Posted on 08/18/2013 11:29:47 AM PDT by Pharmboy
--Researchers are most interested in the file on George Joannides, a CIA agent who may have had a connection to Lee Harvey Oswald and acted as a liaison on a later assassination investigation
All documents pertaining to the Kennedy assassination are set to be released by 2017
Fifty years after the assassination of President John F Kennedy in Dallas, Texas, researchers are still investigating his mysterious murder.
Thousands of pages pertaining to the assassination are still sealed, and researchers are calling for a complete public release.
Jefferson Morley, former Washington Post Reporter currently suing the CIA to release the data, is most interested in a file containing about 300 pages on the now-deceased CIA agent George Joannides.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
If the facts support your theory, you’re not a nut. If someone called you a kangaroo, that wouldn’t make you one.
Yes, it’s aggravating to be called a conspiracy nut. Mocking us is a great technique to shut us up.
I’m a birther and not afraid to say so. Same with JFK. I don’t claim to know the answers, but I point out the flaws in the stories that are foisted on us by the complicit media. (I have no idea where Zippy was born. I’m not claiming Kenya, but I am claiming that we have not seen a real BC. The fact that he promoted himself as an author with a bio saying he was born in Kenya certainly raises some interesting questions, such as Was he lying then or is he lying now?)
With JFK, I haven’t spent a great deal of time reading about it, but the evidence I’ve seen makes a strong case for LBJ being behind it or at least a part of it. If LBJ gave the go-ahead, that doesn’t rule out other players who may have been in on it or contributed.
Imagine if Zippy were assassinated, who might have an interest in that. I’m sure that the MSM would immediately point the finger at anyone and everyone on the right. Tea Partiers would likely be at the top of the list. But who would have the most to gain? The left. They’d get a martyr/hero, clear the way for the next puppet in line, rid themselves of an embarrassment, and have yet another stick to use against the *racists* and *haters* on the right. They’d also use the event to further invade our privacy and take away freedoms, particularly 2A rights. Even if he wasn’t shot, they’d manage to work that angle. Foreign foes might also have an interest in Zippy’s demise for a wide variety of reasons. Personally, I don’t want him dead. I want to see him in jail - for life - after his many serious crimes are fully exposed.
“How did he afford the trip?”
How did afford anything? Edward Jay Epstein did a good analysis in the book “Legend” of all of Oswald’s known expenditures and income for the years from his leaving the Marines through the assassination. He spent quite a bit more money than his documentable income would allow.
I listened to all the theories about JFK and simply asked myself, “Who had the most to gain from his death?” I kept coming back to LBJ. Of course I can’t prove it, but I believe that LBJ was involved somehow and it was because he wanted us to play a bigger role in Vietnam. JMHO.
Everything I've read, which includes almost every theory, points to L.B.J., along with J. Edgar Hoover, the C.I.A., and organized crime as the three primary suspects. They had the ability, the motive, and the power after the fact to cover things up and eliminate "problems". That power structure is still in place after all of these years and has owned every President since the assassination with the exception of Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. Remember, they tried getting rid of Reagan one month into his first term so their protection man, George Bush, could be in charge.
You cannot mess with these people. If they can kill your President in broad daylight in front of hundreds of witnesses, they can kill anyone.
You’re not the only ones. Some of us suspected him in 1963. Some of us never stopped.
Ditter, you may be thinking of “A Texan Looks at Lyndon”. Came out in early 1964 I think. I was in Texas and got a copy of it before it disappeared. Still have it, safely stashed.
Yes you are right “A Texan Looks at Lyndon” and I found my old copy! I had not thought of it in years.
I don’t think he really had much to gain at all. JFK was re-elected, so LBJ probably just had to wait 4 years to get his hands on the Presidency. So if you do a risk vs reward analysis, the reward for LBJ is not the Presidency of the United States, it’s simply not having to wait 4 more years. On the other hand, the risk is not only losing any chance at becoming President, but also going to prison, or facing the death penalty if someone got sloppy and he got caught.
Politicians wait their whole lives for a shot at the Presidency. I really can’t see any of them taking the chance of blowing that lifetime of work because they can’t wait four more years.
“Many people who might have had knowledge harmful to the official government “Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone” account ended up dead. Study this aspect by itself and it tells you that your government has been lying about this event from the start.”
The problem with this argument is that it just lends itself to cherry picking and confirmation bias. First of all, it’s been 50 years since the event, and 50 years after almost any event, a lot of the witnesses will be dead, with no nefarious explanation required. On top of that, a lot of the “suspicious deaths” listed by the researchers are not really suspicious in and of themselves in any way. There are some deaths that are suspicious, there is no doubt about that, but these guys pad their list with every heart attack victim or car crash victim.
