text:
https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-jfk-assassination-part-ii-who-did-it/
← American Pravda: the JFK Assassination,...American Pravda: Our Deadly World of Po... →
BlogviewRon Unz Archive
BlogviewRon Unz Archive Select Year/MonthAll Years = 584 ItemsDecade 2010s = 179 Items Year 2019 = 7 Items Year 2018 = 20 Items May 2018 = 1 Item June 2018 = 5 Items Current Item July 2018 = 5 Items August 2018 = 2 Items September 2018 = 2 Items October 2018 = 2 Items November 2018 = 1 Item December 2018 = 2 Items Year 2016 = 26 Items Year 2015 = 2 Items Year 2014 = 23 Items Year 2013 = 40 Items Year 2012 = 41 Items Year 2011 = 4 Items Year 2010 = 16 ItemsDecade 2000s = 233 Items Year 2009 = 2 Items Year 2008 = 5 Items Year 2007 = 2 Items Year 2005 = 1 Item Year 2004 = 6 Items Year 2003 = 8 Items Year 2002 = 62 Items Year 2001 = 65 Items Year 2000 = 82 ItemsDecade 1990s = 153 Items Year 1999 = 48 Items Year 1998 = 47 Items Year 1997 = 36 Items Year 1996 = 1 Item Year 1995 = 7 Items Year 1994 = 8 Items Year 1993 = 4 Items Year 1992 = 2 ItemsDecade 1980s = 19 Items Year 1986 = 4 Items Year 1985 = 3 Items Year 1984 = 7 Items Year 1983 = 3 Items Year 1982 = 1 Item Year 1981 = 1 Item--- September 2019 = 1 Item July 2019 = 2 Items June 2019 = 1 Item May 2019 = 1 Item March 2019 = 1 Item January 2019 = 1 Item December 2018 = 2 Items November 2018 = 1 Item October 2018 = 2 Items September 2018 = 2 Items August 2018 = 2 Items July 2018 = 5 Items June 2018 = 5 Items Current Item May 2018 = 1 Item October 2016 = 2 Items September 2016 = 4 Items August 2016 = 6 Items July 2016 = 3 Items May 2016 = 2 Items April 2016 = 3 Items March 2016 = 3 Items February 2016 = 2 Items January 2016 = 1 Item March 2015 = 2 Items August 2014 = 2 Items July 2014 = 1 Item May 2014 = 5 Items April 2014 = 2 Items March 2014 = 4 Items February 2014 = 6 Items January 2014 = 3 Items December 2013 = 3 Items November 2013 = 1 Item July 2013 = 2 Items June 2013 = 2 Items May 2013 = 7 Items April 2013 = 7 Items March 2013 = 8 Items February 2013 = 6 Items January 2013 = 4 Items December 2012 = 5 Items November 2012 = 3 Items October 2012 = 4 Items September 2012 = 4 Items August 2012 = 7 Items July 2012 = 5 Items June 2012 = 2 Items May 2012 = 4 Items April 2012 = 4 Items January 2012 = 3 Items October 2011 = 1 Item September 2011 = 3 Items November 2010 = 1 Item October 2010 = 1 Item May 2010 = 3 Items March 2010 = 6 Items February 2010 = 4 Items January 2010 = 1 Item May 2009 = 1 Item March 2009 = 1 Item November 2008 = 1 Item September 2008 = 1 Item August 2008 = 1 Item March 2008 = 1 Item January 2008 = 1 Item August 2007 = 1 Item January 2007 = 1 Item March 2005 = 1 Item May 2004 = 2 Items April 2004 = 2 Items February 2004 = 1 Item January 2004 = 1 Item December 2003 = 1 Item April 2003 = 2 Items March 2003 = 3 Items February 2003 = 2 Items November 2002 = 2 Items October 2002 = 8 Items September 2002 = 6 Items August 2002 = 8 Items July 2002 = 5 Items June 2002 = 4 Items May 2002 = 4 Items April 2002 = 9 Items March 2002 = 3 Items February 2002 = 5 Items January 2002 = 8 Items December 2001 = 7 Items November 2001 = 6 Items October 2001 = 6 Items August 2001 = 6 Items July 2001 = 7 Items June 2001 = 3 Items May 2001 = 8 Items April 2001 = 4 Items March 2001 = 4 Items February 2001 = 6 Items January 2001 = 8 Items December 2000 = 5 Items November 2000 = 5 Items October 2000 = 10 Items September 2000 = 8 Items August 2000 = 11 Items July 2000 = 8 Items June 2000 = 11 Items May 2000 = 6 Items April 2000 = 6 Items March 2000 = 4 Items February 2000 = 5 Items January 2000 = 3 Items December 1999 = 4 Items October 1999 = 5 Items September 1999 = 1 Item August 1999 = 3 Items July 1999 = 6 Items June 1999 = 6 Items May 1999 = 5 Items March 1999 = 4 Items February 1999 = 6 Items January 1999 = 8 Items December 1998 = 2 Items November 1998 = 1 Item October 1998 = 4 Items September 1998 = 2 Items August 1998 = 2 Items July 1998 = 2 Items June 1998 = 1 Item May 1998 = 12 Items April 1998 = 6 Items March 1998 = 8 Items February 1998 = 2 Items January 1998 = 5 Items December 1997 = 2 Items November 1997 = 6 Items October 1997 = 8 Items September 1997 = 3 Items August 1997 = 6 Items July 1997 = 9 Items June 1997 = 1 Item May 1997 = 1 Item April 1996 = 1 Item July 1995 = 1 Item June 1995 = 1 Item May 1995 = 2 Items March 1995 = 2 Items January 1995 = 1 Item December 1994 = 1 Item November 1994 = 2 Items October 1994 = 1 Item September 1994 = 1 Item July 1994 = 2 Items May 1994 = 1 Item July 1993 = 1 Item May 1993 = 3 Items November 1992 = 1 Item August 1992 = 1 Item May 1986 = 2 Items March 1986 = 1 Item February 1986 = 1 Item November 1985 = 1 Item October 1985 = 1 Item March 1985 = 1 Item December 1984 = 1 Item August 1984 = 1 Item July 1984 = 1 Item June 1984 = 3 Items May 1984 = 1 Item October 1983 = 1 Item April 1983 = 1 Item February 1983 = 1 Item March 1982 = 1 Item August 1981 = 1 Item
American Pravda: the JFK Assassination, Part II – Who Did It?
