Valkyrie at Dealey Plaza

[Peter Lemkin]

I've updated the Valkyrie at DP,
Thanks to all who have commended, criticized and corrected aspects of it, as it is still a work in progress. Of all the plots to kill Castro, I think this is the one used at Dealey Plaza, and further research into the planning and development of this plot will support my contention.
BK [URL="http://jfkcountercoup2.blogspot.com/"]
[/URL]
JFKcountercoup: Valkyrie At Dealey Plaza - Updated

JFKcountercoup: CIA Loses Detailed Study of Hitler Plot

SOP at CIA "The dog ate those files...". In the light of the new information in The Skorzeny Files by Ganis - and the great likelihood that Skorzeny was QJ/WIN and procured the shooters, including his old pal Soutre, and perhaps planned some other aspects of the plot - it is interesting that he had likely studied Valkyrie for Hitler and the Reich. There are many other Nazis that were involved in aspects and one is referred to Mae Brussell's famous article "The Nazi Connection to the JFK Assassination" - which IMO is all correct, but we now have more names and connections. That said, it was a home-grown plot, but used many Nazis who were at that time then working with US Intelligence and Military post-War. It is also interesting to note that Richard Nagell mentioned to Dick Russell more than once that there were lots of German Nazis involved - minus their names and details. He was in a position to know. Those Americans involved mostly were involved in WWII and while perhaps not liking the Nazis/Hitler, had no problem with fascism at all.....nor getting into bed with Nazis after the War they felt they could learn from or exploit...and they did both. Keep up the good work. Read Ganis' book if you have not yet.

[Phil Dagosto]

The Kennedy's (in some respects) almost had a death-wish and were reckless and careless about security to a ridiculous degree. Both JFK and RFK made things very easy for their assassins.

Please justify this claim with verifiable evidence. JFK was set up by stripping his security as documented by Vince Palamara and the incompetence (and perhaps, at a high level, complicity) of the SS. Palamara has debunked the myth about JFK ordering the SS agents off the back of the limo. The death wish stuff is a lazy narrative promulgated by hack authors and media types. Because of his health issues and close brushes with death by natural causes JFK had a clear sense of his own mortality and as president, of his own vulnerability to overthrow and assassination. That doesn't equate to a death wish.

RFK did not have SS protection as a candidate (his assassination led to that) and probably distrusted the SS after his brother's assassination and there's considerable evidence that so-called security guards contributed to or participated in his assassination. I'm at a loss to understand how you equate this to making "things easy" for his assassins. What do you imagine he could have done differently?

[James Lateer]

posted by Mr. Dagosto:

[Please justify this claim with verifiable evidence. JFK was set up by stripping his security as documented by Vince Palamara and the incompetence (and perhaps, at a high level, complicity) of the SS. Palamara has debunked the myth about JFK ordering the SS agents off the back of the limo. The death wish stuff is a lazy narrative promulgated by hack authors and media types. Because of his health issues and close brushes with death by natural causes JFK had a clear sense of his own mortality and as president, of his own vulnerability to overthrow and assassination. That doesn't equate to a death wish.

RFK did not have SS protection as a candidate (his assassination led to that) and probably distrusted the SS after his brother's assassination and there's considerable evidence that so-called security guards contributed to or participated in his assassination. I'm at a loss to understand how you equate this to making "things easy" for his assassins. What do you imagine he could have done differently?]

I can only respond as follows:

Here's a definition of death wish:

"A desire for someone's death, especially an unconscious desire for one's own death."

I'm not sure how anyone can read in-depth about the (mostly admirable) traits of the Kennedy's in the Camelot days, as well as in WWII and in the 1960's without the question of the "death wish" coming up.

I guess you could split hairs about whether a soldier who volunteers all the way down the line so he can be at the front is motivated by bravery or by a "death wish." I guess the same question could be posed about the tragic results of the actions of the Kennedy's which (to me) seem self-destructive in retrospect.

After watching the CNN series on the American Dynasty: The Kennedys, I was even more struck by their behavior in this regard.

