Most Official Evidence is required to proving a Feasible Conspiracy

greg parker wrote:

steely dan wrote:Does Vietnam play any part or was that just a bonus for the MIC?

Apparently Steely we've been looking through the wrong end of the lens. It was the MIC that was the false sponsor all along.

Who knew?

Fredo Corleone, but he "swims with the fishes"

Steely,

        Yes indeed Vietnam was a part of the Military-Industrial Complex agenda in my view. However, it does not require actual member corporations to assist in the actual murder of JFK. Nor is public murder their usual weapon, influence and lobbying are the usual weapons in my view. It does not require more than a handful of powerful criminals with a similar agenda with a rogue high official or two. In my estimation a small group could accomplish and conceal what a large unwieldy construct could not. This feasible small plot would be lost in all the subsequent suppression and public speculations.


"The CIA and the Mafia are two sides of the same coin" - Sam Giancana

Carmine Savastano wrote:Steely,

        Yes indeed Vietnam was a part of the Military-Industrial Complex agenda in my view. However, it does not require actual member corporations to assist in the actual murder of JFK. Nor is public murder their usual weapon, influence and lobbying are the usual weapons in my view. It does not require more than a handful of powerful criminals with a similar agenda with a rogue high official or two. In my estimation a small group could accomplish and conceal what a large unwieldy construct could not. This feasible small plot would be lost in all the subsequent suppression and public speculations.


"The CIA and the Mafia are two sides of the same coin" - Sam Giancana

Carmine, i agree there doesn't need to be a huge plot with a cast of thousands. And if we believe the stories about his indiscretions, surely some well placed press leaks could see him off. At the risk of "going drago" i think bigger wheels were turning than the mafia, however they make excellent false sponsors.

Steely,

I would agree that some did benefit from JFK's death, but I would contend few benefited immediately and as immensely as the Mafia bosses and a few officials. 

Most in the MIC in my view had a longer view of history and finance than to risk it all upon a highly unlikely plan that might be revealed. 

I do agree criminal conspiracy and intent do guide some of the verified criminality (Vietnam, the murder of Diem) in these events but not that all are directly connected nor have an ascending list of conspirators. The many fringe elements (Walker, Hunt, Milteer, Murchison, et al.) had the motive, the means, yet could not sway the opportunity.

 Additionally the motorcade was late, this would require multiple on the ground agents that would make the plan too large in my view. Powerful men might have desired JFK's death but I am just contending what in my view most evidence supports. I would concede many might have realized what happened afterward but not first hand knowledge. 

Regarding the scope of the act I would not presume you suggest a cast of thousands, I would contend it required no more than a handful of people to murder Kennedy.  The rest feasibly involved  cover up the true plot attempting to suppress incriminating evidence. This incriminated most officials who did so, however the guilt is misplaced. Just because they lied does not mean they are connected to the murder. Illegality when classified can be many different things.

In my view it is feasible one group killed him and the other covered it up for a host of shared reasons. Yet I do agree the Bosses would not be the true sponsors, the sponsorship could be provided various channels (anti-Castro Cubans, Texan interests) yet in my view only a few officials could grasp the entire landscape and had the position to manipulate it.

Carmine Savastano wrote:
In my view it is feasible one group killed him and the other covered it up for a host of shared reasons. Yet I do agree the Bosses would not be the true sponsors, the sponsorship could be provided various channels (anti-Castro Cubans, Texan interests) yet in my view only a few officials could grasp the entire landscape and had the position to manipulate it.

Hi Carmine, IMO three things hat to come together - in addition to the capability to manipulate, there was also the funding, and there was also the operational knowledge.

It is (remotely) possible that all those three things could have come together in one person, like say an Allen Dulles. Dulles was personally wealthy, he knew what was going on, and he knew how to use the machinery of government. He was also in bed with the mob and long before the Kennedy assassination he'd already violated an extensive list of standing presidential orders.

If Lee Harvey Oswald really was a deep cover agent provocateur, then Dulles was one of the few who knew about it. Johnson probably wouldn't know about details like that, and neither would Kennedy.... Nixon might, since he was involved with all the anti-commie types, but even that would be a stretch if one understands there had to be "many" people like Oswald at the height of the Cold War.

The other angle is, Hoover was looking for anything he could get on the CIA. If Hoover thought for even a minute that he could make the CIA's life miserable by enlisting Oswald as an FBI informant, he would have done it. But instead we have him sending a memo of inquiry to the CIA after he discovers someone else using Oswald's identity. At the time this occurred, Oswald was officially known to Hoover as "a defector". And he was overseas. And yet he was also on Hoover's radar screen here at home. Interesting, ain't it?