Ron Unz • June 25, 2018
• 8,000 Words • 1,007 Comments • Reply
A strong dam may hold back an immense quantity of water, but once it breaks the resulting flood may sweep aside everything in its path. I had spent nearly my entire life never doubting that a lone gunman named Lee Harvey Oswald killed President John F. Kennedy nor that a different lone gunman took the life of his younger brother Robert a few years later. Once I came to accept that these were merely fairy tales widely disbelieved by many of the same political elites who publicly maintained them, I began considering other aspects of this important history, the most obvious being who was behind the conspiracy and what were their motives.
On these questions, the passage of a half-century and the deaths, natural or otherwise, of nearly all the contemporary witnesses drastically reduces any hope of coming to a firm conclusion. At best, we can evaluate possibilities and plausibilities rather than high likelihoods let alone near certainties. And given the total absence of any hard evidence, our exploration of the origins of the assassination must necessarily rely upon cautious speculation.
From such a considerable distance in time, a bird's-eye view may be a reasonable starting point, allowing us to focus on the few elements of the apparent conspiracy that seem reasonably well established. The most basic of these is the background of the individuals who appear to have been associated with the assassination, and the recent books by David Talbot and James W. Douglass effectively summarize much of the evidence accumulated over the decades by an army of diligent assassination researchers. Most of the apparent conspirators seem to have had strong ties to organized crime, the CIA, or various anti-Castro activist groups, with considerable overlap across these categories. Oswald himself certainly fit this same profile although he was very likely the mere "patsy" that he claimed to be, as did Jack Ruby, the man who quickly silenced him and whose ties to the criminal underworld were long and extensive.
An unusual chain of events provided some of the strongest evidence of CIA involvement. Victor Marchetti, a career CIA officer, had risen to become Special Assistant to the Deputy Director, a position of some importance, before resigning in 1969 over policy differences. Although he fought a long battle with government censors over his book, The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence, he retained close ties with many former agency colleagues.
During the 1970s, the revelations of the Senate Church Committee and the House Select Committee on Assassinations had subjected the CIA to a great deal of negative public scrutiny, and there were growing suspicions of possible CIA links to JFK's assassination. In 1978 longtime CIA Counter-intelligence chief James Angleton and a colleague provided Marchetti with an explosive leak, stating that the agency might be planning to admit a connection to the assassination, which had involved three shooters, but place the blame upon E. Howard Hunt, a former CIA officer who had become notorious during Watergate, and scapegoat him as a rogue agent, along with a few other equally tarnished colleagues. Marchetti published the resulting story in The Spotlight, a weekly national tabloid newspaper operated by Liberty Lobby, a rightwing populist organization based in DC. Although almost totally shunned by the mainstream media, The Spotlight was then at the peak of its influence, having almost 400,000 subscribers, as large a readership as the combined total of The New Republic, The Nation, and National Review.
Marchetti's article suggested that Hunt had actually been in Dallas during the assassination, resulting in a libel lawsuit with potential damages large enough to bankrupt the publication. Longtime JFK assassination researcher Mark Lane became aware of the situation and volunteered his services to Liberty Lobby, hoping to use the legal proceedings, including the discovery process and subpoena power, as a means of securing additional evidence on the assassination, and after various court rulings and appeals, the case finally came to trial in 1985.
As Lane recounted in his 1991 bestseller, Plausible Denial, his strategy generally proved quite successful, not only allowing him to win the jury verdict against Hunt, but also eliciting sworn testimony from a former CIA operative of her personal involvement in the conspiracy along with the names of several other participants, though she claimed that her role had been strictly peripheral. And although Hunt continued for decades to totally deny any connection with the assassination, near the end of his life he made a series of video-taped interviews in which he admitted that he had indeed been involved in the JFK assassination and named several of the other conspirators, while also maintaining that his own role had been merely peripheral. Hunt's explosive death-bed confession was recounted in a major 2007 Rolling Stone article and also heavily analyzed in Talbot's books, especially his second one, but otherwise largely ignored by the media.
Many of these same apparent conspirators, drawn from the same loose alliance of groups, had previously been involved in the various U.S. government-backed attempts to assassinate Castro or overthrow his Communist government, and they had developed a bitter hostility towards President Kennedy for what they considered his betrayal during the Bay of Pigs fiasco and afterward. Therefore, there is a natural tendency to regard such animosity as the central factor behind the assassination, a perspective generally followed by Talbot, Douglass, and numerous other writers. They conclude that Kennedy died at the hands of harder-line anti-Communists, outraged over his perceived weakness regarding Cuba, Russia, and Vietnam, sentiments that were certainly widespread within right-wing political circles at the height of the Cold War.
While this framework for the assassination is certainly possible, it is far from certain. One may easily imagine that most of the lower-level participants in the Dallas events were driven by such considerations but that the central figures who organized the plot and set matters into motion had different motives. So long as all the conspirators were agreed on Kennedy's elimination, there was no need for an absolute uniformity of motive. Indeed, men who had long been involved in organized crime or clandestine intelligence operations were surely experienced in operational secrecy, and many of them may not have expected to know the identities, let alone the precise motives, of the men at the very top of the remarkable operation they were undertaking.
We must also sharply distinguish between the involvement of particular individuals and the involvement of an organization as an organization. For example, CIA Director John McCone was a Kennedy loyalist who had been appointed to clean house a couple of years before the assassination, and he surely was innocent of his patron's death. On the other hand, the very considerable evidence that numerous individual CIA intelligence officers and operatives participated in the action has naturally raised suspicions that some among their highest-ranking superiors were involved as well, perhaps even as the principal organizers of the conspiracy.
These reasonable speculations may have been magnified by elements of personal bias. Many of the prominent authors who have investigated the JFK assassination in recent years have been staunch liberals, and may have allowed their ideology to cloud their judgment. They often seek to locate the organizers of Kennedy's elimination among those rightwing figures whom they most dislike, even when the case is far from entirely plausible.
But consider the supposed motives of hard-line anti-Communists near the top of the national security hierarchy who supposedly may have organized Kennedy's elimination because he backed away from a full military solution in the Bay of Pigs and Cuban Missile Crisis incidents. Were they really so absolutely sure that a President Johnson would be such an enormous improvement as to risk their lives and public standing to organize a full conspiracy to assassinate an American president?
A new presidential election was less than a year away, and Kennedy's shifting stance on Civil Rights seemed likely to cost him nearly all the Southern states that had provided his margin of electoral victory in 1960. A series of public declarations or embarrassing leaks might have helped remove him from office by traditional political means, possibly replacing him with a Cold War hard-liner such as Barry Goldwater or some other Republican. Would the militarists or business tycoons often implicated by liberal JFK researchers have really been so desperate as to not wait those extra few months and see what happened?
