Why were there no governmental cameras there the day that President JFK was shot?
i_tell_it_l...@yahoo.com
where they had a bunch of 'experts' going thru all the film that was
taken that fateful day. There sure were a lot of "What if's" and "if
they (those who had taken some film) had only done this" and "if they
had only done that". Much too much to my liking.......
Why didn't the GOVERNMENT have any cameras rolling that day? That
seems to speak more that maybe some part of the GOVERNMENT had
something to do with the hit - I think the CIA was mentioned by name.
The other possibility presented was maybe it was a "mob hit". Because
of how shabbily JFK and RFK had treated Marilyn Monroe. And that RFK
was getting a little too big for his britches anyway.
Yeah, why wasn't there GOVERNMENT there rolling film? I think I smell
conspiracy burning in the background.......... I don't think it was
the mob. I think it was the government. And maybe LBJ had something
to do with it?
x...@ntlworld.com
Jack Linthicum
I take it you were not alive in 1963. The government didn't use cameras
for Presidential events in 1963, they relied upon news organizations,
TV wasn't much and the usual stuff was getting off the plane and maybe
one shot on the trip to the place where the speech would be given.
People, even Presidents, were able to function without the constant eye
on them. Hard to believe, eh?
We used to call it freedom.
Grizzlie Antagonist
is supposed to be an anti-statist position -- but like just about all
libertarians, what he means by "libertarianism" and "anti-statism" is
that he wants to Run The State and Use The State to impose
libertarianism on the unwilling.
"Why were there no government cameras there?" indeed. The anti-statist
libertarian wanted more of them.
tomnln
He believes Secret Service Agent Hickey shot JFK.
If you have an interest in the subject, you can go here....
I have a Live Audio Chat Room on www.paltalk.com
Download & Use for FREE.
Once Logged on select Social Issues.
Scroll down to room called "Who Killed John F. Kennedy?"
I start between 8-9 pm e.s.t. EVERY NITE.
We can transfer files to one another Instantly.
ANY Exhibits of Evidence, ANY Testimony from WC/HSCA Volumes.
Look forward to seeing you there.
tomnln
"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153606076....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Grizzlie Antagonist
tomnln wrote:
> Pay no attention to Grizzlie.
> He believes Secret Service Agent Hickey shot JFK.
>
> If you have an interest in the subject, you can go here....
>
> I have a Live Audio Chat Room on www.paltalk.com
>
>
>
> Download & Use for FREE.
>
>
>
> Once Logged on select Social Issues.
>
> Scroll down to room called "Who Killed John F. Kennedy?"
>
>
>
> I start between 8-9 pm e.s.t. EVERY NITE.
>
>
>
> We can transfer files to one another Instantly.
>
>
>
> ANY Exhibits of Evidence, ANY Testimony from WC/HSCA Volumes.
>
>
>
> Look forward to seeing you there.
>
>
>
> tomnln
Why is it that every time you see me there, you never let me stay --
NUTSACK?
tomnln
"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153609431.8...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Grizzlie Antagonist
> Because you have the vocabulary of a Gutter Snipe.
WAAAA! Are You Too Fragile And Are Your Ears Too Delicate, Nutsack?
Grizzlie Antagonist
> On or about 22 Jul 2006 18:13:14 -0700, someone purporting to be
> "Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydso...@yahoo.com> felt it necessary to
> say:
>
> >tomnln wrote:
> >> Because you have the vocabulary of a Gutter Snipe.
> >
> >
> >WAAAA! Are You Too Fragile And Are Your Ears Too Delicate, Nutsack?
>
> accident and we ain't interested.
I'll just wait until your request disappears in six days, and then I
can forget that you ever made it.
Anthony Marsh
> i_tell_it_l...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> I saw a recent piece on one a TV channel (History, I think it was)
>> where they had a bunch of 'experts' going thru all the film that was
>> taken that fateful day. There sure were a lot of "What if's" and "if
>> they (those who had taken some film) had only done this" and "if they
>> had only done that". Much too much to my liking.......
>>
>> Why didn't the GOVERNMENT have any cameras rolling that day? That
>> seems to speak more that maybe some part of the GOVERNMENT had
>> something to do with the hit - I think the CIA was mentioned by name.
>> The other possibility presented was maybe it was a "mob hit". Because
>> of how shabbily JFK and RFK had treated Marilyn Monroe. And that RFK
>> was getting a little too big for his britches anyway.
>>
>> Yeah, why wasn't there GOVERNMENT there rolling film? I think I smell
>> conspiracy burning in the background.......... I don't think it was
>> the mob. I think it was the government. And maybe LBJ had something
>> to do with it?
>
> I take it you were not alive in 1963. The government didn't use cameras
> for Presidential events in 1963, they relied upon news organizations,
You don't know what you are talking about. There were several official
WH photographers. Stoughton usually took still photos, but also took
movies. One problem was that Stoughton on that day was kicked out his
normal place in the car behind the limousine.
> TV wasn't much and the usual stuff was getting off the plane and maybe
> one shot on the trip to the place where the speech would be given.
> People, even Presidents, were able to function without the constant eye
> on them. Hard to believe, eh?
>
Official WH photographers documented almost every minute of his
Presidency. Except Dealey Plaza. Coincidence?
Anthony Marsh
> I saw a recent piece on one a TV channel (History, I think it was)
> where they had a bunch of 'experts' going thru all the film that was
> taken that fateful day. There sure were a lot of "What if's" and "if
> they (those who had taken some film) had only done this" and "if they
> had only done that". Much too much to my liking.......
>
I agree.
> Why didn't the GOVERNMENT have any cameras rolling that day? That
Stoughton had been kicked out of his usual spot in the SS car.
black...@aol.com
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > I take it you were not alive in 1963. The government didn't use cameras
> > for Presidential events in 1963, they relied upon news organizations,
>
> You don't know what you are talking about.
"Cameras rolling". He's talking about moving images. Video was
completely impractical in Dealey, and there was no real need for film.
How much 16mm film do you think they wasted on shots of the back of the
limo as it drove from one place to another?
There were several official
> WH photographers. Stoughton usually took still photos, but also took
> movies.
See above.
One problem was that Stoughton on that day was kicked out his
> normal place in the car behind the limousine.
So they could slip in the Queen Mary?
>
> > TV wasn't much and the usual stuff was getting off the plane and maybe
> > one shot on the trip to the place where the speech would be given.
> > People, even Presidents, were able to function without the constant eye
> > on them. Hard to believe, eh?
> >
>
> Official WH photographers documented almost every minute of his
> Presidency.
Absolutely untrue. Do you know how much WH generated film footage of
JFK is at the Kennedy Library?
Except Dealey Plaza. Coincidence?
Ridiculous. Why would a non-complicit WH photographer attach any
significance to getting footage of one of THOUSANDS of intersections
the Prez drove through?
And as for news (I've worked in news for many years) there was NO
significant reason to have a film or video camera there. What, spend
several thousand 1963 dollars to set up a huge b/w video camera and
microwave link to get what? JFK whizzing by?
jimpgh2002
It was Bush's fault.
Logician
JFK was zonked on a cabinet full of drugs everyday, and his stance
drove everyone close to WWIII. The Secret Service (now retired
officials say) were terrified that he would mess up so badly that a
disaster would happen.
We now know also JFK had sex orgies everyday and was linked to the
Mafia.
There were a lot of influential people who wanted him gone.
One of many Kennedy drug links:
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=408&id=1282222002
"Newly-disclosed medical records covering the last eight years of
JFK's life showed he lived on a precarious balance of pain-killers,
anti-anxiety drugs, stimulants and sleeping pills, as well as hormones
, the New York Times reported yesterday. "
cdddraftsman
i_tell_it_l...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I saw a recent piece on one a TV channel (History, I think it was)
> where they had a bunch of 'experts' going thru all the film that was
> taken that fateful day. There sure were a lot of "What if's" and "if
> they (those who had taken some film) had only done this" and "if they
> had only done that". Much too much to my liking.......
>> Shish ! Be quite about that , this is supposed to be a conspiracy site , we don't >>mention overtly , the obvious implications . No government films , no conspiracy . The >>Government films where all turned off at precisely 12 :29 . One minute before , 63 >>assassins firing from 12 different locations , open fire and hit jfk with approx. 15 >>bullets . And That's Official
.
> Why didn't the GOVERNMENT have any cameras rolling that day? That
> seems to speak more that maybe some part of the GOVERNMENT had
> something to do with the hit - I think the CIA was mentioned by name.
> The other possibility presented was maybe it was a "mob hit". Because
> of how shabbily JFK and RFK had treated Marilyn Monroe. And that RFK
> was getting a little too big for his britches anyway.
>>I notice you use allot of words like maybe , I think if maybe . I think I think . You'll fit >>nicely in this group , we will seat you between the current Dean of Mumbo Jumbo , >>Ben't Holmes and his side kick tomln , he who gargles from the fountain of >>knowledge so well , it still baffles science . As far as rough sex with Ms. Jean , I love >>your speculative fumbling with weak evidence already , I could use more cannon >>fodder , such as yourself , your already on my radar screen for further salvoes . . >>Beware , it can get good , bad and ugly here , all at the same time . If you own hip >>waders , now is a good time to don them .
> Yeah, why wasn't there GOVERNMENT there rolling film? I think I smell
> conspiracy burning in the background.......... I don't think it was
> the mob. I think it was the government. And maybe LBJ had something
> to do with it?
>>I got the part about ' you don't think ' , is this a opening statement of intent , before >>further posting ? I like the ' Yeah ' part also , by any chance did you used to be a >>cheer leader for the ' Bull Run ' Bullshiters ? I smell something fishy also , could it be >>emenating from your post ? LBJ , of course , why didn't anyone else think of this >>first ? He had a body double in the motorcade , he being ensconced on the grassy >>knoll with Jgar feeding him ammo ! Boy , this is really fun ! Tom Lowry
David VP
Therefore, via this logic, because of the fact that no "Official Govt.
Film(s)" exist of those few seconds while JFK was riding through Dealey
Plaza -- this fact means that the CT-Kooks get to manufacture something
"fishy" out of this act of non-filming those few seconds in time. Is
that about it?
You seem to be indicating as much.
And the comment about "almost every minute of his Presidency" being
"documented" by WH cameramen is severely overstated (which you surely
realize as well).
There was absolutely nothing special or extraordinary about the
motorcade drive through Dallas that set it apart from any other
motorcade drive that JFK drove in during his 2-day Texas stay in
November 1963.
Are there any "Official Government Films" documenting every last second
of the Fort Worth motorcade to Carswell from the Hotel Texas?
Are there any such WH films that document every last second of JFK's
stay in San Antonio....or Houston?
If not....why aren't these other non-filmed motorcades and car trips
deemed "suspicious" in the eyes of CTers?
David VP
Bingo. You are absolutely correct.
This post reminded me of the (seeming) silliness -- IMHO anyway -- of
the local radio coverage of the Dallas motorcade. I always get a big
laugh when thinking about all of those radio "play-by-play" men (of
sorts) standing on the streets of Dallas, all along the motorcade drive
to the Trade Mart. And to do what exactly? -- Tell the Dallas RADIO
audience that JFK just passed by with his wife in the car. (LOL.)
Just seems -- useless, IMO.
I've talked with Robert Huffaker recently about that very issue re. the
radio coverage (of which Mr. Huffaker participated, of course, and
provided some riveting audio coverage after all hell broke loose).
And Bob told me that the JFK motorcade drive WAS, indeed, a very, very
big deal LOCALLY in Dallas. (Obviously it was, in that most of the
radio stations desired to provide AUDIO-only coverage of a good deal of
the drive through the city.)
But it wasn't a huge "Breaking News" event on a NATIONAL level at all.
To the nation as a whole, it was merely another of many motorcades
through many cities (worldwide) that Kennedy visited during his 1,037
days as President.
But, anyway, it always has struck me as pretty funny -- i.e., the
mental picture of an announcer telling us (without video, just on
radio) -- "Here comes the President....and there goes the
President....see ya".
In my view, it's akin to describing a colorful fireworks show ON RADIO
ONLY (which has been done too....which is another topic that brings on
much laughter as well -- "Oooh, a big BLUE one! If you radio listeners
could only be here to see this! Ahh!" .... LOL).
In retrospect, I'm certainly glad that Mr. Huffaker and those other
radio announcers were there to report the 11/22 events. Because the
resulting post-12:30 coverage is priceless.*
* = Not counting the KBOX "re-created" coverage of the
post-assassination bedlam. Not a bit of that KBOX stuff (e.g.,
"Something has happened in the motorcade route!" and "I can see Mrs.
Kennedy's pink suit; there's a Secret Service man spread-eagle over the
top of the car!") was done "Live" at all. It was all re-created in a
studio at a later date (which is something that still irks Huffaker to
this day, he told me).
More interesting info re. the KBOX 11/22/63 "re-creation" here:
tomnln
Apparently I have more respect for "your team mates" than you do.
Like I said "Gutter Snipe".
"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153617194.4...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153618515....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
YOU.
May GOD Grant you the Same level of Justice that you advocate for Others.
"Logician" <sa...@logicians.com> wrote in message
news:1153625765.4...@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
> "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> felt it necessary to say:
>
>>I was thinking of your Ally Jean & Other Women on this forum.
>>
>>Apparently I have more respect for "your team mates" than you do.
>>
>>Like I said "Gutter Snipe".
>
> discussion.
>
>>
>>http://whokilledjfk.net/
>>
>>
>>
>>"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "Official WH photographers documented almost every minute of his Presidency. Except Dealey Plaza. Coincidence?" <<<
>
>
> Therefore, via this logic, because of the fact that no "Official Govt.
> Film(s)" exist of those few seconds while JFK was riding through Dealey
> Plaza -- this fact means that the CT-Kooks get to manufacture something
> "fishy" out of this act of non-filming those few seconds in time. Is
> that about it?
>
No, but I'd like to hear your excuse for why Stoughton was kicked out of
his usual place in the SS car.
> You seem to be indicating as much.
>
> And the comment about "almost every minute of his Presidency" being
> "documented" by WH cameramen is severely overstated (which you surely
> realize as well).
>
> There was absolutely nothing special or extraordinary about the
> motorcade drive through Dallas that set it apart from any other
> motorcade drive that JFK drove in during his 2-day Texas stay in
> November 1963.
>
Only a couple of people knew that it would be anything special.
> Are there any "Official Government Films" documenting every last second
> of the Fort Worth motorcade to Carswell from the Hotel Texas?
>
Did I say films?
> Are there any such WH films that document every last second of JFK's
> stay in San Antonio....or Houston?
>
Did I say films?
> If not....why aren't these other non-filmed motorcades and car trips
> deemed "suspicious" in the eyes of CTers?
>
Why are all the other motorcades continuously photographed and not Dallas?
Grizzlie Antagonist
> I DID Remove it.
You removed it in THIS post, nutsack, but you hadn't removed it from
the post that he was talking about. Here's what the header from THAT
OTHER post looks like - Number 12 in the sequence.
12 From: tomnln - view profile
Date: Sun, Jul 23 2006 11:02 am
Email: "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net>
Groups: alt.conspiracy.jfk, triangle.general, alt.politics,
cakewalk.coffeehouse
> Your problem is with the WCR Defenders who put it there to begin with.
No, NUTSACK; it was put up by a conspiracy theorist - "I tell it like
it is" - to begin with.
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>> I take it you were not alive in 1963. The government didn't use cameras
>>> for Presidential events in 1963, they relied upon news organizations,
>> You don't know what you are talking about.
>
> "Cameras rolling". He's talking about moving images. Video was
I addressed he difference between still cameras and movies. The WH
official photographers used both.
And his main point remains incorrect. The WH had its own photographers.
> completely impractical in Dealey, and there was no real need for film.
Please, show me any VIDEO from 1963. We are talking about 16 mm and 8 mm
then.
> How much 16mm film do you think they wasted on shots of the back of the
> limo as it drove from one place to another?
>
How much 16 mm film was wasted by the local press? And how much was
thrown away as unimportant.
And you completely ignore David Powers taking movie film from the
follow-up car, but missing the assassination.
> There were several official
>> WH photographers. Stoughton usually took still photos, but also took
>> movies.
>
> See above.
>
> One problem was that Stoughton on that day was kicked out his
>> normal place in the car behind the limousine.
>
> So they could slip in the Queen Mary?
Pay attention. The Queen Mary IS his normal place. He was kicked out.
>
>>> TV wasn't much and the usual stuff was getting off the plane and maybe
>>> one shot on the trip to the place where the speech would be given.
>>> People, even Presidents, were able to function without the constant eye
>>> on them. Hard to believe, eh?
>>>
>> Official WH photographers documented almost every minute of his
>> Presidency.
>
> Absolutely untrue. Do you know how much WH generated film footage of
> JFK is at the Kennedy Library?
>
David Powers film. And not all film is at the Kennedy Library.
> Except Dealey Plaza. Coincidence?
>
> Ridiculous. Why would a non-complicit WH photographer attach any
> significance to getting footage of one of THOUSANDS of intersections
> the Prez drove through?
>
How would a non-complicit WH photographer know WHEN to take the most
important shots? It's a moot question when no photographers were allowed
to take ANY shots from the best vantage point. Just as the military kept
the photographers from following Aquino as he got off the plane. Because
the military knew that Aquino was going to be shot when he got to the
tarmac. The photographers did not know that.
> And as for news (I've worked in news for many years) there was NO
> significant reason to have a film or video camera there. What, spend
Please show me any video camera on the ground. They used 16 mm film and
plenty of it. Don't try to discuss the photographic evidence if you have
not read Pictures of the Pain.
> several thousand 1963 dollars to set up a huge b/w video camera and
> microwave link to get what? JFK whizzing by?
>
Microwave link? Please explain. Sounds like an anachronism to me.
Bud
What kind of ignorant backwater is cakewalk.coffeehouse that they
aren`t interested in Tom`s nutsack?
TXZZ
i_tell_it_l...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I saw a recent piece on one a TV channel (History, I think it was)
> where they had a bunch of 'experts' going thru all the film that was
> taken that fateful day. There sure were a lot of "What if's" and "if
> they (those who had taken some film) had only done this" and "if they
> had only done that". Much too much to my liking.......
>
> Why didn't the GOVERNMENT have any cameras rolling that day? That
> seems to speak more that maybe some part of the GOVERNMENT had
> something to do with the hit - I think the CIA was mentioned by name.
> The other possibility presented was maybe it was a "mob hit". Because
> of how shabbily JFK and RFK had treated Marilyn Monroe. And that RFK
> was getting a little too big for his britches anyway.
>
> Yeah, why wasn't there GOVERNMENT there rolling film? I think I smell
> conspiracy burning in the background.......... I don't think it was
> the mob. I think it was the government. And maybe LBJ had something
> to do with it?
Well of course there was a conspiracy. "duh both oswald was just a
lunatic who happened to have world class asassination skills, and Ruby
killed him because he also happened to be off his meds"
TXZZ
denied.
Its silly when you think about it; I mean, imagine if a news article
went like this:
"After several failed asassination attempts by world class mercenaries,
The president of Zimbabwe was succesfully assinated by some bum who
wanted crack money"
I mean, saying asassins are simply crazy is just silliness!
Grizzlie Antagonist
Do you have long hair and a beard? As if I couldn't guess.
black...@aol.com
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> black...@aol.com wrote:
> > Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >>> I take it you were not alive in 1963. The government didn't use cameras
> >>> for Presidential events in 1963, they relied upon news organizations,
> >> You don't know what you are talking about.
> >
> > "Cameras rolling". He's talking about moving images. Video was
>
> I addressed he difference between still cameras and movies. The WH
> official photographers used both.
> And his main point remains incorrect. The WH had its own photographers.
And moving film was used very sparingly by them.
>
> > completely impractical in Dealey, and there was no real need for film.
>
> Please, show me any VIDEO from 1963.
I thought you were an expert on this case. The Fort Worth station had
two video cameras live at the breakfast. WFAA had two video cameras
live at Love Field. KRLD had two video cameras live at the Trade Mart.
And after the assassination, WFAA moved its "mobile cruiser" to
Parkland, also live. Then, all the locals set up at the police station.
On Sunday, some were at the police station and some were at Oswald's
destination.
Video was bulky and problematic, and the ocations for video were chosen
with news value in mind. DP had no news value.
We are talking about 16 mm and 8 mm
> then.
If it was news, it was 16mm.
>
> > How much 16mm film do you think they wasted on shots of the back of the
> > limo as it drove from one place to another?
> >
>
> How much 16 mm film was wasted by the local press? And how much was
> thrown away as unimportant.
Which is why it was so expensive to use. It was not wasted on useless
footage.
> And you completely ignore David Powers taking movie film from the
> follow-up car, but missing the assassination.
Powers was taking personal movies.
>
> > There were several official
> >> WH photographers. Stoughton usually took still photos, but also took
> >> movies.
> >
> > See above.
> >
> > One problem was that Stoughton on that day was kicked out his
> >> normal place in the car behind the limousine.
> >
> > So they could slip in the Queen Mary?
>
> Pay attention. The Queen Mary IS his normal place. He was kicked out.
So they could put in protection? Wow, that IS suspicious.
>
> >
> >>> TV wasn't much and the usual stuff was getting off the plane and maybe
> >>> one shot on the trip to the place where the speech would be given.
> >>> People, even Presidents, were able to function without the constant eye
> >>> on them. Hard to believe, eh?
> >>>
> >> Official WH photographers documented almost every minute of his
> >> Presidency.
> >
> > Absolutely untrue. Do you know how much WH generated film footage of
> > JFK is at the Kennedy Library?
> >
>
> David Powers film. And not all film is at the Kennedy Library.
You missed the question. There is very little footage there, certainly
not enough to constitute filming of virtually every moment of his
presidency. TODAY, that can be done and is being done.
>
> > Except Dealey Plaza. Coincidence?
What did Powers say?
> >
> > Ridiculous. Why would a non-complicit WH photographer attach any
> > significance to getting footage of one of THOUSANDS of intersections
> > the Prez drove through?
> >
>
> How would a non-complicit WH photographer know WHEN to take the most
> important shots? It's a moot question when no photographers were allowed
> to take ANY shots from the best vantage point.
Describe this to us.
Just as the military kept
> the photographers from following Aquino as he got off the plane. Because
> the military knew that Aquino was going to be shot when he got to the
> tarmac. The photographers did not know that.
>
> > And as for news (I've worked in news for many years) there was NO
> > significant reason to have a film or video camera there. What, spend
>
> Please show me any video camera on the ground.
As I said, they picked their spots. The breakfast, the arrival, the
luncheon. Video cameras were monsters at that time.
They used 16 mm film and
> plenty of it.
But they didn't cover every inch of the motorcade. And DP was the place
where it was expected to speed up as they left the downtown area.
Don't try to discuss the photographic evidence if you have
> not read Pictures of the Pain.
I got an autographed copy when it came out. Many of us have been in
this as long as you, or longer.
>
> > several thousand 1963 dollars to set up a huge b/w video camera and
> > microwave link to get what? JFK whizzing by?
> >
>
>
> Microwave link? Please explain. Sounds like an anachronism to me.
WBAP at the breakfast, WFAA at the arrival, KRLD at the lucheon were
all set up to microwave back to their respective studios. Coverage was
then pooled and made available to each other's stations.
The bottom line: There was only limited pro coverage at DP because it
was not newsworthy.
black...@aol.com
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > There was absolutely nothing special or extraordinary about the
> > motorcade drive through Dallas that set it apart from any other
> > motorcade drive that JFK drove in during his 2-day Texas stay in
> > November 1963.
> >
>
> Only a couple of people knew that it would be anything special.
Name them.
> Why are all the other motorcades continuously photographed and not Dallas?
Name them.
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>> There was absolutely nothing special or extraordinary about the
>>> motorcade drive through Dallas that set it apart from any other
>>> motorcade drive that JFK drove in during his 2-day Texas stay in
>>> November 1963.
>>>
>> Only a couple of people knew that it would be anything special.
>
> Name them.
>
The assassins.
>> Why are all the other motorcades continuously photographed and not Dallas?
>
> Name them.
>
Berlin, Tampa, Fort Worth, etc. There are hundreds of photos of the
motorcades at the Kennedy Library. I have posted several of them.
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> black...@aol.com wrote:
>>> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>>> I take it you were not alive in 1963. The government didn't use cameras
>>>>> for Presidential events in 1963, they relied upon news organizations,
>>>> You don't know what you are talking about.
>>> "Cameras rolling". He's talking about moving images. Video was
>> I addressed he difference between still cameras and movies. The WH
>> official photographers used both.
>> And his main point remains incorrect. The WH had its own photographers.
>
> And moving film was used very sparingly by them.
So? It still disproves your point. Film was available.
>
>>> completely impractical in Dealey, and there was no real need for film.
>> Please, show me any VIDEO from 1963.
>
> I thought you were an expert on this case. The Fort Worth station had
> two video cameras live at the breakfast. WFAA had two video cameras
> live at Love Field. KRLD had two video cameras live at the Trade Mart.
They were shooting videotape in 1963?
Tell me more about the microwave equipment you claim they used in 1963.
> And after the assassination, WFAA moved its "mobile cruiser" to
> Parkland, also live. Then, all the locals set up at the police station.
> On Sunday, some were at the police station and some were at Oswald's
> destination.
>
So, you are confirming that you've never read Pictures of the Pain. This
explains your ignorance on the subject.
> Video was bulky and problematic, and the ocations for video were chosen
> with news value in mind. DP had no news value.
>
No one said it did, but many people took film and photos there.
> We are talking about 16 mm and 8 mm
>> then.
>
> If it was news, it was 16mm.
>
>>> How much 16mm film do you think they wasted on shots of the back of the
>>> limo as it drove from one place to another?
>>>
>> How much 16 mm film was wasted by the local press? And how much was
>> thrown away as unimportant.
>
> Which is why it was so expensive to use. It was not wasted on useless
> footage.
>
Then why was it thrown away?
>> And you completely ignore David Powers taking movie film from the
>> follow-up car, but missing the assassination.
>
> Powers was taking personal movies.
>
>>> There were several official
>>>> WH photographers. Stoughton usually took still photos, but also took
>>>> movies.
>>> See above.
>>>
>>> One problem was that Stoughton on that day was kicked out his
>>>> normal place in the car behind the limousine.
>>> So they could slip in the Queen Mary?
>> Pay attention. The Queen Mary IS his normal place. He was kicked out.
>
> So they could put in protection? Wow, that IS suspicious.
>>>>> TV wasn't much and the usual stuff was getting off the plane and maybe
>>>>> one shot on the trip to the place where the speech would be given.
>>>>> People, even Presidents, were able to function without the constant eye
>>>>> on them. Hard to believe, eh?
>>>>>
>>>> Official WH photographers documented almost every minute of his
>>>> Presidency.
>>> Absolutely untrue. Do you know how much WH generated film footage of
>>> JFK is at the Kennedy Library?
>>>
>> David Powers film. And not all film is at the Kennedy Library.
>
> You missed the question. There is very little footage there, certainly
> not enough to constitute filming of virtually every moment of his
> presidency. TODAY, that can be done and is being done.
>
No, the Presidency today is not well covered by official WH
photographers. It was for Kennedy.
>>> Except Dealey Plaza. Coincidence?
>
> What did Powers say?
You mean that it was a conspiracy? Or besides that?
>
>>> Ridiculous. Why would a non-complicit WH photographer attach any
>>> significance to getting footage of one of THOUSANDS of intersections
>>> the Prez drove through?
>>>
>> How would a non-complicit WH photographer know WHEN to take the most
>> important shots? It's a moot question when no photographers were allowed
>> to take ANY shots from the best vantage point.
>
> Describe this to us.
>
The official photographers do not need to be in on the conspiracy. They
are just ordered away.
> Just as the military kept
>> the photographers from following Aquino as he got off the plane. Because
>> the military knew that Aquino was going to be shot when he got to the
>> tarmac. The photographers did not know that.
>>
>>> And as for news (I've worked in news for many years) there was NO
>>> significant reason to have a film or video camera there. What, spend
>> Please show me any video camera on the ground.
>
> As I said, they picked their spots. The breakfast, the arrival, the
> luncheon. Video cameras were monsters at that time.
>
Sure, show me the video cameras they were using and upload some of the
videotape.
> They used 16 mm film and
>> plenty of it.
>
> But they didn't cover every inch of the motorcade. And DP was the place
> where it was expected to speed up as they left the downtown area.
>
Some of the press was covering almost every inch, including Atkins and
Altgens, including Dealey Plaza.
> Don't try to discuss the photographic evidence if you have
>> not read Pictures of the Pain.
>
> I got an autographed copy when it came out. Many of us have been in
> this as long as you, or longer.
>
>>> several thousand 1963 dollars to set up a huge b/w video camera and
>>> microwave link to get what? JFK whizzing by?
>>>
>>
>> Microwave link? Please explain. Sounds like an anachronism to me.
>
> WBAP at the breakfast, WFAA at the arrival, KRLD at the lucheon were
> all set up to microwave back to their respective studios. Coverage was
> then pooled and made available to each other's stations.
>
Show me the microwave set up they used in 1963. On what page of Pictures
of the Pain does Trask discuss the mechanics of microwave set up?
Anthony Marsh
Microwave link? Videotape on the scene? Didn't exist in 1963.
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/K/htmlK/kennedyjf/kennedyjf.htm
TXZZ
Hippy culture isn't entirely the "in" thing here in Texas
Grizzlie Antagonist
I didn't ask if it was. I asked if you had long hair and a beard and
then answered my own question.
David Johnston
>I saw a recent piece on one a TV channel (History, I think it was)
>where they had a bunch of 'experts' going thru all the film that was
>taken that fateful day. There sure were a lot of "What if's" and "if
>they (those who had taken some film) had only done this" and "if they
>had only done that". Much too much to my liking.......