I have to admit that I sometimes judge people who are into risk taking as either being self-destructive or having a death wish. I, personally, would never seek to ride a motorcycle or fly in small airplanes because of the danger. The following is, unfortunately a true story:

Locally, the chairman of the Anti-Helmet Law Movement in a large nearby city met his death from head injuries suffered in a motorcycle-car collision. To me, that's a death wish. I'm sorry. I guess I can add "hack authors" to the list of questionable things I have been called this year which includes "fabulist", "hare-brain" and "libelist". Oh well, I take all of this as good-natured.

As for the possible Kennedy death-wish trait, we know that RFK was an obvious target for assassination and had been explicitly warned of this by novelist Gore Vidal in person. Yet RFK strictly forbid any police to be anywhere near his campaign rallies. He had as security men Roosevelt Greer (a football player) and Rafer Johnson (a track star). And it is well known that at the Ambassador Hotel when he was shot, he had exited the ballroom through the kitchen which was against security policy. He sure didn't act like somebody who was a known likely target for assassination.

As for the others, how can you look at the risk-taking of Edward Kennedy involved in Chappaquiddick and not see some kind of self-destructive behavior? And there was the "suicide mission" of the eldest brother Joseph Kennedy, Jr. And also, the risky night flight in a small airplane by the inexperienced pilot John F. Kennedy, Jr. And Kathleen Kennedy also died flying in a small airplane (which many people would avoid and which is risky but not necessarily suicidal). And there are questions about how the PT-109 got in front of a Japanese destroyer and whether this violated good Naval procedure?

I think that sharing a mistress with a Mafia kingpin might be called risky, too. And having affairs with German and Soviet spies. How many items to we need? To me, it's a little like the situation with one's own personal health....if you don't take responsibility for your own health, but put it entirely in the hands of doctors, then you will have problems. You have to bee more concerned about your own health than your doctors. Or else...

Ditto for presidential security. If you'r president, you have to devote some time and thought to security matters. I have yet to see even one memo from either JFK or RFK which dealt with the details of Secret Service policy, the issue of a bullet-proof limo (which was a big deal to J Edgar Hoover for himself) or any other such item.

Probably the best material that paints a vivid picture of this entire problem is the following page scanned from the book Above The Law by James Boyd"

ABOVE THE LAW

page 63

"…about his car, all but overwhelming the grim-faced Secret Service men. Already, the bodyguard who was "riding shotgun" on the front bumper had had his jacket ripped off and his trousers torn. Nine times the milling thousands stopped the Presidential motorcade in downtown Hartford, and each time they were rewarded with im*promptu orations from the big-eared, grinning giant whose patriarchal affection seemed generous enough to encompass them all. [referring to LBJ].

Beside the animated President, Senator Thomas Dodd sat woodenly, a stiff waving of his arm the only accompaniment to the gyrations of his Chief. Once, the President handed him the bull horn, ad*monishing him to "talk it up, Tom," but Dodd gave up after a few ineffectual stabs. Something about the scene challenged his sense of dignity; he was no longer the crowd hawker of his college days. And he was a little uneasy. He had followed John Kennedy through the Naugatuck Valley in 1960, and the experience had lingered with him. At two A.M., the narrow main streets of those valley towns were choked almost impassably with vociferous crowds that pressed in frantically upon Kennedy's car. Dodd later told me of his alarm, and an anxious look came into his eyes. "Kennedy started this mob stuff," he said. "He eggs them on by reaching for their hands. You can't fool like that with crowds. Some day these monkeyshines will lead to a disaster, and remember that I foretold it." Perhaps he suffered from the same foreboding as he sat beside Kennedy's successor.

From the portico of the Hartford Times Building, Lyndon Johnson looked out upon the one hundred and fifty thousand people who had waited three hours to see himalmost as many people as the entire population of Hartford. Sixty-five thousand wildly cheering admirers packed the square below hirn. lt was the greatest assemblage ever seen in the Connecticut capital, greater than that which had turned out for F.D.R., for Eisenhower, for Kennedy. When told that the crowd set an all time record, Mr. Johnson insisted that it be announced immediately. "And they say I have no crowd appeal," he jibed happily to Dodd. The Senator, in contrast, still seemed ill at ease. When he approached a battery of microphones to introduce the President to an audience grown impatient with preliminaries, he was off his usual form. The old tremor, which invariably recurred in times of anxiety, had stiffened his upper lip and faintly impeded bis speech. Dodd was conscious that before Hartford's multitudes he was a flopbut he was powerless to do anything about it.