Based on extremely circumstantial evidence, Talbot's 2015 book The Devil's Chessboard, something of a sequel to Brothers, suggests that former longtime CIA Director Allan Dulles may have been the likely mastermind, with his motive being a mixture of his extreme Cold Warrior views and his personal anger at his 1961 dismissal from his position.
While his involvement is certainly possible, obvious questions arise. Dulles was a seventy-year-old retiree, with a very long and distinguished career of public service and a brother who had served as Eisenhower's secretary of state. He had just published The Craft of Intelligence, which was receiving very favorable treatment in the establishment media, and he was embarked on a major book tour. Would he really have risked everything—including his family's reputation in the history books—to organize the murder of America's duly-elected president, an unprecedented act utterly different in nature than trying to unseat a Guatemalan leader on behalf of supposed American national interests? Surely, using his extensive media and intelligence contacts to leak embarrassing disclosures about JFK's notorious sexual escapades during the forthcoming presidential campaign would have been be a much safer means of attempting to achieve an equivalent result. And the same is true for J. Edgar Hoover and many of the other powerful Washington figures who hated Kennedy for similar reasons.
On the other hand, it is very easy to imagine that such individuals had some awareness of the emerging plot or may even have facilitated it or participated to a limited extent. And once it succeeded, and their personal enemy had been replaced, they surely would have been extremely willing to assist in the cover-up and protect the reputation of the new regime, a role that Dulles may have played as the most influential member of the Warren Commission. But such activities are different than acting as the central organizer of a presidential assassination.
Just as with the hard-line national security establishment, many organized crime leaders had grown outraged over the actions of the Kennedy Administration. During the late 1950s, Robert Kennedy had intensely targeted the mob for prosecution as chief counsel to the Senate Labor Rackets Committee. But during the 1960 election, family patriarch Joseph Kennedy used his own longstanding mafia connections to enlist their support for his older son's presidential campaign, and by all accounts the votes stolen by the corrupt mob-dominated political machines in Chicago and elsewhere helped put JFK in the White House, along with Robert Kennedy as his Attorney General. Frank Sinatra, an enthusiastic Kennedy supporter, had also helped facilitate this arrangement by using his influence with skeptical mob leaders.
However, instead of repaying such crucial election support with political favors, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, perhaps ignorant of any bargain, soon unleashed an all-out war against organized crime, far more serious than anything previously mounted at the federal level, and the crime bosses regarded this as a back-stabbing betrayal by the new administration. Once Joseph Kennedy was felled by an incapacitating stroke in late 1961, they also lost any hope that he would use his influence to enforce the deals he had struck the previous year. FBI wiretaps reveal that mafia leader Sam Giancana decided to have Sinatra killed for his role in this failed bargain, only sparing the singer's life when he considered how much he personally loved the voice of one of the most famous Italian-Americans of the 20th century.
These organized crime leaders and some of their close associates such as Teamster boss Jimmy Hoffa certainly developed a bitter hatred toward the Kennedys, and this has naturally led some authors to point to the mafia as the likely organizers of the assassination, but I find this quite unlikely. For many decades, American crime bosses had had a complex and varied relationship with political figures, who might sometimes be their allies and at other times their persecutors, and surely there must have been many betrayals over the years. However, I am not aware of a single case in which any even moderately prominent political figure on the national stage was ever targeted for assassination, and it seems quite unlikely that the sole exception would be a popular president, whom they would have likely regarded as being completely out of their league. On the other hand, if individuals who ranked high in Kennedy's own DC political sphere set in motion a plot to eliminate him, they might have found it easy to enlist the enthusiastic cooperation of various mafia leaders.
Furthermore, the strong evidence that many CIA operatives were involved in the conspiracy very much suggests that they were recruited and organized by some figure high in their own hierarchy of the intelligence or political worlds rather than the less likely possibility that they were brought in solely by leaders of the parallel domain of organized crime. And while crime bosses might possibly have organized the assassination itself, they surely had no means of orchestrating the subsequent cover-up by the Warren Commission, nor would there have been any willingness by America's political leadership to protect mafia leaders from investigation and proper punishment for such a heinous act.
If a husband or wife is found murdered, with no obvious suspect or motive at hand, the normal response of the police is to carefully investigate the surviving spouse, and quite often this suspicion proves correct. Similarly, if you read in your newspapers that in some obscure Third World country two bitterly hostile leaders, both having unpronounceable names, had been sharing supreme political power until one was suddenly struck down in a mysterious assassination by unknown conspirators, your thoughts would certainly move in an obvious direction. Most Americans in the early 1960s did not perceive their own country's politics in such a light, but perhaps they were mistaken. As a total newcomer to the enormous, hidden world of JFK conspiracy analysis, I was immediately surprised by the mere sliver of suspicion directed towards Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, the slain leader's immediate successor and the most obvious beneficiary.
The two Talbot books and the one by Douglass, totaling some 1500 pages, devote merely a few paragraphs to any suspicions of Johnson's involvement. Talbot's first book reports that immediately after the assassination, the vice president had expressed a frantic concern to his personal aides that a military coup might be in progress or a world war breaking out, and suggests that these few casual words demonstrate his obvious innocence, although a more cynical observer might wonder if those remarks had been uttered for exactly that reason. Talbot's second book actually quotes an apparent low-level conspirator as claiming that Johnson had personally signed off on the plot and admits that Hunt believed the same thing, but treats such unsubstantiated accusations with considerable skepticism, before adding a single sentence acknowledging that Johnson may indeed have been a passive supporter or even an accomplice. Douglass and Peter Dale Scott, author of the influential 1993 book Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, apparently seem never to have even entertained the possibility.
Ideological considerations are probably an important reason for such remarkable reticence. Although liberals had grown to revile LBJ by the late 1960s for his escalation of the unpopular Vietnam War, over the decades those sentiments have faded, while warm memories of his passage of the landmark Civil Rights legislation and his creation of the Great Society programs have elevated his stature in that ideological camp. Furthermore, such legislation had long been blockaded in Congress and only became law because of the 1964 Democratic Congressional landslide following JFK's martyrdom, and it might be difficult for liberals to admit that their fondest dreams were only realized by an act of political parricide.
Kennedy and Johnson may have been intensively hostile personal rivals, but there seem to have been few deep ideological differences between the two men, and most of the leading figures in JFK's government continued to serve under his successor, surely another source of enormous embarrassment to any ardent liberals who came to suspect that the former had been murdered by a conspiracy involving the latter. Talbot, Douglass, and many other left-leaning advocates for an assassination conspiracy prefer to point the finger of blame towards far more congenial villains such as hard-line, anti-Communist Cold Warriors and right-wing elements, notably including top CIA officials, such as former director Allan Dulles.