>
>Why didn't the GOVERNMENT have any cameras rolling that day?
Why would you expect them to have cameras rolling that day?
Ingo Siekmann
-snip
> Why would you expect them to have cameras rolling that day?
Esp. when tires roll much better.
Bye
Ingo
Muppet Hi-Fi
I can only surmise that "Back in 1963, the government filmed every mile
of the Presidential motorcade, and it is thus highly suspicious that on
that day in Dallas, they strayed from policy!" is the notion being put
forward here.
I, for one, dispute the notion that the government was in the habit of
filming the entireity of the motorcade. Do they film it now, always,
as a matter of practice?
On a related note, did the government film Reagan's wounding in 1981?
Nope - news cameras did, but not the government. Oh, wait, wait! I
guess the cameras didn't start rolling because he was 5 seconds from
stepping into the Presidential limo! Yeah, that's it!
black...@aol.com
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> black...@aol.com wrote:
> > Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> black...@aol.com wrote:
> >>> Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >>>>> I take it you were not alive in 1963. The government didn't use cameras
> >>>>> for Presidential events in 1963, they relied upon news organizations,
> >>>> You don't know what you are talking about.
> >>> "Cameras rolling". He's talking about moving images. Video was
> >> I addressed he difference between still cameras and movies. The WH
> >> official photographers used both.
> >> And his main point remains incorrect. The WH had its own photographers.
> >
> > And moving film was used very sparingly by them.
>
> So? It still disproves your point. Film was available.
Not for Dealey Plaza. No news value.
>
> >
> >>> completely impractical in Dealey, and there was no real need for film.
> >> Please, show me any VIDEO from 1963.
> >
> > I thought you were an expert on this case. The Fort Worth station had
> > two video cameras live at the breakfast. WFAA had two video cameras
> > live at Love Field. KRLD had two video cameras live at the Trade Mart.
>
> They were shooting videotape in 1963?
Not portable, no. They microwaved the signal back to the stations,
where it was videotaped.
> Tell me more about the microwave equipment you claim they used in 1963.
Sure. WFAA, for example, used a Motorola MF-7 transmitter/antenna combo
with their "mobile cruiser" in November 1963. It was a line-of-sight
transmission with a capability of about 20 miles.
>
> > And after the assassination, WFAA moved its "mobile cruiser" to
> > Parkland, also live. Then, all the locals set up at the police station.
> > On Sunday, some were at the police station and some were at Oswald's
> > destination.
> >
>
> So, you are confirming that you've never read Pictures of the Pain. This
> explains your ignorance on the subject.
Got an autographed copy. By the way, I work in the TV news business, on
a channel you probably watch.
>
> > Video was bulky and problematic, and the ocations for video were chosen
> > with news value in mind. DP had no news value.
> >
>
> No one said it did, but many people took film and photos there.
Amateurs, for the most part. DP, in an of itself, had no real news
value.Or value for "governmental" coverage.
>
> > We are talking about 16 mm and 8 mm
> >> then.
> >
> > If it was news, it was 16mm.
> >
> >>> How much 16mm film do you think they wasted on shots of the back of the
> >>> limo as it drove from one place to another?
> >>>
> >> How much 16 mm film was wasted by the local press? And how much was
> >> thrown away as unimportant.
> >
> > Which is why it was so expensive to use. It was not wasted on useless
> > footage.
> >
>
> Then why was it thrown away?
Shooters shoot what they think might be useful. Only a small portion of
it is useful. Today, videotape can be reused many times, but in 1963,
unused film was discarded by news stations.
I, too, have plowed throught the Kennedy Library holdings. Ceremonies,
speeches, "bonafide news events". But not many shots of the lomo
whizzing through nondescript intersections.
>
> >>> Except Dealey Plaza. Coincidence?
> >
> > What did Powers say?
>
> You mean that it was a conspiracy? Or besides that?
About his DP film.
>
> >
> >>> Ridiculous. Why would a non-complicit WH photographer attach any
> >>> significance to getting footage of one of THOUSANDS of intersections
> >>> the Prez drove through?
> >>>
> >> How would a non-complicit WH photographer know WHEN to take the most
> >> important shots? It's a moot question when no photographers were allowed
> >> to take ANY shots from the best vantage point.
> >
> > Describe this to us.
> >
>
> The official photographers do not need to be in on the conspiracy. They
> are just ordered away.
Is this in the assassination rule book?
>
> > Just as the military kept
> >> the photographers from following Aquino as he got off the plane. Because
> >> the military knew that Aquino was going to be shot when he got to the
> >> tarmac. The photographers did not know that.
> >>
> >>> And as for news (I've worked in news for many years) there was NO
> >>> significant reason to have a film or video camera there. What, spend
> >> Please show me any video camera on the ground.
> >
> > As I said, they picked their spots. The breakfast, the arrival, the
> > luncheon. Video cameras were monsters at that time.
> >
>
> Sure, show me the video cameras they were using and upload some of the
> videotape.
OK, lets start with the WFAA tapes. They were assigned Love Field by
the local "pool" and used two VIDEO cameras there, microwaved back to
WFAA and distributed to KRLD and WBAP. When Program Director Jay Watson
cut in "live", they were in the middle of VIDEO studio interview. They
showed VIDEO footage of their own from Love Field, they cut "live" to
the KRLD pool feed from the Trade Mart, and later showed WBAP's VIDEO
of the breakfast. At a certain point, WFAA fed the ABC network. The
narrator of a 1993 anniversary special noted that WFAA had "an
unusually large supply" of expensive 2" videotape.
Ever seen the specials showing the CBS and NBC coverage? Lots of
videotape. The LHO press conference? CBS has it on video. The Ruby
shooting? In video on NBC ("live") and CBS (videotape).
Video was around, it was just not very portable.
>
> > They used 16 mm film and
> >> plenty of it.
> >
> > But they didn't cover every inch of the motorcade. And DP was the place
> > where it was expected to speed up as they left the downtown area.
> >
>
> Some of the press was covering almost every inch, including Atkins and
> Altgens, including Dealey Plaza.
Every inch? What, about 30 stills?
>
> > Don't try to discuss the photographic evidence if you have
> >> not read Pictures of the Pain.
> >
> > I got an autographed copy when it came out. Many of us have been in
> > this as long as you, or longer.
> >
> >>> several thousand 1963 dollars to set up a huge b/w video camera and
> >>> microwave link to get what? JFK whizzing by?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Microwave link? Please explain. Sounds like an anachronism to me.
> >
> > WBAP at the breakfast, WFAA at the arrival, KRLD at the lucheon were
> > all set up to microwave back to their respective studios. Coverage was
> > then pooled and made available to each other's stations.
> >
>
> Show me the microwave set up they used in 1963. On what page of Pictures
> of the Pain does Trask discuss the mechanics of microwave set up?
He doesn't. It's 2 cameras, a microphone, into a video switcher and
audio mixer respectively, then into a Motorola transmitter and antenna,
back to the station, where it is demodulated and fed to master control
(and a VTR).
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> black...@aol.com wrote:
>>> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>> black...@aol.com wrote:
>>>>> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>>>>> I take it you were not alive in 1963. The government didn't use cameras
>>>>>>> for Presidential events in 1963, they relied upon news organizations,
>>>>>> You don't know what you are talking about.
>>>>> "Cameras rolling". He's talking about moving images. Video was
>>>> I addressed he difference between still cameras and movies. The WH
>>>> official photographers used both.
>>>> And his main point remains incorrect. The WH had its own photographers.
>>> And moving film was used very sparingly by them.
>> So? It still disproves your point. Film was available.
>
> Not for Dealey Plaza. No news value.
>
Couch. As I said I do not think that Stoughton even had his film camera
with him that day.
There were a few professionals on the ground in Dealey Plaza. Altgens.
Many were in the camera cars as part of the motorcade.
Hundreds.
>>>>> Except Dealey Plaza. Coincidence?
>>> What did Powers say?
>> You mean that it was a conspiracy? Or besides that?
>
> About his DP film.
>
>>>>> Ridiculous. Why would a non-complicit WH photographer attach any
>>>>> significance to getting footage of one of THOUSANDS of intersections
>>>>> the Prez drove through?
>>>>>
>>>> How would a non-complicit WH photographer know WHEN to take the most
>>>> important shots? It's a moot question when no photographers were allowed
>>>> to take ANY shots from the best vantage point.
>>> Describe this to us.
>>>
>> The official photographers do not need to be in on the conspiracy. They
>> are just ordered away.
>
> Is this in the assassination rule book?
>
Yes, as a footnote.
>>> Just as the military kept
>>>> the photographers from following Aquino as he got off the plane. Because
>>>> the military knew that Aquino was going to be shot when he got to the
>>>> tarmac. The photographers did not know that.
>>>>
>>>>> And as for news (I've worked in news for many years) there was NO
>>>>> significant reason to have a film or video camera there. What, spend
>>>> Please show me any video camera on the ground.
>>> As I said, they picked their spots. The breakfast, the arrival, the
>>> luncheon. Video cameras were monsters at that time.
>>>
>> Sure, show me the video cameras they were using and upload some of the
>> videotape.
>
> OK, lets start with the WFAA tapes. They were assigned Love Field by
> the local "pool" and used two VIDEO cameras there, microwaved back to
> WFAA and distributed to KRLD and WBAP. When Program Director Jay Watson
> cut in "live", they were in the middle of VIDEO studio interview. They
> showed VIDEO footage of their own from Love Field, they cut "live" to
> the KRLD pool feed from the Trade Mart, and later showed WBAP's VIDEO
> of the breakfast. At a certain point, WFAA fed the ABC network. The
> narrator of a 1993 anniversary special noted that WFAA had "an
> unusually large supply" of expensive 2" videotape.
>
> Ever seen the specials showing the CBS and NBC coverage? Lots of
> videotape. The LHO press conference? CBS has it on video. The Ruby
> shooting? In video on NBC ("live") and CBS (videotape).
>
> Video was around, it was just not very portable.
>
Video back at the station, not video cameras at the scene.
Anthony Marsh
> David Johnston wrote:
>> On 22 Jul 2006 13:42:47 -0700, i_tell_it_l...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>> I saw a recent piece on one a TV channel (History, I think it was)
>>> where they had a bunch of 'experts' going thru all the film that was
>>> taken that fateful day. There sure were a lot of "What if's" and "if
>>> they (those who had taken some film) had only done this" and "if they
>>> had only done that". Much too much to my liking.......
>>>
>>> Why didn't the GOVERNMENT have any cameras rolling that day?
>> Why would you expect them to have cameras rolling that day?
>
> I can only surmise that "Back in 1963, the government filmed every mile
> of the Presidential motorcade, and it is thus highly suspicious that on
> that day in Dallas, they strayed from policy!" is the notion being put
> forward here.
>
No one said they routinely FILMED every entire motorcade route. But the
WH did have its own photographers who routinely rode in every motorcade
and took still photos. Hundreds of them. Then on 11/22/63 the official
WH photograph is kicked out of his usual spot in the SS car.
> I, for one, dispute the notion that the government was in the habit of
> filming the entireity of the motorcade. Do they film it now, always,
> as a matter of practice?
>
No.
> On a related note, did the government film Reagan's wounding in 1981?
> Nope - news cameras did, but not the government. Oh, wait, wait! I
> guess the cameras didn't start rolling because he was 5 seconds from
> stepping into the Presidential limo! Yeah, that's it!
>
But there may have been official WH photographers taking photos earlier.
See some of the books about WH photographers and their access.
black...@aol.com
Anthony Marsh wrote:
Film was available.
> >
> > Not for Dealey Plaza. No news value.
> >
>
> Couch. As I said I do not think that Stoughton even had his film camera
> with him that day.
Malcolm Couch was riding in a car, not stationed at DP.
> There were a few professionals on the ground in Dealey Plaza. Altgens.
> Many were in the camera cars as part of the motorcade.
Right. A few pics that could have been taken anywhere, just as you'd
expect.
> > I, too, have plowed throught the Kennedy Library holdings. Ceremonies,
> > speeches, "bonafide news events". But not many shots of the lomo
> > whizzing through nondescript intersections.
> >
>
> Hundreds.
Look at them again. Places of interest, huge crowds. The photogs picked
locations for a reason. Not many shots of the limo whizzing through
nondescript intersections.
>
> >> The official photographers do not need to be in on the conspiracy. They
> >> are just ordered away.
> >
> > Is this in the assassination rule book?
> >
>
> Yes, as a footnote.
Er, citiation?
> >> Sure, show me the video cameras they were using and upload some of the
> >> videotape.
> >
> > OK, lets start with the WFAA tapes. They were assigned Love Field by
> > the local "pool" and used two VIDEO cameras there, microwaved back to
> > WFAA and distributed to KRLD and WBAP. When Program Director Jay Watson
> > cut in "live", they were in the middle of VIDEO studio interview. They
> > showed VIDEO footage of their own from Love Field, they cut "live" to
> > the KRLD pool feed from the Trade Mart, and later showed WBAP's VIDEO
> > of the breakfast. At a certain point, WFAA fed the ABC network. The
> > narrator of a 1993 anniversary special noted that WFAA had "an
> > unusually large supply" of expensive 2" videotape.
> >
> > Ever seen the specials showing the CBS and NBC coverage? Lots of
> > videotape. The LHO press conference? CBS has it on video. The Ruby
> > shooting? In video on NBC ("live") and CBS (videotape).
> >
> > Video was around, it was just not very portable.
> >
>
> Video back at the station, not video cameras at the scene.
For video to be fed back to the station, there had to be video cameras
at the scene. There was no portable tape format in those days. Really,
until 3/4" in about 1972.
This whole point is moot. There is no evidence that there was a
conspiracy to keep cameras out of DP.
Anthony Marsh
So that the CIA could use it as a training film, as they said they did
with the Zapruder film.
Jordan
TXZZ wrote:
> This what I love about history: Asassination conspiracies are always
> denied.
No, they're not. For instance, most history books on the topic will
inform you of John Wilkes Booth's conspiracy, and its connection with
the Confederacy.
> Its silly when you think about it; I mean, imagine if a news article
> went like this:
>
> "After several failed asassination attempts by world class mercenaries,
> The president of Zimbabwe was succesfully assinated by some bum who
> wanted crack money"
As far as I know, Oswald's successful attempt on JFK was also his first
attempt on him. Though not his first attempt in general -- he had
previously taken a shot at the head of the John Birch Society.
> I mean, saying asassins are simply crazy is just silliness!
Why is insanity incompatible with making an assassination attempt? Or
are you arguing that Jodie Foster really did recruit John Hinckley in
the attempt on Ronald Reagan?
Indeed, if you think about it, the desire for fame at any cost is a
strong motivator for mad assassins.
- Jordan
aeffects
Jordan wrote:
> TXZZ wrote:
> > This what I love about history: Asassination conspiracies are always
> > denied.
>
> No, they're not. For instance, most history books on the topic will
> inform you of John Wilkes Booth's conspiracy, and its connection with
> the Confederacy.
>
> > Its silly when you think about it; I mean, imagine if a news article
> > went like this:
> >
> > "After several failed asassination attempts by world class mercenaries,
> > The president of Zimbabwe was succesfully assinated by some bum who
> > wanted crack money"
>
> As far as I know, Oswald's successful attempt on JFK was also his first
> attempt on him. Though not his first attempt in general -- he had
> previously taken a shot at the head of the John Birch Society.
As far as you know....hmm, might you point me or any other CTer
hereabouts to a cite stating: "Oswald took a shot at the head of the
john Birch Society"
Where do you wannabe Lone Neuter's find this bullshit?
> > I mean, saying asassins are simply crazy is just silliness!
>
> Why is insanity incompatible with making an assassination attempt? Or
> are you arguing that Jodie Foster really did recruit John Hinckley in
> the attempt on Ronald Reagan?
>
> Indeed, if you think about it, the desire for fame at any cost is a
> strong motivator for mad assassins.
if you're unfamiliar with case evidence AND the Warren Commission
Report, say so!
This place is full of trolls... that's what makes it so endearing
> - Jordan
Muppet Hi-Fi
> Muppet Hi-Fi wrote:
> > David Johnston wrote:
> >> On 22 Jul 2006 13:42:47 -0700, i_tell_it_l...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> I saw a recent piece on one a TV channel (History, I think it was)
> >>> where they had a bunch of 'experts' going thru all the film that was
> >>> taken that fateful day. There sure were a lot of "What if's" and "if
> >>> they (those who had taken some film) had only done this" and "if they
> >>> had only done that". Much too much to my liking.......
> >>>
> >>> Why didn't the GOVERNMENT have any cameras rolling that day?
> >> Why would you expect them to have cameras rolling that day?
> >
> > I can only surmise that "Back in 1963, the government filmed every mile
> > of the Presidential motorcade, and it is thus highly suspicious that on
> > that day in Dallas, they strayed from policy!" is the notion being put
> > forward here.
>
> No one said they routinely FILMED every entire motorcade route.
So then why the astonishment that the motorcade route through Dealey
Plaza was not filmed?
> But the WH did have its own photographers who routinely rode in every
> motorcade and took still photos. Hundreds of them. Then on 11/22/63 the
> official WH photograph is kicked out of his usual spot in the SS car.
Ah, STILL photos. I see. No one said FILMING?
Well, now, I was responding to the OP, who wrote:
"Why didn't the GOVERNMENT have any cameras rolling that day?"
Do you know what 'cameras rolling' references? Motion pictures, not
stills.
Then the OP goes on to write:
"Yeah, why wasn't there GOVERNMENT there rolling film?"
Do you know what 'rolling film' references? Motion pictures, not
stills.
So, yes, contrary to your assertion, someone did indeed reference
FILMING. And the implication that the entire motorcade route was
routinely filmed is indeed implicit, since if this was not the case
then the fact of the route through Dealey Plaza not being filmed isn't
out of the ordinary.
> > I, for one, dispute the notion that the government was in the habit of
> > filming the entireity of the motorcade. Do they film it now, always,
> > as a matter of practice?
>
> No.
>
> > On a related note, did the government film Reagan's wounding in 1981?
> > Nope - news cameras did, but not the government. Oh, wait, wait! I
> > guess the cameras didn't start rolling because he was 5 seconds from
> > stepping into the Presidential limo! Yeah, that's it!
>
> But there may have been official WH photographers taking photos earlier.
> See some of the books about WH photographers and their access.
'may'? I see. So in 1981, there may or may not have been official
photographers somewhere in the general vicinity of Reagan when he was
shot, and their possible absence means nothing. But in 1963, there
absolutely had to be an official White House photographer there, and
his absence is clear and convincing evidence of a conspiracy.
Uh ... OK ... sure ...
Except even that isn't logical. Official White House photographer
Cecil Soughton was there on 11/22/63, in his usual place in the press
car in the motorcade. And he did photograph Dealey Plaza in the
immediate aftermath, though he got no particularly noteworthy photos.
His photographs of the grassy knoll are often used by conspiracy buffs
such as yourself, so you well know this as fact.
Of course, this is all irrelevant - if conspirators were taking pains
to make sure the assassination wasn't photographed, then they wouldn't
have arranged for it to take place in a city with thousands of
onlookers all about, press and private citizens, many of them filming
and taking photographs. Many photos were taken, and the assassination
was filmed.
Once again, an element of the conspiracy is prevented as being very
cautious and methodical and careful on one hand - supposedly making
sure the official WH photographer was absent - and completely moronic
and cluelessly inept on the other hand - arranging the assassination in
a place where much photographic record would be amassed regardless if
Cecil ever clicked his shutter.
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> Muppet Hi-Fi wrote:
>>> David Johnston wrote:
>>>> On 22 Jul 2006 13:42:47 -0700, i_tell_it_l...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I saw a recent piece on one a TV channel (History, I think it was)
>>>>> where they had a bunch of 'experts' going thru all the film that was
>>>>> taken that fateful day. There sure were a lot of "What if's" and "if
>>>>> they (those who had taken some film) had only done this" and "if they
>>>>> had only done that". Much too much to my liking.......
>>>>>
>>>>> Why didn't the GOVERNMENT have any cameras rolling that day?
>>>> Why would you expect them to have cameras rolling that day?
>>> I can only surmise that "Back in 1963, the government filmed every mile
>>> of the Presidential motorcade, and it is thus highly suspicious that on
>>> that day in Dallas, they strayed from policy!" is the notion being put
>>> forward here.
>> No one said they routinely FILMED every entire motorcade route.
>
> So then why the astonishment that the motorcade route through Dealey
> Plaza was not filmed?
>
Maybe someone else expressed astonishment. Not I. But I would like to
hear you explain why Stoughton was kicked out of his usual spot in the
SS car.
>> But the WH did have its own photographers who routinely rode in every
>> motorcade and took still photos. Hundreds of them. Then on 11/22/63 the
>> official WH photograph is kicked out of his usual spot in the SS car.
>
> Ah, STILL photos. I see. No one said FILMING?
>
Someone said film.
> Well, now, I was responding to the OP, who wrote:
> "Why didn't the GOVERNMENT have any cameras rolling that day?"
>
> Do you know what 'cameras rolling' references? Motion pictures, not
> stills.
>
> Then the OP goes on to write:
> "Yeah, why wasn't there GOVERNMENT there rolling film?"
>
> Do you know what 'rolling film' references? Motion pictures, not
> stills.
>
> So, yes, contrary to your assertion, someone did indeed reference
> FILMING. And the implication that the entire motorcade route was
> routinely filmed is indeed implicit, since if this was not the case
> then the fact of the route through Dealey Plaza not being filmed isn't
> out of the ordinary.
>
No, no one implied that all motorcades are filmed by the government
photographers. Someone asked if that happens, but it does not.
>>> I, for one, dispute the notion that the government was in the habit of
>>> filming the entireity of the motorcade. Do they film it now, always,
>>> as a matter of practice?
>> No.
>>
>>> On a related note, did the government film Reagan's wounding in 1981?
>>> Nope - news cameras did, but not the government. Oh, wait, wait! I
>>> guess the cameras didn't start rolling because he was 5 seconds from
>>> stepping into the Presidential limo! Yeah, that's it!
>> But there may have been official WH photographers taking photos earlier.
>> See some of the books about WH photographers and their access.
>
> 'may'? I see. So in 1981, there may or may not have been official
> photographers somewhere in the general vicinity of Reagan when he was
> shot, and their possible absence means nothing. But in 1963, there
> absolutely had to be an official White House photographer there, and
> his absence is clear and convincing evidence of a conspiracy.
>
Yes, they may have taken official photos during the talk or even film.
But in 1963 there SHOULD have been an official WH photographer in the
car behind the limousine. He was kicked out.
> Uh ... OK ... sure ...
>
> Except even that isn't logical. Official White House photographer
> Cecil Soughton was there on 11/22/63, in his usual place in the press
> car in the motorcade. And he did photograph Dealey Plaza in the
What nonsense are you spewing? Stoughton's usual place was not in the
press car. His usual place was in the SS car.
> immediate aftermath, though he got no particularly noteworthy photos.
> His photographs of the grassy knoll are often used by conspiracy buffs
> such as yourself, so you well know this as fact.
>
I know that he was not close enough and not fast enough to get the most
important pictures of the assassination as it happened.
> Of course, this is all irrelevant - if conspirators were taking pains
> to make sure the assassination wasn't photographed, then they wouldn't
> have arranged for it to take place in a city with thousands of
> onlookers all about, press and private citizens, many of them filming
> and taking photographs. Many photos were taken, and the assassination
> was filmed.
>
Oh really? Explain where exactly the conspirators would arrange for the
shooting to take place so there'd be no chance of being photographed.
Maybe you are thinking of the Aquino assassination, where the killer
prevented the press cameramen from following Aquino out of the plane.
Now, why do you think the military chose such a public place?
> Once again, an element of the conspiracy is prevented as being very
> cautious and methodical and careful on one hand - supposedly making
> sure the official WH photographer was absent - and completely moronic
> and cluelessly inept on the other hand - arranging the assassination in
> a place where much photographic record would be amassed regardless if
> Cecil ever clicked his shutter.
>
So what? They can deny anything, because they hire cover-up artists like
you to lie about the evidence.
Jordan
aeffects wrote:
> Jordan wrote:
>
> > As far as I know, Oswald's successful attempt on JFK was also his first
> > attempt on him. Though not his first attempt in general -- he had
> > previously taken a shot at the head of the John Birch Society.
>
> As far as you know....
Well, which _earlier_ assassination attempts on JFK, by Oswald or
anybody else, are _you_ aware of?
> hmm, might you point me or any other CTer
> hereabouts to a cite stating: "Oswald took a shot at the head of the
> john Birch Society"
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbirchS.htm, specifically
==
On 10th April, 1963, Edwin Walker was victim of an assassination
attempt while he sat at a desk in his Dallas home. It was later claimed
that Lee Harvey Oswald had taken the shot at Walker. Marina Oswald
reported that she "asked him what happened, and he said that he just
tried to shoot General Walker. I asked him who General Walker was. I
mean how dare you to go and claim somebody's life, and he said "Well,
what would you say if somebody got rid of Hitler at the right time? So
if you don't know about General Walker, how can you speak up on his
behalf?." Because he told me... he was something equal to what he
called him a fascist."
==
There was a police report filed at the time which identified a man
matching Lee Harvey Oswald's description having been seen in the
vicinity at the time behaving suspiciously. Tragically, this was not
followed up on nor the identity of the suspicious man uncovered until
_after_ JFK was murdered.
> Where do you wannabe Lone Neuter's find this bullshit?
Why do you find it particularly odd that Lee Harvey Oswald, who
eventually murdered one prominent public figure, had previously
attempted to murder another one?
>
> > > I mean, saying asassins are simply crazy is just silliness!
> >
> > Why is insanity incompatible with making an assassination attempt? Or
> > are you arguing that Jodie Foster really did recruit John Hinckley in
> > the attempt on Ronald Reagan?
> >
> > Indeed, if you think about it, the desire for fame at any cost is a
> > strong motivator for mad assassins.
>
> if you're unfamiliar with case evidence AND the Warren Commission
> Report, say so!
Are you aware that your statement is not an answer to my question? So
I ask you again -- "Why is insanity incompatible with making an
assassination attempt?"
> This place is full of trolls... that's what makes it so endearing
What, simply failing to agree with whatever the heck your particular
conspiracy theory is (and I don't know what it is, you haven't actually
put one forward) makes me a "troll?"
- Jordan
Jordan
Muppet Hi-Fi wrote:
> Of course, this is all irrelevant - if conspirators were taking pains
> to make sure the assassination wasn't photographed, then they wouldn't
> have arranged for it to take place in a city with thousands of
> onlookers all about, press and private citizens, many of them filming
> and taking photographs. Many photos were taken, and the assassination
> was filmed.
Indeed, not to mention that if there really were multiple shooters,
some of them at ground level, how did the Big Evil Conspiracy intend to
prevent them from being captured _by members of the crowds?_
(Hint: opening fire into a crowd of people is _not_ a good way of
keeping your presence secret!)
> Once again, an element of the conspiracy is prevented as being very
> cautious and methodical and careful on one hand - supposedly making
> sure the official WH photographer was absent - and completely moronic
> and cluelessly inept on the other hand - arranging the assassination in
> a place where much photographic record would be amassed regardless if
> Cecil ever clicked his shutter.
Especially since you'd think such a Big Evil Conspiracy would have
access to the President in more intimate settings.
- Jordan
Jordan
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> Muppet Hi-Fi wrote:
>
> > Of course, this is all irrelevant - if conspirators were taking pains
> > to make sure the assassination wasn't photographed, then they wouldn't
> > have arranged for it to take place in a city with thousands of
> > onlookers all about, press and private citizens, many of them filming
> > and taking photographs. Many photos were taken, and the assassination
> > was filmed.
> >
>
> Oh really? Explain where exactly the conspirators would arrange for the
> shooting to take place so there'd be no chance of being photographed.
At a private party, such as JFK routinely attended. Being a Big Evil
Conspiracy with all sorts of Inside People, it would be fairly easy for
them to learn of such an event (since some of their own members would
be attendees) and sneak someone in with a pistol. Heck, given JFK's
habit of randomly screwing hookers, all they'd need to do is have
someone shoot him while he was engaged in this amorous pursuit. The
Secret Service was worried, in fact, that something like this would
happen, because they were often ordered to stay well clear of him when
he was doing this, and were rarely able to search said hookers or their
"gentleman" companions as they wanted to.
> Maybe you are thinking of the Aquino assassination, where the killer
> prevented the press cameramen from following Aquino out of the plane.
> Now, why do you think the military chose such a public place?
I don't know, why did they? I could guess that it was because they
lived in a country where they felt sure that their leaders would be in
power after the assassination, so they would be safe from prosecutions,
so a public murder would merely accentuate their power and terrorize
opponents into silence. But you _do_ realize what you're implying
about LBJ when you say this, right?
> > Once again, an element of the conspiracy is prevented as being very
> > cautious and methodical and careful on one hand - supposedly making
> > sure the official WH photographer was absent - and completely moronic
> > and cluelessly inept on the other hand - arranging the assassination in
> > a place where much photographic record would be amassed regardless if
> > Cecil ever clicked his shutter.
>
> So what? They can deny anything, because they hire cover-up artists like
> you to lie about the evidence.
Ooh, when do _I_ get paid?
- Jordan
aeffects
Jordan, Jordan, JORDAN.... where youngster does it say anyone was the
"head of the John Birch Society"
> There was a police report filed at the time which identified a man
> matching Lee Harvey Oswald's description having been seen in the
> vicinity at the time behaving suspiciously. Tragically, this was not
> followed up on nor the identity of the suspicious man uncovered until
> _after_ JFK was murdered.
>
> > Where do you wannabe Lone Neuter's find this bullshit?
