polaris A-1 on launch pad in Cape Canaveral

The first version, the Polaris A-1, had a range of 1000 nautical miles
(1853 km) and a single Mk 1 re-entry vehicle, carrying a single W-47-Y1
600 kt nuclear warhead, with an inertial guidance system which provided
a Circular error probable (CEP) of 1800 meters (6000 ft). The two-stage
solid propellant missile had a length of 28.5 ft (8.69 m), a body
diameter of 54 in (1.37 m), and a launch weight of 28,800 lbs (13,090 kg).

The USS George Washington was the first fleet ballistic missile
submarine (SSBN in U.S. naval terminology) and she and all of the other
Polaris submarines carried 16 missiles. Forty more SSBNs were launched
in 1960 to 1966.

Work on its W47 nuclear warhead began in 1957 at the facility that is
now called the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory by a team headed
by Edward Teller and Harold Brown.[2] The Navy accepted delivery of the
first 16 warheads in July 1960. On May 6, 1962, a Polaris A-2 missile
with a live W47 warhead was tested in Operation Dominic in the central
Pacific Ocean, the only American test of a live strategic nuclear missile.

The two stages were both steered by thrust vectoring. Inertial
navigation guided the missile to about a 900 m (3,000 foot) CEP,
insufficient for use against hardened targets. They were mostly useful
for attacking dispersed military surface targets (airfields or radar
sites), clearing a pathway for heavy bombers, although in the general
public perception Polaris was a strategic second-strike retaliatory
weapon.[citation needed]

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/1/2012 3:30 PM, Saintly Oswald wrote:

> I do hope that you will respond to each one of my posts separately. It's
> not often that I get a live one.
>
> Regarding your assertion that the CIA decided to "remove" JFK as a security
> risk, I assume that this means you think the CIA at least had a hand in
> killing him. Am I right about that? Surely, you have heard the name Rip

When I say CIA that is shorthand for the cover section of the CIA, the
dirty tricks department, the assasssination squad, DDP. Not the entire
CIA. Not the DCI. Not the analysts.

> Robertson, one so learned as you. Is that not dear old Rip standing on Houston
> Street tipping his hat to Kellerman and Greer?
>

No, Rip was not in Dallas that day. Neither was Angleton. Neither was
Hunt. Neither was Lansdale.

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6b8awLUL5bU&feature=plcp
>
> If you agree, is it really so hard to believe that Kellerman and Greer
> were in on the "removal," or was Rip just saying "hi?"
>

False premise.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/1/2012 3:29 PM, Saintly Oswald wrote:
> My time frame is not off. I was referring to the assertion made by some that continuing attempts by the JFK administration to kill Castro were what caused the CMC. Most of the rest of what you said is what I said, except for JFK being on drugs, and the fact that I unite the CIA and the military under the "establishment elite" umbrella. It is an annoying characteristic of yours that you must tell people that they are wrong even when you agree with them. I mean, we disagree on so much, anyway, there's no need to fabricate disagreements.
>

Yes. Your time frame is off. The Cuban Missile Crisis was sparked by the
US putting nuclear missiles in Turkey and Italy to give it a first
strike capability. It had nothing to do with Castro. Khrushchev put his
missiles in Cuba as a counter move.

> You need not run your "JFK was on drugs" program. I am aware of that. But, could you tell me what judgements in particular did the "CIA," as you put it, consider to be the reckless products of JFK's drug-addled brain? What was it that JFK did in the Bay of Pigs invasion which caused the CIA, as you say, to murder him?
>

You need to learn how to read English. I did not say that JFK made any
judgements that were impaired by his drug use. I said that the CIA
thought his judgement had been impaired by the drug use. Do you really
not understand the difference between my telling you what someone else
thought and what I think myself?
They thought he should nuke Cuba immediately.
Negotiation is a sign of weakness to them.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/1/2012 10:54 PM, Saintly Oswald wrote:
> And that's probably why many nutters must hysterically deny all evidence
> of a conspiracy; they understand that such a conspiracy must go at least
> as high as Lyndon Johnson, and that is not acceptable.
>

LBJ was not involved in the conspiracy.