An additional factor helping to explain the extreme unwillingness of Talbot, Douglass, and others to consider Johnson as an obvious suspect may be the realities of the book publishing industry. By the 2000s, JFK assassination conspiracies had long become passé and were treated with disdain in mainstream circles. Talbot's strong reputation, his 150 original interviews, and the quality of his manuscript broke that barrier, and attracted The Free Press as his very respectable publisher, while later drawing a strongly positive review by a leading academic scholar in the New York Times Sunday Book Review and an hour long television segment broadcast on C-Span Booknotes. But if he had devoted any space to voicing suspicions that our 35th president had been murdered by our 36th, surely the weight of that extra element of "outrageous conspiracy theory" would have ensured that his book sank without a trace.
However, if we cast off these distorting ideological blinders and the practical considerations of American publishing, the prima facie case for Johnson's involvement seems quite compelling.
Consider a very simple point. If a president is struck down by an unknown group of conspirators, his successor would normally have had the strongest possible incentive to track them down lest he might become their next victim. Yet Johnson did nothing, appointing the Warren Commission that covered up the entire matter, laying the blame upon an erratic "lone gunman" conveniently dead. This would seem remarkably odd behavior for an innocent LBJ. This conclusion does not demand that Johnson was the mastermind, nor even an active participant, but it raises a very strong suspicion that he at least had had some awareness of the plot, and enjoyed a good personal relationship with some of the principals.
A similar conclusion is supported by a converse analysis. If the plot succeeded and Johnson became president, the conspirators must surely have felt reasonably confident that they would be protected rather than tracked down and punished as traitors by the new president. Even a fully successful assassination would entail enormous risks unless the organizers believed that Johnson would do exactly what he did, and the only means of ensuring this would be to sound him out about the plan, at least in some vague manner, and obtain his passive acquiesce.
Based on these considerations, it seems extremely difficult to believe that any JFK assassination conspiracy took place entirely without Johnson's foreknowledge, or that he was not a central figure in the subsequent cover-up.
But the specific details of Johnson's career and his political situation in late 1963 greatly strengthen these entirely generic arguments. A very useful corrective to the "See No Evil" approach to Johnson from liberal JFK writers is Roger Stone's The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ, published in 2013. Stone, a longtime Republican political operative who got his start under Richard Nixon, presents a powerful case that Johnson was the sort of individual who might easily have lent his hand to political murder, and also that he had strong reasons to do so.
Among other things, Stone gathers together an enormous wealth of persuasive information regarding Johnson's decades of extremely corrupt and criminal practices in Texas, including fairly plausible claims that these may have included several murders. In one bizarre 1961 incident that strangely foreshadows the Warren Commission's "lone gunman" finding, a federal government inspector investigating a major Texas corruption scheme involving a close LBJ ally was found dead, shot five times in the chest and abdomen by a rifle, but the death was officially ruled a "suicide" by the local authorities, and that conclusion was reported with a straight face in the pages of the Washington Post.
Certainly one remarkable aspect of Johnson's career is that he was born dirt-poor, held low-paying government jobs throughout his entire life, yet took the oath of office as the wealthiest president in modern American history, having accumulated a personal fortune of over $100 million in present-day dollars, with the financial payoffs from his corporate benefactors having been laundered through his wife's business. This odd anomaly is so little remembered these days that a prominent political journalist expressed total disbelief when I mentioned it to him a decade ago.
Stone also effectively sketches out the very difficult political situation Johnson faced in late 1963. He had originally entered the 1960 presidential race as one of the most powerful Democrats in the country and the obvious front-runner for his party's nomination, certainly compared to the much younger Kennedy, whom he greatly outranked in political stature and also somewhat despised. His defeat, involving a great deal of underhanded dealings on both sides, came as a huge personal blow. The means by which he somehow managed to get himself placed on the ticket are not entirely clear, but both Stone and Seymour Hersh in The Dark Side of Camelot strongly suggest that personal blackmail was a greater factor than geographical ticket-balancing. In any event, Kennedy's paper-thin 1960 victory would have been far more difficult without Texas narrowly falling into the Democratic column, and election fraud there by Johnson's powerful political machine seems almost certainly to have been an important factor.
Under such circumstances, Johnson naturally expected to play a major role in the new administration, and he even issued grandiose demands for a huge political portfolio, but instead he found himself immediately sidelined and treated with complete disdain, soon becoming a forlorn figure with no authority or influence. As time went by, the Kennedys made plans to get rid of him, and just a few days before the assassination, they were already discussing whom to place on the reelection ticket in his stead. Much of Johnson's long record of extreme corruption both in Texas and in DC was coming to light following the fall of Bobby Baker, his key political henchman, and with strong Kennedy encouragement, Life Magazine was preparing a huge expose of his sordid and often criminal history, laying the basis for his prosecution and perhaps a lengthy prison sentence. By mid-November 1963, Johnson seemed a desperate political figure at the absolute end of his rope, but a week later he was the president of the United States, and all those swirling scandals were suddenly forgotten. Stone even claims that the huge block of magazine space reserved for the Johnson expose was instead filled by the JFK assassination story.
Aside from effectively documenting Johnson's sordid personal history and the looming destruction he faced at the hands of the Kennedys in late 1963, Stone also adds numerous fascinating pieces of personal testimony, which may or may not be reliable. According to him, as his mentor Nixon was watching the scene at the Dallas police station where Jack Ruby shot Oswald, Nixon immediately turned as white as a ghost, explaining that he had personally known the gunman under his birth-name of Rubenstein. While working on a House Committee in 1947, Nixon had been advised by a close ally and prominent mob-lawyer to hire Ruby as an investigator, being told that "he was one of Lyndon Johnson's boys." Stone also claims that Nixon once emphasized that although he had long sought the presidency, unlike Johnson "I wasn't willing to kill for it." He further reports that Vietnam Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge and numerous other prominent political figures in DC were absolutely convinced of Johnson's direct involvement in the assassination.
Stone has spent more than a half-century as a ruthless political operative, a position that provided him with unique personal access to individuals who participated in the great events of the past, but one that also carries the less than totally candid reputation of that profession, and individuals must carefully weigh these conflicting factors against each other. Personally, I tend to credit most of the eyewitness stories he provides. But even readers who remain entirely skeptical should find useful the large collection of secondary source references to the sordid details of LBJ's history that the book provides.