>
> Why do you find it particularly odd that Lee Harvey Oswald, who
> eventually murdered one prominent public figure, had previously
> attempted to murder another one?
you're full of *bs* Jordan... get you fact[s] straight
> >
> > > > I mean, saying asassins are simply crazy is just silliness!
> > >
> > > Why is insanity incompatible with making an assassination attempt? Or
> > > are you arguing that Jodie Foster really did recruit John Hinckley in
> > > the attempt on Ronald Reagan?
> > >
> > > Indeed, if you think about it, the desire for fame at any cost is a
> > > strong motivator for mad assassins.
> >
> > if you're unfamiliar with case evidence AND the Warren Commission
> > Report, say so!
>
> Are you aware that your statement is not an answer to my question? So
> I ask you again -- "Why is insanity incompatible with making an
> assassination attempt?"
again, if you're unfamiliar with case evidence AND the Warren
Commission
Report, say so!
> > This place is full of trolls... that's what makes it so endearing
>
> What, simply failing to agree with whatever the heck your particular
> conspiracy theory is (and I don't know what it is, you haven't actually
> put one forward) makes me a "troll?"
this isn't .john's nuthouse Jordan -- learn the evidence as published
in the WCR, defend or attack what you think you can... then you'll
graduate from Lone Neuter "troll"
> - Jordan
tomnln
Take a look at these official records & tell us if you were previously awar
of them?
http://whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
"Jordan" <JSBass...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1154111010....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
"Jordan" <JSBass...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1154111197.4...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> Muppet Hi-Fi wrote:
>> Of course, this is all irrelevant - if conspirators were taking pains
>> to make sure the assassination wasn't photographed, then they wouldn't
>> have arranged for it to take place in a city with thousands of
>> onlookers all about, press and private citizens, many of them filming
>> and taking photographs. Many photos were taken, and the assassination
>> was filmed.
>
> Indeed, not to mention that if there really were multiple shooters,
> some of them at ground level, how did the Big Evil Conspiracy intend to
> prevent them from being captured _by members of the crowds?_
>
> (Hint: opening fire into a crowd of people is _not_ a good way of
> keeping your presence secret!)
>
>> Once again, an element of the conspiracy is prevented as being very
>> cautious and methodical and careful on one hand - supposedly making
>> sure the official WH photographer was absent - and completely moronic
>> and cluelessly inept on the other hand - arranging the assassination in
>> a place where much photographic record would be amassed regardless if
>> Cecil ever clicked his shutter.
===========================================================================
> Especially since you'd think such a Big Evil Conspiracy would have
> access to the President in more intimate settings.
>
> - Jordan
Only a Public execution would serev as a Warning for those to follow.
A perfect example of what can happen when you're in Total Control of
Evidence/Witnesses.
============================================================================
===========================================================================
i_tell_it_l...@yahoo.com
said he didn't want it posted to.
No, Organfreak, I shall not go away from you OR cakewalk.coffeehouse.
Ever!
Itellitlikeitis
(and many, many people are vexed by that fact)
Organfreak wrote:
> On or about 22 Jul 2006 18:13:14 -0700, someone purporting to be
> "Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydso...@yahoo.com> felt it necessary to
> say:
>
> >tomnln wrote:
> >> Because you have the vocabulary of a Gutter Snipe.
> >
> >
> >WAAAA! Are You Too Fragile And Are Your Ears Too Delicate, Nutsack?
>
> Please take this out of cakewalk.coffeehouse, people. It got here by
> accident and we ain't interested.
i_tell_it_l...@yahoo.com
No, your group is fair game fella. Just a bunch of hoity toity
caffeine sippers and muffin crunchers.
Itellitlikeitis
Organfreak wrote:
> On or about Sun, 23 Jul 2006 14:02:12 -0400, someone purporting to be
> "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> felt it necessary to say:
>
> >I was thinking of your Ally Jean & Other Women on this forum.
> >
> >Apparently I have more respect for "your team mates" than you do.
> >
> >Like I said "Gutter Snipe".
>
> And like *I* said, please remove cakewalk.coffeehouse out of this
> discussion.
>
> >
> >http://whokilledjfk.net/
> >
> >
> >
> >"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:1153617194.4...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
i_tell_it_l...@yahoo.com
The portrayal was only of common joes and alices taking pictures with
cameras that (and I think the timeframe of the show was 2003) were not
very helpful to the 2003 investigation.
So, no, there were NOT any governmental cameras there that day. And I
think there were at least 2 reasons why. Let me know if you are
curious about those 2 later.
Itellitlikeitis
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> Jack Linthicum wrote:
> > i_tell_it_l...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> I saw a recent piece on one a TV channel (History, I think it was)
> >> where they had a bunch of 'experts' going thru all the film that was
> >> taken that fateful day. There sure were a lot of "What if's" and "if
> >> they (those who had taken some film) had only done this" and "if they
> >> had only done that". Much too much to my liking.......
> >>
> >> Why didn't the GOVERNMENT have any cameras rolling that day? That
> >> seems to speak more that maybe some part of the GOVERNMENT had
> >> something to do with the hit - I think the CIA was mentioned by name.
> >> The other possibility presented was maybe it was a "mob hit". Because
> >> of how shabbily JFK and RFK had treated Marilyn Monroe. And that RFK
> >> was getting a little too big for his britches anyway.
> >>
> >> Yeah, why wasn't there GOVERNMENT there rolling film? I think I smell
> >> conspiracy burning in the background.......... I don't think it was
> >> the mob. I think it was the government. And maybe LBJ had something
> >> to do with it?
> >
> > I take it you were not alive in 1963. The government didn't use cameras
> > for Presidential events in 1963, they relied upon news organizations,
>
> You don't know what you are talking about. There were several official
> WH photographers. Stoughton usually took still photos, but also took
> movies. One problem was that Stoughton on that day was kicked out his
> normal place in the car behind the limousine.
>
> > TV wasn't much and the usual stuff was getting off the plane and maybe
> > one shot on the trip to the place where the speech would be given.
> > People, even Presidents, were able to function without the constant eye
> > on them. Hard to believe, eh?
> >
>
> Official WH photographers documented almost every minute of his
> Presidency. Except Dealey Plaza. Coincidence?
>
> > We used to call it freedom.
> >
i_tell_it_l...@yahoo.com
documented. veryyyy interesting......
itellitlikeitis
black...@aol.com wrote:
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > > I take it you were not alive in 1963. The government didn't use cameras
> > > for Presidential events in 1963, they relied upon news organizations,
> >
> > You don't know what you are talking about.
>
> "Cameras rolling". He's talking about moving images. Video was
> completely impractical in Dealey, and there was no real need for film.
> How much 16mm film do you think they wasted on shots of the back of the
> limo as it drove from one place to another?
>
> There were several official
> > WH photographers. Stoughton usually took still photos, but also took
> > movies.
>
> See above.
>
> One problem was that Stoughton on that day was kicked out his
> > normal place in the car behind the limousine.
>
> So they could slip in the Queen Mary?
>
> >
> > > TV wasn't much and the usual stuff was getting off the plane and maybe
> > > one shot on the trip to the place where the speech would be given.
> > > People, even Presidents, were able to function without the constant eye
> > > on them. Hard to believe, eh?
> > >
> >
> > Official WH photographers documented almost every minute of his
> > Presidency.
>
> Absolutely untrue. Do you know how much WH generated film footage of
> JFK is at the Kennedy Library?
>
> Except Dealey Plaza. Coincidence?
>
> Ridiculous. Why would a non-complicit WH photographer attach any
> significance to getting footage of one of THOUSANDS of intersections
> the Prez drove through?
>
> And as for news (I've worked in news for many years) there was NO
> significant reason to have a film or video camera there. What, spend
Anthony Marsh
> Not according to the show I saw on either History or Discovery channel.
> The portrayal was only of common joes and alices taking pictures with
> cameras that (and I think the timeframe of the show was 2003) were not
> very helpful to the 2003 investigation.
>
> So, no, there were NOT any governmental cameras there that day. And I
> think there were at least 2 reasons why. Let me know if you are
> curious about those 2 later.
>
Stoughton was there and he took two photos, before and after the shooting.
Anthony Marsh
> Organfreak kinda broke his own rule when he posted it to the group he
> said he didn't want it posted to.
>
Not really. He has to complain to the offending newsgroup.
Why in the world would anyone want to crosspost there?
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> Muppet Hi-Fi wrote:
>>
>>> Of course, this is all irrelevant - if conspirators were taking pains
>>> to make sure the assassination wasn't photographed, then they wouldn't
>>> have arranged for it to take place in a city with thousands of
>>> onlookers all about, press and private citizens, many of them filming
>>> and taking photographs. Many photos were taken, and the assassination
>>> was filmed.
>>>
>> Oh really? Explain where exactly the conspirators would arrange for the
>> shooting to take place so there'd be no chance of being photographed.
>
> At a private party, such as JFK routinely attended. Being a Big Evil
No. Every visitor is screened and many have special clearance. You may
be thinking of the dinner party where the Director of Central
Intelligence pulled out his gun and assassinated the President. But
there were plenty of witnesses and he didn't get away with it.
> Conspiracy with all sorts of Inside People, it would be fairly easy for
> them to learn of such an event (since some of their own members would
> be attendees) and sneak someone in with a pistol. Heck, given JFK's
What you are saying is the same for Castro and the CIA could never kill him.
> habit of randomly screwing hookers, all they'd need to do is have
> someone shoot him while he was engaged in this amorous pursuit. The
> Secret Service was worried, in fact, that something like this would
> happen, because they were often ordered to stay well clear of him when
> he was doing this, and were rarely able to search said hookers or their
> "gentleman" companions as they wanted to.
>
What are you mumbling about? The SS did not stay away. Their job was to
protect the President and they would not stay well clear.
>> Maybe you are thinking of the Aquino assassination, where the killer
>> prevented the press cameramen from following Aquino out of the plane.
>> Now, why do you think the military chose such a public place?
>
> I don't know, why did they? I could guess that it was because they
Of course you don't know, because you don't know much about
assassinations. They could not allow Aquino to get out into the public
and rally the people against Marcos.
> lived in a country where they felt sure that their leaders would be in
> power after the assassination, so they would be safe from prosecutions,
> so a public murder would merely accentuate their power and terrorize
Yeah, and they got away with it until their dictatorship was overturned
by the people.
> opponents into silence. But you _do_ realize what you're implying
> about LBJ when you say this, right?
>
No, I am implying nothing.
>>> Once again, an element of the conspiracy is prevented as being very
>>> cautious and methodical and careful on one hand - supposedly making
>>> sure the official WH photographer was absent - and completely moronic
>>> and cluelessly inept on the other hand - arranging the assassination in
>>> a place where much photographic record would be amassed regardless if
>>> Cecil ever clicked his shutter.
>> So what? They can deny anything, because they hire cover-up artists like
>> you to lie about the evidence.
>
> Ooh, when do _I_ get paid?
>
If you play their game you'll get rewarded with a lucrative no-show job.
> - Jordan
>
Anthony Marsh
> Muppet Hi-Fi wrote:
>> Of course, this is all irrelevant - if conspirators were taking pains
>> to make sure the assassination wasn't photographed, then they wouldn't
>> have arranged for it to take place in a city with thousands of
>> onlookers all about, press and private citizens, many of them filming
>> and taking photographs. Many photos were taken, and the assassination
>> was filmed.
>
> Indeed, not to mention that if there really were multiple shooters,
> some of them at ground level, how did the Big Evil Conspiracy intend to
> prevent them from being captured _by members of the crowds?_
>
You mean like the crowd of hundreds who ran up the grassy knoll to catch
the shooter, who was let go because he had SS identification?
> (Hint: opening fire into a crowd of people is _not_ a good way of
> keeping your presence secret!)
>
Absolutely no witnesses reported seeing the man behind the fence,
although many reported hearing shots come from there.
>> Once again, an element of the conspiracy is prevented as being very
>> cautious and methodical and careful on one hand - supposedly making
>> sure the official WH photographer was absent - and completely moronic
>> and cluelessly inept on the other hand - arranging the assassination in
>> a place where much photographic record would be amassed regardless if
>> Cecil ever clicked his shutter.
>
> Especially since you'd think such a Big Evil Conspiracy would have
> access to the President in more intimate settings.
>
You mean the way the CIA assassinated Castro?
> - Jordan
>
Anthony Marsh
> aeffects wrote:
>> Jordan wrote:
>>
>>> As far as I know, Oswald's successful attempt on JFK was also his first
>>> attempt on him. Though not his first attempt in general -- he had
>>> previously taken a shot at the head of the John Birch Society.
>> As far as you know....
>
> Well, which _earlier_ assassination attempts on JFK, by Oswald or
> anybody else, are _you_ aware of?
>
There was a guy with a car full of dynamite who aborted his planned
attempt when he saw Kennedy coming out of the church with his children.
Jordan
tomnln wrote:
===========================================================================
> > Especially since you'd think such a Big Evil Conspiracy would have
> > access to the President in more intimate settings.
> >
> > - Jordan
>
> Only a Public execution would serev as a Warning for those to follow.
A warning from whom to whom?
> A perfect example of what can happen when you're in Total Control of
> Evidence/Witnesses.
But by your own argument, they weren't -- all sorts of eyewitness
reports, and the Zapruder film, and autopsy reports, etc. surfaced.
- Jordan
marc_CH
> > Only a Public execution would serev as a Warning for those to follow.
>
> A warning from whom to whom?
Doesn't matter. He used a capital 'W' and that means it's Important.
marc
tomnln
"marc_CH" <marc...@crumhorn.org> wrote in message
news:43350....@crumhorn.org...
Behode ApaleHorse
Jordan
Well see, that's one of the problem with being a _secret_ Big Evil
Conspiracy. If one's assassination of a head of state is meant to
deter the next head of state from doing something, or intimidate him
into doing something, he has to have some idea what the "something" is,
or you've just wasted a bullet (and a President) to no good purpose.
But this leads to the problem that telling him what that "something" is
also communicates to him who you are, and then you've just blown the
"secret" part of your Conspiracy.
Now, the American head of state is also Commander-in-Chief of the
military. If he has reason to believe that there is a Big Evil
Conspiracy trying to control American policy by direct physical threats
to the elected head of the Executive Branch (himself), said Big Evil
Conspiracy is a "clear and present danger" to the security of the
Republic, and hence he has a Constiutional right (and duty) to put said
conspiracy down using his emergency powers. This would justify (for
example) declaring martial law and pre-emptively arresting a whole
bunch of Big Evil Conspirators, or possible Big Evil Conspirators.
Under these circumstances the Big Evil Conspiracy would dissolve
prettty quickly, because inevitably one of the BEC members would rat
out on the others. And, for the duration of the crisis (a few weeks at
most, probaly, the President could surround himself with enough
security that his successful assassination would be fairly improbable.
Delivering "Warnings" (in capitals) to people who have the power to
order you arrested or (under martial law) executed after a summary
trial is a Big Bad Idea. A _very_ Big Bad Idea.
- Jordan
Jordan
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> Jordan wrote:
>
> > Especially since you'd think such a Big Evil Conspiracy would have
> > access to the President in more intimate settings.
>
> You mean the way the CIA assassinated Castro?
Castro is a totalitarian dictator, and hence can do things to assure
his personal security that mere Presidents cannot. But I would think
that the CIA's total failure against Castro would demonstrate to you
the flaws of assassination as a tool for political change -- in
particular, that most assassination attempts _fail_. And a domestic
conspiracy trying to kill a President would have to deal with the
strong possibility that it would only get one try, because a failed
attempt would alert the plan's target, who would then mobilize his
considerable powers as head of the Executive Branch to crush the
conspiracy.
Or to put it another way,
"If you aim at a king, make sure you kill him."
- Jordan
i_tell_it_l...@yahoo.com
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> i_tell_it_l...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Organfreak kinda broke his own rule when he posted it to the group he
> > said he didn't want it posted to.
> >
>
> Not really. He has to complain to the offending newsgroup.
> Why in the world would anyone want to crosspost there?
Anthony,
They are severely in need of education in 'cakewalk.coffeehouse'.
And it appears you are also in need of
education/edification/enlightenment.
Glad I could open your eyes for you.
itellitlikeitis
Michael
> They are severely in need of education in 'cakewalk.coffeehouse'.
Education, enlightenment, indoctrination, brainwashing... or mere
pot-stirring?
The distinctions among them are all a simple matter of perspective.
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> Jordan wrote:
>>
>>> Especially since you'd think such a Big Evil Conspiracy would have
>>> access to the President in more intimate settings.
>> You mean the way the CIA assassinated Castro?
>
> Castro is a totalitarian dictator, and hence can do things to assure
> his personal security that mere Presidents cannot. But I would think
OK, I'll grant you that. Casto can kill millions of people if he wants
and a US President can never kill anyone, right? So what?
> that the CIA's total failure against Castro would demonstrate to you
> the flaws of assassination as a tool for political change -- in
> particular, that most assassination attempts _fail_. And a domestic
I only wish that everyone else would get the point about assassination
being a failed tool, but unfortunately many people in this world have
not gotten the memo, including all the major intelligence agencies.
> conspiracy trying to kill a President would have to deal with the
> strong possibility that it would only get one try, because a failed
> attempt would alert the plan's target, who would then mobilize his
> considerable powers as head of the Executive Branch to crush the
> conspiracy.
>
Or you could cite another favorite WC defender maxim that assassinations
never work because when you kill the leader, the man who takes over may
be just as bad or worse. Remind the CIA of that one.
> Or to put it another way,
>
> "If you aim at a king, make sure you kill him."
>
Which is exactly what they did with John Kennedy. As Trafficante would
say, "If you want to stop the dog from biting you, don't cut off his
tail, cut off his head."
> - Jordan
>
Anthony Marsh
> marc_CH wrote:
>> In article <1154157019.7...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> JSBass...@yahoo.com wrote...
>>
>>>> Only a Public execution would serev as a Warning for those to follow.
>>> A warning from whom to whom?
>> Doesn't matter. He used a capital 'W' and that means it's Important.
>
> Well see, that's one of the problem with being a _secret_ Big Evil
> Conspiracy. If one's assassination of a head of state is meant to
> deter the next head of state from doing something, or intimidate him
> into doing something, he has to have some idea what the "something" is,
> or you've just wasted a bullet (and a President) to no good purpose.
> But this leads to the problem that telling him what that "something" is
> also communicates to him who you are, and then you've just blown the
> "secret" part of your Conspiracy.
>
I guess it depends on how stupid the replacement is. Some people might
be smart enough to figure it out. Others may need to be warned. Such as
plastering the city with placards calling the President a traitor and
wishing for a miracle to put a Texan in the White House. Maybe some
people are too stupid to get the subtle drift of that message.
> Now, the American head of state is also Commander-in-Chief of the
> military. If he has reason to believe that there is a Big Evil
> Conspiracy trying to control American policy by direct physical threats
> to the elected head of the Executive Branch (himself), said Big Evil
> Conspiracy is a "clear and present danger" to the security of the
> Republic, and hence he has a Constiutional right (and duty) to put said
> conspiracy down using his emergency powers. This would justify (for
> example) declaring martial law and pre-emptively arresting a whole
> bunch of Big Evil Conspirators, or possible Big Evil Conspirators.
>
Would it were that simple. Various Presidents have wrestled with the
problem. See the Plot to Overthrow FDR. When the book Seven Days in May
came out, someone asked President Kennedy what he thought of it. Kennedy
replied that it was quite realistic and he knew some Generals like that.
When Eisenhower was preparing to leave office he made a point of giving
a speech warning the public about the military industrial complex.
Must have been a conspiracy kook, eh? Well, of all people he should know
because he came from the military and saw their power grow after the end
of the war.
So, let me ask you this hypothetical question. You'd see nothing wrong
with the current President declaring Martial Law and summarily executing
millions of Americans because he thinks there is a conspiracy to impeach
him?
Look for the movie V for Vendetta to come out on DVD this Tuesday.
> Under these circumstances the Big Evil Conspiracy would dissolve
> prettty quickly, because inevitably one of the BEC members would rat
> out on the others. And, for the duration of the crisis (a few weeks at
> most, probaly, the President could surround himself with enough
> security that his successful assassination would be fairly improbable.
>
Trafficante also had saying for that, "If three people know a secret,
it can stay a secret if two of those people are dead." I.e. John
Rosselli and Sam Giancana.
> Delivering "Warnings" (in capitals) to people who have the power to
> order you arrested or (under martial law) executed after a summary
> trial is a Big Bad Idea. A _very_ Big Bad Idea.
>
So in your world, coups are impossible?
> - Jordan
>
Jordan
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> Jordan wrote:
> > Conspiracy. If one's assassination of a head of state is meant to
> > deter the next head of state from doing something, or intimidate him
> > into doing something, he has to have some idea what the "something" is,
> > or you've just wasted a bullet (and a President) to no good purpose.
> > But this leads to the problem that telling him what that "something" is
> > also communicates to him who you are, and then you've just blown the
> > "secret" part of your Conspiracy.
>
> I guess it depends on how stupid the replacement is. Some people might
> be smart enough to figure it out. Others may need to be warned. Such as
> plastering the city with placards calling the President a traitor and
> wishing for a miracle to put a Texan in the White House. Maybe some
> people are too stupid to get the subtle drift of that message.
I've been reading stuff on conspiracies to kill JFK for decades now,
and the interesting thing is that practically every book fingers a
different bunch of people and gives a different motive. I've heard
that he was killed by the CIA / Cuban exiles because they were mad at
him botching the Bay of Pigs; by the Military-Industrial Complex
because they wanted to get us into the Vietnam War; by Castro because
in self-defense for all the assassination plots against himself; by the
Soviets because they were upset that he'd nearly started World War III;
by the Mafia because they were being hunted down by Bobby Kennedy; etc.
etc. etc. YOUR particular theory is the "rich right-wing Southern
businessmen," which I've _also_ heard before.
So, it's the winter of 1963-64. You're Lyndon Baines Johnson. How the
heck do you know _which_ of these many suspects (the ones I listed and
some others I haven't listed) was delivering this "warning" using an
odd binary language of President-alive / President-dead? Do you assume
that this was the Murder on the Dallas Express and that they ALL did
it, and spend your Presidency trying to please everyone who _might_
have been involved in this conspiracy? Do you pick one and hope that
your paranoia-radar was working correctly? I mean, really, what does
the "smart" Lyndon Baines Johnson do?
(and why isn't exercising your Constitutional duty to uproot and crush
the Conspiracy an option?)
> > Now, the American head of state is also Commander-in-Chief of the
> > military. If he has reason to believe that there is a Big Evil
> > Conspiracy trying to control American policy by direct physical threats
> > to the elected head of the Executive Branch (himself), said Big Evil
> > Conspiracy is a "clear and present danger" to the security of the
> > Republic, and hence he has a Constiutional right (and duty) to put said
> > conspiracy down using his emergency powers. This would justify (for
> > example) declaring martial law and pre-emptively arresting a whole
> > bunch of Big Evil Conspirators, or possible Big Evil Conspirators.
>
> Would it were that simple.
Actually, it is pretty much that simple, which is why a Conspiracy
would have to be pathologically stupid to tell a President: "We killed
your predecessor. Piss us off and we'll kill you. Now here's what you
have to do and refrain from doing to keep us happy ..."
The President of the United States is in charge of the US military and
pretty much every US intelligence and security agency, aside from a few
highly specialized ones. In an emergency, he has nigh-dictatorial
powers to deal with the emergency, at least for its duration. A
Conspiracy going around potting Presidents who failed to do its bidding
would constitute the most severe threat to the American Republic since
World War II -- by some measures, a _more_ severe threat to the
Republic than World War II, since at no point was Hitler close to a
position from which he could control or even significantly affect
American self-governance.
> Various Presidents have wrestled with the
> problem. See the Plot to Overthrow FDR.
Which got nowhere, and never had any chance of accomplishing the
success of the coup.
Note: it might have succeeded in killing FDR. But that's not what it
would have had to do to succeed _as a coup_. A successful coup
involves putting your _own_ candidate in the top seat. And the chance
of the coup plotters winning the obedience and loyalty of the rest of
the country was pretty much nil -- all they would have accomplished in
the long run would have been a brief civil war in which their own side
would have been completely and hopelessly outnumbered.
> When the book Seven Days in May
> came out, someone asked President Kennedy what he thought of it. Kennedy
> replied that it was quite realistic and he knew some Generals like that.
I've read the book, and I don't think the plan would have worked _as a
coup_. (It might have thrown America into complete chaos, though).
> When Eisenhower was preparing to leave office he made a point of giving
> a speech warning the public about the military industrial complex.
> Must have been a conspiracy kook, eh? Well, of all people he should know
> because he came from the military and saw their power grow after the end
> of the war.
No, Eisenhower simply wasn't talking about what you _imagine_ he was
talking about. I've _read_ the famous "military industrial complex"
speech, and he was talking about the long-term corruptive effects of
the alliance between the miltiary and big business. Procurement
politics, basically. He was _not_ talking about Evil Conspiracies
going hunting Presidents!
> So, let me ask you this hypothetical question. You'd see nothing wrong
> with the current President declaring Martial Law and summarily executing
> millions of Americans because he thinks there is a conspiracy to impeach
> him?
No, I'd see a _lot_ wrong with that. How did we get from LBJ crushing
a conspiracy that murdered his predecessor and was threatening his
murder if he failed to do their bidding, by the perfectly legal act of
declaring Martial Law, putting himself under heightened security, and
rounding up the conspirators to Bush II crushing a perfectly legal
movement to impeach him by murdering millions of people?
> Look for the movie V for Vendetta to come out on DVD this Tuesday.
??? Ok, you've now jumped into a whole other reality now -- none of
this has _anything_ to do with JFK, LBJ, or Dubya! To this I respond:
_Dune_. The later SciFi Channel version. And _Hellboy_. The Answers
Are In There.
And I'm sure you're silenced by my irrefutable lack of logic.
> > Under these circumstances the Big Evil Conspiracy would dissolve
> > prettty quickly, because inevitably one of the BEC members would rat
> > out on the others. And, for the duration of the crisis (a few weeks at
> > most, probaly, the President could surround himself with enough
> > security that his successful assassination would be fairly improbable.
>
> Trafficante also had saying for that, "If three people know a secret,
> it can stay a secret if two of those people are dead." I.e. John
> Rosselli and Sam Giancana.
Um, that's nice. Its relevance here? If the Big Evil Conspiracy
responds to the government crackdown by assassinating _its own
members_, the likely consequence will be that it will disintegrate even
more rapidly as terrified conspirators throw themselves on LBJ's mercy
rather than be killed by their own bosses!
> > Delivering "Warnings" (in capitals) to people who have the power to
> > order you arrested or (under martial law) executed after a summary
> > trial is a Big Bad Idea. A _very_ Big Bad Idea.
>
> So in your world, coups are impossible?
Oh no, coups are _very_ possible. I've even studied the political
science of how to carry them out.
Here's a clue: you _don't_ do it by warning your intended victim of
your plan. This is because the coup plotters are trying to bring down
someone who has much more potential power than them, and their chance
of success hinges upon striking swiftly and decisively before their
intended victim can mobilize against them.
The only way that the Big Evil Conspiracy could both kill JFK _and get
away with it_ (the hard part) is if LBJ is either one of the
conspirators (and thus it constitutes a covert coup _by_ LBJ), or a
cowardly traitor to the Republic, who fears to do his Constitutional
duty to crush the BEC because he's afraid that they'll get him, too.
This is the reality that most of the JFK conspiracy buffs bump into --
that in order to make their conspiracy theories work, LBJ has to be
either an active or a passive traitor -- a villain or a coward, in
other words.
So which one are you plumping for?
- Jordan
Jordan
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> Jordan wrote:
> > Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> Jordan wrote:
> >>
> >>> Especially since you'd think such a Big Evil Conspiracy would have
> >>> access to the President in more intimate settings.
> >> You mean the way the CIA assassinated Castro?
> >
> > Castro is a totalitarian dictator, and hence can do things to assure
> > his personal security that mere Presidents cannot. But I would think
>
> OK, I'll grant you that. Casto can kill millions of people if he wants
> and a US President can never kill anyone, right? So what?
Um, no, more to the point, Castro can control access not only to his
person but to the vicinity of his person in ways that a US President
cannot, because Castro doesn't have to worry about alienating people
who he needs to help him get a bill through Congress or win the next
election. Also, Castro can arrest, torture, and execute people on mere
suspicion of political opposition, let alone of plotting his
assassination -- a US President who behaved like that would be facing
impeachment.
> > that the CIA's total failure against Castro would demonstrate to you
> > the flaws of assassination as a tool for political change -- in
> > particular, that most assassination attempts _fail_. And a domestic
>
> I only wish that everyone else would get the point about assassination
> being a failed tool, but unfortunately many people in this world have
> not gotten the memo, including all the major intelligence agencies.
I didn't say that assassination _never_ works. I'm saying that
assassination attempts _usually_ don't work, and that therefore if your
plan requires a successful assassination with the likely consequence of
an unsuccessful assassination being your own arrest or death, it is a
bad plan.
Look, imagine that you're one of the Big Evil Conspirators in 1963.
You recruit Oswald, or Oswald plus some unknown number of guys on
grassy knolls, ice cream parlors, or sewer systems to kill Kennedy.
But unfortunately for your brilliant plan, the guy on the grassy knoll
pulls out his rifle in full view of a crowd as the President's car
approaches, and some members of the crowd grab him (*). When the
Secret Service see this, they route the motorcade away from Dealey
Plaza (**), and Oswald and the guy in the ice cream parlor and sewer
system can't get clear shots. Oh, and they take Mr. Grassy Knoll into
custody while they're at it.
Now the President knows that there's a plot to get him, so he hunkers
down surrounded by a _real_ security net instead of riding around in an
open car. Because of this, setting up a second attempt is difficult
(***). An investigation begins, propelled by the full fury of both JFK
and his brother (the Attorney-General, remember?).