The President, enjoying himself hugely, teased up the rising ovation…" etc. etc. etc....

So the above is the judgment of a fellow campaigner and politician to JFK. This is my best evidence of the careless attitude toward security on the part of JFK. Others may disagree we me on all of the above, of which I am well aware...

James Lateer

[Phil Dagosto]

Again, all you do is regurgitate scurrilous claptrap by MSM hacks and expect to be taken seriously. CNN's series on the Kennedys? Seriously? Did you read Jim diEugenio's take down of it? Thought so. i'm not even going to bother with the rest of your post.

Don't worry - I won't be responding to any more of your posts because they're not worth reading. The few gems of relevance that occasionally appear are not worth plowing through all the other nonsense.

[James Lateer]

It amazes me how many people get really hot over debating JFK issues. I can see people getting very hot over Donald Trump. And I can see people getting hot over, say Jeff Davis or Robert E. Lee. Some people even get really angry about Woodrow Wilson for being a racist.

But I can't really understand why anyone would really get worked up about "scurrilous" information about JFK, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Dwight Eisenhower, etc. etc. etc.

Maybe somebody can tell me what I'm missing in this picture?

James Lateer

[James Lateer]

A further afterthought. The best discussion about the security problems that contributed to the JFK assassination (that I have seen) is found in the testimony of C. Douglas Dillon to the Warren Commission.

Dillon and Allen Dulles explain that the invention of the jet plane played a major role in Presidential security issues in 1963.

In the mid-1950's, candidates still campaigned in train cars. I can personally recall Barry Goldwater making a speech in 1964 in my home town from the rear platform of a train car. With a train car, (sometimes armored), the Secret Service could just defend the car like a mini-fortress.

With the advent of the Boeing 707 (I can still remember the first announcement of the 707) in about 1957, all of a sudden a candidate could appear in 5 or 6 cities all in one day. This made it impossible for the Secret Service to cover that wide of an area in such a short time. Apparently, the security strategy had not been worked out to accommodate the very fast travel times brought about by the Boeing 707.

I haven't heard about any parades with an open limo involving candidates. There may still be some, but I don't remember seeing any on TV. Maybe they are a thing of the past due to security issues.

James Lateer

[Peter Lemkin]

It amazes me how many people get really hot over debating JFK issues. I can see people getting very hot over Donald Trump. And I can see people getting hot over, say Jeff Davis or Robert E. Lee. Some people even get really angry about Woodrow Wilson for being a racist.

But I can't really understand why anyone would really get worked up about "scurrilous" information about JFK, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Dwight Eisenhower, etc. etc. etc.

Maybe somebody can tell me what I'm missing in this picture?

James Lateer

The reason some here get 'worked up' about the assassination of JFK, MLK, RFK is because that was the the beginning of the end of USA representative democracy [as weak as it was then]; and the beginning in its full-blown form of the National Security State running the country and the World - our being covertly moved from a flawed tripartite republic to a fascist police/military/corporate/finance/oligarch state - which we have now in all but in name. It was the death of hope and of a chance for democracy just after noon on 11.22.63 and JFK was our last hope [even with his personal and political flaws - he had the Nation behind him and gave us a sense of hope and of positive change being possible]. Now, change is all negative, reactive rather than proactive, reactionary, racist, top-down not bottom up, sexist, militaristic, police-state-like, etc. et al. Suggest you re-read Douglass' book on ...'why it matters'. 11.22.63 was a coup d'etat against the People of the USA and against Democracy in the USA and we have never gotten any part of it back since - in fact, more has been taken away. False-flag 911, for example, could/would never have happened without Dallas - and so many things in between and since. It was the turning point and I too do not feel JFK had a death wish - but you are entitled to whatever your ideas are. Those with the 'death wish' were those who chose to kill him and our polity and hope along with him........ JFK was changing in positive ways, looking for ways to expand democracy for the People and hope for Peace - and that more than anything was too much for those who live in the slime of Military/Police/Control death worship of the fascist kind. Some of us want our Country back and see how unlikely that is even though we have solved the mystery of most of what happened by whom of the various assassinations, government overthrows (including our own), financial conjurers tricks, covert operations, false-flag operations (including Dallas)....etc..... Some of us are MAD as hell we were born in one country and will not die in that country as it no longer exists....it was murdered and continues to be so - unless the People catch on and revolt against the usurpers. Treating this as a Sherlock Holmes parlor game doesn't sit well with me. I educate myself and others on 'all this' in order to take back what we lost and are stealing from others around the World. I do this for fomenting a peaceful Revolution and nothing less and one must be passionate about revolution or it will never succeed. The USA and the World are rapidly dying and I'd put one of the primary inflection points on the dates of the three major assassinations plus 911. Each one of them enrages me, personally. Some do not like to hear only negative things about those who were murdered for political reasons - despite their flaws. They were not perfect, but the TOWERED above those who murdered them and our polity - those who secretly rule now.