Finally, a seemingly unrelated historical incident had originally raised my own suspicions of Johnson's involvement.
Just prior to the outbreak of the Six Day War in 1967, Johnson had dispatched the U.S.S. Liberty, our most advanced intelligence-gathering ship, to remain offshore in international waters and closely monitor the military situation. There have been published claims that he had granted Israel a green-light for its preemptive attack, but fearful of risking a nuclear confrontation with the Soviet patrons of Syria and Egypt, had strictly circumscribed the limits of the military operation, sending the Liberty to keep an eye on developments and perhaps also to "show Israel who was boss."
Whether or not this reconstruction is correct, the Israelis soon launched an all-out attack on the nearly defenseless ship despite the large American flag it was flying, deploying attack jets and torpedo boats to sink the vessel during an assault that lasted several hours, while machine-gunning the lifeboats to ensure that there would be no survivors. The first stage of the attack had targeted the main communications antenna, and its destruction together with heavy Israeli jamming prevented any communications with other U.S. naval forces in the region.
Despite these very difficult conditions, a member of the crew heroically managed to jerry-rig a replacement antenna during the attack, and by trying numerous different frequencies was able to evade the jamming and contact the U.S. Sixth Fleet, informing them of the desperate situation. Yet although carrier jets were twice dispatched to rescue the Liberty and drive off the attackers, each time they were recalled, apparently upon direct orders from the highest authorities of the U.S. government. Once the Israelis learned that word of the situation had reached other U.S. forces, they soon discontinued their attack, and the heavily-damaged Liberty eventually limped into port, with over 200 dead and wounded sailors and NSA signal operators, representing the greatest loss of American servicemen in any naval incident since World War II.
Although numerous medals were issued to the survivors, word of the incident was totally suppressed by a complete blanket of secrecy, and in an unprecedented step, even a Congressional Medal of Honor was awarded only in a private ceremony. The survivors were also harshly threatened with immediate court martial if they discussed what had transpired with the press or anyone else. Despite the overwhelming evidence that the attack had been intentional, a naval court of inquiry presided over by Admiral John S. McCain, Jr., father of the current senator, whitewashed the incident as a tragic accident, and a complete media blackout suppressed the facts. The true story only began to come out years later, when James M. Ennes, Jr., a Liberty survivor, risked severe legal consequences and published Assault on the Liberty in 1979 .
As it happened, NSA intercepts of Israeli communications between the attacking jets and Tel Aviv, translated from the Hebrew, fully confirmed that the attack had been entirely deliberate, and since many of the dead and wounded were NSA employees, the suppression of these facts greatly rankled their colleagues. My old friend Bill Odom, the three-star general who ran the NSA for Ronald Reagan, later shrewdly circumvented the restrictions of his political masters by making those incriminating intercepts part of the standard curriculum of the Sigint training program required for all intelligence officers.
In 2007 an unusual set of circumstances finally broke the thirty year blackout in the mainstream media. Real estate investor Sam Zell, a Jewish billionaire extremely devoted to Israel, had orchestrated a leveraged-buyout of the Tribune Company, parent of the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune, investing merely a sliver of his own money, with the bulk of the financing coming from the pension funds of the company he was acquiring. Widely heralded as "the grave dancer" for his shrewd financial investments, Zell publicly boasted that the deal gave him nearly all of the upside potential of the company, while he bore relatively little of the risk. Such an approach proved wise since the complex deal quickly collapsed into bankruptcy, and although Zell emerged almost unscathed, the editors and journalists lost decades of their accumulated pension dollars, while massive layoffs soon devastated the newsrooms of what had been two of the country's largest and most prestigious newspapers. Perhaps coincidentally, just as this business turmoil hit in late 2007, the Tribune ran a massive 5,500 word story on the Liberty attack, representing the first and only time such a comprehensive account of the true facts has ever appeared in the mainstream media.
By all accounts, Johnson was an individual of towering personal ego, and when I read the article, I was struck by the extent of his astonishing subservience to the Jewish state. The influence of campaign donations and favorable media coverage seemed completely insufficient to explain his reaction to an incident that had cost the lives of so many American servicemen. I began to wonder if Israel might have played an extraordinarily powerful political trump-card, thereby showing LBJ "who was really boss," and once I discovered the reality of the JFK assassination conspiracy a year or two later, I suspected I knew what that trump-card might have been. Over the years, I had become quite friendly with the late Alexander Cockburn, and the next time we had lunch I outlined my ideas. Although he had always casually dismissed JFK conspiracy theories as total nonsense, he found my hypothesis quite intriguing.
Regardless of such speculation, the strange circumstances of the Liberty incident certainly demonstrated the exceptionally close relationship between President Johnson and the government of Israel, as well as the willingness of the mainstream media to spend decades hiding events of the most remarkable nature if they might tread on particular toes.
These important considerations should be kept in mind as we begin exploring the most explosive yet under-reported theory of the JFK assassination. Almost twenty-five years ago the late Michael Collins Piper published Final Judgment presenting a very large body of circumstantial evidence that Israel and its Mossad secret intelligence service, together with their American collaborators, probably played a central role in the conspiracy.
For decades following the 1963 assassination, virtually no suspicions had ever been directed towards Israel, and as a consequence none of the hundreds or thousands of assassination conspiracy books that appeared during the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s had hinted at any role for the Mossad, though nearly every other possible culprit, ranging from the Vatican to the Illuminati, came under scrutiny. Kennedy had received over 80% of the Jewish vote in his 1960 election, American Jews featured very prominently in his White House, and he was greatly lionized by Jewish media figures, celebrities, and intellectuals ranging from New York City to Hollywood to the Ivy League. Moreover, individuals with a Jewish background such as Mark Lane and Edward Epstein had been among the leading early proponents of an assassination conspiracy, with their controversial theories championed by influential Jewish cultural celebrities such as Mort Sahl and Norman Mailer. Given that the Kennedy Administration was widely perceived as pro-Israel, there seemed no possible motive for any Mossad involvement, and bizarre, totally unsubstantiated accusations of such a monumental nature directed against the Jewish state were hardly likely to gain much traction in an overwhelmingly pro-Israel publishing industry.
However, in the early 1990s highly-regarded journalists and researchers began exposing the circumstances surrounding the development of Israel's nuclear weapons arsenal. Seymour Hersh's 1991 book The Samson Option: Israel's Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy described the extreme efforts of the Kennedy Administration to force Israel to allow international inspections of its allegedly non-military nuclear reactor at Dimona, and thereby prevent its use in producing nuclear weapons. Dangerous Liaisons: The Inside Story of the U.S.-Israeli Covert Relationship by Andrew and Leslie Cockburn appeared in the same year, and covered similar ground.