The Evil Conspirators have some problems now. The temptation for one
of them to turn on the others is high, especially if you assume that
some of them are government agents. They can try to kill everyone in
the know, but since _they_ are on that list, and since once they start
killing their own members the survivors are even _more_ likely to rat
them out, this is difficult.
If there really _is_ a conspiracy involving numerous people in the US
government itself, the chance is VERY great that one of them rats the
others out. At this point the others have little choice but to try to
flee the country or go underground, because open resistance, no matter
which agencies they are in high places within, is useless against the
Commander-in-Chief, who can (if necessary) deploy the Armed Forces
against any strongpoints they may have created.
The same logic, by the way, applies to LBJ discovering that JFK was
murdered, _unless_ we assume that LBJ is either a traitor (i.e., part
of the Conspiracy) or a coward (i.e., so terrified that he will be
personally killed that he abandons his Constitutional duty to crush
this deadly threat to the American Republic).
> > conspiracy trying to kill a President would have to deal with the
> > strong possibility that it would only get one try, because a failed
> > attempt would alert the plan's target, who would then mobilize his
> > considerable powers as head of the Executive Branch to crush the
> > conspiracy.
> Or you could cite another favorite WC defender maxim that assassinations
> never work because when you kill the leader, the man who takes over may
> be just as bad or worse. Remind the CIA of that one.
Well, depends what the Big Evil Conspiracy intended LBJ to do. Since
he apparently failed to crush the Big Evil Conspiracy, they achieved
_one_ of their ends in your theoretical model -- they got away with it.
Which isn't easy to do.
> Which is exactly what they did with John Kennedy. As Trafficante would
> say, "If you want to stop the dog from biting you, don't cut off his
> tail, cut off his head."
Who _is_ "they?" You've never said explicitly which of the many
possible suspects you are accusing of being the Big Evil Conspirators.
Come on, this is supposed to be so obvious that LBJ will automatically
know who did it and be so terrified by their Awesome Conspiratorial
Might that he won't go after them. Can't you let _us_ in on the
secret?
- Jordan
(*) This is exactly why having assassins standing in full view
brandishing rifles, as opposed to firing from sniper's nests as Oswald,
who knew what he was doing, chose to do, is a bad idea. If you're
going to shoot at someone with a long-ranged weapon, do _not_ position
yourself where people standing nearby can interfere with your actions!
(**) As happened in the assassination attempt on Franz Ferdinand. The
Archduke had amazingly bad luck; the driver of his car got lost and
stopped to figure out what turn to take _right in front of Gavrilo
Princip_, who had all but given up on the Big Evil Conspiracy that _he_
was a part of. We can't assume that Oswald gets Princip's luck here.
(***) Not impossible. But difficult enough that the chance of getting
JFK before the investigation yields some fruits is fairly low. Killing
a _defended_ target is extremely difficult, as the CIA found out in its
increasingly-comical attempts to murder Fidel Castro.
Anthony Marsh
Well, you're easy to spot as a WC defender because you lie about what I
have said. I never said my theory is rich right-wing Southern
businessmen. You seemed to make that up solely from your overly-active
imagination. When examining conspiracies it is not possible to
categorize them as only one distinct group at a time. Often they are
joint operations. Look at the Castro assassination plots. Ordered by the
US government. Planned and paid for by the CIA. Using the Mafia. Using
businessmen as fronts and cutouts. Using Cuban exiles as contacts.
Several different groups all with shared interests.
> So, it's the winter of 1963-64. You're Lyndon Baines Johnson. How the
> heck do you know _which_ of these many suspects (the ones I listed and
> some others I haven't listed) was delivering this "warning" using an
> odd binary language of President-alive / President-dead? Do you assume
> that this was the Murder on the Dallas Express and that they ALL did
> it, and spend your Presidency trying to please everyone who _might_
> have been involved in this conspiracy? Do you pick one and hope that
> your paranoia-radar was working correctly? I mean, really, what does
> the "smart" Lyndon Baines Johnson do?
>
He covers it up.
> (and why isn't exercising your Constitutional duty to uproot and crush
> the Conspiracy an option?)
>
>>> Now, the American head of state is also Commander-in-Chief of the
>>> military. If he has reason to believe that there is a Big Evil
>>> Conspiracy trying to control American policy by direct physical threats
>>> to the elected head of the Executive Branch (himself), said Big Evil
>>> Conspiracy is a "clear and present danger" to the security of the
>>> Republic, and hence he has a Constiutional right (and duty) to put said
>>> conspiracy down using his emergency powers. This would justify (for
>>> example) declaring martial law and pre-emptively arresting a whole
>>> bunch of Big Evil Conspirators, or possible Big Evil Conspirators.
>> Would it were that simple.
>
> Actually, it is pretty much that simple, which is why a Conspiracy
> would have to be pathologically stupid to tell a President: "We killed
> your predecessor. Piss us off and we'll kill you. Now here's what you
> have to do and refrain from doing to keep us happy ..."
>
They do not have to spell it out, even to morons like you.
> The President of the United States is in charge of the US military and
> pretty much every US intelligence and security agency, aside from a few
> highly specialized ones. In an emergency, he has nigh-dictatorial
> powers to deal with the emergency, at least for its duration. A
In an emergency? You mean like right now, when the current President is
exercising dictatorial power?
> Conspiracy going around potting Presidents who failed to do its bidding
> would constitute the most severe threat to the American Republic since
> World War II -- by some measures, a _more_ severe threat to the
> Republic than World War II, since at no point was Hitler close to a
> position from which he could control or even significantly affect
> American self-governance.
>
So you are on record as admitting that Bush is more of a threat to the
Republic than Hitler was?
>> Various Presidents have wrestled with the
>> problem. See the Plot to Overthrow FDR.
>
> Which got nowhere, and never had any chance of accomplishing the
> success of the coup.
>
So what?
> Note: it might have succeeded in killing FDR. But that's not what it
> would have had to do to succeed _as a coup_. A successful coup
> involves putting your _own_ candidate in the top seat. And the chance
> of the coup plotters winning the obedience and loyalty of the rest of
> the country was pretty much nil -- all they would have accomplished in
> the long run would have been a brief civil war in which their own side
> would have been completely and hopelessly outnumbered.
>
Doesn't deter them from trying. Coups happen every year.
>> When the book Seven Days in May
>> came out, someone asked President Kennedy what he thought of it. Kennedy
>> replied that it was quite realistic and he knew some Generals like that.
>
> I've read the book, and I don't think the plan would have worked _as a
> coup_. (It might have thrown America into complete chaos, though).
>
>> When Eisenhower was preparing to leave office he made a point of giving
>> a speech warning the public about the military industrial complex.
>> Must have been a conspiracy kook, eh? Well, of all people he should know
>> because he came from the military and saw their power grow after the end
>> of the war.
>
> No, Eisenhower simply wasn't talking about what you _imagine_ he was
> talking about. I've _read_ the famous "military industrial complex"
> speech, and he was talking about the long-term corruptive effects of
> the alliance between the miltiary and big business. Procurement
> politics, basically. He was _not_ talking about Evil Conspiracies
> going hunting Presidents!
>
And I never said anything about the military industrial complex going
hunting Presidents!!!
Stick to the point. Can you even admit that Eisenhower was warning us
about the military industrial complex?
>> So, let me ask you this hypothetical question. You'd see nothing wrong
>> with the current President declaring Martial Law and summarily executing
>> millions of Americans because he thinks there is a conspiracy to impeach
>> him?
>
> No, I'd see a _lot_ wrong with that. How did we get from LBJ crushing
> a conspiracy that murdered his predecessor and was threatening his
> murder if he failed to do their bidding, by the perfectly legal act of
> declaring Martial Law, putting himself under heightened security, and
> rounding up the conspirators to Bush II crushing a perfectly legal
> movement to impeach him by murdering millions of people?
>
The point is that you see nothing wrong with the President declaring
Martial Law and summarily executing people.
>> Look for the movie V for Vendetta to come out on DVD this Tuesday.
>
> ??? Ok, you've now jumped into a whole other reality now -- none of
> this has _anything_ to do with JFK, LBJ, or Dubya! To this I respond:
>
> _Dune_. The later SciFi Channel version. And _Hellboy_. The Answers
> Are In There.
>
> And I'm sure you're silenced by my irrefutable lack of logic.
>
There are not interesting parallels in those movies.
>>> Under these circumstances the Big Evil Conspiracy would dissolve
>>> prettty quickly, because inevitably one of the BEC members would rat
>>> out on the others. And, for the duration of the crisis (a few weeks at
>>> most, probaly, the President could surround himself with enough
>>> security that his successful assassination would be fairly improbable.
>> Trafficante also had saying for that, "If three people know a secret,
>> it can stay a secret if two of those people are dead." I.e. John
>> Rosselli and Sam Giancana.
>
> Um, that's nice. Its relevance here? If the Big Evil Conspiracy
> responds to the government crackdown by assassinating _its own
> members_, the likely consequence will be that it will disintegrate even
> more rapidly as terrified conspirators throw themselves on LBJ's mercy
> rather than be killed by their own bosses!
>
Oh sure, which is why Mafiosi never assassinate each other because they
don't want to thin their ranks?
>>> Delivering "Warnings" (in capitals) to people who have the power to
>>> order you arrested or (under martial law) executed after a summary
>>> trial is a Big Bad Idea. A _very_ Big Bad Idea.
>> So in your world, coups are impossible?
>
> Oh no, coups are _very_ possible. I've even studied the political
> science of how to carry them out.
>
More than that, you've probably plotted a few.
> Here's a clue: you _don't_ do it by warning your intended victim of
> your plan. This is because the coup plotters are trying to bring down
> someone who has much more potential power than them, and their chance
> of success hinges upon striking swiftly and decisively before their
> intended victim can mobilize against them.
>
Like the interviews with Castro where he explained his coup plans
against Battista? Or the CIA guns out to get Trujillo?
> The only way that the Big Evil Conspiracy could both kill JFK _and get
> away with it_ (the hard part) is if LBJ is either one of the
> conspirators (and thus it constitutes a covert coup _by_ LBJ), or a
> cowardly traitor to the Republic, who fears to do his Constitutional
> duty to crush the BEC because he's afraid that they'll get him, too.
>
No, your thinking is too linear.
> This is the reality that most of the JFK conspiracy buffs bump into --
> that in order to make their conspiracy theories work, LBJ has to be
> either an active or a passive traitor -- a villain or a coward, in
> other words.
>
This is the problem you cover-up artists have, limited linear thinking.
Everything is either black or white.
> So which one are you plumping for?
>
I prefer to deal with the reality of what actually happened. Johnson
THOUGHT it was a conspiracy and so covered it up.
> - Jordan
>
Jordan
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> Jordan wrote:
> > YOUR particular theory is the "rich right-wing Southern
> > businessmen," which I've _also_ heard before.
> >
>
> Well, you're easy to spot as a WC defender because you lie about what I
> have said.
Because by definition all defenders of the Warren Commission lie, and
all liars defend the Warren Commission? Nice tautological world you
live in ... FYI, I have no particular attachment to the correctness of
the theories of the Warren Commision; in fact I've made up more than
one JFK assassination conspiracy theory in my own fiction. _Mine_,
however, are constructed plausibly and with an eye to how coups and
conspiracies _really_ operate.
> I never said my theory is rich right-wing Southern
> businessmen. You seemed to make that up solely from your overly-active
> imagination.
Actually, I inferred this from your statement about "Kill JFK" signs
going up around the South. The only people likely to put up any signs
like that would be rich Southerners who hated JFK. If that isn't what
you meant by that statement, what _did_ you mean by it?
> When examining conspiracies it is not possible to
> categorize them as only one distinct group at a time. Often they are
> joint operations. Look at the Castro assassination plots. Ordered by the
> US government. Planned and paid for by the CIA. Using the Mafia. Using
> businessmen as fronts and cutouts. Using Cuban exiles as contacts.
> Several different groups all with shared interests.
Actually, in the case of the Castro assassination plots, one can indeed
categorize the distinct groups, _as you just did in your post!_ In
that particular case, the active agency was the President of the United
States of America (in fact, JFK), who _ordered_ the CIA to assassinate
Castro. The CIA then made use of its contacts with the Mafia, various
American businessmen, and various Cuban exiles to then attempt this
assassination.
> > So, it's the winter of 1963-64. You're Lyndon Baines Johnson. How the
> > heck do you know _which_ of these many suspects (the ones I listed and
> > some others I haven't listed) was delivering this "warning" using an
> > odd binary language of President-alive / President-dead? Do you assume
> > that this was the Murder on the Dallas Express and that they ALL did
> > it, and spend your Presidency trying to please everyone who _might_
> > have been involved in this conspiracy? Do you pick one and hope that
> > your paranoia-radar was working correctly? I mean, really, what does
> > the "smart" Lyndon Baines Johnson do?
>
> He covers it up.
Why?
Unless he's _part_ of the Big Evil Conspiracy (which would, of course,
make a lot of sense since he was its chief beneficiary), he has neither
any obligation nor much to gain politically by doing their dirty work
for them. Indeed, if he instead exposed it, using its exposure to
declare martial law and slay the dragons, he would gain _very_ much
both in terms of immediate political popularity _and_ in the eyes of
history as a Noble Defender of the Republic.
Sure, he'd be risking assassination by the Big Evil Conspiracy, but
said BEC has already assassinated one President for totally murky and
incomprehensible reasons. Wouldn't leaving the BEC intact and with its
leadership roaming around alive and free _also_ be dangerous to his own
life? After all, they might decide to kill _him_ too, for whatever
unknown reason they decided to kill JFK.
And, by striking first with all the powers of the Presidency, he would
have a very good chance of taking out enough of the BEC fast enough
that any survivors would be too busy running and hiding to do anything
effective against himself. Indeed, many former BEC members would
probably at that point be trying to cut deals with the prosecutors --
information for immunity or reduced sentences -- rather than
compounding their crimes by committing further acts of treason.
Besides, LBJ would have known (unless he was a complete fool) that
being President is inherently dangerous -- after all, more than 1/10 of
the Presidents who swore the oath of office died by violence when in
office at the point that he aggreed to succeed JFK, and JFK himself had
been murdered. Why do you assume that LBJ was cowardly? Leaders often
risk their own lives to achieve a worthy objective, and certainly
crushing a conspiracy that struck at the heart of American democracy
would be worthy of taking a risk, right?
Unless, of course, LBJ was in on it. Are you arguing that he was?
> > Actually, it is pretty much that simple, which is why a Conspiracy
> > would have to be pathologically stupid to tell a President: "We killed
> > your predecessor. Piss us off and we'll kill you. Now here's what you
> > have to do and refrain from doing to keep us happy ..."
> >
>
> They do not have to spell it out, even to morons like you.
Ok, see ... reality doesn't work that way. To effectively communicate,
the recpient of one's communication has to understand the message. To
threaten a President in this fashion, he has to _understand_ the
threat. Which means that it must indeed be "spelled out" at least to
the point that he isn't perceiving it as one of the far more likely
threats, such as "piss us off and we'll alienate your constituencies"
or "piss us off and you'll lose votes in Congress" or "piss us off and
we'll administratively sabotage your policies," which are routine
threats in Washington politics.
But once the President understands _that particular message_ -- a death
threat -- the sender of this message has suddenly been promoted from
normal political player to deadly menace to the President personally
and to the Republic in general. And the problem is that the President
is not some helpless sacrificial victim who has no choices other than
to give in or be killed. The President commands numerous military,
intelligence, and security agencies which exist in part precisely to
deal with threats of that type.
Now it's true that the Big Evil Conspiracy may have penetrated _some_
of these agencies to the point that they will act against rather than
for the President. But it's unlikely that it's penetrated _all_ of
them, and besides the BEC is operating under the severe disadvantage
that obedience to the President follows while obedience to the BEC
subverts normal lines of authority. The BEC has to worry that _its own
members_ will betray them to the loyalist factions in the government.
This is a severe worry because Americans are indoctrinated from their
childhood to regard the President as a legitimate authority, but NOT to
regard some Big Evil Conspiracy as a legitimate authority. Hence, the
President has the prevailing political culture on his side.
> > The President of the United States is in charge of the US military and
> > pretty much every US intelligence and security agency, aside from a few
> > highly specialized ones. In an emergency, he has nigh-dictatorial
> > powers to deal with the emergency, at least for its duration. A
>
> In an emergency? You mean like right now, when the current President is
> exercising dictatorial power?
Dubya is _not_ exercising "dictatorial power," and the argument that he
is bespeaks a vast ignorance of how _real_ dictatorships behave. Do
you think, for instance, that you would be safe _saying what you just
said in a public forum_ were Bush truly a "dictator?"
> > Conspiracy going around potting Presidents who failed to do its bidding
> > would constitute the most severe threat to the American Republic since
> > World War II -- by some measures, a _more_ severe threat to the
> > Republic than World War II, since at no point was Hitler close to a
> > position from which he could control or even significantly affect
> > American self-governance.
>
> So you are on record as admitting that Bush is more of a threat to the
> Republic than Hitler was?
No, because I don't accept your premise that Bush is or is trying to
become a dictator.
By the way, do you actually _have_ a rational answer to my point that a
President who became aware of the existence of such a Big Evil
Conspiracy would have a strong Constitutional duty to destroy it?
> >> Various Presidents have wrestled with the
> >> problem. See the Plot to Overthrow FDR.
> >
> > Which got nowhere, and never had any chance of accomplishing the
> > success of the coup.
>
> So what?
FDR did not have to "wrestle" very hard with an ill-thought out
"conspiracy" that never got any farther than attempting to subvert
General Smedley Butler, and having the General laugh in its face.
> > Note: it might have succeeded in killing FDR. But that's not what it
> > would have had to do to succeed _as a coup_. A successful coup
> > involves putting your _own_ candidate in the top seat. And the chance
> > of the coup plotters winning the obedience and loyalty of the rest of
> > the country was pretty much nil -- all they would have accomplished in
> > the long run would have been a brief civil war in which their own side
> > would have been completely and hopelessly outnumbered.
>
> Doesn't deter them from trying. Coups happen every year.
As far as I know there has _never_ been a successful coup in the United
States of America, _unless you're arguing that LBJ was in on the Big
Evil Conspiracy_. And if so, that was a _covert_ coup, even after his
success.
> > No, Eisenhower simply wasn't talking about what you _imagine_ he was
> > talking about. I've _read_ the famous "military industrial complex"
> > speech, and he was talking about the long-term corruptive effects of
> > the alliance between the miltiary and big business. Procurement
> > politics, basically. He was _not_ talking about Evil Conspiracies
> > going hunting Presidents!
> >
>
> And I never said anything about the military industrial complex going
> hunting Presidents!!!
No, in fact you've never explained just _who_ you think formed your Big
Evil Conspiracy to kill JFK, or why. This has the advantage that you
can make all sorts of sinister insinuations without limiting yourself
to any one theory which could be attacked on known historical grounds.
But it has the disadvantage that an intelligent reader, like myself,
_notices_ that you're not actually making any falsifiable claims, and
hence not really saying anything meaningful at all.
> Stick to the point. Can you even admit that Eisenhower was warning us
> about the military industrial complex?
Of course he was. He was warning us about the tendency to corruption
of the military procurement and strategic doctrinal process by said
"military industrial complex."
> >> So, let me ask you this hypothetical question. You'd see nothing wrong
> >> with the current President declaring Martial Law and summarily executing
> >> millions of Americans because he thinks there is a conspiracy to impeach
> >> him?
> >
> > No, I'd see a _lot_ wrong with that. How did we get from LBJ crushing
> > a conspiracy that murdered his predecessor and was threatening his
> > murder if he failed to do their bidding, by the perfectly legal act of
> > declaring Martial Law, putting himself under heightened security, and
> > rounding up the conspirators to Bush II crushing a perfectly legal
> > movement to impeach him by murdering millions of people?
>
> The point is that you see nothing wrong with the President declaring
> Martial Law and summarily executing people.
That is a false claim on your part. I said nothing about "summary
executions." Martial law provides for two instances in which someone
may be lawfully killed -- when they are resisting the lawful
authorities, and when they are convicted of a capital crime by a
court-martial / military tribunal.
I do see nothing wrong with the President declaring martial law in a
situation of national emergency resulting from the murder of his
predecessor by a still-extant conspiracy. Such situations -- armed
insurgency against the Constitutional authorities -- are exactly the
sort of emergencies that the institution of "martial law" was created
to deal with.
If _you_ were LBJ, what would _you_ have done if you had become aware
that a Big Evil Conspiracy had murdered your predecessor. So far the
only thing you've proposed is "cover it up," which sounds like a much
worse solution since it leaves the Big Evil Conspiracy an active threat
to American democracy.
> >> Look for the movie V for Vendetta to come out on DVD this Tuesday.
> >
> > ??? Ok, you've now jumped into a whole other reality now -- none of
> > this has _anything_ to do with JFK, LBJ, or Dubya! To this I respond:
> >
> > _Dune_. The later SciFi Channel version. And _Hellboy_. The Answers
> > Are In There.
> >
> > And I'm sure you're silenced by my irrefutable lack of logic.
>
> There are not interesting parallels in those movies.
You need to make an explicit argument rather than name movie titles.
Oh, and
_Gone With the Wind_. _Birth of a Nation_. _The Little Tramp_. _Love
at First Bite_.
Thus, I refute you, by your own lack of logic.
> > Um, that's nice. Its relevance here? If the Big Evil Conspiracy
> > responds to the government crackdown by assassinating _its own
> > members_, the likely consequence will be that it will disintegrate even
> > more rapidly as terrified conspirators throw themselves on LBJ's mercy
> > rather than be killed by their own bosses!
>
> Oh sure, which is why Mafiosi never assassinate each other because they
> don't want to thin their ranks?
I'm sure you _think_ that this was a meaningful response to my
argument, but it wasn't. Try again, this time speaking _explicitly_
rather than obscurely.
Hint: what do you mean by "thin their ranks" in this context? And are
you aware that, when a gang begins killing its own members, that is
usually the prelude or sequel to at least one of them turning informer
on the other? Which means that you just _supported my observation_,
which is probably not what you were trying to do!
> > Oh no, coups are _very_ possible. I've even studied the political
> > science of how to carry them out.
>
> More than that, you've probably plotted a few.
I have? Really? In which countries?
Actually, I have. But not in the way you imagine. As a student of
history and a writer, I've thought up imaginary coups in future- or
alternate-historical situations, which is why I can see the flaws in
_your_ imaginary coups so easily.
> > Here's a clue: you _don't_ do it by warning your intended victim of
> > your plan. This is because the coup plotters are trying to bring down
> > someone who has much more potential power than them, and their chance
> > of success hinges upon striking swiftly and decisively before their
> > intended victim can mobilize against them.
>
> Like the interviews with Castro where he explained his coup plans
> against Battista? Or the CIA guns out to get Trujillo?
Castro was leading a revolution, not plotting a coup. There is a
signfiicant difference between the two methods of seizing power, in
that a revolution attempts to gain power through getting enough of
those willing to fight off the government's side and onto their own
side that they can win through numerical superiority. The leaders of a
revolution do not put themselves in a position where the agents of the
government can gain easy access to them. Declaration of intent
_before_ the seizure of power is important in a revolution, since
masses of people will not join a cause which has not declared itself.
One cannot carry out a revolution in secret!
By contrast, a coup operates by gaining control of a key minority of
individuals who are in a position to effect a physical seizure of the
individuals and instrumentalities of rulership. This means the current
government leader, his principal lieutenants, and the buildings in the
capital from which they operate and which contain the records etc.
which they use to administer the country. Coup plotters are normally,
before launching their coup, in a position where government agents
_could_ kill or arrest them, _if the government knew they were plotting
the coup_. Consequently, coup plotters do not declare their intent
_until_ they have actually executed, or are in the process of
executing, their coup.
This is why a coup is impossible in the United States of America,
_unless_ one kills the President _and_ has the Vice-President as a
member of the conspiracy. Because American authority is dispersed, not
concentrated, _save in the Executive Branch_, there is no one person,
building, or even city who one could OPENLY kill or seize and thus gain
control of the country.
Imagine a traditional Latin American coup in America. Say that a
military unit has been suborned and seizes Washington DC, and declares
an individual to be the new Maximum Leader For Life. Assume that the
coup captures or kills the President, Vice President, all nine Supreme
Court Justices and most of the Congress.
The problem is that, because authority in America derives from the
Constitution and the consent of the governed rather than from the
control of specific individuals or buildings, almost nobody not
actually under the guns of the coup forces will obey the leader of the
coup. The new "Maximum Leader" will have a short reign, cowering in
Washington DC with his puny few thousand followers while the rest of
the country organizes around whichever Federal officals escaped and
marches to liberate the capital. America simply does not have a
tradition of coups.
The _only_ way, I repeat, that even a covert coup works is if it kills
the President _and replaces him by someone either treacherous or
cowardly enough to cooperate with the coup plotters_. Even then, the
plotters are running a serious risk themselves, since they have just
put someone either treacherous (and will he betray _them_ too?) or
cowardly (and will he kill them out of fear for his own life?) into a
position where he now commands the resources to crush them if he so
desires.
This is why America does not have a history of successful coups.
> > The only way that the Big Evil Conspiracy could both kill JFK _and get
> > away with it_ (the hard part) is if LBJ is either one of the
> > conspirators (and thus it constitutes a covert coup _by_ LBJ), or a
> > cowardly traitor to the Republic, who fears to do his Constitutional
> > duty to crush the BEC because he's afraid that they'll get him, too.
>
> No, your thinking is too linear.
Decoded into actual logical argument, your reason why a hypothetical
LBJ who (1) knows of the Big Evil Conspiracy, and is (2) loyal to the
Constitution _and_ (3) reasonably courageous would _not_ try to crush
the coup is that .... ?
> > This is the reality that most of the JFK conspiracy buffs bump into --
> > that in order to make their conspiracy theories work, LBJ has to be
> > either an active or a passive traitor -- a villain or a coward, in
> > other words.
>
> This is the problem you cover-up artists have, limited linear thinking.
> Everything is either black or white.
Whereas, in fact, LBJ's motivation for _not_ crushing this extreme
threat to the Constitution of which he had become aware was ... ?
> > So which one are you plumping for?
>
> I prefer to deal with the reality of what actually happened. Johnson
> THOUGHT it was a conspiracy and so covered it up.
Why would LBJ exert himself, taking political risks and violating the
Constitution, to cover up a conspiracy of which he was _not_ a part,
_unless_ he was afraid that they would try to kill him and was deterred
by this threat from fulfilling his Constitutional role as President?
This implies altruism of a very peverse kind, indeed!
- Jordan
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> Jordan wrote:
>>> YOUR particular theory is the "rich right-wing Southern
>>> businessmen," which I've _also_ heard before.
>>>
>> Well, you're easy to spot as a WC defender because you lie about what I
>> have said.
>
> Because by definition all defenders of the Warren Commission lie, and
> all liars defend the Warren Commission? Nice tautological world you
> live in ... FYI, I have no particular attachment to the correctness of
> the theories of the Warren Commision; in fact I've made up more than
> one JFK assassination conspiracy theory in my own fiction. _Mine_,
> however, are constructed plausibly and with an eye to how coups and
> conspiracies _really_ operate.
>
>> I never said my theory is rich right-wing Southern
>> businessmen. You seemed to make that up solely from your overly-active
>> imagination.
>
> Actually, I inferred this from your statement about "Kill JFK" signs
> going up around the South. The only people likely to put up any signs
> like that would be rich Southerners who hated JFK. If that isn't what
> you meant by that statement, what _did_ you mean by it?
>
You infer things from your imagination, not from what I said. I never
said anything about Kill JFK signs. They said Wanted For Treason.
Of course you can't figure out who put up those signs. Anyway, I did not
say they paid for the Kennedy assassination.
You wanted examples of warning signs.
>> When examining conspiracies it is not possible to
>> categorize them as only one distinct group at a time. Often they are
>> joint operations. Look at the Castro assassination plots. Ordered by the
>> US government. Planned and paid for by the CIA. Using the Mafia. Using
>> businessmen as fronts and cutouts. Using Cuban exiles as contacts.
>> Several different groups all with shared interests.
>
> Actually, in the case of the Castro assassination plots, one can indeed
> categorize the distinct groups, _as you just did in your post!_ In
> that particular case, the active agency was the President of the United
> States of America (in fact, JFK), who _ordered_ the CIA to assassinate
> Castro. The CIA then made use of its contacts with the Mafia, various
> American businessmen, and various Cuban exiles to then attempt this
> assassination.
>
But you missed the point that there were joint operations involving
members of several different categories.
BTW, it was not JFK who ordered the CIA to assassinate Castro. Helms did
that on his own authority, continuing an operation that was begun during
the Eisenhower administration and authorized by Nixon. That's what Nixon
was trying to blackmail Helms with.
>>> So, it's the winter of 1963-64. You're Lyndon Baines Johnson. How the
>>> heck do you know _which_ of these many suspects (the ones I listed and
>>> some others I haven't listed) was delivering this "warning" using an
>>> odd binary language of President-alive / President-dead? Do you assume
>>> that this was the Murder on the Dallas Express and that they ALL did
>>> it, and spend your Presidency trying to please everyone who _might_
>>> have been involved in this conspiracy? Do you pick one and hope that
>>> your paranoia-radar was working correctly? I mean, really, what does
>>> the "smart" Lyndon Baines Johnson do?
>> He covers it up.
>
> Why?
>
To prevent WWIII.
> Unless he's _part_ of the Big Evil Conspiracy (which would, of course,
> make a lot of sense since he was its chief beneficiary), he has neither
> any obligation nor much to gain politically by doing their dirty work
> for them. Indeed, if he instead exposed it, using its exposure to
> declare martial law and slay the dragons, he would gain _very_ much
> both in terms of immediate political popularity _and_ in the eyes of
> history as a Noble Defender of the Republic.