[Scott Kaiser]

This is very interesting so was your interview, I wonder what he meant by friends knowing friends, and your inner circle of friends. I mean this was during WWII, Hilter, the Russians, Oswald and all that jive, I wonder if someone like him ever met the leader of the NTS, Constantin W. Boldyreff. I mean, it's not like a guy like Boldyreff would ever end up in dad's address book, lol... or, would he?

[James Lateer]

Thanks to the above postings for trying to "bail me out" for my criticisms of the Kennedy Dynasty. I have been accused of "libeling" the Kennedys and presenting "scurrilous information" about the Kennedys.

But here's the problem. If things began to go badly for our country on 11-22-63, then what is the problem that we have because of that? THE PROBLEM IS THAT OUR GOVERNMENT NOW LIES TO US! WE ARE STILL DROWNING IN LIES!

So what is to be accomplished by you and me lying about dead presidents? Arguably both JFK and Bill Clinton were or are sexually depraved (and Anthony Wiener, too). What is to be gained by sweeping this under the rug? One can ask, how can we avoid this depravity in picking future presidents? That seems to me to be a perfectly respectable question to be asking. If it's a problem, then it has to be discussed and not "hushed up." And it's not libel to be asking it.

It is significant that Mr. Ralph Ganis in "The Skorzeny Papers" claims that the motive for the JFK assassination was JUST THAT! He claims that JFK's scandalous behavior was the motive for the assassination! But then, I'm a libel artist or a purveyor of "scurrilous information" if I try to just put it on the table where it belongs!

The whole purpose of JFK assassination research is, to me, to tell the truth about the JFK assassination. There were those who thought (and think) the best thing for the country is to blame Oswald.

Sorry, those who want to blame Oswald do not have the best interests of the USA at heart. They mean well, maybe, but they are simply misguided.

The most noteworthy thing about Henry VIII was that he had 8 wives and murdered most or all of them. You can't claim to be an expert on Henry VIII and claim that he was only married once. Sorry.

Despite all the uniquely ingenious innovations of the JFK administration and all of the brilliance and idealism he brought to the White House, it makes no sense to me for anyone to be worried about LIBELING JFK!

Like the eight wives of Henry VIII, perhaps the most noteworthy facts about the Kennedy dynasty was that JPK, JFK and possibly RFK (not sure) were amoral to an extreme in their personal lives and that the younger generation indulged in a (arguably) ridiculous amount of risk-taking behavior. Call it accident-prone. Call it risk-taking. Call it self-destructive. Call it extremely foolish. If you don't like my phrase "death wish" then what would you call it?

Whatever you call it, it led to Dallas, it lead to the Ambassador Hotel, it led to Chappaquidick, it led to all kinds of stuff, none of it good.

But some who are recognized experts on these things and who have more experience than I have, want to ignore the obvious and sweep any and all things under the rug as it might suit them.

This is the essence of tragedy. The flaws of the hero bring him down in the end. And it's not libel or scurrilous to tell the true tale of the tragic life of JFK.