Although entirely hidden from public awareness at the time, the early 1960s political conflict between the American and Israeli governments over nuclear weapons development had represented a top foreign policy priority of the Kennedy Administration, which had made nuclear non-proliferation one of its central international initiatives. It is notable that John McCone, Kennedy's choice as CIA Director, had previously served on the Atomic Energy Commission under Eisenhower, being the individual who leaked the fact that Israel was building a nuclear reactor to produce plutonium.
The pressure and financial aid threats secretly applied to Israel by the Kennedy Administration eventually became so severe that they led to the resignation of Israel's founding Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion in June 1963. But all these efforts were almost entirely halted or reversed once Kennedy was replaced by Johnson in November of that same year. Piper notes that Stephen Green's 1984 book Taking Sides: America's Secret Relations With a Militant Israel had previously documented that U.S. Middle East Policy completely reversed itself following Kennedy's assassination, but this important finding had attracted little attention at the time.
Skeptics of a plausible institutional basis for a JFK assassination conspiracy have often noted the extreme continuity in both foreign and domestic policies between the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations, arguing that this casts severe doubt on any such possible motive. Although this analysis seems largely correct, America's behavior towards Israel and its nuclear weapons program stands as a very notable exception to this pattern.
An additional major area of concern for Israeli officials may have involved the efforts of the Kennedy Administration to sharply restrict the activities of pro-Israel political lobbies. During his 1960 presidential campaign, Kennedy had met in New York City with a group of wealthy Israel advocates, led by financier Abraham Feinberg, and they had offered enormous financial support in exchange for a controlling influence in Middle Eastern policy. Kennedy managed to fob them off with vague assurances, but he considered the incident so troubling that the next morning he sought out journalist Charles Bartlett, one of his closest friends, and expressed his outrage that American foreign policy might fall under the control of partisans of a foreign power, promising that if he became president, he would rectify that situation. And indeed, once he had installed his brother Robert as Attorney General, the latter initiated a major legal effort to force pro-Israel groups to register themselves as foreign agents, which would have drastically reduced their power and influence. But after JFK's death, this project was quickly abandoned, and as part of the settlement, the leading pro-Israel lobby merely agreed to reconstitute itself as AIPAC.
Final Judgment went through a number of a reprintings following its original 1994 appearance, and by the sixth edition released in 2004, had grown to over 650 pages, including numerous long appendices and over 1100 footnotes, the overwhelming majority of these referencing fully mainstream sources. The body of the text was merely serviceable in organization and polish, reflecting the total boycott by all publishers, mainstream or alternative, but I found the contents themselves remarkable and generally quite compelling. Despite the most extreme blackout by all media outlets, the book sold more than 40,000 copies over the years, making it something of an underground bestseller, and surely bringing it to the attention of everyone in the JFK assassination research community, though apparently almost none of them were willing to mention its existence. I suspect these other writers realized that even any mere acknowledgement of the existence of the book, if only to ridicule or dismiss it, might prove fatal to their media and publishing career. Piper himself died in 2015, aged 54, suffering from the health problems and heavy-drinking often associated with grim poverty, and other journalists may have been reluctant to risk that same dismal fate.
As an example of this strange situation, the bibliography of Talbot's 2005 book contains almost 140 entries, some rather obscure, but has no space for Final Judgment, nor does his very comprehensive index include any entry for "Jews" or "Israel." Indeed, at one point he very delicately characterizes Sen. Robert Kennedy's entirely Jewish senior staff by stating "There was not a Catholic among them." His 2015 sequel is equally circumspect, and although the index does contain numerous entries pertaining to Jews, all these references are in regards to World War II and the Nazis, including his discussion of the alleged Nazi ties of Allen Dulles, his principal bête noire. Stone's book, while fearlessly convicting President Lyndon Johnson of the JFK assassination, also strangely excludes "Jews" and "Israel" from the long index and Final Judgment from the bibliography, and Douglass's book follows this same pattern.
Furthermore, the extreme concerns that the Piper Hypothesis seems to have provoked among JFK assassination researchers may explain a strange anomaly. Although Mark Lane was himself of Jewish origins and left-wing roots, after his victory for Liberty Lobby in the Hunt libel trial, he spent many years associated with that organization in a legal capacity, and apparently became quite friendly with Piper, one of its leading writers. According to Piper, Lane told him that Final Judgment made "a solid case" for a major Mossad role in the assassination, and he viewed the theory as fully complementary to his own focus on CIA involvement. I suspect that concerns about these associations may explain why Lane was almost completely airbrushed out of the Douglass and 2007 Talbot books, and discussed in the second Talbot book only when his work was absolutely essential to Talbot's own analysis. By contrast, New York Times staff writers are hardly likely to be as versed in the lesser-known aspects of the JFK assassination research community, and being ignorant of this hidden controversy, they gave Lane the long and glowing obituary that his career fully warranted.
When weighing the possible suspects for a given crime, considering their past pattern of behavior is often a helpful approach. As discussed above, I can think of no historical example in which organized crime initiated a serious assassination attempt against any American political figure even moderately prominent on the national stage. And despite a few suspicions here and there, the same applies to the CIA.
By contrast, the Israeli Mossad and the Zionist groups that preceded the establishment of the Jewish state seem to have had a very long track record of assassinations, including those of high-ranking political figures who might normally be regarded as inviolate. Lord Moyne, the British Minister of State for the Middle East, was assassinated in 1944 and Count Folke Bernadotte, the UN Peace Negotiator sent to help resolve the first Arab-Israel war, suffered the same fate in September 1948. Not even an American president was entirely free of such risks, and Piper notes that the memoirs of Harry Truman's daughter Margaret reveal that Zionist militants had tried to assassinate her father using a letter laced with toxic chemicals in 1947 when they believed he was dragging his heels in supporting Israel, although that failed attempt was never made public. The Zionist faction responsible for all of these incidents was led by Yitzhak Shamir, who later became a leader of Mossad and director of its assassination program during the 1960s, before eventually becoming Prime Minister of Israel in 1986.
If the claims in the 1990s tell-all bestsellers of Mossad defector Victor Ostrovsky can be credited, Israel even considered the assassination of President George H.W. Bush in 1992 for his threats to cut off financial aid to Israel during a conflict over West Bank settlement policies, and I have been informed that the Bush Administration took those reports seriously at the time. And although I have not yet read it, the recent, widely-praised book Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel's Targeted Assassinations by journalist Ronen Bergman suggests that no other country in the world may have so regularly employed assassination as a standard tool of state policy.