Greg,

        I would not place all their possible motives for assassination in the Cuban motivation but in my view it is reasonably part of a motive. The loss of billions of profits and future business would qualify as a motivating factor. I agree that Lanksy was involved with some of these Mafia leaders and would support his influence. In fact Jack Ruby met with McWillie and Lansky's brother in Cuba. I would not state that Marcello and the others were geniuses by any means, but I also would not underestimate the wile of the Bosses. They in my view made a living stepping over the bodies of those in their way or a considered a threat. I also would not credit them with the plan, that feasibly was part of prior assassination plots. I would not contend the Mafia needed Cuba, but felt the loss financially due to the loss of the Casinos, all the wasted graft money paid to Batista officials and the dictator himself, and the loss of easy smuggling between Cuba and the US. When Fidel would not cooperate they plotted to murder him, when Kennedy would not cooperate, well you know. 

Going with your analogy, if someone were to be located in a position to observe and follow Oswald why not dispatch a confused message or two to distance one from him? Just a thought.

Non,

      I would agree that it is tall order that any single man or two could have all the required knowledge to observe the full lay of the land and manipulate the situation. However, I would contend a few could. You have named two I would count among those possible Dulles and Hoover. We know both lied to the Commission repeatedly. 

In my view all these factors do not have to be in a single person, the funding could have come from prior funding illegally given to any of the many anti Castro groups or even official funding to an anti-Castro mission. With so many hidden budgeted groups the money in my view could have emerged from sources unknown to many. In my view a small group could act just as effectively without the many fingerprints a larger group might leave. The Bosses could have even paid for it themselves. However, it still requires in my view that high official to suppress the connections between officials and the Mafia. The rest of the suppression could have occurred to cover the many illegal programs peripheral to the assassination.

Carmine, the loss of Cuban profits for the mafia was a big hit. Las Vegas helped ease the loss. And Hoover fiddled. Where is the "Vegas" for the MIC if JFK survives Dallas and refuses to escalate in SE Asia?.

Steely,

    In my view the MIC was going to get what it wanted as it often does. If Kennedy had lived it would take years to train the South Vietnamese, so a full withdrawal would take time. I agree Kennedy was deescalating but it would not be instantaneous. Vietnam would take years to deescalate and a single misstep in the peace process could restart the combat process. 

The Military Industrial Complex makes money in war and peace time in my view. In war it makes money from the same products it does in peace time. We always for some unknown reason need increasing and more technologically advanced weapons, medical equipment, vehicles, and all sorts of unnecessary military accouterments for wars that are based on profit not justice. However I digress. The MIC are greedy and whether Kennedy lived or died they would profit. America is just one of many countries who they influence and peddle their wares to. 

Instead I would contend the Mafia Bosses and at least one High official could undertake the assassination with motive, means, and opportunity. Add a couple snipers, and let outside officials with peripheral misdeeds attempt to bury the worst of their offenses. Add two groups (CIA and FBI) to really practice subterfuge and deceptions upon those investigating. If that did not work attempt to publicly discredit them. As I stated I am a minimalist regarding the matter.

What do you think the MIC wanted Carmine?. JFK made it clear what he wanted. How does the MIC make money in peacetime?

Steely,

           Kennedy indeed wanted in my view deescalation in Vietnam, however he also met with the Shah of Iran and fringe anti-Castro Cubans. Some claim he vowed to destroy the CIA yet he never did. I do not think John Kennedy is so easily quantified as some imagine. At his base he like all other Presidents was a politician. I believe the MIC wanted what corporations always desire profit and influence. 

In peacetime, in my view are all the post war reconstruction contracts, such as those after WWII that cemented America a Superpower. During the rise of the United States economy the same companies who prior made war also sold huge amounts of equipment and hardware for the massive stockpiling of weapons and equipment, including nuclear weapons during the Cold War. While small Communist and Capitalist satellites (pawn) countries were the site of wars they rarely actually touched the main lands of both Super powers. That I would contend is how they made enormous amounts of money in peacetime. 