>
Silly.
> Sure, he'd be risking assassination by the Big Evil Conspiracy, but
> said BEC has already assassinated one President for totally murky and
> incomprehensible reasons. Wouldn't leaving the BEC intact and with its
> leadership roaming around alive and free _also_ be dangerous to his own
> life? After all, they might decide to kill _him_ too, for whatever
> unknown reason they decided to kill JFK.
>
> And, by striking first with all the powers of the Presidency, he would
> have a very good chance of taking out enough of the BEC fast enough
> that any survivors would be too busy running and hiding to do anything
> effective against himself. Indeed, many former BEC members would
> probably at that point be trying to cut deals with the prosecutors --
> information for immunity or reduced sentences -- rather than
> compounding their crimes by committing further acts of treason.
>
> Besides, LBJ would have known (unless he was a complete fool) that
> being President is inherently dangerous -- after all, more than 1/10 of
> the Presidents who swore the oath of office died by violence when in
> office at the point that he aggreed to succeed JFK, and JFK himself had
> been murdered. Why do you assume that LBJ was cowardly? Leaders often
> risk their own lives to achieve a worthy objective, and certainly
> crushing a conspiracy that struck at the heart of American democracy
> would be worthy of taking a risk, right?
>
> Unless, of course, LBJ was in on it. Are you arguing that he was?
No, stupid.
>
>>> Actually, it is pretty much that simple, which is why a Conspiracy
>>> would have to be pathologically stupid to tell a President: "We killed
>>> your predecessor. Piss us off and we'll kill you. Now here's what you
>>> have to do and refrain from doing to keep us happy ..."
>>>
>> They do not have to spell it out, even to morons like you.
>
> Ok, see ... reality doesn't work that way. To effectively communicate,
> the recpient of one's communication has to understand the message. To
> threaten a President in this fashion, he has to _understand_ the
> threat. Which means that it must indeed be "spelled out" at least to
> the point that he isn't perceiving it as one of the far more likely
> threats, such as "piss us off and we'll alienate your constituencies"
> or "piss us off and you'll lose votes in Congress" or "piss us off and
> we'll administratively sabotage your policies," which are routine
> threats in Washington politics.
>
Maybe you are that stupid. Most people are not.
> But once the President understands _that particular message_ -- a death
> threat -- the sender of this message has suddenly been promoted from
> normal political player to deadly menace to the President personally
> and to the Republic in general. And the problem is that the President
> is not some helpless sacrificial victim who has no choices other than
> to give in or be killed. The President commands numerous military,
> intelligence, and security agencies which exist in part precisely to
> deal with threats of that type.
>
> Now it's true that the Big Evil Conspiracy may have penetrated _some_
> of these agencies to the point that they will act against rather than
> for the President. But it's unlikely that it's penetrated _all_ of
> them, and besides the BEC is operating under the severe disadvantage
> that obedience to the President follows while obedience to the BEC
> subverts normal lines of authority. The BEC has to worry that _its own
> members_ will betray them to the loyalist factions in the government.
> This is a severe worry because Americans are indoctrinated from their
> childhood to regard the President as a legitimate authority, but NOT to
> regard some Big Evil Conspiracy as a legitimate authority. Hence, the
> President has the prevailing political culture on his side.
>
Your imagination is running wild. I never said anything like what you
are imagining.
>>> The President of the United States is in charge of the US military and
>>> pretty much every US intelligence and security agency, aside from a few
>>> highly specialized ones. In an emergency, he has nigh-dictatorial
>>> powers to deal with the emergency, at least for its duration. A
>> In an emergency? You mean like right now, when the current President is
>> exercising dictatorial power?
>
> Dubya is _not_ exercising "dictatorial power," and the argument that he
> is bespeaks a vast ignorance of how _real_ dictatorships behave. Do
> you think, for instance, that you would be safe _saying what you just
> said in a public forum_ were Bush truly a "dictator?"
>
As safe as Jews saying in 1933 that Hitler is a dictator.
>>> Conspiracy going around potting Presidents who failed to do its bidding
>>> would constitute the most severe threat to the American Republic since
>>> World War II -- by some measures, a _more_ severe threat to the
>>> Republic than World War II, since at no point was Hitler close to a
>>> position from which he could control or even significantly affect
>>> American self-governance.
>> So you are on record as admitting that Bush is more of a threat to the
>> Republic than Hitler was?
>
> No, because I don't accept your premise that Bush is or is trying to
> become a dictator.
>
Because you WANT him to be a dictator.
> By the way, do you actually _have_ a rational answer to my point that a
> President who became aware of the existence of such a Big Evil
> Conspiracy would have a strong Constitutional duty to destroy it?
>
Anyone taking the oath has the obligation to defend the Republic against
all enemies, both foreign and domestic. That does not mean that every
President thinks that nuclear war is the best option.
>>>> Various Presidents have wrestled with the
>>>> problem. See the Plot to Overthrow FDR.
>>> Which got nowhere, and never had any chance of accomplishing the
>>> success of the coup.
>> So what?
>
> FDR did not have to "wrestle" very hard with an ill-thought out
> "conspiracy" that never got any farther than attempting to subvert
> General Smedley Butler, and having the General laugh in its face.
>
But it refutes your notion that there have never been any coup plots.
>>> Note: it might have succeeded in killing FDR. But that's not what it
>>> would have had to do to succeed _as a coup_. A successful coup
>>> involves putting your _own_ candidate in the top seat. And the chance
>>> of the coup plotters winning the obedience and loyalty of the rest of
>>> the country was pretty much nil -- all they would have accomplished in
>>> the long run would have been a brief civil war in which their own side
>>> would have been completely and hopelessly outnumbered.
>> Doesn't deter them from trying. Coups happen every year.
>
> As far as I know there has _never_ been a successful coup in the United
> States of America, _unless you're arguing that LBJ was in on the Big
> Evil Conspiracy_. And if so, that was a _covert_ coup, even after his
> success.
>
As far as YOU know. Because you don't know much.
>>> No, Eisenhower simply wasn't talking about what you _imagine_ he was
>>> talking about. I've _read_ the famous "military industrial complex"
>>> speech, and he was talking about the long-term corruptive effects of
>>> the alliance between the miltiary and big business. Procurement
>>> politics, basically. He was _not_ talking about Evil Conspiracies
>>> going hunting Presidents!
>>>
>> And I never said anything about the military industrial complex going
>> hunting Presidents!!!
>
> No, in fact you've never explained just _who_ you think formed your Big
> Evil Conspiracy to kill JFK, or why. This has the advantage that you
I never said Big Evil Conspiracy. I said the number number and types of
people who planned to kill Castro.
You are living in a dream world. Look at Gitmo.
> I do see nothing wrong with the President declaring martial law in a
> situation of national emergency resulting from the murder of his
> predecessor by a still-extant conspiracy. Such situations -- armed
> insurgency against the Constitutional authorities -- are exactly the
> sort of emergencies that the institution of "martial law" was created
> to deal with.
>
More than that, you see nothing wrong with our current President
declaring martial law in ANY made-up pretext, such as a fake national
emergency resulting from a phony terrorist attack.
> If _you_ were LBJ, what would _you_ have done if you had become aware
> that a Big Evil Conspiracy had murdered your predecessor. So far the
> only thing you've proposed is "cover it up," which sounds like a much
> worse solution since it leaves the Big Evil Conspiracy an active threat
> to American democracy.
>
I know what YOU would have done if you were LBJ, YOU would have started
WWIII with the resultant deaths of millions of people, because have no
respect for human life.
>>>> Look for the movie V for Vendetta to come out on DVD this Tuesday.
>>> ??? Ok, you've now jumped into a whole other reality now -- none of
>>> this has _anything_ to do with JFK, LBJ, or Dubya! To this I respond:
>>>
>>> _Dune_. The later SciFi Channel version. And _Hellboy_. The Answers
>>> Are In There.
>>>
>>> And I'm sure you're silenced by my irrefutable lack of logic.
>> There are not interesting parallels in those movies.
>
> You need to make an explicit argument rather than name movie titles.
>
You need to watch the movie to understand the parallels. Especially the
extra scenes about the making of the film.
> Oh, and
>
> _Gone With the Wind_. _Birth of a Nation_. _The Little Tramp_. _Love
> at First Bite_.
>
> Thus, I refute you, by your own lack of logic.
>
>>> Um, that's nice. Its relevance here? If the Big Evil Conspiracy
>>> responds to the government crackdown by assassinating _its own
>>> members_, the likely consequence will be that it will disintegrate even
>>> more rapidly as terrified conspirators throw themselves on LBJ's mercy
>>> rather than be killed by their own bosses!
>> Oh sure, which is why Mafiosi never assassinate each other because they
>> don't want to thin their ranks?
>
> I'm sure you _think_ that this was a meaningful response to my
> argument, but it wasn't. Try again, this time speaking _explicitly_
> rather than obscurely.
>
It refutes your silly idea that conspirators don't kill each other. That
happens in the Mafia often and happened in coups in other countries.
> Hint: what do you mean by "thin their ranks" in this context? And are
> you aware that, when a gang begins killing its own members, that is
> usually the prelude or sequel to at least one of them turning informer
> on the other? Which means that you just _supported my observation_,
> which is probably not what you were trying to do!
>
There are not absolutes. What you said is true some of the time, not all
of the time.
>>> Oh no, coups are _very_ possible. I've even studied the political
>>> science of how to carry them out.
>> More than that, you've probably plotted a few.
>
> I have? Really? In which countries?
>
Probably in Africa.
> Actually, I have. But not in the way you imagine. As a student of
> history and a writer, I've thought up imaginary coups in future- or
> alternate-historical situations, which is why I can see the flaws in
> _your_ imaginary coups so easily.
>
>>> Here's a clue: you _don't_ do it by warning your intended victim of
>>> your plan. This is because the coup plotters are trying to bring down
>>> someone who has much more potential power than them, and their chance
>>> of success hinges upon striking swiftly and decisively before their
>>> intended victim can mobilize against them.
>> Like the interviews with Castro where he explained his coup plans
>> against Battista? Or the CIA guns out to get Trujillo?
>
> Castro was leading a revolution, not plotting a coup. There is a
> signfiicant difference between the two methods of seizing power, in
> that a revolution attempts to gain power through getting enough of
> those willing to fight off the government's side and onto their own
> side that they can win through numerical superiority. The leaders of a
> revolution do not put themselves in a position where the agents of the
> government can gain easy access to them. Declaration of intent
> _before_ the seizure of power is important in a revolution, since
> masses of people will not join a cause which has not declared itself.
> One cannot carry out a revolution in secret!
>
The signers of our Declaration of Independence made their intentions
clear and put themselves in jeopardy.
> By contrast, a coup operates by gaining control of a key minority of
> individuals who are in a position to effect a physical seizure of the
> individuals and instrumentalities of rulership. This means the current
> government leader, his principal lieutenants, and the buildings in the
> capital from which they operate and which contain the records etc.
> which they use to administer the country. Coup plotters are normally,
> before launching their coup, in a position where government agents
> _could_ kill or arrest them, _if the government knew they were plotting
> the coup_. Consequently, coup plotters do not declare their intent
> _until_ they have actually executed, or are in the process of
> executing, their coup.
>
Diem knew about the coup before it happened.
Or are you going to call that a revolution?
> This is why a coup is impossible in the United States of America,
> _unless_ one kills the President _and_ has the Vice-President as a
> member of the conspiracy. Because American authority is dispersed, not
> concentrated, _save in the Executive Branch_, there is no one person,
> building, or even city who one could OPENLY kill or seize and thus gain
> control of the country.
>
Spoken like a true Fascist who is in on the coup, deny, deny, deny.
> Imagine a traditional Latin American coup in America. Say that a
> military unit has been suborned and seizes Washington DC, and declares
> an individual to be the new Maximum Leader For Life. Assume that the
> coup captures or kills the President, Vice President, all nine Supreme
> Court Justices and most of the Congress.
>
> The problem is that, because authority in America derives from the
> Constitution and the consent of the governed rather than from the
> control of specific individuals or buildings, almost nobody not
> actually under the guns of the coup forces will obey the leader of the
> coup. The new "Maximum Leader" will have a short reign, cowering in
> Washington DC with his puny few thousand followers while the rest of
> the country organizes around whichever Federal officals escaped and
> marches to liberate the capital. America simply does not have a
> tradition of coups.
>
You just got through saying that the President has dictatorial powers
and can use the military to maintain power. Make up your mind.
> The _only_ way, I repeat, that even a covert coup works is if it kills
> the President _and replaces him by someone either treacherous or
> cowardly enough to cooperate with the coup plotters_. Even then, the
Yes. Not my theory, but maybe others believe that.
> plotters are running a serious risk themselves, since they have just
> put someone either treacherous (and will he betray _them_ too?) or
> cowardly (and will he kill them out of fear for his own life?) into a
> position where he now commands the resources to crush them if he so
> desires.
>
What you say is still true of various coups around the world.
> This is why America does not have a history of successful coups.
>
Hubris. You falsely maintain that all of these things are impossible in
the US because somehow the US is too great for such petty things. You
ignore history at your own peril.
>>> The only way that the Big Evil Conspiracy could both kill JFK _and get
>>> away with it_ (the hard part) is if LBJ is either one of the
>>> conspirators (and thus it constitutes a covert coup _by_ LBJ), or a
>>> cowardly traitor to the Republic, who fears to do his Constitutional
>>> duty to crush the BEC because he's afraid that they'll get him, too.
>> No, your thinking is too linear.
>
> Decoded into actual logical argument, your reason why a hypothetical
> LBJ who (1) knows of the Big Evil Conspiracy, and is (2) loyal to the
> Constitution _and_ (3) reasonably courageous would _not_ try to crush
> the coup is that .... ?
>
Your premises are wacky and I never said anything like that. Why don't
you try to peddle that nonsense in alt.nazi.fascism.now?
>>> This is the reality that most of the JFK conspiracy buffs bump into --
>>> that in order to make their conspiracy theories work, LBJ has to be
>>> either an active or a passive traitor -- a villain or a coward, in
>>> other words.
>> This is the problem you cover-up artists have, limited linear thinking.
>> Everything is either black or white.
>
> Whereas, in fact, LBJ's motivation for _not_ crushing this extreme
> threat to the Constitution of which he had become aware was ... ?
>
WWIII.
>>> So which one are you plumping for?
>> I prefer to deal with the reality of what actually happened. Johnson
>> THOUGHT it was a conspiracy and so covered it up.
>
> Why would LBJ exert himself, taking political risks and violating the
> Constitution, to cover up a conspiracy of which he was _not_ a part,
> _unless_ he was afraid that they would try to kill him and was deterred
> by this threat from fulfilling his Constitutional role as President?
> This implies altruism of a very peverse kind, indeed!
>
Maybe Johnson was evil. I don't know. But I know he was not stupid and I
don't think he was insane. Only someone like YOU would want to start
WWIII intentionally. Or Curtis LeMay.
> - Jordan
>
Jordan
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> Jordan wrote:
>
> > Actually, I inferred this from your statement about "Kill JFK" signs
> > going up around the South. The only people likely to put up any signs
> > like that would be rich Southerners who hated JFK. If that isn't what
> > you meant by that statement, what _did_ you mean by it?
> >
>
> You infer things from your imagination, not from what I said. I never
> said anything about Kill JFK signs. They said Wanted For Treason.
> Of course you can't figure out who put up those signs.
Ok ... whom are _you_ claiming put up those signs?
> > Actually, in the case of the Castro assassination plots, one can indeed
> > categorize the distinct groups, _as you just did in your post!_ In
> > that particular case, the active agency was the President of the United
> > States of America (in fact, JFK), who _ordered_ the CIA to assassinate
> > Castro. The CIA then made use of its contacts with the Mafia, various
> > American businessmen, and various Cuban exiles to then attempt this
> > assassination.
>
> But you missed the point that there were joint operations involving
> members of several different categories.
No, I didn't miss the point. In fact, in the post you're quoting, I
state it explicitly. However, by cooperating they did not somehow
merge and lose their identities, they remained distinct and specific
organizations, rather than some shadow Big Evil Conspiracy.
> BTW, it was not JFK who ordered the CIA to assassinate Castro. Helms did
> that on his own authority, continuing an operation that was begun during
> the Eisenhower administration and authorized by Nixon. That's what Nixon
> was trying to blackmail Helms with.
There's fairly explicit evidence, including quotes, that JFK wanted
Castro dead and specifically ordered the assassination attempts, in
_The Dark Side of Camelot_ among other books. JFK in general pursued a
"get the leader" style of politics with reference in regards to Third
World dictatorships; note the tack he took toward Diem in South
Vietnam.
You may well have a good opinion of both JFK and Castro, and not want
to believe that JFK wanted Castro dead, but the clear evidence is that
JFK wanted him dead, ordered him dead, and in fact pushed the CIA into
continuing the assassination attempts long past the point where they
were starting to regard them as a waste of time. JFK hated Castro
_personally_ for JFK's own failure of nerve in the Bay of Pigs
invasion, and additionally (with some merit) blamed him for the
near-occurrence of WWIII in the Cuban Missile Crisis.
The CIA may not care to admit this owing to the doctrine of "plausible
deniability," but in general assassination orders issued to them are
cut by the President (often transmitted through a highly trusted
subordinate, such as a Vice-President or close aide). In fact, it's
downright _illegal_ for them to obey such orders if _not_ understood to
come from the President. This goes double for an assassination attempt
on a foreign head of state! You can be pretty sure that Eisenhower,
not Nixon, _originated_ the initial authorization for the attempts on
Castro; you can be _explicitly_ sure (as a matter of historical record)
that JFK confirmed this authorization at some point probably fairly
soon after taking office.
> >>> So, it's the winter of 1963-64. You're Lyndon Baines Johnson. How the
> >>> heck do you know _which_ of these many suspects (the ones I listed and
> >>> some others I haven't listed) was delivering this "warning" using an
> >>> odd binary language of President-alive / President-dead? Do you assume
> >>> that this was the Murder on the Dallas Express and that they ALL did
> >>> it, and spend your Presidency trying to please everyone who _might_
> >>> have been involved in this conspiracy? Do you pick one and hope that
> >>> your paranoia-radar was working correctly? I mean, really, what does
> >>> the "smart" Lyndon Baines Johnson do?
> >> He covers it up.
> >
> > Why?
>
> To prevent WWIII.
Ok ... why would the assassination of JFK have caused WWIII? Are you
blaming the Soviet Union or Cuba? Unless one or both countries were
responsible, it's difficult to see the chain of causation here.
> > Unless he's _part_ of the Big Evil Conspiracy (which would, of course,
> > make a lot of sense since he was its chief beneficiary), he has neither
> > any obligation nor much to gain politically by doing their dirty work
> > for them. Indeed, if he instead exposed it, using its exposure to
> > declare martial law and slay the dragons, he would gain _very_ much
> > both in terms of immediate political popularity _and_ in the eyes of
> > history as a Noble Defender of the Republic.
>
> Silly.
I stand completely refuted. Or at least I would, if you'd actually
given any _reasons_ why such a strategy would have been impractical.
> > Unless, of course, LBJ was in on it. Are you arguing that he was?
>
> No, stupid.
Why is it "stupid" to argue that LBJ might have been in on a conspiracy
which clearly had him as the chief beneficiary (he got to be President,
which never would have happened had JFK lived) and which _you_ are
claiming he then went to great lengths to cover up? Given those two
premises, LBJ would be the obvious suspect.
> > Ok, see ... reality doesn't work that way. To effectively communicate,
> > the recpient of one's communication has to understand the message. To
> > threaten a President in this fashion, he has to _understand_ the
> > threat. Which means that it must indeed be "spelled out" at least to
> > the point that he isn't perceiving it as one of the far more likely
> > threats, such as "piss us off and we'll alienate your constituencies"
> > or "piss us off and you'll lose votes in Congress" or "piss us off and
> > we'll administratively sabotage your policies," which are routine
> > threats in Washington politics.
>
> Maybe you are that stupid. Most people are not.
Sorry ... given the numerous possible suspects, and the fact that
Washington politics is accompanied by various vague threats of various
often vague bad political consequences, how is the "intelligent" LBJ in
your scenario going to distinguish between threats of normal political
consequences and threats of assassination conspiracies, _unless those
making the threats somehow indicate that they intend murder?_
Furthermore, unless LBJ knows _exactly_ who was part of the Big Evil
Conspiracy, how will he tell the difference between those who are just
bluffing and those who really mean it? Even if he is incredibly
cowardly and totally willing to yield to the Big Evil Conspiracy,
_unless he knows who they are and what they want, how will he know what
particular policies will provoke or appease them?_
(we'll refer to your yield-to-the-BEC version of LBJ as "Cowardly LBJ"
from this point on to make it clear that I'm not necessarily talking
about the historical LBJ).
In particular, you're ignoring the fact that many of the groups that
have been blamed for the JFK assassination have not only _different_
but _opposing_ agendas. For instance, if Castro was part of the plot,
Cowardly LBJ had better not aid the Cuban exiles. But if the Cuban
exiles were part of the plot, Cowardly LBJ had _better_ aid them. The
CIA might want a hard line towards Moscow, the Soviets would certainly
want more cooperation. In each case, Cowardly LBJ is paralyzed by
terror, for he doesn't know who killed JFK, so he doesn't know _which_
policy will rouse them to attempt his own murder.
_That_ is why clear communication is necessary.
> > But once the President understands _that particular message_ -- a death
> > threat -- the sender of this message has suddenly been promoted from
> > normal political player to deadly menace to the President personally
> > and to the Republic in general. And the problem is that the President
> > is not some helpless sacrificial victim who has no choices other than
> > to give in or be killed. The President commands numerous military,
> > intelligence, and security agencies which exist in part precisely to
> > deal with threats of that type.
> >
> > Now it's true that the Big Evil Conspiracy may have penetrated _some_
> > of these agencies to the point that they will act against rather than
> > for the President. But it's unlikely that it's penetrated _all_ of
> > them, and besides the BEC is operating under the severe disadvantage
> > that obedience to the President follows while obedience to the BEC
> > subverts normal lines of authority. The BEC has to worry that _its own
> > members_ will betray them to the loyalist factions in the government.
> > This is a severe worry because Americans are indoctrinated from their
> > childhood to regard the President as a legitimate authority, but NOT to
> > regard some Big Evil Conspiracy as a legitimate authority. Hence, the
> > President has the prevailing political culture on his side.
> >
>
> Your imagination is running wild. I never said anything like what you
> are imagining.
Um, what are you claiming I'm "imagining" that I didn't said. But I
see that you're not challenging the point that the President _would_ be
in a position to crush any _domestic_ conspiracy, if he had a good idea
who the conspirators were.
> > Dubya is _not_ exercising "dictatorial power," and the argument that he
> > is bespeaks a vast ignorance of how _real_ dictatorships behave. Do
> > you think, for instance, that you would be safe _saying what you just
> > said in a public forum_ were Bush truly a "dictator?"
>
> As safe as Jews saying in 1933 that Hitler is a dictator.
Mmm, so you believe that Dubya's agents might be after you now that
you've spoken against him, possibly planning to throw you into a
concentration camp?
> >> So you are on record as admitting that Bush is more of a threat to the
> >> Republic than Hitler was?
> >
> > No, because I don't accept your premise that Bush is or is trying to
> > become a dictator.
>
> Because you WANT him to be a dictator.
Why would I want the Republic to fall to a dictator?
Incidentally, the only way in which your premise about my motivation
would make sense would be if I _did_ accept your premise that Bush is
or is trying to become a dictator. But I just said that I _didn't_
accept your premise.
> > By the way, do you actually _have_ a rational answer to my point that a
> > President who became aware of the existence of such a Big Evil
> > Conspiracy would have a strong Constitutional duty to destroy it?
>
> Anyone taking the oath has the obligation to defend the Republic against
> all enemies, both foreign and domestic. That does not mean that every
> President thinks that nuclear war is the best option.
Why would "nuclear war" be required to deal with the Big Evil
Conspiracy? Again, whom are you claiming killed JFK?
> > FDR did not have to "wrestle" very hard with an ill-thought out
> > "conspiracy" that never got any farther than attempting to subvert
> > General Smedley Butler, and having the General laugh in its face.
>
> But it refutes your notion that there have never been any coup plots.
I never claimed there weren't any coup plots. I said that, as far as I
knew, there were no _successful_ coup plots, and I know for sure that
none were carried as far as overt attempts.
> > As far as I know there has _never_ been a successful coup in the United
> > States of America, _unless you're arguing that LBJ was in on the Big
> > Evil Conspiracy_. And if so, that was a _covert_ coup, even after his
> > success.
>
> As far as YOU know. Because you don't know much.
Um, no, even if it _was_ a coup plot and it succeeded it was a covert
coup, because after the success of the coup the plotters did not reveal
themselves. In an overt coup, the plotters _do_ reveal themselves
after the success of the coup, in fact they _must_ in order to assert
their authority and prevent a civil war!
> > No, in fact you've never explained just _who_ you think formed your Big
> > Evil Conspiracy to kill JFK, or why. This has the advantage that you
>
> I never said Big Evil Conspiracy. I said the number number and types of
> people who planned to kill Castro.
Ok, then _who_ are you claiming plotted to kill JFK? You are making
all sorts of sinister insinuations about everyone from Krushchev to
Nixon, from the CIA to the Mafia to Castro, but you are not being
specific about whom you think actually did the deed.
> > That is a false claim on your part. I said nothing about "summary
> > executions." Martial law provides for two instances in which someone
> > may be lawfully killed -- when they are resisting the lawful
> > authorities, and when they are convicted of a capital crime by a
> > court-martial / military tribunal.
>
> You are living in a dream world.
No, I believe that if you read up on "martial law" (which was the topic
I brought up) those are the only two circumstances under martial law
under which killing is permissible.
> Look at Gitmo.
What does that have to do with either the issue of when it is
appropriate to declare martial law _or_ when it is appropriate to kill
people under martial law?
> > I do see nothing wrong with the President declaring martial law in a
> > situation of national emergency resulting from the murder of his
> > predecessor by a still-extant conspiracy. Such situations -- armed
> > insurgency against the Constitutional authorities -- are exactly the
> > sort of emergencies that the institution of "martial law" was created
> > to deal with.
>
> More than that, you see nothing wrong with our current President
> declaring martial law in ANY made-up pretext, such as a fake national
> emergency resulting from a phony terrorist attack.
I neither said nor implied any such thing -- I was talking about a
hypothetical situation in which JFK or LBJ had to declare martial law
to put down a Big Evil Conspiracy that was trying to control America by
threatening to murder Presidents.
What makes you believe that Dubya would try to declare martial law in
"a fake national emergency resulting from a phony terrorist attack?"
Are you trying to argue that 9/11 _wasn't_ launched by Al Qaeda?
> > If _you_ were LBJ, what would _you_ have done if you had become aware
> > that a Big Evil Conspiracy had murdered your predecessor. So far the
> > only thing you've proposed is "cover it up," which sounds like a much
> > worse solution since it leaves the Big Evil Conspiracy an active threat
> > to American democracy.
>
> I know what YOU would have done if you were LBJ, YOU would have started
> WWIII with the resultant deaths of millions of people, because have no
> respect for human life.
Again, why is starting WWIII necessary to put down the hypothetical Big
Evil Conspiracy?
But actually, if I were LBJ and discovered that (say) the Soviet Union
had murdered JFK, I would _not_ start WWIII, owing purely to my
awareness of the likely cost to America of doing so. I would, however,
publicize the fact of the Soviet involvement in the murder, and use it
to argue for increased military spending and a harder line towards the
Soviet Union. I would also sever all economic ties with the Soviets
and put serious pressure on US allies (of the "trade with them or with
us, you can't have both") variety, to also sever such ties. I would
make sure that the Soviets paid a heavy price in terms of consequences
_short_ of war for such an action, so that they thought long and hard
before killing another American President, and I would make sure that
their responsibility was known so that it was a long time before the
American people had any trust for the Soviets.
> > You need to make an explicit argument rather than name movie titles.
>
> You need to watch the movie to understand the parallels. Especially the
> extra scenes about the making of the film.
Just make your argument or don't make it. Right now, you're not making
it.
> >> Oh sure, which is why Mafiosi never assassinate each other because they
> >> don't want to thin their ranks?
> >
> > I'm sure you _think_ that this was a meaningful response to my
> > argument, but it wasn't. Try again, this time speaking _explicitly_
> > rather than obscurely.
>
> It refutes your silly idea that conspirators don't kill each other. That
> happens in the Mafia often and happened in coups in other countries.
I never said that conspirators don't kill each other. However, when
conspirators start killing each other, this is usually a sign of the
disintegration of the conspiracy, since any surviving conspirators who
did _not_ do the killing tend to turn state's evidence in order to
forestall their own murders.
> > Hint: what do you mean by "thin their ranks" in this context? And are
> > you aware that, when a gang begins killing its own members, that is
> > usually the prelude or sequel to at least one of them turning informer
> > on the other? Which means that you just _supported my observation_,
> > which is probably not what you were trying to do!
>
> There are not absolutes. What you said is true some of the time, not all
> of the time.
No, it is pretty much absolutely true that when a gang starts killing
its own members this is a bad sign for its future.
> >>> Oh no, coups are _very_ possible. I've even studied the political
> >>> science of how to carry them out.
>
> >> More than that, you've probably plotted a few.
> >
> > I have? Really? In which countries?
>
> Probably in Africa.
While I'm mildly flattered that you regard me as someone with the power
to topple regimes, I'm sort of curious as to why you imagine that I
have any such ability ... ?