There are other notable elements that tend to support the Piper Hypothesis. Once we accept the existence of a JFK assassination conspiracy, the one individual who is virtually certain to have been a participant was Jack Ruby, and his organized crime ties were almost entirely to the huge but rarely-mentioned Jewish wing of that enterprise, presided over by Meyer Lansky, an extremely fervent supporter of Israel. Ruby himself had particularly strong connections with Lansky lieutenant Mickey Cohen, who dominated the Los Angeles underworld and had been personally involved in gun-running to Israel prior to the 1948 war. Indeed, according to Dallas rabbi Hillel Silverman, Ruby had privately explained his killing of Oswald by saying "I did it for the Jewish people."
An intriguing aspect to Oliver Stone's landmark JFK film should also be mentioned. Arnon Milchan, the wealthy Hollywood producer who backed the project, was not only an Israeli citizen, but had also reportedly played a central role in the enormous espionage project to divert American technology and materials to Israel's nuclear weapons project, the exact undertaking that the Kennedy Administration had made such efforts to block. Milchan has even sometimes been described as "the Israeli James Bond." And although the film ran a full three hours in length, JFK scrupulously avoided presenting any of the details that Piper later regarded as initial clues to an Israeli dimension, instead seeming to finger America's fanatic home-grown anti-Communist movement and the Cold War leadership of the military-industrial complex as the guilty parties.
Summarizing over 300,000 words of Piper's history and analysis in just a few paragraphs is obviously an impossible undertaking, but the above discussion provides a reasonable taste of the enormous mass of circumstantial evidence mustered in favor of the Piper Hypothesis.
In many respects, JFK Assassination Studies has become its own academic discipline, and my credentials are quite limited. I have read perhaps a dozen books in the subject, and have also tried to approach the issues with the clean slate and fresh eyes of an outsider, but any serious expert would surely have digested scores or even hundreds of the volumes in the field. While the overall analysis of Final Judgment struck me as quite persuasive, a good fraction of the names and references were unfamiliar, and I simply do not have the background to assess their credibility, nor whether the description of the material presented is accurate.
Under normal circumstances, I would turn to the reviews or critiques produced by other authors, and comparing them against Piper's claims, then decide which argument seemed the stronger. But although Final Judgment was published a quarter-century ago, the near-absolute blanket of silence surrounding the Piper Hypothesis, especially from the more influential and credible researchers, renders this impossible.
However, Piper's inability to secure any regular publisher and the widespread efforts to smother his theory out of existence, have had an ironic consequence. Since the book went out of print years ago, I had a relatively easy time securing the rights to include it in my collection of controversial HTML Books, and I have now done so, thereby allowing everyone on the Internet to conveniently read the entire text and decide for themselves, while easily checking the multitude of references or searching for particular words or phrases.
The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy
Michael Collins Piper • 2005 • 310,000 Words
This edition actually incorporates several much shorter works, originally published separately. One of these, consisting of an extended Q&A, describes the genesis of the idea and answers numerous questions surrounding it, and for some readers might represent a better starting point.
Questions, Answers & Reflections About the Crime of the Century
Michael Collins Piper • 2005 • 48,000 Words
There are also numerous extended Piper interviews or presentations easily available on YouTube, and when I watched two or three of them a couple of years ago, I thought he effectively summarized many of his main arguments, but I cannot remember which ones they were.
The Kennedy assassination surely ranks as one of the most dramatic and heavily reported events of the twentieth century, yet the overwhelming evidence that our president died at the hands of a conspiracy rather than an eccentric "lone gunman" was almost entirely suppressed by our mainstream media during the decades that followed, with endless ridicule and opprobrium heaped on many of the stubborn truth-tellers. Indeed, the very term "conspiracy theory" soon became a standard slur aimed against all those who sharply questioned establishmentarian narratives, and there is strong evidence that such pejorative use was deliberately promoted by government agencies concerned that so much of the American citizenry was growing skeptical of the implausible cover story presented by the Warren Commission. But despite all these efforts, the period may mark the inflection point at which public trust in our national media began its precipitous decline. Once an individual concludes that the media lied about something as monumental as the JFK assassination, he naturally begins to wonder what other lies may be out there.
Although I now consider the case for an assassination conspiracy overwhelming, I think that the passage of so many decades has removed any real hope of reaching a firm conclusion about the identities of the main organizers or their motives. Those who disagree with this negative assessment are free to continue sifting the enormous mountain of complex historical evidence and debating their conclusions with others having similar interests.
However, among the cast of major suspects, I think that the most likely participant by far was Lyndon Johnson, based on any reasonable assessment of means, motive, and opportunity, as well as the enormous role he obviously must have played in facilitating the subsequent Warren Commission cover-up. Yet although such an obvious suspect must surely have been immediately apparent to any observer, Johnson seems to have received only a rather thin slice of the attention that books regularly directed to other, far less plausible suspects. So the clear dishonesty of the mainstream media in avoiding any recognition of a conspiracy seems matched by a second layer of dishonesty in the alternative media, which has done its best to avoid recognizing the most likely perpetrator.
And the third layer of media dishonesty is the the most extreme of all. A quarter century ago, Final Judgment provided an enormous mass of circumstantial evidence suggesting a major, even dominant, role for the Israeli Mossad in organizing the elimination of both our 35rd president and also his younger brother, a scenario that seems second in likelihood only to that of Johnson's involvement. Yet Piper's hundreds of thousands of words of analysis have seemingly vanished into the ether, with very few of the major conspiracy researchers even willing to admit their awareness of a shocking book that sold over 40,000 copies, almost entirely by underground word-of-mouth.
So although committed partisans can continue endless, largely fruitless debates over "Who Killed JFK," I think that the one firm conclusion we can draw from the remarkable history of this pivotal event of the twentieth century is that all of us have lived for many decades within the synthetic reality of "Our American Pravda."
American Pravda: The JFK Assassination, Part I – What Happened?
Final Judgment by Michael Collins Piper
Did Israel Kill the Kennedys? by Laurent Guyénot
Our American Pravda
• Category: Foreign Policy, History • Tags: Classic, American Media, American Pravda, CIA, Conspiracy Theories, Israel, Israel Lobby, JFK Assassination, Lyndon Johnson
The American Pravda Series
American Pravda: Was Rambo Right?
