If there is one thing about this case that at least many conspiracy-oriented researchers can agree on, it is surely that the evidence at least seems to suggest that it was done to provoke an invasion of Cuba. And Johnson seemed to curb his enthusiasm for a Cuban invasion. It didn't happen when he took office, and when he was given a second opportunity to attack when the Cubans shut off the water supply to Guantanamo, he merely made other arrangements for water.
So-called "evidence" for The Castro-Did-It scenario, currently being recycled by the likes of Shennon and Fox News, goes WAY deeper than most of us probably recall without digging into notes. For example, according to at least one of the Dallas policemen, seven metal boxes were found in the Paine's garage containing flyers and information about pro-Castro Cubans. These boxes were never seen again, even gone by the first DPD inventory.
And then, of course, is this infamous Hoover memo issued just a few hours after the hit.
Hoover's statement that Oswald "went to Cuba on several occasions but would not tell us what he went to Cuba for" means one of two things: Either Hoover was trying to tie Oswald and Cuba together with a lie made just hours after the assassination, or the evidence was squelched because it occurred while Oswald Classic was in Minsk. There is much, much more to the Castro-did-it plot, far beyond the NOLA charade, the attempted rifle buy at Robert McKeown's, and the Mexico City bs.
Does anyone have any evidence that Johnson was bent on invading Cuba?
I recommend reading Ladybird Johnson's WHITE HOUSE DIARY. Assuming all of the entries were really written at the time they are dated, it shows that LBJ was having regrets about being President as early as 1965. He talked with her frequently about retiring after one term in office, even before Vietnam started going bad.
3/7/1965 "I am counting the months until March 1968, when, like Truman, it will be possible to say, I don't want this office, this responsibility, any longer, even if you want me.'...In talking about the Vietnam situation, Lyndon summed it up quite simply, I can't get out. I can't finish it with what I have got. So what the hell can I do?'" (White House Diary 248)
4/16/1965 "Lyndon keeps talking more and more about retiring." (White House Diary 260)
5/13/1967 "Many months ago I set March 1968 in my own mind as the time when Lyndon can make a statement that he will not be a candidate for reelection." (White House Diary)
7/30/1967 Polls showed a large drop in public approval for LBJ's handling of the war. Lady Bird: "Our own decision, our hope, our determination, is to leave when this term ends. But how to tell it to the world and when - in the fall, as John Connally suggested?" (White House Diary)
9/25/1967 LBJ and Lady Bird "talked and talked and talked about when and how to make a statement that Lyndon is not going to be a candidate again." (White House Diary)
Drew Phipps Wrote:Mellen needs to get the Darby file from IAI, and name her source. Her claims as to the contents of the files are unverifiable, without the identity of the source and/or the contents of the file; and, as we have seen, the IAI refuses to release, at least upon my written request, information from the Darby file. Mellen has been cautious in the past to document and footnote her published work, (and indeed complains about other author's failure to do so in this very article); why has she not done so here, at the very centerpiece of her work?
She needs to put up the proof. If she won't, we should consign her new work to the same place she consigns Stone, McClellan, Bowden, Nelson, Sardie, Pegues, Darby, and J Harrison.
PS: Feel free to copy this to a forum that Mellen reads.
Joan visits NO forums on JFK and related. I believe she will give the information and footnotes you decry as missing in her book - this was just a public lecture, albeit to a JFK-assassination interested audience. Her book is in the hands of the publisher and is awaiting printing and distribution soon. I myself wonder if some intelligence agency might not have slipped that note in the Darby file after he did the work for J. I don't know, and don't think it would be easy to know. While Mellen's research seems intensive, from what I've been privately told, she did possibly get one thing very wrong about Hofmeister. Dawn knew Darby personally and I know takes great offense at some of Joan's positions on this matter. I'm trying to be neutral about personalities and look for the truth. Joan seems [in her lecture] to not consider the possibility of someone setting LBJ up rather than he [LBJ] being someone behind the assassination, per se.
EXACTLY Peter. His file was tampered with AFTER he made the match. J took the affidavit to the cops in Dallas, and THEY forwarded it onto the FBI, that most trustworthy institution who "investigated" the assassination. I wrote a longer reply to this yesterday and tried to post it but then the site crashed. She gets a lot "wrong". And leaves out what is inconvenient. I am just done with all of this. Darby did not commit perjury. I do not think I have ever known a more honest man than Nathan Darby who was a dear friend from 1998 until his stroke in 2005, that took his life in 2006. His son told me he kept up his credentials. Joan is naïve at best. J Harrison was a meticulous researcher and was very close to Peagues who he believed was murdered. I just have to let this go. She has defamed two dear friends and used me for over a year to assist. By lying about her intent. So I will not ever have anything to do with her again. I could add a lot that I learned about Mac Wallace and his very interesting probate matter, but to what end? Joan never met a coincidence she felt fishy I guess.
Drew Phipps Wrote:Mellen needs to get the Darby file from IAI, and name her source. Her claims as to the contents of the files are unverifiable, without the identity of the source and/or the contents of the file; and, as we have seen, the IAI refuses to release, at least upon my written request, information from the Darby file. Mellen has been cautious in the past to document and footnote her published work, (and indeed complains about other author's failure to do so in this very article); why has she not done so here, at the very centerpiece of her work?
She needs to put up the proof. If she won't, we should consign her new work to the same place she consigns Stone, McClellan, Bowden, Nelson, Sardie, Pegues, Darby, and J Harrison.
PS: Feel free to copy this to a forum that Mellen reads.