> > Castro was leading a revolution, not plotting a coup. There is a
> > signfiicant difference between the two methods of seizing power, in
> > that a revolution attempts to gain power through getting enough of
> > those willing to fight off the government's side and onto their own
> > side that they can win through numerical superiority. The leaders of a
> > revolution do not put themselves in a position where the agents of the
> > government can gain easy access to them. Declaration of intent
> > _before_ the seizure of power is important in a revolution, since
> > masses of people will not join a cause which has not declared itself.
> > One cannot carry out a revolution in secret!
>
> The signers of our Declaration of Independence made their intentions
> clear and put themselves in jeopardy.
Yes. That's my point. If they hadn't "made their intentions clear"
they could not have carried out the American Revolution, because
_nobody would have followed them_. Masses of people do not put their
lives on the line for murky and incomprehensible motivations; they need
a clear cause to motivate them.
> > By contrast, a coup operates by gaining control of a key minority of
> > individuals who are in a position to effect a physical seizure of the
> > individuals and instrumentalities of rulership. This means the current
> > government leader, his principal lieutenants, and the buildings in the
> > capital from which they operate and which contain the records etc.
> > which they use to administer the country. Coup plotters are normally,
> > before launching their coup, in a position where government agents
> > _could_ kill or arrest them, _if the government knew they were plotting
> > the coup_. Consequently, coup plotters do not declare their intent
> > _until_ they have actually executed, or are in the process of
> > executing, their coup.
>
> Diem knew about the coup before it happened.
Diem did not have enough advance warning of the coup before it happened
to act effectively against it -- he also had an unusually disloyal
military, largely because he and his family had pissed off all the
Buddhists (the majority of the population of his own country).
Normally speaking, coup plotters do _not_ have the majority of the
population on their side.
> Or are you going to call that a revolution?
Actually, to some extent you could -- note in particular the role of
the mass Buddhist opposition to his regime. I'd call it something of
an in-between case.
None of this applies to JFK, though. JFK enjoyed majority popular
support and had a loyal military and mostly loyal security and
intelligence services. A coup plotted against JFK would have had to
have been _completely_ covert to avoid being crushed by the President.
> > This is why a coup is impossible in the United States of America,
> > _unless_ one kills the President _and_ has the Vice-President as a
> > member of the conspiracy. Because American authority is dispersed, not
> > concentrated, _save in the Executive Branch_, there is no one person,
> > building, or even city who one could OPENLY kill or seize and thus gain
> > control of the country.
>
> Spoken like a true Fascist who is in on the coup, deny, deny, deny.
Um, Anthony -- I'm _41 years old_. I was born in 1964, the year
_after_ JFK was killed. There is absolutely no way that I could have
been in on that conspiracy, unless you're going to claim I'm the
reincarnation of Lee Harvey Oswald.
And you really should pay attention to what I just told you, because I
just told you the _one_ good way to execute a coup in the United States
of America, the one great flaw in our Constitutional system. If you
kill the President _and_ have the Vice President (covertly) (*) on your
side, the Vice President becomes President and is in a position to
suppress an investigation of the conpsiracy.
> > Imagine a traditional Latin American coup in America. Say that a
> > military unit has been suborned and seizes Washington DC, and declares
> > an individual to be the new Maximum Leader For Life. Assume that the
> > coup captures or kills the President, Vice President, all nine Supreme
> > Court Justices and most of the Congress.
> >
> > The problem is that, because authority in America derives from the
> > Constitution and the consent of the governed rather than from the
> > control of specific individuals or buildings, almost nobody not
> > actually under the guns of the coup forces will obey the leader of the
> > coup. The new "Maximum Leader" will have a short reign, cowering in
> > Washington DC with his puny few thousand followers while the rest of
> > the country organizes around whichever Federal officals escaped and
> > marches to liberate the capital. America simply does not have a
> > tradition of coups.
> >
>
> You just got through saying that the President has dictatorial powers
> and can use the military to maintain power. Make up your mind.
I never claimed that the President has dictatorial powers and can use
the military to maintain power. There is a significant difference, in
terms of the degree to which others will obey him, between a
Constutionally-installed President claiming a state of national
emergency with good evidence (such as LBJ exposing a conspiracy that
killed JFK, or JFK revealing a conspiracy to kill him with support in
some military / security / intelligence circles) and some guy just
grabbing Washington DC and claiming that he's President because he has
seized control of the White House.
Traditional Latin American coups work because the populaces are
poorly-educated, demoralized; the military has a tradition of seizing
the capital and installing a dictator, and the people a tradition of
obeying any such dictator (at least to the extent that they actually
obey any authority, which is to say "not much" in a lot of Latin
America). They would not work in America because the people are
relatively well-educated, have a high morale, and are used to defying
authorities that they consider illegitimate. Vicious circles in Latin
America, virtuous ones here, in terms of the political culture.
> > The _only_ way, I repeat, that even a covert coup works is if it kills
> > the President _and replaces him by someone either treacherous or
> > cowardly enough to cooperate with the coup plotters_. Even then, the
>
> Yes. Not my theory, but maybe others believe that.
How is a covert coup to succeed _without_ having the new President on
its side?
> > plotters are running a serious risk themselves, since they have just
> > put someone either treacherous (and will he betray _them_ too?) or
> > cowardly (and will he kill them out of fear for his own life?) into a
> > position where he now commands the resources to crush them if he so
> > desires.
>
> What you say is still true of various coups around the world.
Yes, I know. That's because different countries have different
political cultures. Thankfully, because of the Founders (who created a
sound Constitution), George Washington (who as our first President
_could_ have made himself Supreme Maximum Leader for Life but
_didn't_), and a number of other great Americans, _we_ have a political
culture in which only the most covert and well-planned of coups would
have a chance of success, _and only if it remained covert both during
and after its execution_.
Since this is extremely difficult, we have had either no or one coup in
the history of our nation.
> > This is why America does not have a history of successful coups.
>
> Hubris. You falsely maintain that all of these things are impossible in
> the US because somehow the US is too great for such petty things. You
> ignore history at your own peril.
I never maintained that it was "impossible." Only extremely difficult,
which is not the same thing.
Furthermore, it is possible (indeed likely) that at some point in the
future our political culture will change in a way which allows Latin
American sytle coups. Nothing lasts forever.
But right _now_ (in terms of centuries) we're in the sweet spot.
> >>> The only way that the Big Evil Conspiracy could both kill JFK _and get
> >>> away with it_ (the hard part) is if LBJ is either one of the
> >>> conspirators (and thus it constitutes a covert coup _by_ LBJ), or a
> >>> cowardly traitor to the Republic, who fears to do his Constitutional
> >>> duty to crush the BEC because he's afraid that they'll get him, too.
> >> No, your thinking is too linear.
> >
> > Decoded into actual logical argument, your reason why a hypothetical
> > LBJ who (1) knows of the Big Evil Conspiracy, and is (2) loyal to the
> > Constitution _and_ (3) reasonably courageous would _not_ try to crush
> > the coup is that .... ?
>
> Your premises are wacky and I never said anything like that. Why don't
> you try to peddle that nonsense in alt.nazi.fascism.now?
Ok, then what, explicitly, _are_ you saying? So far this post you've
made dark hints about atomic wars resulting from the exposure of the
BEC, but not explaining _why_ this would happen.
> > Whereas, in fact, LBJ's motivation for _not_ crushing this extreme
> > threat to the Constitution of which he had become aware was ... ?
>
> WWIII.
Again, _how_ would exposing the BEC cause WWIII?
> > Why would LBJ exert himself, taking political risks and violating the
> > Constitution, to cover up a conspiracy of which he was _not_ a part,
> > _unless_ he was afraid that they would try to kill him and was deterred
> > by this threat from fulfilling his Constitutional role as President?
> > This implies altruism of a very peverse kind, indeed!
>
> Maybe Johnson was evil. I don't know. But I know he was not stupid and I
> don't think he was insane. Only someone like YOU would want to start
> WWIII intentionally. Or Curtis LeMay.
Um, why do I want to start WWIII, and why would exposing the BEC start
WWIII? There's a whole chain of implicit assumptions there ... (1) the
Soviets or their close allies killed JFK, (2) exposing this fact would
require punishing the Soviets or their close allies for this action,
and (3) such punishment would inevitably bring about WWIII ... which
you really need to argue explicitly so that they can be examined.
If you want to know, I think that "1" is possible and that given "1"
assumption "2" becomes probable, but I don't agree with "3" -- I see
all sorts of possible reprisals against the Soviets or their allies
short of strategic thermonuclear war, and given Soviet weakness at the
time I don't think they would have been eager to escalate if they were
subjected to mere economic sanctions.
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
(*) "Covertly" is important, because if he's _known_ to be in on the
murder he is impeached and the guy next in successsion -- I think the
Speaker of the House -- takes the Oath of Office.
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> Jordan wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, I inferred this from your statement about "Kill JFK" signs
>>> going up around the South. The only people likely to put up any signs
>>> like that would be rich Southerners who hated JFK. If that isn't what
>>> you meant by that statement, what _did_ you mean by it?
>>>
>> You infer things from your imagination, not from what I said. I never
>> said anything about Kill JFK signs. They said Wanted For Treason.
>> Of course you can't figure out who put up those signs.
>
> Ok ... whom are _you_ claiming put up those signs?
>
>>> Actually, in the case of the Castro assassination plots, one can indeed
>>> categorize the distinct groups, _as you just did in your post!_ In
>>> that particular case, the active agency was the President of the United
>>> States of America (in fact, JFK), who _ordered_ the CIA to assassinate
>>> Castro. The CIA then made use of its contacts with the Mafia, various
>>> American businessmen, and various Cuban exiles to then attempt this
>>> assassination.
>> But you missed the point that there were joint operations involving
>> members of several different categories.
>
> No, I didn't miss the point. In fact, in the post you're quoting, I
> state it explicitly. However, by cooperating they did not somehow
> merge and lose their identities, they remained distinct and specific
> organizations, rather than some shadow Big Evil Conspiracy.
>
It seems that all you can do is dream up strawman arguments. No one has
ever said that there is a separate entity called Big Evil Conspiracy.
Any conspiracy may involve people who have various affiliations. And yes
sometimes organizations merge and it is hard to see the difference when
the Mafia is the FBI and the FBI is the Mafia.
>> BTW, it was not JFK who ordered the CIA to assassinate Castro. Helms did
>> that on his own authority, continuing an operation that was begun during
>> the Eisenhower administration and authorized by Nixon. That's what Nixon
>> was trying to blackmail Helms with.
>
> There's fairly explicit evidence, including quotes, that JFK wanted
> Castro dead and specifically ordered the assassination attempts, in
> _The Dark Side of Camelot_ among other books. JFK in general pursued a
> "get the leader" style of politics with reference in regards to Third
> World dictatorships; note the tack he took toward Diem in South
> Vietnam.
No, just more CIA lies. JFK wanted Lodge to provide Diem safe conduct
into exile. He shocked when Diem was murdered.
>
> You may well have a good opinion of both JFK and Castro, and not want
> to believe that JFK wanted Castro dead, but the clear evidence is that
> JFK wanted him dead, ordered him dead, and in fact pushed the CIA into
> continuing the assassination attempts long past the point where they
> were starting to regard them as a waste of time. JFK hated Castro
No, just more CIA lies. It was Nixon who authorized the assassination of
Castro.
> _personally_ for JFK's own failure of nerve in the Bay of Pigs
> invasion, and additionally (with some merit) blamed him for the
> near-occurrence of WWIII in the Cuban Missile Crisis.
>
The assassination attempts on Castro pre-dated the Bay of Pigs and Cuban
Missile Crisis.
> The CIA may not care to admit this owing to the doctrine of "plausible
> deniability," but in general assassination orders issued to them are
> cut by the President (often transmitted through a highly trusted
> subordinate, such as a Vice-President or close aide). In fact, it's
> downright _illegal_ for them to obey such orders if _not_ understood to
> come from the President. This goes double for an assassination attempt
Nonsense. Helms testified before the Church Committee that he took it
upon himself to authorize the Castro assassination plots.
> on a foreign head of state! You can be pretty sure that Eisenhower,
> not Nixon, _originated_ the initial authorization for the attempts on
> Castro; you can be _explicitly_ sure (as a matter of historical record)
> that JFK confirmed this authorization at some point probably fairly
> soon after taking office.
Nixon was the action officer for the Cuban project. He was also the
acting President due to Eisenhower's failing health.
>
>>>>> So, it's the winter of 1963-64. You're Lyndon Baines Johnson. How the
>>>>> heck do you know _which_ of these many suspects (the ones I listed and
>>>>> some others I haven't listed) was delivering this "warning" using an
>>>>> odd binary language of President-alive / President-dead? Do you assume
>>>>> that this was the Murder on the Dallas Express and that they ALL did
>>>>> it, and spend your Presidency trying to please everyone who _might_
>>>>> have been involved in this conspiracy? Do you pick one and hope that
>>>>> your paranoia-radar was working correctly? I mean, really, what does
>>>>> the "smart" Lyndon Baines Johnson do?
>>>> He covers it up.
>>> Why?
>> To prevent WWIII.
>
> Ok ... why would the assassination of JFK have caused WWIII? Are you
> blaming the Soviet Union or Cuba? Unless one or both countries were
> responsible, it's difficult to see the chain of causation here.
>
I am not the one blaming the Soviet Union or Cuba. Everyone in
Washington was.
>>> Unless he's _part_ of the Big Evil Conspiracy (which would, of course,
>>> make a lot of sense since he was its chief beneficiary), he has neither
>>> any obligation nor much to gain politically by doing their dirty work
>>> for them. Indeed, if he instead exposed it, using its exposure to
>>> declare martial law and slay the dragons, he would gain _very_ much
>>> both in terms of immediate political popularity _and_ in the eyes of
>>> history as a Noble Defender of the Republic.
>> Silly.
>
> I stand completely refuted. Or at least I would, if you'd actually
> given any _reasons_ why such a strategy would have been impractical.
>
>>> Unless, of course, LBJ was in on it. Are you arguing that he was?
>> No, stupid.
>
> Why is it "stupid" to argue that LBJ might have been in on a conspiracy
> which clearly had him as the chief beneficiary (he got to be President,
> which never would have happened had JFK lived) and which _you_ are
> claiming he then went to great lengths to cover up? Given those two
> premises, LBJ would be the obvious suspect.
>
So, your theory is that Johnson was the mastermind of the Kennedy
assassination. Of course you have no evidence for that.
>>> Ok, see ... reality doesn't work that way. To effectively communicate,
>>> the recpient of one's communication has to understand the message. To
>>> threaten a President in this fashion, he has to _understand_ the
>>> threat. Which means that it must indeed be "spelled out" at least to
>>> the point that he isn't perceiving it as one of the far more likely
>>> threats, such as "piss us off and we'll alienate your constituencies"
>>> or "piss us off and you'll lose votes in Congress" or "piss us off and
>>> we'll administratively sabotage your policies," which are routine
>>> threats in Washington politics.
>> Maybe you are that stupid. Most people are not.
>
> Sorry ... given the numerous possible suspects, and the fact that
> Washington politics is accompanied by various vague threats of various
> often vague bad political consequences, how is the "intelligent" LBJ in
> your scenario going to distinguish between threats of normal political
> consequences and threats of assassination conspiracies, _unless those
> making the threats somehow indicate that they intend murder?_
>
Are you really that clueless?
> Furthermore, unless LBJ knows _exactly_ who was part of the Big Evil
> Conspiracy, how will he tell the difference between those who are just
> bluffing and those who really mean it? Even if he is incredibly
> cowardly and totally willing to yield to the Big Evil Conspiracy,
> _unless he knows who they are and what they want, how will he know what
> particular policies will provoke or appease them?_
>
Your strawman is ridiculous.
> (we'll refer to your yield-to-the-BEC version of LBJ as "Cowardly LBJ"
> from this point on to make it clear that I'm not necessarily talking
> about the historical LBJ).
>
You lie as usual. I have never postulated a BEC.
> In particular, you're ignoring the fact that many of the groups that
> have been blamed for the JFK assassination have not only _different_
> but _opposing_ agendas. For instance, if Castro was part of the plot,
> Cowardly LBJ had better not aid the Cuban exiles. But if the Cuban
> exiles were part of the plot, Cowardly LBJ had _better_ aid them. The
> CIA might want a hard line towards Moscow, the Soviets would certainly
> want more cooperation. In each case, Cowardly LBJ is paralyzed by
> terror, for he doesn't know who killed JFK, so he doesn't know _which_
> policy will rouse them to attempt his own murder.
>
Well, I do not believe that Castro was behind it, but one thing that
happened immediately was that all plans to kill Castro were called off.
You are being silly on purpose. Making up ridiculous strawman arguments
and claiming that you know what would have been done.
>>> Dubya is _not_ exercising "dictatorial power," and the argument that he
>>> is bespeaks a vast ignorance of how _real_ dictatorships behave. Do
>>> you think, for instance, that you would be safe _saying what you just
>>> said in a public forum_ were Bush truly a "dictator?"
>> As safe as Jews saying in 1933 that Hitler is a dictator.
>
> Mmm, so you believe that Dubya's agents might be after you now that
> you've spoken against him, possibly planning to throw you into a
> concentration camp?
>
People like you would argue that there are no concentration camps. You
won't even admit the war crimes he has committed, know nothing about
illegal detention and torture.
>>>> So you are on record as admitting that Bush is more of a threat to the
>>>> Republic than Hitler was?
>>> No, because I don't accept your premise that Bush is or is trying to
>>> become a dictator.
>> Because you WANT him to be a dictator.
>
> Why would I want the Republic to fall to a dictator?
>
Qui bono. Because you are a Fascist. You seem to forget that many people
voted for Hitler and approved of his policies.
> Incidentally, the only way in which your premise about my motivation
> would make sense would be if I _did_ accept your premise that Bush is
> or is trying to become a dictator. But I just said that I _didn't_
> accept your premise.
>
You say that because you want him to be the dictator.
>>> By the way, do you actually _have_ a rational answer to my point that a
>>> President who became aware of the existence of such a Big Evil
>>> Conspiracy would have a strong Constitutional duty to destroy it?
>> Anyone taking the oath has the obligation to defend the Republic against
>> all enemies, both foreign and domestic. That does not mean that every
>> President thinks that nuclear war is the best option.
>
> Why would "nuclear war" be required to deal with the Big Evil
> Conspiracy? Again, whom are you claiming killed JFK?
>
It is not a matter of who I believe killed JFK. It is a matter of who
the leaders in Washington thought killed JFK.
I have spelled it out several times for you. The same group which tried
to kill Castro.
>>> That is a false claim on your part. I said nothing about "summary
>>> executions." Martial law provides for two instances in which someone
>>> may be lawfully killed -- when they are resisting the lawful
>>> authorities, and when they are convicted of a capital crime by a
>>> court-martial / military tribunal.
>> You are living in a dream world.
>
> No, I believe that if you read up on "martial law" (which was the topic
> I brought up) those are the only two circumstances under martial law
> under which killing is permissible.
>
Permissible? I am talking about a President acting illegally.
>> Look at Gitmo.
>
> What does that have to do with either the issue of when it is
> appropriate to declare martial law _or_ when it is appropriate to kill
> people under martial law?
>
War crimes.
>>> I do see nothing wrong with the President declaring martial law in a
>>> situation of national emergency resulting from the murder of his
>>> predecessor by a still-extant conspiracy. Such situations -- armed
>>> insurgency against the Constitutional authorities -- are exactly the
>>> sort of emergencies that the institution of "martial law" was created
>>> to deal with.
>> More than that, you see nothing wrong with our current President
>> declaring martial law in ANY made-up pretext, such as a fake national
>> emergency resulting from a phony terrorist attack.
>
> I neither said nor implied any such thing -- I was talking about a
> hypothetical situation in which JFK or LBJ had to declare martial law
> to put down a Big Evil Conspiracy that was trying to control America by
> threatening to murder Presidents.
>
Your strawman argument.
Please list for me the times when a US President declared Martial Law
and how it was implemented.
> What makes you believe that Dubya would try to declare martial law in
> "a fake national emergency resulting from a phony terrorist attack?"
> Are you trying to argue that 9/11 _wasn't_ launched by Al Qaeda?
>
No, why do you lie?
>>> If _you_ were LBJ, what would _you_ have done if you had become aware
>>> that a Big Evil Conspiracy had murdered your predecessor. So far the
>>> only thing you've proposed is "cover it up," which sounds like a much
>>> worse solution since it leaves the Big Evil Conspiracy an active threat
>>> to American democracy.
>> I know what YOU would have done if you were LBJ, YOU would have started
>> WWIII with the resultant deaths of millions of people, because have no
>> respect for human life.
>
> Again, why is starting WWIII necessary to put down the hypothetical Big
> Evil Conspiracy?
>
There is no Big Evil Conspiracy. Only in your imagination.
> But actually, if I were LBJ and discovered that (say) the Soviet Union
> had murdered JFK, I would _not_ start WWIII, owing purely to my
> awareness of the likely cost to America of doing so. I would, however,
> publicize the fact of the Soviet involvement in the murder, and use it
> to argue for increased military spending and a harder line towards the
> Soviet Union. I would also sever all economic ties with the Soviets
> and put serious pressure on US allies (of the "trade with them or with
> us, you can't have both") variety, to also sever such ties. I would
> make sure that the Soviets paid a heavy price in terms of consequences
> _short_ of war for such an action, so that they thought long and hard
> before killing another American President, and I would make sure that
> their responsibility was known so that it was a long time before the
> American people had any trust for the Soviets.
>
>
You know nothing about this case. It is specifically because everyone in
Washington thought that Castro was behind it that Johnson ordered the
cover-up. He used it to blackmail people into serving on the Warren
Commission. He told them that if they did not squelch the rumors that
Castro was behind it, there would be such pressure put on him to
retaliate that it would lead to WWIII.
>>> You need to make an explicit argument rather than name movie titles.
>> You need to watch the movie to understand the parallels. Especially the
>> extra scenes about the making of the film.
>
> Just make your argument or don't make it. Right now, you're not making
> it.
>
>>>> Oh sure, which is why Mafiosi never assassinate each other because they
>>>> don't want to thin their ranks?
>>> I'm sure you _think_ that this was a meaningful response to my
>>> argument, but it wasn't. Try again, this time speaking _explicitly_
>>> rather than obscurely.
>> It refutes your silly idea that conspirators don't kill each other. That
>> happens in the Mafia often and happened in coups in other countries.
>
> I never said that conspirators don't kill each other. However, when
> conspirators start killing each other, this is usually a sign of the
> disintegration of the conspiracy, since any surviving conspirators who
> did _not_ do the killing tend to turn state's evidence in order to
> forestall their own murders.
>
In your imagination.
>>> Hint: what do you mean by "thin their ranks" in this context? And are
>>> you aware that, when a gang begins killing its own members, that is
>>> usually the prelude or sequel to at least one of them turning informer
>>> on the other? Which means that you just _supported my observation_,
>>> which is probably not what you were trying to do!
>> There are not absolutes. What you said is true some of the time, not all
>> of the time.
>
> No, it is pretty much absolutely true that when a gang starts killing
> its own members this is a bad sign for its future.
>
It happens all the time. Often it is the only path to the top.
>>>>> Oh no, coups are _very_ possible. I've even studied the political
>>>>> science of how to carry them out.
>>>> More than that, you've probably plotted a few.
>>> I have? Really? In which countries?
>> Probably in Africa.
>
> While I'm mildly flattered that you regard me as someone with the power
> to topple regimes, I'm sort of curious as to why you imagine that I
> have any such ability ... ?
>
You write the script, you don't throw the bomb.
>>> Castro was leading a revolution, not plotting a coup. There is a
>>> signfiicant difference between the two methods of seizing power, in
>>> that a revolution attempts to gain power through getting enough of
>>> those willing to fight off the government's side and onto their own
>>> side that they can win through numerical superiority. The leaders of a
>>> revolution do not put themselves in a position where the agents of the
>>> government can gain easy access to them. Declaration of intent
>>> _before_ the seizure of power is important in a revolution, since
>>> masses of people will not join a cause which has not declared itself.
>>> One cannot carry out a revolution in secret!
>> The signers of our Declaration of Independence made their intentions
>> clear and put themselves in jeopardy.
>
> Yes. That's my point. If they hadn't "made their intentions clear"
> they could not have carried out the American Revolution, because
> _nobody would have followed them_. Masses of people do not put their
> lives on the line for murky and incomprehensible motivations; they need
> a clear cause to motivate them.
>
As it was, only about a third followed them. But by then they had
already started fighting for independence and knew what the issues were.
The Declaration was for world consumption.
>>> By contrast, a coup operates by gaining control of a key minority of
>>> individuals who are in a position to effect a physical seizure of the
>>> individuals and instrumentalities of rulership. This means the current
>>> government leader, his principal lieutenants, and the buildings in the
>>> capital from which they operate and which contain the records etc.
>>> which they use to administer the country. Coup plotters are normally,
>>> before launching their coup, in a position where government agents
>>> _could_ kill or arrest them, _if the government knew they were plotting
>>> the coup_. Consequently, coup plotters do not declare their intent
>>> _until_ they have actually executed, or are in the process of
>>> executing, their coup.
>> Diem knew about the coup before it happened.
>
> Diem did not have enough advance warning of the coup before it happened
> to act effectively against it -- he also had an unusually disloyal
> military, largely because he and his family had pissed off all the
> Buddhists (the majority of the population of his own country).
> Normally speaking, coup plotters do _not_ have the majority of the
> population on their side.
>
>> Or are you going to call that a revolution?
>
> Actually, to some extent you could -- note in particular the role of
> the mass Buddhist opposition to his regime. I'd call it something of
> an in-between case.
>
> None of this applies to JFK, though. JFK enjoyed majority popular
> support and had a loyal military and mostly loyal security and
JFK barely had a majority and he had plenty of enemies. People like you.
> intelligence services. A coup plotted against JFK would have had to
> have been _completely_ covert to avoid being crushed by the President.
>
JFK complained about the CIA and it not following orders. There are
newspaper accounts suggesting that it would be the CIA which would be
the source of a coup.
>>> This is why a coup is impossible in the United States of America,
>>> _unless_ one kills the President _and_ has the Vice-President as a
>>> member of the conspiracy. Because American authority is dispersed, not
>>> concentrated, _save in the Executive Branch_, there is no one person,
>>> building, or even city who one could OPENLY kill or seize and thus gain
>>> control of the country.
>> Spoken like a true Fascist who is in on the coup, deny, deny, deny.
>
> Um, Anthony -- I'm _41 years old_. I was born in 1964, the year
> _after_ JFK was killed. There is absolutely no way that I could have
> been in on that conspiracy, unless you're going to claim I'm the
> reincarnation of Lee Harvey Oswald.
>
I didn't accuse you of actually pulling the trigger.
> And you really should pay attention to what I just told you, because I
> just told you the _one_ good way to execute a coup in the United States
> of America, the one great flaw in our Constitutional system. If you
> kill the President _and_ have the Vice President (covertly) (*) on your
> side, the Vice President becomes President and is in a position to
> suppress an investigation of the conpsiracy.
>
So, that's your theory?
It is easy to get consensus when you lie about the evidence as Bush did.
> Traditional Latin American coups work because the populaces are
> poorly-educated, demoralized; the military has a tradition of seizing
> the capital and installing a dictator, and the people a tradition of
> obeying any such dictator (at least to the extent that they actually
> obey any authority, which is to say "not much" in a lot of Latin
> America). They would not work in America because the people are
> relatively well-educated, have a high morale, and are used to defying
> authorities that they consider illegitimate. Vicious circles in Latin
> America, virtuous ones here, in terms of the political culture.
>
I reject your Pollyanna view as being just another Fascist simplification.
>>> The _only_ way, I repeat, that even a covert coup works is if it kills
>>> the President _and replaces him by someone either treacherous or
>>> cowardly enough to cooperate with the coup plotters_. Even then, the
>> Yes. Not my theory, but maybe others believe that.
>
> How is a covert coup to succeed _without_ having the new President on
> its side?
>
False flag operation.
>>> plotters are running a serious risk themselves, since they have just
>>> put someone either treacherous (and will he betray _them_ too?) or
>>> cowardly (and will he kill them out of fear for his own life?) into a
>>> position where he now commands the resources to crush them if he so
>>> desires.
>> What you say is still true of various coups around the world.
>
> Yes, I know. That's because different countries have different
> political cultures. Thankfully, because of the Founders (who created a
> sound Constitution), George Washington (who as our first President
> _could_ have made himself Supreme Maximum Leader for Life but
> _didn't_), and a number of other great Americans, _we_ have a political
> culture in which only the most covert and well-planned of coups would
> have a chance of success, _and only if it remained covert both during
> and after its execution_.
>
> Since this is extremely difficult, we have had either no or one coup in
> the history of our nation.
Tell us more about this one coup we had.
>
>>> This is why America does not have a history of successful coups.
>> Hubris. You falsely maintain that all of these things are impossible in
>> the US because somehow the US is too great for such petty things. You
>> ignore history at your own peril.
>
> I never maintained that it was "impossible." Only extremely difficult,
> which is not the same thing.
>
> Furthermore, it is possible (indeed likely) that at some point in the
> future our political culture will change in a way which allows Latin
> American sytle coups. Nothing lasts forever.
>
Which is what you are working for.
> But right _now_ (in terms of centuries) we're in the sweet spot.
>
>>>>> The only way that the Big Evil Conspiracy could both kill JFK _and get
>>>>> away with it_ (the hard part) is if LBJ is either one of the
>>>>> conspirators (and thus it constitutes a covert coup _by_ LBJ), or a
>>>>> cowardly traitor to the Republic, who fears to do his Constitutional
>>>>> duty to crush the BEC because he's afraid that they'll get him, too.
>>>> No, your thinking is too linear.