James Lateer

[James Lateer]

Since I am accused of (apparently) disliking JFK and the Kennedys, I would like to precisely list the post-WWII Presidents and how JFK fits into the hierarchy of good vs bad Presidents:
This should clear the air relating to whether I am "scurrilously" attacking JFK as if he were the devil:

Best
Eisenhower

1. Interstate Highway System
   
2. Planned the ICBM, B-52, Nuclear Subs
   
3. Started civil rights in Little Rock
   
4. Kept US out of wars including Vietnam
   
5. Ended the Korean War
   
6. Stood up (a little bit) to Joseph McCarthy
   
7. Fostered greatest increase in US prosperity ever
   
8. Projected and exhibited excellent personal character.
   
9. Had a uniquely true vision of democracy and his country
   
10. Negative-Had the ultra-right wierdo John Foster Dulles in State Dept.
    
11. Negative-Allowed CIA covert operations to run amok without good purposes
    

Nixon

1. Ended Vietnam War
   
2. Ended outflow of US gold
   
3. Floated the dollar
   
4. Opened relations with China
   
5. Started the draft lottery
   
6. Negative-mishandled Watergate situation
   
7. Negative-Horrible pre-presidency hangover as a witch-hunter
   

LBJ

1. Passed Medicare
   
2. Passed Medicaid
   
3. Greatest prosperity in US history in 1965
   
4. Negative-Sent troops to Vietnam
   

Average
Obama

1. Inherited a bad economy and fixed it.
   
2. Kept the US out of "hot" wars.
   
3. Generally made few mistakes
   
4. Negative-abandoned foreign policy to neo-cons Powers and Nuland
   
5. Negative-Helped overthrow Ukrainian government in league with neo-Nazis
   
6. Negative-Neglected his political party
   
7. Negative-Allowed Deep State spying, murderous drone strikes.
   
8. Negative-bought into pointless regime change in Libya and Syria
   

Carter

1. Settled down Middle East
   
2. Church Committee, HSCA on his watch
   
3. Openly advocated high morals and values
   
4. The best post-presidency ever
   
5. Negative-inflation went to 7% on his watch
   
6. Negative-was too narrow in his vision for his office
   
7. Negative-knowingly approved the Shah and Iran-Hostage debacle
   

Kennedy

1. The most attractive "image" of idealism of any on list
   
2. Boosted Civil Rights at Ole Miss
   
3. Fired dangerous and incompetent CIA and Military
   
4. Refused to send troops to Vietnam
   
5. Ended the exclusively anti-communist foreign policy
   
6. Negative-atrocious personal behavior to his wife and generally
   
7. Negative-Bay of Pigs
   
8. Negative-bad relations with Germany, including Berlin
   
9. Negative-Tried to improve foreign policy but actually botched it
   
10. Negative-neglected security considerations for himself and family
    

George HW Bush

1. Communism fell on his watch
   
2. Freed Kuwait but did not invade Baghdad
   
3. Set up nearly 100% democracies in Latin America
   
4. Negative-pardoned Iran Contra conspirators
   
5. Negative-only tried to further right-wing special interests and nothing more
   
6. Negative-supported NAFTA
   

Bad
Truman

1. Negative- Lack of college degree made him rely too much on advisors.
   
2. Negative-Allowed the National Security State to be created which harmed all Presidencies since
   
3. Negative-Set up Israel one-sided, unstable and badly for the Palestinians
   
4. Negative-Botched the Korean situation which led to the Korean War
   

Ford

1. Negative-Was in cahoots with the people who nefariously ousted Nixon
   
2. Negative-Never stood for anything, was a neuter on policy
   
3. Negative-Inflation and oil crisis got worse under him
   

Clinton

1. Won the Balkan War without losing one soldier
   
2. Negative-NAFTA
   
3. Negative-Extended prison sentences for many in a bad way
   
4. Negative-Welfare was cut with welfare "reform"
   
5. Negative-Had severe personal issues which led to impeachment
   
6. Negative-Republican Congress came in, due to his incompetence
   
7. Negative-Sold out to special interests, including in post-presidency
   

Reagan

1. Indexed income taxes and Social Security to CPI
   
2. Negative-Failed to disclose that he had Alzheimers
   
3. Negative-Iran Contra
   
4. Negative-Motivated only by personal greed
   
5. Negative-Focused attention and support for right-wing Contra death squads
   
6. Negative-fostered replacement of communism with oligarchy, not democracy
   
7. Negative-was mostly just a mouthpiece for right-wing special interests
   

George W Bush

1. Set up Medicare Part D for prescription drugs
   
2. Negative-Criminal stealing of election
   
3. Negative-War crime in "starting an aggressive war"
   
4. Negative-War crimes at Abu Greb
   
5. Negative-Neglected the economy leading to a depression
   
6. Negative-Allowed 9-11 or possibly encouraged 9-11
   

James Lateer