Joan visits NO forums on JFK and related. I believe she will give the information and footnotes you decry as missing in her book - this was just a public lecture, albeit to a JFK-assassination interested audience. Her book is in the hands of the publisher and is awaiting printing and distribution soon. I myself wonder if some intelligence agency might not have slipped that note in the Darby file after he did the work for J. I don't know, and don't think it would be easy to know. While Mellen's research seems intensive, from what I've been privately told, she did possibly get one thing very wrong about Hofmeister. Dawn knew Darby personally and I know takes great offense at some of Joan's positions on this matter. I'm trying to be neutral about personalities and look for the truth. Joan seems [in her lecture] to not consider the possibility of someone setting LBJ up rather than he [LBJ] being someone behind the assassination, per se.
EXACTLY Peter. His file was tampered with AFTER he made the match. J took the affidavit to the cops in Dallas, and THEY forwarded it onto the FBI, that most trustworthy institution who "investigated" the assassination. I wrote a longer reply to this yesterday and tried to post it but then the site crashed. She gets a lot "wrong". And leaves out what is inconvenient. I am just done with all of this. Darby did not commit perjury. I do not think I have ever known a more honest man than Nathan Darby who was a dear friend from 1998 until his stroke in 2005, that took his life in 2006. His son told me he kept up his credentials. Joan is naïve at best. J Harrison was a meticulous researcher and was very close to Peagues who he believed was murdered. I just have to let this go. She has defamed two dear friends and used me for over a year to assist. By lying about her intent. So I will not ever have anything to do with her again. I could add a lot that I learned about Mac Wallace and his very interesting probate matter, but to what end? Joan never met a coincidence she felt fishy I guess.
Drew: GREAT response above!!!!
Dawn
Well, when you have caught your breath again, I do hope you will tell that 'longer version' - in fact, all you feel you can tell here on this matter. All researchers and students of Dallas have some ideas that become somewhat fixed and hard to alter without lots of evidence - where a lesser amount would alter the view of many others. The truth, as you know it, really should be told. You never know, she might even change her position. In any case, you should tell what you feel are the cold facts you know about...and let history and others decide. To some extent we are all the persons in the darkened room describing the shape of the elephant - from the one part we can grasp and describe. It is very difficult to get the whole picture - but not impossible. Don't give up on your version. IMHO
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws. - Mayer Rothschild
"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn
"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will" - Frederick Douglass
OK one thing. I have no clue where she is obtaining her info on Hoffmeister and the reason he backed out. It was FEAR. He made the match, blind. Then when he realized it was the infamous Mac Wallace he backed out. And yes he did return the check to Barr. Joan knew this, J had told me this numerous times. As it was J who found both experts. THAT is what he told J. How this new story has come about I know not. In all our many conversations Joan never mentioned it to me. Peter at one point you posted words from Walt Brown, allegedly, to the effect that "we knew that" Nathan was not certified when he made the affidavit. Can you get verification of this for me. IF this is true Walt went on tv and lied- either way you slice it- as well as the conference. As he praised Nathan's credentials and referred to him as Certified.
When I have more time I will delve into this further, I have court and meetings I have to get off to. I also got your PM and will reply later.
I have not ever said that I personally believe LBJ sent Wallace up there as a shooter. I do not know how his print got on that carton. There are many explanations. I agree with Joan that Barr's book on the JFK evidence was horrible. More later.
Not only does Joan Mellen go after Darby but she also credits Bobby Kennedy as being the main proponent of the attempts on Castro with CIA complaining about his aggressiveness. This is opposite what DiEugenio shows.
She also refers to FBI as credible despite all the tremendous conflicts of interests involved.
26-03-2015, 05:36 PM (This post was last modified: 26-03-2015, 09:11 PM by Peter Lemkin.)
If you look, you'll see that I posted both of those articles by Mellen. I don't agree with 100% of what Joan, a friend, concludes or thinks...but I think she is a researcher not to be ignored. Her research has uncovered new things others have not found - some significant. Her writing on Garrison, who she knew fairly well, practically makes her his 'official' biographer IMHO. She is not very keen [to put it mildly] on the Kennedys as politicians. My suggestion is take what new information one can and agree to disagree on the rest. I've learned a lot from her books, lectures and research. Again, I do not agree with everything. That is true for many/most researchers. I don't find that a 'litmus test' on a person.
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws. - Mayer Rothschild
"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn
"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will" - Frederick Douglass
If Darby was still alive, I have no doubt the publisher, upon advice from its legal staff, would refuse to publish the accusation that Darby's credentials had expired, without a named source and/or an authenticated copy of the contents of the IAI Darby file. As it happens, Darby can't defend himself, nor can the publisher be sued for libel to Darby's reputation... yet.
However, the fact that the IAI (or some unscrupulous employee of that institution) may have permitted unauthorized disclosure of information; or, failed to correct a factual misrepresentation of the contents of it's files, might lead to some sort of legal action.
"All that is necessary for tyranny to succeed is for good men to do nothing." (unknown)
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."
Peter Lemkin Wrote:If you look, you'll see that I posted both of those articles by Mellen. I don't agree with 100% of what Joan, a friend, concludes or things...but I think she is a researcher not to be ignored. Her research has uncovered new things others have not found - some significant. Her writing on Garrison, who she knew fairly well, practically makes here his 'official' biographer IMHO. She is not very keen [to put it mildly] on the Kennedys as politicians. My suggestion is take what new information one can and agree to disagree on the rest. I've learned a lot from her books, lectures and research. Again, I do not agree with everything. That is true for many/most researchers. I don't find that a 'litmus test' on a person.
I can't think of even one researcher that I've agreed with 100% about every aspect of this case. I agree that you just have to learn what you can from each person, and make up your own mind.
![[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=6801&stc=1]](https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=6801&stc=1)
