The Chicago Plot: A Hypothesis

[Albert Doyle]

STOP with this CIA nonsense! It was and is a tool -- an agenda facilitator. It is NOT a monolithic entity and it was NOT a Sponsor of the assassination.

It's my belief that it is important to speak of those CIA conspirators as "CIA". The reason this is important is because in America we have an important Constitutional framework where the government is required to answer to the exact same rule of law as the people. If you observe legal methods in America, government does not hesitate to hold institutions responsible in order to hold them accountable for what their individual members do. If the conspiracy happened under CIA's roof then they are the ones responsible. It is my opinion that avoiding this process in order to seek those individuals responsible only helps the intended effect of plausible deniability and hiding the culprits inside the shadows of CIA's multiple compartments.

I say in return, with bowing respect, that forcing the issue into strained definitions of Sponsorship and Facilitator when faced with obvious enough guilt is also a violation of what you say. We both know the long list of CIA suspects from Hunt to Angleton and onward. For the sake of space, the use of "CIA" works in both regards.

The "guaranteed" part is your misinterpretation.

How? You haven't shown where I'm wrong. The point stands, Dallas was not a guarantee according to the Oswald plan. If the Oswald plan fell through because a pile of bricks fell on Oswald what would they have done?

Pure speculation -- which is precisely what I invited when I started this thread. But it is so undernourished by in-depth, sophisticated appreciations of how things work that it simply cannot pass the laugh test. Sorry, Albert. I don't like how these exchanges are developing, but I'm at wit's end trying to get you to think more deeply about matters at hand.

With due respect Charles, the above is opinion. I don't see where you've answered the point. It's my opinion that the "in-depth, sophisticated appreciations" you call for is exactly what I'm doing. If Oswald had a pile of bricks fall on him in Dallas would the conspirators have activated Chicago as the real assassination? I think they would have. In my opinion it is now in your court to stop that pile of bricks.

And again, for the love of God, the CIA "controlled" NOTHING exept facilitation-related matters! Not then. Not now.

That seems like semantics to me. How did you put it? "They never used guns. Well, maybe to shoot him." Well I could equally say "The never used CIA. Well, maybe except where they used CIA." Funny, I though I saw a lot of CIA involvement and revealing CIA tactics in this.

My question to you would be if CIA did this internally and was the Sponsor do you think the other alleged Sponsors would have protested and exposed them out of principle?

It is PRECISELY the point. Vallee was not an iron in any fire. He was a straw -- as in STRAW MAN. No depth. No heft. A chimera. A ruse.

I disagree with that. I think the reason Vallee was set-up in an exactly identical high-building with Cuban exile crossfire scenario was because the plot had a real aspect to it and was put in place with the possibility it would be executed. If you think about it there was nothing stopping them from doing it if Vallee hadn't been exposed. Those sniper rifles Vallee had were not made out of straw.

The only thing "the CIA" needed was to do the job assigned to "it." And that job was not to kill JFK, but to facilitate an operation that would include the murder of JFK in a very specific fashion -- in Dallas, with LHO as the patsy.

But Charles, what if the CIA assignment was to run a real Chicago operation up until it was called-off for Dallas? Sure the intended preferable city could have been Dallas, but that doesn't mean that Chicago definitely wasn't an alternate city. In fact, establishing an alternate would conform to the sophisticated back-up such complex agencies are known to practice.


I don't want to be judged as unworthy or in cretinous contempt of higher analyses because I actually agree with those practices as more effective in discovering the real truth. However I'm of the personal belief that there comes a time where the application of those more complex investigative methods hinders the obvious as delivered in whatever form. In my mind useful revolutions never originate from the decorated halls of the intellectual elite but are usually most effectively carried-out by the common population and that which it understands by its constitutional understanding. Really, it's the basis of our democracy. The same one Kennedy's assassins overthrew. In light of this, in my opinion, it is somewhat counterproductive to confine the arguments to the sensibilities and form of that group which never acts on such matters and is probably a good way to keep the solving of the assassination from ever entering the venues occupied by those groups that best carry-out the necessary solutions...