>>> Decoded into actual logical argument, your reason why a hypothetical
>>> LBJ who (1) knows of the Big Evil Conspiracy, and is (2) loyal to the
>>> Constitution _and_ (3) reasonably courageous would _not_ try to crush
>>> the coup is that .... ?
>> Your premises are wacky and I never said anything like that. Why don't
>> you try to peddle that nonsense in alt.nazi.fascism.now?
>
> Ok, then what, explicitly, _are_ you saying? So far this post you've
> made dark hints about atomic wars resulting from the exposure of the
> BEC, but not explaining _why_ this would happen.
>
I have never suggested any BEC. You are lying as usual.
>>> Whereas, in fact, LBJ's motivation for _not_ crushing this extreme
>>> threat to the Constitution of which he had become aware was ... ?
>> WWIII.
>
> Again, _how_ would exposing the BEC cause WWIII?
>
I never said anything about a BEC.
>>> Why would LBJ exert himself, taking political risks and violating the
>>> Constitution, to cover up a conspiracy of which he was _not_ a part,
>>> _unless_ he was afraid that they would try to kill him and was deterred
>>> by this threat from fulfilling his Constitutional role as President?
>>> This implies altruism of a very peverse kind, indeed!
>> Maybe Johnson was evil. I don't know. But I know he was not stupid and I
>> don't think he was insane. Only someone like YOU would want to start
>> WWIII intentionally. Or Curtis LeMay.
>
> Um, why do I want to start WWIII, and why would exposing the BEC start
> WWIII? There's a whole chain of implicit assumptions there ... (1) the
> Soviets or their close allies killed JFK, (2) exposing this fact would
> require punishing the Soviets or their close allies for this action,
> and (3) such punishment would inevitably bring about WWIII ... which
> you really need to argue explicitly so that they can be examined.
>
The point is that there are people like you who advocate WWIII.
> If you want to know, I think that "1" is possible and that given "1"
> assumption "2" becomes probable, but I don't agree with "3" -- I see
> all sorts of possible reprisals against the Soviets or their allies
> short of strategic thermonuclear war, and given Soviet weakness at the
> time I don't think they would have been eager to escalate if they were
> subjected to mere economic sanctions.
>
You have no sense of history. I suggest that you read The Guns of
August. Assassination of a head of state is a casus belli.
Jordan
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> Jordan wrote:
>
> > No, I didn't miss the point. In fact, in the post you're quoting, I
> > state it explicitly. However, by cooperating they did not somehow
> > merge and lose their identities, they remained distinct and specific
> > organizations, rather than some shadow Big Evil Conspiracy.
> >
>
> It seems that all you can do is dream up strawman arguments. No one has
> ever said that there is a separate entity called Big Evil Conspiracy.
*sigh*
I'm simply using "Big Evil Conspiracy" as shorthand for whatever
entities, whether organizational or individual, might have plotted
JFK's death.
> Any conspiracy may involve people who have various affiliations. And yes
> sometimes organizations merge and it is hard to see the difference when
> the Mafia is the FBI and the FBI is the Mafia.
It was my understanding that the FBI, in the 1970's-1980's, waged a
fairly successful campaign _against_ the Mafia in America, greatly
weakening it as an organization. The argument that "the Mafia is the
FBI and the FBI is the Mafia" seems rather strange under the
circumstances -- or are you talking about Hoover's earlier denial of
the Mafia's existence?
> > There's fairly explicit evidence, including quotes, that JFK wanted
> > Castro dead and specifically ordered the assassination attempts, in
> > _The Dark Side of Camelot_ among other books. JFK in general pursued a
> > "get the leader" style of politics with reference in regards to Third
> > World dictatorships; note the tack he took toward Diem in South
> > Vietnam.
>
> No, just more CIA lies.
Sorry, both points are pretty well established history. JFK most
certainly _did_ order Castro's death -- he was obsessive on the point;
and he wanted Diem out of power (I never said he wanted Diem _killed_,
merely taken down).
> JFK wanted Lodge to provide Diem safe conduct
> into exile. He shocked when Diem was murdered.
The CIA did not murder Diem, nor as far as I know did any American
agency request his death. He was killed by the South Vietnamese coup
plotters, on their own initiative. You're making the common mistake of
assuming that Americans were the only active force in the world after
1945.
> > You may well have a good opinion of both JFK and Castro, and not want
> > to believe that JFK wanted Castro dead, but the clear evidence is that
> > JFK wanted him dead, ordered him dead, and in fact pushed the CIA into
> > continuing the assassination attempts long past the point where they
> > were starting to regard them as a waste of time. JFK hated Castro
>
> No, just more CIA lies.
Many witnesses and much documentary evidence supports the argument that
JFK wanted Castro dead both for reasons of state and owing to personal
animosity. You would have to produce some fairly hefty
counter-evidence to argue effectively that all these witnesses were
lying and all these documents forged!
> It was Nixon who authorized the assassination of Castro.
Reality check. Nixon was not the President of the United States until
1969. He could not have authorized the assassination of Castro -- he
was only _Vice-President_ under Eisenhower. What he _could_ have done
was pass along _Eisenhower_'s orders. Why do you find it hard to
believe that Eisenhower might have ordered the assassination of Castro?
Furthermore, even if Eisenhower and Nixon were behind the original
decision to assassinate Castro, why do you believe that JFK did not
later support this decision? There are tremendous amounts of evidence
that JFK not only supported the policy but actually ordered it
increased in priority. Most of the attempts to kill Castro occurred
under _Kennedy_, not Eisenhower!
It seems to me as if you have, for whatever reason, decided that:
1) assassinating Castro would have been "bad," the sort of thing that
only a "villain" would do,
2) Eisenhower and Kennedy were "heroes," so they couldn't have ordered
it done, no matter that they _were the actual Presidents_ at the time
that the policy was ordered and attempted, and
3) Nixon is a "villain," so it must have been his fault -- despite the
fact that not until 1969 did he have the authority to command any such
policy, and that as far as we know no attempts to assassinate Castro
were actually made during the five years (1969-74) that Nixon actually
_did_ have the authority to do so!
> > _personally_ for JFK's own failure of nerve in the Bay of Pigs
> > invasion, and additionally (with some merit) blamed him for the
> > near-occurrence of WWIII in the Cuban Missile Crisis.
>
> The assassination attempts on Castro pre-dated the Bay of Pigs and Cuban
> Missile Crisis.
I wasn't aware that any actual attempts were made before 1961, but it's
certainly possible that they were -- I'm hardly an expert on the
details of covert operations of the late 1950's - early 1960's.
What I am most definitely aware of is that several attempts were made
when Kennedy was President, and thus in a position to either command or
forbid such attempts. Numerous witnesses and documents also state that
JFK strongly supported such attempts. Hence, unless proven otherwise,
I will apply Occam's Razor and assume that JFK was, in fact, in favor
of and commanded such attacks.
> > The CIA may not care to admit this owing to the doctrine of "plausible
> > deniability," but in general assassination orders issued to them are
> > cut by the President (often transmitted through a highly trusted
> > subordinate, such as a Vice-President or close aide). In fact, it's
> > downright _illegal_ for them to obey such orders if _not_ understood to
> > come from the President. This goes double for an assassination attempt
>
> Nonsense. Helms testified before the Church Committee that he took it
> upon himself to authorize the Castro assassination plots.
*sigh*
You accuse the CIA of conniving at the assassination of a President of
the United States, the person legally _in command of_ their
organization, which would constitute both first degree murder and high
treason -- but you don't believe that a CIA official would _lie to
Congress?_
> > on a foreign head of state! You can be pretty sure that Eisenhower,
> > not Nixon, _originated_ the initial authorization for the attempts on
> > Castro; you can be _explicitly_ sure (as a matter of historical record)
> > that JFK confirmed this authorization at some point probably fairly
> > soon after taking office.
>
> Nixon was the action officer for the Cuban project. He was also the
> acting President due to Eisenhower's failing health.
I have never heard that Nixon was ever the "acting President," though I
have heard that Eisenhower delegated various duties to him. I find it
seriously difficult to believe that Nixon would order the assassination
of the head of state of a Soviet ally totally on his own authority
without at some point checking with Eisenhower -- given the obvious
importance of such a policy decision and the likely fury of Eisenhower
should he learn that Nixon _had_ made such a decision without his
permission.
I know you probably have an image of Eisenhower as this kindly, saintly
own man, but believe me -- one does not command SHAEF without knowing
how to deal with rebellious subordinates. Heck, the man used to ride
herd on _Patton!_ Nixon might have been forced to resign had he done
any such thing, and Eisenhower found out about it (and _Eisenhower_, of
all people, had the best military and intelligence connections!)
(continued later)
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
Jordan
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> Jordan wrote:
>
> > Ok ... why would the assassination of JFK have caused WWIII? Are you
> > blaming the Soviet Union or Cuba? Unless one or both countries were
> > responsible, it's difficult to see the chain of causation here.
> >
>
> I am not the one blaming the Soviet Union or Cuba. Everyone in
> Washington was.
So, LBJ covers up the evidence for a conspiracy involving the Soviet
Union or Cuba. This implies that the "message" which you are claiming
a smart President would get would be that the Soviet Union or Cuba
would be the parties whom he would have to avoid angering by deed or
non-deed to avoid his own assassination.
But, if you are _not_ blaming the Soviet Union or Cuba, then LBJ, in
appeasing the Communist powers, would be doing precisely the _wrong_
thing to avoid angering the Big Evil Conspiracy. This is because all
the _other_ likely suspects (even the Mafia) were _anti-_Communist!
Lucky that the BEC didn't off Johnson, then ...
> > Why is it "stupid" to argue that LBJ might have been in on a conspiracy
> > which clearly had him as the chief beneficiary (he got to be President,
> > which never would have happened had JFK lived) and which _you_ are
> > claiming he then went to great lengths to cover up? Given those two
> > premises, LBJ would be the obvious suspect.
> >
>
> So, your theory is that Johnson was the mastermind of the Kennedy
> assassination. Of course you have no evidence for that.
Actually, I'm not even arguing that there _was_ any conspiracy behind
or beyond the obvious perp, Oswald. You're the one who's arguing that.
What I'm arguing is that _if_ there was a conspiracy, it would _have_
to include LBJ either before or after the fact, and it would be _far_
safer from the point of view of the conspirators if it was "before the
fact." The reason is that, no matter _who_ the conpsirators were, LBJ
was in a position to either punish them or to shield them from
punishment for their crime -- because _he_ was the man who (as the
conspiracy would have been well aware) would be the next President.
> > Sorry ... given the numerous possible suspects, and the fact that
> > Washington politics is accompanied by various vague threats of various
> > often vague bad political consequences, how is the "intelligent" LBJ in
> > your scenario going to distinguish between threats of normal political
> > consequences and threats of assassination conspiracies, _unless those
> > making the threats somehow indicate that they intend murder?_
>
> Are you really that clueless?
Oh, no, I'm quite _clueful_, which is why I raised the question.
Which, I notice, you haven't actually answered, thus by implication
admitting that you don't _know_ the answer, and are trying to cover up
your ignorance by answering a question with a question.
Furthermore, your argument earlier in the same post (that "everyone in
Washington" suspected the Communists) implies that -- unless the
Communists were, in fact, the perps -- LBJ was _also_ "that clueless,"
because _according to you_ he would then be suspecting the _wrong_
perps!
> > Furthermore, unless LBJ knows _exactly_ who was part of the Big Evil
> > Conspiracy, how will he tell the difference between those who are just
> > bluffing and those who really mean it? Even if he is incredibly
> > cowardly and totally willing to yield to the Big Evil Conspiracy,
> > _unless he knows who they are and what they want, how will he know what
> > particular policies will provoke or appease them?_
>
> Your strawman is ridiculous.
I notice that you haven't answered the question of how LBJ is to tell
the difference between bluffs and genuine threats, unless he knows who
was in fact behind the assassination.
> > (we'll refer to your yield-to-the-BEC version of LBJ as "Cowardly LBJ"
> > from this point on to make it clear that I'm not necessarily talking
> > about the historical LBJ).
>
> You lie as usual. I have never postulated a BEC.
You have not postulated anything _called_ the "Big Evil Conspiracy,"
but you have in fact postulated a cabal fairly big, obviously evil, and
by definition conspiratorial. And so my point stands.
> > In particular, you're ignoring the fact that many of the groups that
> > have been blamed for the JFK assassination have not only _different_
> > but _opposing_ agendas. For instance, if Castro was part of the plot,
> > Cowardly LBJ had better not aid the Cuban exiles. But if the Cuban
> > exiles were part of the plot, Cowardly LBJ had _better_ aid them. The
> > CIA might want a hard line towards Moscow, the Soviets would certainly
> > want more cooperation. In each case, Cowardly LBJ is paralyzed by
> > terror, for he doesn't know who killed JFK, so he doesn't know _which_
> > policy will rouse them to attempt his own murder.
>
> Well, I do not believe that Castro was behind it, but one thing that
> happened immediately was that all plans to kill Castro were called off.
Because LBJ believed that Castro had been behind JFK's death? If
_that_ was his motive for becoming _less_ hostile to Castro, then he
truly _was_ "cowardly."
> > Um, what are you claiming I'm "imagining" that I didn't said. But I
> > see that you're not challenging the point that the President _would_ be
> > in a position to crush any _domestic_ conspiracy, if he had a good idea
> > who the conspirators were.
>
> You are being silly on purpose. Making up ridiculous strawman arguments
> and claiming that you know what would have been done.
All witness: he has not challenged my point, hence by implication
accepts that "the President _would_ be in a position to crush any
_domestic_ conspiracy, if he had a good ideawho the conspirators were."
He may _deny_ this, but until he comes up with a rational challenge to
this point, he has demonstrated that he has none.
> > Mmm, so you believe that Dubya's agents might be after you now that
> > you've spoken against him, possibly planning to throw you into a
> > concentration camp?
>
> People like you would argue that there are no concentration camps.
I never made any argument one way or another on this point. I asked
you what _you_ believed about _your_ likelihood of being arrested and
put in some sort of prison for speaking against Bush.
> You won't even admit the war crimes he has committed, know nothing about
> illegal detention and torture.
I've heard quite a lot about "detention and torture" -- I'm not sure
that any of this would constitute "war crimes" or "illegality," since I
know of no legitimate combatants who have been thrown into any such
facilities. We have _no_ legal responsibility under the Geneva
Convention to non-uniformed combatants -- as far as I know, we could
feed them into Saddam's leftover plastic-shredders if we were so minded
(we are not doing so, of course).
> > Why would I want the Republic to fall to a dictator?
>
> Qui bono.
Not me, that's for sure. And that's "cui bono," I believe.
> Because you are a Fascist.
Actually, I'm a conservative libertarian.
> You seem to forget that many people
> voted for Hitler and approved of his policies.
Yes, but it does not follow from this that everyone who wins an
election _is_ a "fascist."
> > Incidentally, the only way in which your premise about my motivation
> > would make sense would be if I _did_ accept your premise that Bush is
> > or is trying to become a dictator. But I just said that I _didn't_
> > accept your premise.
>
> You say that because you want him to be the dictator.
No, I want America to remain a functional Republic under the US
Constitution.
> > Why would "nuclear war" be required to deal with the Big Evil
> > Conspiracy? Again, whom are you claiming killed JFK?
>
> It is not a matter of who I believe killed JFK. It is a matter of who
> the leaders in Washington thought killed JFK.
That's reasonable. May we then summarize this part of your theory as
"LBJ believed that the Communist bloc was behind the murder of JFK?"
Now -- who do _you_ believe _actually_ killed JFK?
> > Ok, then _who_ are you claiming plotted to kill JFK? You are making
> > all sorts of sinister insinuations about everyone from Krushchev to
> > Nixon, from the CIA to the Mafia to Castro, but you are not being
> > specific about whom you think actually did the deed.
>
> I have spelled it out several times for you. The same group which tried
> to kill Castro.
The CIA? If you want to say it, just say it: "The CIA murdered JFK."
Ok, if that is true, then LBJ _was_ "stupid" in your own terms, since
he believed that it was the Communist bloc who was behind the murder,
and hence would have trying to cover up the conspiracy for the wrong
reason (fear of the "knowledge" that the Communists killed JFK sparking
an atomic war).
> > No, I believe that if you read up on "martial law" (which was the topic
> > I brought up) those are the only two circumstances under martial law
> > under which killing is permissible.
>
> Permissible? I am talking about a President acting illegally.
Declaration of martial law in an appropriate emergency is _not_
illegal.
> >> Look at Gitmo.
> >
> > What does that have to do with either the issue of when it is
> > appropriate to declare martial law _or_ when it is appropriate to kill
> > people under martial law?
>
> War crimes.
I'll take your response to mean "I have no idea what it has to do with
either issues but 'war crimes' is a cool phrase so maybe he won't
notice I couldn't answer the question."
> > I neither said nor implied any such thing -- I was talking about a
> > hypothetical situation in which JFK or LBJ had to declare martial law
> > to put down a Big Evil Conspiracy that was trying to control America by
> > threatening to murder Presidents.
>
> Your strawman argument.
> Please list for me the times when a US President declared Martial Law
> and how it was implemented.
I don't know _all_ the times, but _one_ of the most important times was
during the American Civil War. What's your point?
> > What makes you believe that Dubya would try to declare martial law in
> > "a fake national emergency resulting from a phony terrorist attack?"
> > Are you trying to argue that 9/11 _wasn't_ launched by Al Qaeda?
>
> No, why do you lie?
Then where is the "fake national emergency" or the "phony terrorist
attack?"
> > But actually, if I were LBJ and discovered that (say) the Soviet Union
> > had murdered JFK, I would _not_ start WWIII, owing purely to my
> > awareness of the likely cost to America of doing so. I would, however,
> > publicize the fact of the Soviet involvement in the murder, and use it
> > to argue for increased military spending and a harder line towards the
> > Soviet Union. I would also sever all economic ties with the Soviets
> > and put serious pressure on US allies (of the "trade with them or with
> > us, you can't have both") variety, to also sever such ties. I would
> > make sure that the Soviets paid a heavy price in terms of consequences
> > _short_ of war for such an action, so that they thought long and hard
> > before killing another American President, and I would make sure that
> > their responsibility was known so that it was a long time before the
> > American people had any trust for the Soviets.
>
> You know nothing about this case. It is specifically because everyone in
> Washington thought that Castro was behind it that Johnson ordered the
> cover-up. He used it to blackmail people into serving on the Warren
> Commission. He told them that if they did not squelch the rumors that
> Castro was behind it, there would be such pressure put on him to
> retaliate that it would lead to WWIII.
Then, obviously, LBJ must have _also_ believed that Castro was behind
it, or he would want an investigation _precisely_ to uncover the proof
that Castro _wasn't_ behind it.
> > I never said that conspirators don't kill each other. However, when
> > conspirators start killing each other, this is usually a sign of the
> > disintegration of the conspiracy, since any surviving conspirators who
> > did _not_ do the killing tend to turn state's evidence in order to
> > forestall their own murders.
>
> In your imagination.
No ... in reality. That's one big route by which organized criminal
conspiracies are _usually_ broken up by law enforcement agencies.
> > No, it is pretty much absolutely true that when a gang starts killing
> > its own members this is a bad sign for its future.
>
> It happens all the time. Often it is the only path to the top.
I know -- which is one of the main factors preventing organized crime
from becoming too powerful, given any serious law enforcement effort
against it. Gang wars generate violent crimes, witnesses, and
frightened gangsters willing to turn evidence to gain government
protection against their rivals. This is _another_ main route to
breaking up criminal conspiracies!
> > While I'm mildly flattered that you regard me as someone with the power
> > to topple regimes, I'm sort of curious as to why you imagine that I
> > have any such ability ... ?
>
> You write the script, you don't throw the bomb.
You imagine me to be some sort of CIA political analyst? Well, I'm
_truly_ flattered -- I wish I had the honor to be such, but I'm afraid
I'm just a private person who has made a study of history.
> > Yes. That's my point. If they hadn't "made their intentions clear"
> > they could not have carried out the American Revolution, because
> > _nobody would have followed them_. Masses of people do not put their
> > lives on the line for murky and incomprehensible motivations; they need
> > a clear cause to motivate them.
>
> As it was, only about a third followed them. But by then they had
> already started fighting for independence and knew what the issues were.
> The Declaration was for world consumption.
Actually the Declaration was necessary in order to establish an actual
government and relations with foreign powers. Absent the Declaration,
the Revolution would have been acts of random banditry and terrorism --
and probably would have failed, as it never could have gotten much
domestic or foreign suport.
> > None of this applies to JFK, though. JFK enjoyed majority popular
> > support and had a loyal military and mostly loyal security and
>
> JFK barely had a majority and he had plenty of enemies.
You are confusing "political opponents" with "persons willing to commit
or countenance treason." The majority of the people who voted against
JFK or who held positions in the Republican Party would have been
horrified at the idea of the assassination of an American President.
> People like you.
When have I argued for the assassination of any President?
> > intelligence services. A coup plotted against JFK would have had to
> > have been _completely_ covert to avoid being crushed by the President.
>
> JFK complained about the CIA and it not following orders. There are
> newspaper accounts suggesting that it would be the CIA which would be
> the source of a coup.
You have just contradicted your argument that everyone in Washington
suspected the Communist bloc as being the likely perps if there was a
conspiracy against JFK. Can't you even keep your theory straight from
part to part of a long post?
> > Um, Anthony -- I'm _41 years old_. I was born in 1964, the year
> > _after_ JFK was killed. There is absolutely no way that I could have
> > been in on that conspiracy, unless you're going to claim I'm the
> > reincarnation of Lee Harvey Oswald.
>
> I didn't accuse you of actually pulling the trigger.
What part of "41 years old" or "born in 1964" are you not getting?
Anthony, I attained my majority in 1982, long after all these events
were over. Do you really imagine that the Big Evil Conspiracy was
recruiting _children_ to be its agents in the coverup?
> > And you really should pay attention to what I just told you, because I
> > just told you the _one_ good way to execute a coup in the United States
> > of America, the one great flaw in our Constitutional system. If you
> > kill the President _and_ have the Vice President (covertly) (*) on your
> > side, the Vice President becomes President and is in a position to
> > suppress an investigation of the conpsiracy.
>
> So, that's your theory?
That's my theory as to what would be necessary for a domestic coup to
succeed, given either present American political culture or the one
which prevailed in 1963. The conspirators would need to have the Vice
President (or whoever became President) on their side. This is
_necessary_ because a successor President who was _not_ in on the
conspiracy would be in a position to crush it.
Now, in theory one could kill the Vice President and others in the
succession to enable a candidate who _was_ a member of the conspiracy
to succeed to the Presidency. But this is a much more risky plan,
since the more targets of the conspiracy the less the chance that _all_
the necessary assassinations will succed; and if even _one_ fails the
conspirators are in serious trouble.
> > I never claimed that the President has dictatorial powers and can use
> > the military to maintain power. There is a significant difference, in
> > terms of the degree to which others will obey him, between a
> > Constutionally-installed President claiming a state of national
> > emergency with good evidence (such as LBJ exposing a conspiracy that
> > killed JFK, or JFK revealing a conspiracy to kill him with support in
> > some military / security / intelligence circles) and some guy just
> > grabbing Washington DC and claiming that he's President because he has
> > seized control of the White House.
>
> It is easy to get consensus when you lie about the evidence as Bush did.
A little earlier in this post you said that you were _not_ arguing that
Bush faked 9/11. Make up your mind.
> > Traditional Latin American coups work because the populaces are
> > poorly-educated, demoralized; the military has a tradition of seizing
> > the capital and installing a dictator, and the people a tradition of
> > obeying any such dictator (at least to the extent that they actually
> > obey any authority, which is to say "not much" in a lot of Latin
> > America). They would not work in America because the people are
> > relatively well-educated, have a high morale, and are used to defying
> > authorities that they consider illegitimate. Vicious circles in Latin
> > America, virtuous ones here, in terms of the political culture.
>
> I reject your Pollyanna view as being just another Fascist simplification.
Then how do you explain the relative frequency of coups in the USA and
Latin America? Before you answer, reflect that there have been _no_
overt coups in American history, and quite a lot of overt coups in
Latin American history, long predating the Cold War.
> > How is a covert coup to succeed _without_ having the new President on
> > its side?
>
> False flag operation.
Ok, I think you don't grasp the difference between a "coup" and a mere
"assassination."
For a "coup" to succeed, the plotters of the coup must wind up in
control of the government. Simply killing the person in charge of the
government does not necessarily achieve that end.
Let's suppose that the CIA decides to murder JFK. They succeed in
killing him and in implicating the Cubans under your "false flag
operation."
Now, there are several problems with the CIA position following this
action.
1) They have not seized control of the government. They have put LBJ
in control of the government, but they have no assurance that he will
carry out policies that they would agree with, or refrain from policies
that they would disagree with.
2) Since LBJ (along with "everyone in Washington") blames the Cubans,
even "Cowardly LBJ" won't necessarily yield to the CIA to avoid
assassination attempts on himself -- he will instead yield to the
_Cubans_ to avoid such attempts, which will likely involve policies the
_opposite_ of what the CIA would have preferred!
3) Since the CIA does not know for sure that LBJ _is_ Cowardly, and he
wasn't Traitorous, they dare not reveal that they were in fact the
perps, for fear that LBJ will instead turn out to be both Brave and
Loyal, and turn on them.
4) The _biggest_ problem is that the "false flag operation" may
succeed _too_ well -- it may spark World War Three!
> > Yes, I know. That's because different countries have different
> > political cultures. Thankfully, because of the Founders (who created a
> > sound Constitution), George Washington (who as our first President
> > _could_ have made himself Supreme Maximum Leader for Life but
> > _didn't_), and a number of other great Americans, _we_ have a political
> > culture in which only the most covert and well-planned of coups would
> > have a chance of success, _and only if it remained covert both during
> > and after its execution_.
> >
> > Since this is extremely difficult, we have had either no or one coup in
> > the history of our nation.
>
> Tell us more about this one coup we had.
Under your theories, this would be the JFK assassination.
> > I never maintained that it was "impossible." Only extremely difficult,
> > which is not the same thing.
> >
> > Furthermore, it is possible (indeed likely) that at some point in the
> > future our political culture will change in a way which allows Latin
> > American sytle coups. Nothing lasts forever.
>
> Which is what you are working for.
I'm not sure why you imagine that I'm working for the Big Evil
Conspiracy.
> > Um, why do I want to start WWIII, and why would exposing the BEC start
> > WWIII? There's a whole chain of implicit assumptions there ... (1) the
> > Soviets or their close allies killed JFK, (2) exposing this fact would
> > require punishing the Soviets or their close allies for this action,
> > and (3) such punishment would inevitably bring about WWIII ... which
> > you really need to argue explicitly so that they can be examined.
>
> The point is that there are people like you who advocate WWIII.
When did I advocate World War III?
> > If you want to know, I think that "1" is possible and that given "1"
> > assumption "2" becomes probable, but I don't agree with "3" -- I see
> > all sorts of possible reprisals against the Soviets or their allies
> > short of strategic thermonuclear war, and given Soviet weakness at the
> > time I don't think they would have been eager to escalate if they were
> > subjected to mere economic sanctions.
>
> You have no sense of history. I suggest that you read The Guns of
> August. Assassination of a head of state is a casus belli.
"Causes of war" need not actually be acted upon -- most aren't.
- Jordan
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> Jordan wrote:
>>
>>> Ok ... why would the assassination of JFK have caused WWIII? Are you
>>> blaming the Soviet Union or Cuba? Unless one or both countries were
>>> responsible, it's difficult to see the chain of causation here.
>>>
>> I am not the one blaming the Soviet Union or Cuba. Everyone in
>> Washington was.
>
> So, LBJ covers up the evidence for a conspiracy involving the Soviet
> Union or Cuba. This implies that the "message" which you are claiming
> a smart President would get would be that the Soviet Union or Cuba
> would be the parties whom he would have to avoid angering by deed or
> non-deed to avoid his own assassination.
>
No it doesn't. You are mixing apples and oranges. I never claimed any
message. That was YOUR idea, part of YOUR fiction.
> But, if you are _not_ blaming the Soviet Union or Cuba, then LBJ, in
> appeasing the Communist powers, would be doing precisely the _wrong_
> thing to avoid angering the Big Evil Conspiracy. This is because all
> the _other_ likely suspects (even the Mafia) were _anti-_Communist!
>
You make no sense.
> Lucky that the BEC didn't off Johnson, then ...
>
There is no BEC except in your imagination.
>>> Why is it "stupid" to argue that LBJ might have been in on a conspiracy
>>> which clearly had him as the chief beneficiary (he got to be President,
>>> which never would have happened had JFK lived) and which _you_ are
>>> claiming he then went to great lengths to cover up? Given those two
>>> premises, LBJ would be the obvious suspect.
>>>
>> So, your theory is that Johnson was the mastermind of the Kennedy
>> assassination. Of course you have no evidence for that.
>
> Actually, I'm not even arguing that there _was_ any conspiracy behind
> or beyond the obvious perp, Oswald. You're the one who's arguing that.
>
> What I'm arguing is that _if_ there was a conspiracy, it would _have_
> to include LBJ either before or after the fact, and it would be _far_
> safer from the point of view of the conspirators if it was "before the
> fact." The reason is that, no matter _who_ the conpsirators were, LBJ
No, the conspiracy they fear was from the Communists. Surely you aren't
claiming that LBJ would have to be part of a Communist conspiracy. He
was paranoid that he was going to be the next victim.
> was in a position to either punish them or to shield them from
> punishment for their crime -- because _he_ was the man who (as the
> conspiracy would have been well aware) would be the next President.