I bet if you did a statistical analysis, you’d find that the JFK witnesses have about the same rate of heart failures, accidental deaths, etc as the general population.
I think the story is fairly easy to believe, and it almost concludes itself...but then you come to Jack Ruby.
This Ruby character and his actions don’t fit. The government’s story...up until Jack Ruby....kinda works and is somewhat believable. Jack Ruby spoils the story.
Because of his connection to the mafia, I think Jack Ruby was the back-up to the whole mafia-planned operation. Oswald probably didn’t grasp his part in this episode, until he left the building. He probably was supposed to be shot by an insider cop, and it’d all be tightly cleaned up. Oswald survives, and the mafia goes into clean-up status...using Jack Ruby.
The anger and hostility of the nation....if they found out that it was all mafia-driven, would be enormous. You had probably half the Senate who were being bribed in some fashion by the mafia, so it just couldn’t be explained or cleaned up. I think the idea in 1968 of another Kennedy coming back again...triggered the second plan with RFK.
“The anger and hostility of the nation....if they found out that it was all mafia-driven, would be enormous. “
That’s exactly why the mafia, at least at that time, would never get involved with anything like the JFK assassination. They didn’t even go after cops because it was bad for business. No way in hell they would go after a President.
“I wonder.....who would have benefited from Kennedy’s death?”
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Liberace?
“I wonder.....who would have benefited from Kennedy’s death?”
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Liberace?
They had the resources in place- go look up Whitaker Chambers. And it wasn’t for just one sleeper agent. Their infiltration of our government and society was probably fairly substantial. And while Oswald was small fry, that doesn’t preclude him being activated to assassinate a President.
“Think about how embarrassed Khrushchev was over the missile crisis situation.”
That, and consider that Khruschev was in fact nutty enough to go to the very brink of nuclear war. Being bat@#% crazy, having an American President rubbed out would not be out of character. And the Politburo removing him might well have been because his erratic behavior was becoming dangerous.
“I’m convinced that they’d show that the Soviet Union played a more direct role in the assassination. “
We know that they didn’t. We had a spy inside of the Kremlin on the day that Kennedy was shot. That spy was Morris Childs, our greatest espionage asset during the Cold War. He was so secret that his identity was kept from everyone but his immediate handlers.
Childs was with the Soviet inner circle when they heard the news that Kennedy had been shot. And they were as shocked and surprised as we were in the United States. The Soviets immediately began speculating on who could have done it, just like we do.
The story of Morris Childs is one of the most fascinating accounts to come out of the Cold War and it’s surprisingly little known. There is an excellent book on him by John Barron, “Operation Solo: The FBI’s Man in the Kremlin”.
In 1987 President Ronald Reagan awarded Morris Childs and his brother Jack the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award bestowed by the United States.
“Which isn’t very sensible, since the CIA has historically been a pretty left-leaning organization.”
True enough. Old leftwing Tom Braden was Pat Buchanan’s opponent on Crossfire. And Braden had been with both the OSS and the CIA.
Ironically he was also the author of the autobiographical ‘Eight is Enough’, which became a well known tv sitcom, hardly what you would imagine from a spook.
I can live with this.
I'll go back to believing what I used to believe: that Oswald acted alone.
I still blame the Soviets, though. They were very successful in turning Americans into anti-Americans through effective propaganda. They didn't program Oswald, but their hope was to create people like Oswald.
Maybe they were surprised at how effective their indirect efforts were.
Sure, they had resources in place, to get undercover Communists into all sorts of sensitive positions. Not to get openly professed, known defector Communists into sensitive positions. Why would the Soviets even bother to waste resources on a compromised asset that they knew was being monitored? The FBI was keeping tabs on Oswald, even weeks before the assassination.
You “activate” sleepers, assets that the enemy doesn’t know about, who can operate undetected. You don’t activate burned assets that are being tracked.
“The FBI was keeping tabs on Oswald, even weeks before the assassination.”
Evidently not close enough tabs. And maybe not a close eye on purpose..... Ponder this- if the fox is the one doing the watching, then the weasel goes into the henhouse, nobody will see the birds buying the farm. It wouldn’t matter if the weasel was compromised. Besides, the fox covered his involvement- enter Jack Ruby....
It’s all too hypothetical. We have a pretty good idea nowadays of how far the Soviets got infiltrating us, and it was bad in a lot of areas, but not that bad. Besides, even if the Soviets could have managed to arrange all that for Oswald, and somehow pull it off despite all the red flags that came with his defector status, it doesn’t answer the question of “why bother?” We know they had “cleaner” sleepers who could have done the same thing, with less resources required, and there wouldn’t have been a giant trail pointing back to the Soviets, as there was with Oswald. Just doesn’t make sense from that perspective, too much exposure beforehand and after the fact.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.