> But, if the CIA was acting out of a genuine concern that JFK was a
> security risk, a dubious proposition itself, and the conspiracy goes
> higher than the CIA, then is the CIA's motivation even relevant to the

The conspiracy went no higher than the CIA.

> conspiracy's motive? Isn't it the motive at the top of the power structure
> which really says why this happened? If LBJ is the top, then JFK was
> killed to keep LBJ out of prison and to make him president. If the
> oligarchy is the top, then JFK was killed so that the oligarchy could take
> control of the government through their stooge, LBJ.
>

Your plot is too confusing. In almost any government there are competing
factions.

[Saintly Oswald]

On Thursday, November 1, 2012 11:02:58 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 11/1/2012 3:29 PM, Saintly Oswald wrote:
>
> > My time frame is not off. I was referring to the assertion made by some that continuing attempts by the JFK administration to kill Castro were what caused the CMC. Most of the rest of what you said is what I said, except for JFK being on drugs, and the fact that I unite the CIA and the military under the "establishment elite" umbrella. It is an annoying characteristic of yours that you must tell people that they are wrong even when you agree with them. I mean, we disagree on so much, anyway, there's no need to fabricate disagreements.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Yes. Your time frame is off. The Cuban Missile Crisis was sparked by the
>
> US putting nuclear missiles in Turkey and Italy to give it a first
>
> strike capability. It had nothing to do with Castro. Khrushchev put his
>
> missiles in Cuba as a counter move.

I believe that's exactly what I said. The Cuban Missile Crisis was
precipitated by the US policy of putting missiles in Turkey and Italy, a
policy I say which is supported by the oligarchy, which of course, you did
not say.

>
>
>
> > You need not run your "JFK was on drugs" program. I am aware of that. But, could you tell me what judgements in particular did the "CIA," as you put it, consider to be the reckless products of JFK's drug-addled brain? What was it that JFK did in the Bay of Pigs invasion which caused the CIA, as you say, to murder him?
>
> >
>
>
>
> You need to learn how to read English. I did not say that JFK made any
>
> judgements that were impaired by his drug use. I said that the CIA
>
> thought his judgement had been impaired by the drug use. Do you really
>
> not understand the difference between my telling you what someone else
>
> thought and what I think myself?

If you re-read my comment, you will see that I accused you of no such
thing. I asked you what the CIA considered to be the reckless products of
his drug-addled brain.

>
> They thought he should nuke Cuba immediately.
>
> Negotiation is a sign of weakness to them.

OK. So, you're saying that the CIA murdered Kennedy because he recklessly,
in their view, refused to nuke Cuba. I just want to understand what you're
saying.

[Saintly Oswald]

Could you please provide the evidence of Robertson's whereabouts on that
date? I don't like to be saying things that are not true, and if he was
not in Dallas, I need to correct myself.

[Saintly Oswald]

On Thursday, November 1, 2012 11:02:09 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 11/1/2012 3:30 PM, Saintly Oswald wrote:
>
> > And your timeline about who almost sparked WW3, while not wrong, is different than mine. I was talking about the Cuban Missile Crisis, not the assassination. The CMC was a result of Cold War hawkish policies which predated the Kennedy administration. It was the "drug-addled security risk" JFK's changing of those policies which brought us back from the brink. As for the post-assassination Castro rumors, those may have been genuine attempts to make trouble, but I think they were probably intended as inducement to Earl Warren and others to cover up the removal process. LBJ in a phone call to Richard Russell bragged about how he had Warren in tears saying he's do whatever LBJ wanted after waving the Oswald-In-Mexico evidence in his face. Very handy, those rumors.
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
> Not handy. A planned hoax to short circuit the investigation.