>
>>> Sorry ... given the numerous possible suspects, and the fact that
>>> Washington politics is accompanied by various vague threats of various
>>> often vague bad political consequences, how is the "intelligent" LBJ in
>>> your scenario going to distinguish between threats of normal political
>>> consequences and threats of assassination conspiracies, _unless those
>>> making the threats somehow indicate that they intend murder?_
>> Are you really that clueless?
>
> Oh, no, I'm quite _clueful_, which is why I raised the question.
> Which, I notice, you haven't actually answered, thus by implication
> admitting that you don't _know_ the answer, and are trying to cover up
> your ignorance by answering a question with a question.
>
Your question makes no sense.
You think that Washington couldn't figure out that assassination was on
the mind of the Puerto Rican terrorists? Or Booth?
> Furthermore, your argument earlier in the same post (that "everyone in
> Washington" suspected the Communists) implies that -- unless the
> Communists were, in fact, the perps -- LBJ was _also_ "that clueless,"
> because _according to you_ he would then be suspecting the _wrong_
> perps!
>
He was suspecting the wrong perps. It was a hoax.
>>> Furthermore, unless LBJ knows _exactly_ who was part of the Big Evil
>>> Conspiracy, how will he tell the difference between those who are just
>>> bluffing and those who really mean it? Even if he is incredibly
>>> cowardly and totally willing to yield to the Big Evil Conspiracy,
>>> _unless he knows who they are and what they want, how will he know what
>>> particular policies will provoke or appease them?_
>> Your strawman is ridiculous.
>
> I notice that you haven't answered the question of how LBJ is to tell
> the difference between bluffs and genuine threats, unless he knows who
> was in fact behind the assassination.
>
Bluffs? Care to provide some examples?
>>> (we'll refer to your yield-to-the-BEC version of LBJ as "Cowardly LBJ"
>>> from this point on to make it clear that I'm not necessarily talking
>>> about the historical LBJ).
>> You lie as usual. I have never postulated a BEC.
>
> You have not postulated anything _called_ the "Big Evil Conspiracy,"
> but you have in fact postulated a cabal fairly big, obviously evil, and
> by definition conspiratorial. And so my point stands.
>
Fairly big? 13 people. 8 people were hanged for the Lincoln
assassination. So, I guess that fits your definition of the Big Evil
Conspiracy (Copyright 2006).
>>> In particular, you're ignoring the fact that many of the groups that
>>> have been blamed for the JFK assassination have not only _different_
>>> but _opposing_ agendas. For instance, if Castro was part of the plot,
>>> Cowardly LBJ had better not aid the Cuban exiles. But if the Cuban
>>> exiles were part of the plot, Cowardly LBJ had _better_ aid them. The
>>> CIA might want a hard line towards Moscow, the Soviets would certainly
>>> want more cooperation. In each case, Cowardly LBJ is paralyzed by
>>> terror, for he doesn't know who killed JFK, so he doesn't know _which_
>>> policy will rouse them to attempt his own murder.
>> Well, I do not believe that Castro was behind it, but one thing that
>> happened immediately was that all plans to kill Castro were called off.
>
> Because LBJ believed that Castro had been behind JFK's death? If
> _that_ was his motive for becoming _less_ hostile to Castro, then he
> truly _was_ "cowardly."
>
Your words, not mine.
>
>>> Um, what are you claiming I'm "imagining" that I didn't said. But I
>>> see that you're not challenging the point that the President _would_ be
>>> in a position to crush any _domestic_ conspiracy, if he had a good idea
>>> who the conspirators were.
>> You are being silly on purpose. Making up ridiculous strawman arguments
>> and claiming that you know what would have been done.
>
> All witness: he has not challenged my point, hence by implication
> accepts that "the President _would_ be in a position to crush any
> _domestic_ conspiracy, if he had a good ideawho the conspirators were."
>
Lame rhetoric. I also did not write a 700 page book detailing why your
theory that the moon is made of green cheese is wrong.
> He may _deny_ this, but until he comes up with a rational challenge to
> this point, he has demonstrated that he has none.
>
>>> Mmm, so you believe that Dubya's agents might be after you now that
>>> you've spoken against him, possibly planning to throw you into a
>>> concentration camp?
>> People like you would argue that there are no concentration camps.
>
> I never made any argument one way or another on this point. I asked
> you what _you_ believed about _your_ likelihood of being arrested and
> put in some sort of prison for speaking against Bush.
>
It is moot because you would never admit that there are ever any
concentration camps.
>> You won't even admit the war crimes he has committed, know nothing about
>> illegal detention and torture.
>
> I've heard quite a lot about "detention and torture" -- I'm not sure
> that any of this would constitute "war crimes" or "illegality," since I
> know of no legitimate combatants who have been thrown into any such
> facilities. We have _no_ legal responsibility under the Geneva
> Convention to non-uniformed combatants -- as far as I know, we could
> feed them into Saddam's leftover plastic-shredders if we were so minded
> (we are not doing so, of course).
>
You've heard a lot and still deny it.
You rationales are Fascist.
>>> Why would I want the Republic to fall to a dictator?
>> Qui bono.
>
> Not me, that's for sure. And that's "cui bono," I believe.
>
>> Because you are a Fascist.
>
> Actually, I'm a conservative libertarian.
>
You mean neo-Nazi.
A libertarian is just a polite Nazi who apologizes as he throws his
victims into the furnace.
>> You seem to forget that many people
>> voted for Hitler and approved of his policies.
>
> Yes, but it does not follow from this that everyone who wins an
> election _is_ a "fascist."
>
It follows that even Fascists can get freely elected because a plurality
of the population agree with his policies.
>>> Incidentally, the only way in which your premise about my motivation
>>> would make sense would be if I _did_ accept your premise that Bush is
>>> or is trying to become a dictator. But I just said that I _didn't_
>>> accept your premise.
>> You say that because you want him to be the dictator.
>
> No, I want America to remain a functional Republic under the US
> Constitution.
>
But never a Democracy.
>>> Why would "nuclear war" be required to deal with the Big Evil
>>> Conspiracy? Again, whom are you claiming killed JFK?
>> It is not a matter of who I believe killed JFK. It is a matter of who
>> the leaders in Washington thought killed JFK.
>
> That's reasonable. May we then summarize this part of your theory as
> "LBJ believed that the Communist bloc was behind the murder of JFK?"
>
Correct.
> Now -- who do _you_ believe _actually_ killed JFK?
>
A rogue CIA operation.
>>> Ok, then _who_ are you claiming plotted to kill JFK? You are making
>>> all sorts of sinister insinuations about everyone from Krushchev to
>>> Nixon, from the CIA to the Mafia to Castro, but you are not being
>>> specific about whom you think actually did the deed.
>> I have spelled it out several times for you. The same group which tried
>> to kill Castro.
>
> The CIA? If you want to say it, just say it: "The CIA murdered JFK."
>
It is not as simple as that. That would imply that it is an official CIA
operation involving everyone in the CIA. The actual plot was much
smaller. Angleton was kept out of the loop.
> Ok, if that is true, then LBJ _was_ "stupid" in your own terms, since
> he believed that it was the Communist bloc who was behind the murder,
> and hence would have trying to cover up the conspiracy for the wrong
> reason (fear of the "knowledge" that the Communists killed JFK sparking
> an atomic war).
>
LBJ stupid? But of course then you'd be much smarter and you would have
started WWIII resulting in the deaths of millions of people. You show
your true colors.
>>> No, I believe that if you read up on "martial law" (which was the topic
>>> I brought up) those are the only two circumstances under martial law
>>> under which killing is permissible.
>> Permissible? I am talking about a President acting illegally.
>
> Declaration of martial law in an appropriate emergency is _not_
> illegal.
>
The Supreme Court ruled that some implementations of Martial Law are
illegal.
>>>> Look at Gitmo.
>>> What does that have to do with either the issue of when it is
>>> appropriate to declare martial law _or_ when it is appropriate to kill
>>> people under martial law?
>> War crimes.
>
> I'll take your response to mean "I have no idea what it has to do with
> either issues but 'war crimes' is a cool phrase so maybe he won't
> notice I couldn't answer the question."
>
You can't even admit what war crimes are.
>>> I neither said nor implied any such thing -- I was talking about a
>>> hypothetical situation in which JFK or LBJ had to declare martial law
>>> to put down a Big Evil Conspiracy that was trying to control America by
>>> threatening to murder Presidents.
>> Your strawman argument.
>> Please list for me the times when a US President declared Martial Law
>> and how it was implemented.
>
> I don't know _all_ the times, but _one_ of the most important times was
> during the American Civil War. What's your point?
>
That's the point. That you don't know what the Hell you are talking
about. Tell us more about he Civil War and Habeas Corpus.
>>> What makes you believe that Dubya would try to declare martial law in
>>> "a fake national emergency resulting from a phony terrorist attack?"
>>> Are you trying to argue that 9/11 _wasn't_ launched by Al Qaeda?
>> No, why do you lie?
>
> Then where is the "fake national emergency" or the "phony terrorist
> attack?"
>
You have to wait for the next Presidential election. Some time in
December 2008.
>>> But actually, if I were LBJ and discovered that (say) the Soviet Union
>>> had murdered JFK, I would _not_ start WWIII, owing purely to my
>>> awareness of the likely cost to America of doing so. I would, however,
>>> publicize the fact of the Soviet involvement in the murder, and use it
>>> to argue for increased military spending and a harder line towards the
>>> Soviet Union. I would also sever all economic ties with the Soviets
>>> and put serious pressure on US allies (of the "trade with them or with
>>> us, you can't have both") variety, to also sever such ties. I would
>>> make sure that the Soviets paid a heavy price in terms of consequences
>>> _short_ of war for such an action, so that they thought long and hard
>>> before killing another American President, and I would make sure that
>>> their responsibility was known so that it was a long time before the
>>> American people had any trust for the Soviets.
>> You know nothing about this case. It is specifically because everyone in
>> Washington thought that Castro was behind it that Johnson ordered the
>> cover-up. He used it to blackmail people into serving on the Warren
>> Commission. He told them that if they did not squelch the rumors that
>> Castro was behind it, there would be such pressure put on him to
>> retaliate that it would lead to WWIII.
>
> Then, obviously, LBJ must have _also_ believed that Castro was behind
> it, or he would want an investigation _precisely_ to uncover the proof
> that Castro _wasn't_ behind it.
>
Of course LBJ believed it. Where have you been?
>
>>> I never said that conspirators don't kill each other. However, when
>>> conspirators start killing each other, this is usually a sign of the
>>> disintegration of the conspiracy, since any surviving conspirators who
>>> did _not_ do the killing tend to turn state's evidence in order to
>>> forestall their own murders.
>> In your imagination.
>
> No ... in reality. That's one big route by which organized criminal
> conspiracies are _usually_ broken up by law enforcement agencies.
>
In a couple of rare cases.
For many years the FBI could not turn any Mafiosi.
>>> No, it is pretty much absolutely true that when a gang starts killing
>>> its own members this is a bad sign for its future.
>> It happens all the time. Often it is the only path to the top.
>
> I know -- which is one of the main factors preventing organized crime
> from becoming too powerful, given any serious law enforcement effort
> against it. Gang wars generate violent crimes, witnesses, and
Too powerful? Where have you been? Living in a dream world?
> frightened gangsters willing to turn evidence to gain government
> protection against their rivals. This is _another_ main route to
> breaking up criminal conspiracies!
>
>>> While I'm mildly flattered that you regard me as someone with the power
>>> to topple regimes, I'm sort of curious as to why you imagine that I
>>> have any such ability ... ?
>> You write the script, you don't throw the bomb.
>
> You imagine me to be some sort of CIA political analyst? Well, I'm
> _truly_ flattered -- I wish I had the honor to be such, but I'm afraid
> I'm just a private person who has made a study of history.
>
>>> Yes. That's my point. If they hadn't "made their intentions clear"
>>> they could not have carried out the American Revolution, because
>>> _nobody would have followed them_. Masses of people do not put their
>>> lives on the line for murky and incomprehensible motivations; they need
>>> a clear cause to motivate them.
>> As it was, only about a third followed them. But by then they had
>> already started fighting for independence and knew what the issues were.
>> The Declaration was for world consumption.
>
> Actually the Declaration was necessary in order to establish an actual
> government and relations with foreign powers. Absent the Declaration,
> the Revolution would have been acts of random banditry and terrorism --
> and probably would have failed, as it never could have gotten much
> domestic or foreign suport.
>
The Declaration did not establish an actual government. We already had
that. It was called the Continental Congress. It already had relations
with foreign powers, notably France. Breed's Hill is banditry? Ever been
to the site of the Battle of Lexington? No, I didn't think so. Ever hear
of the Boston Massacre? Fascists like you cite that as a justified
British response to mob violence.
>>> None of this applies to JFK, though. JFK enjoyed majority popular
>>> support and had a loyal military and mostly loyal security and
>> JFK barely had a majority and he had plenty of enemies.
>
> You are confusing "political opponents" with "persons willing to commit
> or countenance treason." The majority of the people who voted against
> JFK or who held positions in the Republican Party would have been
> horrified at the idea of the assassination of an American President.
>
No, those are the people who called for his removal.
>> People like you.
>
> When have I argued for the assassination of any President?
>
I never said that you were the grassy knoll gunman.
People LIKE you.
>>> intelligence services. A coup plotted against JFK would have had to
>>> have been _completely_ covert to avoid being crushed by the President.
>> JFK complained about the CIA and it not following orders. There are
>> newspaper accounts suggesting that it would be the CIA which would be
>> the source of a coup.
>
> You have just contradicted your argument that everyone in Washington
> suspected the Communist bloc as being the likely perps if there was a
> conspiracy against JFK. Can't you even keep your theory straight from
> part to part of a long post?
>
I was talking about the CIA being involved and the fact that some in the
press had opined about that possibility. Different from the fact that
everyone in Washington believed Castro was behind it.
>>> Um, Anthony -- I'm _41 years old_. I was born in 1964, the year
>>> _after_ JFK was killed. There is absolutely no way that I could have
>>> been in on that conspiracy, unless you're going to claim I'm the
>>> reincarnation of Lee Harvey Oswald.
>> I didn't accuse you of actually pulling the trigger.
>
> What part of "41 years old" or "born in 1964" are you not getting?
> Anthony, I attained my majority in 1982, long after all these events
> were over. Do you really imagine that the Big Evil Conspiracy was
> recruiting _children_ to be its agents in the coverup?
>
You are making up a strawman argument. I never accused you of being
involved in the Kennedy assassination.
>>> And you really should pay attention to what I just told you, because I
>>> just told you the _one_ good way to execute a coup in the United States
>>> of America, the one great flaw in our Constitutional system. If you
>>> kill the President _and_ have the Vice President (covertly) (*) on your
>>> side, the Vice President becomes President and is in a position to
>>> suppress an investigation of the conpsiracy.
>> So, that's your theory?
>
> That's my theory as to what would be necessary for a domestic coup to
> succeed, given either present American political culture or the one
> which prevailed in 1963. The conspirators would need to have the Vice
> President (or whoever became President) on their side. This is
> _necessary_ because a successor President who was _not_ in on the
> conspiracy would be in a position to crush it.
>
In your Pollyanna dream world.
> Now, in theory one could kill the Vice President and others in the
> succession to enable a candidate who _was_ a member of the conspiracy
> to succeed to the Presidency. But this is a much more risky plan,
> since the more targets of the conspiracy the less the chance that _all_
> the necessary assassinations will succed; and if even _one_ fails the
> conspirators are in serious trouble.
The fact remains that the Lincoln conspiracy succeeded. And some people
are quite willing to give their own lives in an assassination attempt.
See Byck.
>>> I never claimed that the President has dictatorial powers and can use
>>> the military to maintain power. There is a significant difference, in
>>> terms of the degree to which others will obey him, between a
>>> Constutionally-installed President claiming a state of national
>>> emergency with good evidence (such as LBJ exposing a conspiracy that
>>> killed JFK, or JFK revealing a conspiracy to kill him with support in
>>> some military / security / intelligence circles) and some guy just
>>> grabbing Washington DC and claiming that he's President because he has
>>> seized control of the White House.
>> It is easy to get consensus when you lie about the evidence as Bush did.
>
> A little earlier in this post you said that you were _not_ arguing that
> Bush faked 9/11. Make up your mind.
>
I said nothing which conflicts with that.
9/11 was not a fake, but Bush then lied about who was responsible. Iraq
had nothing to do with it. Nor did Iraq still have WMD. Or do you claim
they still do?
>>> Traditional Latin American coups work because the populaces are
>>> poorly-educated, demoralized; the military has a tradition of seizing
>>> the capital and installing a dictator, and the people a tradition of
>>> obeying any such dictator (at least to the extent that they actually
>>> obey any authority, which is to say "not much" in a lot of Latin
>>> America). They would not work in America because the people are
>>> relatively well-educated, have a high morale, and are used to defying
>>> authorities that they consider illegitimate. Vicious circles in Latin
>>> America, virtuous ones here, in terms of the political culture.
>> I reject your Pollyanna view as being just another Fascist simplification.
>
> Then how do you explain the relative frequency of coups in the USA and
> Latin America? Before you answer, reflect that there have been _no_
> overt coups in American history, and quite a lot of overt coups in
> Latin American history, long predating the Cold War.
>
I try to avoid characterizing it in a racist way, claiming that the US
is so much more civilized than everyone else.
And you should be aware of the fact that many of the coups in Latin
America were sponsored and paid for by the US. How did Panama come to
exist? Do you know that Noriega was a CIA agent? Do you know anything at
all about history?
>>> How is a covert coup to succeed _without_ having the new President on
>>> its side?
>> False flag operation.
>
> Ok, I think you don't grasp the difference between a "coup" and a mere
> "assassination."
>
Silly.
> For a "coup" to succeed, the plotters of the coup must wind up in
> control of the government. Simply killing the person in charge of the
> government does not necessarily achieve that end.
>
As if the President is in charge like a dictator. Well, maybe now.
> Let's suppose that the CIA decides to murder JFK. They succeed in
> killing him and in implicating the Cubans under your "false flag
> operation."
>
> Now, there are several problems with the CIA position following this
> action.
>
> 1) They have not seized control of the government. They have put LBJ
> in control of the government, but they have no assurance that he will
> carry out policies that they would agree with, or refrain from policies
> that they would disagree with.
>
Such as what? Escalating the war in Vietnam? Not scattering the CIA to
the winds? What?
> 2) Since LBJ (along with "everyone in Washington") blames the Cubans,
> even "Cowardly LBJ" won't necessarily yield to the CIA to avoid
> assassination attempts on himself -- he will instead yield to the
> _Cubans_ to avoid such attempts, which will likely involve policies the
> _opposite_ of what the CIA would have preferred!
>
Mumbo jumbo.
> 3) Since the CIA does not know for sure that LBJ _is_ Cowardly, and he
> wasn't Traitorous, they dare not reveal that they were in fact the
> perps, for fear that LBJ will instead turn out to be both Brave and
> Loyal, and turn on them.
>
Why should the CIA admit anything. It was not an official operation.
Angleton said that he was not privy to who in the CIA pulled it off.
> 4) The _biggest_ problem is that the "false flag operation" may
> succeed _too_ well -- it may spark World War Three!
>
Not when they cover it up.
>>> Yes, I know. That's because different countries have different
>>> political cultures. Thankfully, because of the Founders (who created a
>>> sound Constitution), George Washington (who as our first President
>>> _could_ have made himself Supreme Maximum Leader for Life but
>>> _didn't_), and a number of other great Americans, _we_ have a political
>>> culture in which only the most covert and well-planned of coups would
>>> have a chance of success, _and only if it remained covert both during
>>> and after its execution_.
>>>
>>> Since this is extremely difficult, we have had either no or one coup in
>>> the history of our nation.
>> Tell us more about this one coup we had.
>
> Under your theories, this would be the JFK assassination.
>
Got any others?
>>> I never maintained that it was "impossible." Only extremely difficult,
>>> which is not the same thing.
>>>
>>> Furthermore, it is possible (indeed likely) that at some point in the
>>> future our political culture will change in a way which allows Latin
>>> American sytle coups. Nothing lasts forever.
>> Which is what you are working for.
>
> I'm not sure why you imagine that I'm working for the Big Evil
> Conspiracy.
>
No such thing.
>>> Um, why do I want to start WWIII, and why would exposing the BEC start
>>> WWIII? There's a whole chain of implicit assumptions there ... (1) the
>>> Soviets or their close allies killed JFK, (2) exposing this fact would
>>> require punishing the Soviets or their close allies for this action,
>>> and (3) such punishment would inevitably bring about WWIII ... which
>>> you really need to argue explicitly so that they can be examined.
>> The point is that there are people like you who advocate WWIII.
>
> When did I advocate World War III?
>
When you said that LBJ was a coward for not retaliating against Castro.
>>> If you want to know, I think that "1" is possible and that given "1"
>>> assumption "2" becomes probable, but I don't agree with "3" -- I see
>>> all sorts of possible reprisals against the Soviets or their allies
>>> short of strategic thermonuclear war, and given Soviet weakness at the
>>> time I don't think they would have been eager to escalate if they were
>>> subjected to mere economic sanctions.
>> You have no sense of history. I suggest that you read The Guns of
>> August. Assassination of a head of state is a casus belli.
>
> "Causes of war" need not actually be acted upon -- most aren't.
>
Causes of war depend on the political expediency at the time. We did
nothing to Israel for the USS Liberty. We did nothing to Iraq for the
USS Stark. We did not declare war on Germany for the Black Tom attack.
Yet we did declare war against Spain for the sinking of the USS Maine,
which was in reality just an accident. But it was used as a pretext,
just as 9/11 was used as a pretext to invade Iraq and just as the attack
on December 14th will be used as a pretext to drop nuclear bombs on Iran.
> - Jordan
>
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> Jordan wrote:
>>
>>> No, I didn't miss the point. In fact, in the post you're quoting, I
>>> state it explicitly. However, by cooperating they did not somehow
>>> merge and lose their identities, they remained distinct and specific
>>> organizations, rather than some shadow Big Evil Conspiracy.
>>>
>> It seems that all you can do is dream up strawman arguments. No one has
>> ever said that there is a separate entity called Big Evil Conspiracy.
>
> *sigh*
>
> I'm simply using "Big Evil Conspiracy" as shorthand for whatever
> entities, whether organizational or individual, might have plotted
> JFK's death.
>
So, was Booth part of a Big Evil Conspiracy? Can you cite any examples
of this Big Evil Conspiracy?
>> Any conspiracy may involve people who have various affiliations. And yes
>> sometimes organizations merge and it is hard to see the difference when
>> the Mafia is the FBI and the FBI is the Mafia.
>
> It was my understanding that the FBI, in the 1970's-1980's, waged a
> fairly successful campaign _against_ the Mafia in America, greatly
> weakening it as an organization. The argument that "the Mafia is the
> FBI and the FBI is the Mafia" seems rather strange under the
> circumstances -- or are you talking about Hoover's earlier denial of
> the Mafia's existence?
>
No, you seem to have no done any homework on this. Google Boston FBI
WHITEY BULGER.
>>> There's fairly explicit evidence, including quotes, that JFK wanted
>>> Castro dead and specifically ordered the assassination attempts, in
>>> _The Dark Side of Camelot_ among other books. JFK in general pursued a
>>> "get the leader" style of politics with reference in regards to Third
>>> World dictatorships; note the tack he took toward Diem in South
>>> Vietnam.
>> No, just more CIA lies.
>
> Sorry, both points are pretty well established history. JFK most
> certainly _did_ order Castro's death -- he was obsessive on the point;
> and he wanted Diem out of power (I never said he wanted Diem _killed_,
> merely taken down).
>
No, that is a blatant lie. Richard Helms testified before the Church
Committee that JFK did NOT order Castro's death. You claim that only as
part of your pattern of revealing yourself as a Kennedy hater who is
glad that he was assassinated.
>> JFK wanted Lodge to provide Diem safe conduct
>> into exile. He shocked when Diem was murdered.
>
> The CIA did not murder Diem, nor as far as I know did any American
> agency request his death. He was killed by the South Vietnamese coup
> plotters, on their own initiative. You're making the common mistake of
> assuming that Americans were the only active force in the world after
> 1945.
>
The CIA knew and approved of the fact that the coup leaders would kill
the Diem brothers.
>>> You may well have a good opinion of both JFK and Castro, and not want
>>> to believe that JFK wanted Castro dead, but the clear evidence is that
>>> JFK wanted him dead, ordered him dead, and in fact pushed the CIA into
>>> continuing the assassination attempts long past the point where they
>>> were starting to regard them as a waste of time. JFK hated Castro
>> No, just more CIA lies.
>
> Many witnesses and much documentary evidence supports the argument that
> JFK wanted Castro dead both for reasons of state and owing to personal
> animosity. You would have to produce some fairly hefty
> counter-evidence to argue effectively that all these witnesses were
> lying and all these documents forged!
>
What documents? What witneses? You have nothing. YOU are the one who has
to claim that Helms was lying under oath.
>> It was Nixon who authorized the assassination of Castro.
>
> Reality check. Nixon was not the President of the United States until
> 1969. He could not have authorized the assassination of Castro -- he
Nixon was the Vice-President and acting President when the order was
given in person to Richard Bissell.
> was only _Vice-President_ under Eisenhower. What he _could_ have done
> was pass along _Eisenhower_'s orders. Why do you find it hard to
> believe that Eisenhower might have ordered the assassination of Castro?
>
> Furthermore, even if Eisenhower and Nixon were behind the original
> decision to assassinate Castro, why do you believe that JFK did not
> later support this decision? There are tremendous amounts of evidence
When JFK found out about it from the press, he was furious and ordered
his brother Robert to put a stop to it.
> that JFK not only supported the policy but actually ordered it
> increased in priority. Most of the attempts to kill Castro occurred
> under _Kennedy_, not Eisenhower!
>
Most? Let's see you list them. This should be pretty funny.
> It seems to me as if you have, for whatever reason, decided that:
>
> 1) assassinating Castro would have been "bad," the sort of thing that
> only a "villain" would do,
>
Did I say that. How about if just the concept of assassination is wrong?
How about if setting such an example leads to other countries thinking
that they have just as much right to assassinate our leaders? How about
a little common sense, if not a modicum of ethics?
> 2) Eisenhower and Kennedy were "heroes," so they couldn't have ordered
> it done, no matter that they _were the actual Presidents_ at the time
> that the policy was ordered and attempted, and
>
I never said that Eisenhower did not order assassinations. He did.
> 3) Nixon is a "villain," so it must have been his fault -- despite the
> fact that not until 1969 did he have the authority to command any such
> policy, and that as far as we know no attempts to assassinate Castro
> were actually made during the five years (1969-74) that Nixon actually
> _did_ have the authority to do so!
>
Authority? You mean like Cheney?
>>> _personally_ for JFK's own failure of nerve in the Bay of Pigs
>>> invasion, and additionally (with some merit) blamed him for the
>>> near-occurrence of WWIII in the Cuban Missile Crisis.
>> The assassination attempts on Castro pre-dated the Bay of Pigs and Cuban
>> Missile Crisis.
>
> I wasn't aware that any actual attempts were made before 1961, but it's
> certainly possible that they were -- I'm hardly an expert on the
> details of covert operations of the late 1950's - early 1960's.
>
Well, isn't that the point here? You keep blabbering all your Fascist
nonsense, totally unaware of history.
> What I am most definitely aware of is that several attempts were made
> when Kennedy was President, and thus in a position to either command or
> forbid such attempts. Numerous witnesses and documents also state that
> JFK strongly supported such attempts. Hence, unless proven otherwise,
> I will apply Occam's Razor and assume that JFK was, in fact, in favor
> of and commanded such attacks.
>
Because it suits your political agenda, regardless of facts.
>>> The CIA may not care to admit this owing to the doctrine of "plausible
>>> deniability," but in general assassination orders issued to them are
>>> cut by the President (often transmitted through a highly trusted
>>> subordinate, such as a Vice-President or close aide). In fact, it's
>>> downright _illegal_ for them to obey such orders if _not_ understood to
>>> come from the President. This goes double for an assassination attempt
>> Nonsense. Helms testified before the Church Committee that he took it
>> upon himself to authorize the Castro assassination plots.
>
> *sigh*
>
> You accuse the CIA of conniving at the assassination of a President of
> the United States, the person legally _in command of_ their
> organization, which would constitute both first degree murder and high
> treason -- but you don't believe that a CIA official would _lie to
> Congress?_
>
OK, then your only way out of this is to claim that Helms lied under
oath, something that you predicted that'd have to do to refute your
non-existent witnesses and made up documents.
>>> on a foreign head of state! You can be pretty sure that Eisenhower,
>>> not Nixon, _originated_ the initial authorization for the attempts on
>>> Castro; you can be _explicitly_ sure (as a matter of historical record)
>>> that JFK confirmed this authorization at some point probably fairly
>>> soon after taking office.
>> Nixon was the action officer for the Cuban project. He was also the
>> acting President due to Eisenhower's failing health.
>
> I have never heard that Nixon was ever the "acting President," though I
> have heard that Eisenhower delegated various duties to him. I find it
Great, chalk up another example of your lack of education. Go out and
get a book.
no_name
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>>Jordan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ok ... why would the assassination of JFK have caused WWIII? Are you
>>>blaming the Soviet Union or Cuba? Unless one or both countries were
>>>responsible, it's difficult to see the chain of causation here.
>>>
>>
>>I am not the one blaming the Soviet Union or Cuba. Everyone in
>>Washington was.
>
>
> So, LBJ covers up the evidence for a conspiracy involving the Soviet
> Union or Cuba.
There's slightly more "evidence" LBJ covered up a CIA/Mafia plot that
was supposed to implicate Cuba, and lead to a U.S. invasion.
War with Cuba and/or the Soviets wasn't his agenda. He was more
interested in pushing his great society through & didn't want to face a
guns/butter choice.