Despite the fact that neither Americans , nor the Russians then were the imagined threat both countries were sold.

greg parker wrote:

From Lee Harvey Oswald's Cold War, p 51 (paperback draft version)

---------------------------

        Meanwhile the Pentagon budget, which had not exceeded $60 billion between the years of 1947 and 1950, needed a crisis to get        Congress to dig deeper into the treasury coffers. Undersecretary of State, Dean Acheson, who was among the first to nominate North Korea as the aggressors, put it succinctly when he said "Korea saved us."[xix]  The “us” cited by Acheson clearly didn’t include John or Joan Q. Citizen. 

        After 1952, the Pentagon budget would never drop below $143 billion.[1] 

 

The Korean “Conflict” was, in reality, a limited war that spun nearly unlimited gold for the War Machine, shifted goal posts at the UN and saw the US emerge as the world's sheriff. 

[1] The comparison figures used are in 1987 dollars adjusted for inflation to reflect real value. 

[cix] US Military Spending In The Cold War Era: Opportunity Costs, Foreign Crises, and Domestic Constraints by Robert Higgs, Professor of Political Economy, Lafayette College

And the sheriff saddled up to revisit the area 8000 miles from home, rather than visit Cuba which was on its doorstep and infinitely easier to pummel. Money talks and there was no "Little Italy" in Siagon

Greg,

 I agree with your assessment and would contend it also supports the MIC was active before and after Kennedy, a war somewhere is something they can always count upon no matter who is in office. In my view the MIC were not in a position of weakness as greatly as the Mafia leaders were, nor were they as desperate and dangerous. 

Many broad connections can be linked to various wealthy and corporate people however in my view little substantial evidence implicates any specific people directly. Whether this is a deficiency of the many official mistakes or intentional based upon the many suppression I would not hazard to guess. I agree many feasibly benefited from Kennedy's death but in my view based on some evidence it was not the MIC or its asserted membership directly involved.

Steely,

No little Italy in Saigon true...but the Campisi restaurant is within walking distance of the TSBD. I figured if we were making distance analogies...

Terry W. Martin wrote:

steely dan wrote:

Fully agree ,Paul. Apart from the stellar research he has shared here, it was Lee who provided the Bumfuck Bob photo.

And I was waiting for Lee to continue his thread on Oswald not living in the house they claim he did.

Darn!

FWIW: I'll be elaborating on the notion that Oswald wasn't living at 1026 North Beckley at the time of the assassination in my upcoming essay on Larry Crafard. As for Lee leaving the forum, it is indeed a terrible loss. I wish him all the best.

Hasan Yusuf wrote:

FWIW: I'll be elaborating on the notion that Oswald wasn't living at 1026 North Beckley at the time of the assassination in my upcoming essay on Larry Crafard. As for Lee leaving the forum, it is indeed a terrible loss. I wish him all the best.

That's great, Hasan.

I'll look forward to seeing it!

Crafard is a very interesting fellow indeed, I'm super-interested in anything anyone can dig up on him.

Apparently Jack Ruby met him at the carnival? And, apparently Jack Ruby frequented the carnival, for the specific purpose of recruiting people for "odd jobs"?

Because.... he could find drifters that no one knew. Fresh faces. Fresh people. No encumbrances.

Apparently Eva was into this activity too, there are at least three descriptions of her recruiting women at carnivals, that I've come across so far.

Seems to me so far, based on my limited reading, that Jack Ruby's business depended heavily and entirely on his reputation for being trustworthy with money. (And it's even possible that this "value" came to him from other direction too, maybe even from his religious background). Ruby apparently frequently carried way more money than he had himself, and we have several stories of him being a "bag man" for other people (like, the Nancy Perrin story about the guns, and the various rumors about the DPD).

It occurs to me, that is Ruby's real business was "connecting" people, this would explain almost the entirety of his reported behavior. Including the allegation that he once threw Oswald down the stairs of his Carousel Club after he (Oswald) accused someone of being a Communist - Ruby allegedly said "I told you never to come in here, you sonuvabitch".

Maybe Ruby was all about making money from the idea of "identifying subversives", as long as said activity didn't occur in his club, and didn't tag his customers.

greg parker wrote:Thanks Hasan,

I was going to try finish those incomplete threads here... but it's a big and time consuming task, so you're tackling it in an essay, I think I'll let myself off that hook. You (and Lee) could/can do it more justice than I would have anyway...

No worries, Greg. But I honestly think you're putting a bit too much faith in me. I'd say the earliest I can get this freakin essay done is by the end of the month. I may need some help from you and others in getting it done.

I have an old book in which there is quite a bit of info about Crafard.I will try and post some excerpts from that book.