Yes, I agree. If you don't mind my saying so. But I don't think LBJ fell
for somebody else's hoax.

[Saintly Oswald]

On Thursday, November 1, 2012 11:01:18 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 11/1/2012 3:31 PM, Saintly Oswald wrote:
>
> > Also, if the CIA "removed" JFK as a security risk by gunning him down on
>
> > Elm Street, how could they have been reasonably certain of getting away
>
> > with it? Could they be confident of being able to fool J. Edgar Hoover?
>
>
>
> Easy. By blaming it on Castro. Make it too dangerous to investigate.
>
>
>
> > They didn't fool you. Wouldn't Hoover have been on top of this pretty
>
>
>
> So what if they didn't fool me? I don't matter. They fooled Hoover and
>
> LBJ. Hoover was such a moron that he really thought that Castro hired
>
> Oswald to kill the President for $6,500.

Hoover was arrogant and corrupt, but he was not a moron. Hoover was sharp.
Same for LBJ, and they were old friends.

[Saintly Oswald]

What you call the CIA in this context is a part of what I call the
oligarchy of the establishment elite, and that is very similar to what
Eisenhower called the Military Industrial Complex. Ike also included a
congressional component to the Complex in the original draft of his
speech. That beast, whatever you want to call it, is what killed the
president, and they did so because he wouldn't play their game. LBJ would
play their game. He got to where he was by playing their game. JFK got a
ride in his daddy's car to get to where he was. He didn't care about their
game until he realized that it ran the government.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/2/2012 9:15 PM, Saintly Oswald wrote:
> What you call the CIA in this context is a part of what I call the
> oligarchy of the establishment elite, and that is very similar to what
> Eisenhower called the Military Industrial Complex. Ike also included a
> congressional component to the Complex in the original draft of his
> speech. That beast, whatever you want to call it, is what killed the
> president, and they did so because he wouldn't play their game. LBJ would
> play their game. He got to where he was by playing their game. JFK got a
> ride in his daddy's car to get to where he was. He didn't care about their
> game until he realized that it ran the government.
>

You can lump everything together and call them the Illuminati for all I
care. But you miss the internecine dynamics.

[Saintly Oswald]

The internecine dynamics, like the details of the various missile
programs, are important and I am glad that those who find these details
particularly fascinating do study them. However, I think the existence of
this oligarchy is not generally recognized, so I prefer to emphasize it as
an entity, and not bog down the reader, or myself, with details which seem
more appropriate for study after the recognition of superstructure of the
thing is established.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/2/2012 8:36 PM, Saintly Oswald wrote:
> On Thursday, November 1, 2012 11:01:18 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 11/1/2012 3:31 PM, Saintly Oswald wrote:
>>
>>> Also, if the CIA "removed" JFK as a security risk by gunning him down on
>>
>>> Elm Street, how could they have been reasonably certain of getting away
>>
>>> with it? Could they be confident of being able to fool J. Edgar Hoover?
>>
>>
>>
>> Easy. By blaming it on Castro. Make it too dangerous to investigate.
>>
>>
>>
>>> They didn't fool you. Wouldn't Hoover have been on top of this pretty
>>
>>
>>
>> So what if they didn't fool me? I don't matter. They fooled Hoover and
>>
>> LBJ. Hoover was such a moron that he really thought that Castro hired
>>
>> Oswald to kill the President for $6,500.
>
>
> Hoover was arrogant and corrupt, but he was not a moron. Hoover was sharp.
> Same for LBJ, and they were old friends.
>

Hoover was a certified moron. Look at all the stupid things he said on
the tape. The only way he rose to be the director was by blackmailing
politicians.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/2/2012 8:34 PM, Saintly Oswald wrote:

> Could you please provide the evidence of Robertson's whereabouts on that
> date? I don't like to be saying things that are not true, and if he was
> not in Dallas, I need to correct myself.
>

I didn't say where else he was, but he wasn't in Dallas that day.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/2/2012 8:31 PM, Saintly Oswald wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, November 1, 2012 11:02:58 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 11/1/2012 3:29 PM, Saintly Oswald wrote:
>>
>>> My time frame is not off. I was referring to the assertion made by some that continuing attempts by the JFK administration to kill Castro were what caused the CMC. Most of the rest of what you said is what I said, except for JFK being on drugs, and the fact that I unite the CIA and the military under the "establishment elite" umbrella. It is an annoying characteristic of yours that you must tell people that they are wrong even when you agree with them. I mean, we disagree on so much, anyway, there's no need to fabricate disagreements.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes. Your time frame is off. The Cuban Missile Crisis was sparked by the
>>
>> US putting nuclear missiles in Turkey and Italy to give it a first
>>
>> strike capability. It had nothing to do with Castro. Khrushchev put his
>>
>> missiles in Cuba as a counter move.
>
> I believe that's exactly what I said. The Cuban Missile Crisis was
> precipitated by the US policy of putting missiles in Turkey and Italy, a
> policy I say which is supported by the oligarchy, which of course, you did
> not say.
>
>

I don't mind if you analyze all history through Marxist glasses, but it
is more complicated than that.

>>
>>
>>
>>> You need not run your "JFK was on drugs" program. I am aware of that. But, could you tell me what judgements in particular did the "CIA," as you put it, consider to be the reckless products of JFK's drug-addled brain? What was it that JFK did in the Bay of Pigs invasion which caused the CIA, as you say, to murder him?
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> You need to learn how to read English. I did not say that JFK made any
>>
>> judgements that were impaired by his drug use. I said that the CIA
>>
>> thought his judgement had been impaired by the drug use. Do you really
>>
>> not understand the difference between my telling you what someone else
>>
>> thought and what I think myself?
>
> If you re-read my comment, you will see that I accused you of no such
> thing. I asked you what the CIA considered to be the reckless products of
> his drug-addled brain.
>

And I told you what the CIA thought. Then you pretend that is what I
thought.
I would suggest you buy and read Mary's Mosaic.
JFK was screwing and doing LSD with Mary Cord Meyer who was a close
friend of and agent for James Jesus Angleton.

>>
>> They thought he should nuke Cuba immediately.
>>
>> Negotiation is a sign of weakness to them.
>
> OK. So, you're saying that the CIA murdered Kennedy because he recklessly,
> in their view, refused to nuke Cuba. I just want to understand what you're
> saying.
>

No, that is not MY theory. My theory is it was because JFK was going to
fire Helms and Helms got him first.

[Saintly Oswald]

I thought you said the CIA killed JFK because they thought he was a security risk, but I must have misunderstood. You now say the CIA killed him because Helms thought JFK was going to fire him. Do I understand you now?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/3/2012 3:47 PM, Saintly Oswald wrote:
> The internecine dynamics, like the details of the various missile
> programs, are important and I am glad that those who find these details

The missile programs are not internecine dynamics. Please learn English if
you want to debate in English. In any ruling class thee are going to be
competing interests and faction each with their own agenda. Read Carl
Oglesby's book The Yankee and Cowboy War.

[rolly...@hotmail.com]

Of course it is true. See, when Greer worked at the WH during WW2,
Eleanor, who was a communist mole, brainwashed him and turned him into a
zombie. He was a sleeper, so in 1963, she commanded him to enchant Jackie
with his manly prowess. During thier love making Greer brainwashed Jackie
by using a secret Tibetan chant. You will notice, in the Zapruder film,
Jackie lurching forward as if she is looking into his face. What she
infact did was shoot him, with a derringer loaded wih a bullet coated with
garlic juice, in the throat. Right after this Greer, in front of everyone,
shot JFK in the right temple, then he continued to drive as if nothing
happened. Tricky fellow. Also, if you look really closely to the left of
Abraham Zapruder and his secretary, you will see FBI Director Hoover
giving CIA Director McCone a hand job.