May 25, 2010 • 1,300 Words • 83 Comments
April 29, 2013 • 4,500 Words • 157 Comments
American Pravda: Reality Television
May 6, 2013 • 900 Words • 18 Comments
American Pravda: Barrels of Gunpowder and Sparks
May 17, 2013 • 1,100 Words • 4 Comments
American Pravda: ZeroHedge
May 31, 2013 • 800 Words • 26 Comments
American Pravda: "Liberal Bias"
June 5, 2013 • 1,200 Words • 14 Comments
American Pravda: Who Shot Down Flight MH17 in Ukraine?
August 14, 2014 • 1,600 Words • 312 Comments
John McCain: When "Tokyo Rose" Ran for President
March 9, 2015 • 4,200 Words • 261 Comments
The Myth of American Meritocracy and Other Essays
March 4, 2016 • 1,800 Words • 28 Comments
American Pravda: the Legacy of Sydney Schanberg
July 13, 2016 • 3,500 Words • 151 Comments
American Pravda: Relying Upon Maoist Professors of Cultural Studies
July 18, 2016 • 1,900 Words • 64 Comments
American Pravda: Will There be a Spotlight Sequel to The Killing Fields?
American Pravda: Mass Deaths and Morning Newspapers
August 1, 2016 • 1,700 Words • 85 Comments
John McCain's "Tokyo Rose" Propaganda Broadcast---Now Found and Released!
August 5, 2016 • 400 Words • 44 Comments
American Pravda: Did the US Plan a Nuclear First Strike Against Russia in the Early 1960s?
American Pravda: Was General Patton Assassinated?
American Pravda: Alexander Cockburn and the British Spies
American Pravda: How the CIA Invented "Conspiracy Theories"
September 5, 2016 • 2,600 Words • 480 Comments
American Pravda: the KKK and Mass Racial Killings
September 19, 2016 • 3,200 Words • 532 Comments
American Pravda: the Destruction of TWA Flight 800
American Pravda: Breaching the Media Barrier
October 24, 2016 • 2,500 Words • 207 Comments
American Pravda: When Stalin Almost Conquered Europe
June 4, 2018 • 4,200 Words • 792 Comments
American Pravda: Our Great Purge of the 1940s
June 11, 2018 • 5,500 Words • 274 Comments
American Pravda: the JFK Assassination, Part I - What Happened?
June 18, 2018 • 4,800 Words • 1,231 Comments
American Pravda: Our Deadly World of Post-War Politics
July 2, 2018 • 5,700 Words • 329 Comments
American Pravda: Post-War France and Post-War Germany
July 16, 2018 • 7,800 Words • 1,661 Comments
American Pravda: the Bolshevik Revolution and Its Aftermath
American Pravda: the Nature of Anti-Semitism
August 6, 2018 • 6,800 Words • 565 Comments
August 27, 2018 • 17,600 Words • 2,327 Comments
American Pravda: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
September 10, 2018 • 11,000 Words • 2,385 Comments
American Pravda: the ADL in American Society
American Pravda: Racial Discrimination at Harvard
October 22, 2018 • 10,300 Words • 530 Comments
American Pravda: Amazon Book Censorship
March 11, 2019 • 7,600 Words • 692 Comments
American Pravda: How Hitler Saved the Allies
May 13, 2019 • 8,300 Words • 935 Comments
American Pravda: Secrets of Military Intelligence
June 10, 2019 • 12,500 Words • 1,620 Comments
American Pravda: the Power of Organized Crime
July 15, 2019 • 13,000 Words • 652 Comments
Hide 1007 CommentsLeave a Comment
"American Pravda: the JFK Assassination, Part II – Who Did It?"
• 1007 Comments
Commenters to Ignore
Commenters to ignore (one per line)
Save ListCancel
...to Follow
Commenters to follow (one per line)
Endorsed Only
Trim Comments? NoShortLong
Anonymous [AKA "jake89"] says:
June 25, 2018 at 4:14 am GMT
you're a real jerk unz
• LOL: Seamus Padraig
Buzz Mohawk says:
Copy edit: Dulles wrote The Craft of Intelligence, not to be confused with …Cult of Intelligence as in Marchetti's title.
As always, thanks for the fascinating reading.
Carlton Meyer says: • Website
June 25, 2018 at 4:31 am GMT • 200 Words
This article is a nice overview that explains the problem. There were many powerful groups who wanted Kennedy killed, and probably several plots were underway. Allow me to suggest "The Secret Team" by Col. Prouty to your reading list.
Your last post resulted in too many posts to read, but one pointed to an outstanding video of Lee Oswald's life, showing facts that make it clear he was a CIA operative. Note that after he returned from Russia after openly committing treason, he was never arrested, and granted a spousal visa for his Russian wife. That undeniable fact itself is proof he was a CIA plant. Oswald hoped to become an official CIA officer and federal employee, but remained a low-level paid operative until his death. Oswald expressed concern in New Orleans that operatives were considered disposable.
Anyway, I highly recommend this great video:
• Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
, @Alden
, @Skeptikal
, @Homer Formby
peterAUS says:
utu says:
If the claims in the 1990s tell-all bestsellers of Mossad defector Victor Ostrovsky can be credited, Israel even considered the assassination of President George H.W. Bush in 1992 for his threats to cut off financial aid to Israel during a conflict over West Bank settlement policies, and I have been informed that the Bush Administration took those reports seriously at the time.
I did not know of Ostrovsky's claim but I was very aware of George H.W. Bush conflict with Yitzhak Shamir which most likely costed him the second term. The conflict obviously was very deemphasized by the MSM. Iirc Patrick Buchanan wrote about it. Bush decided to say NO to Israel and put conditions on providing further funding for immigrants form Russia to Israel. He did it having exceptionally high (90%) approval ratings in the wake of the Desert Storm. So timing was good. But after Congress going against him and AIPAC busing supporters of Israel to DC Bush caved in sometime in Sept. 1991. Buchanan believed that if Bush brought the issue to 'American people' he could have won this conflict but Bush decided to keep Americans in the dark which is a norm when it come to Israel issues. Bush only complained about being all alone in the White House during some press conference but most American did not get the idea what he was compliant about. The Lobby however did not forgive Bush and did not trust him getting the second term in the office. It must have been decided he had to go. An anti Bush campaign was continued by Safire and Friedman in weekly columns in the NYT and negative mostly exaggerated and bogus articles about weak economy were published. The 'It's the economy, stupid' was bogus made up meme. Clinton was parachuted from Arkansas and Ross Perot was encouraged to run and then dis-encouraged when he suspended his campaign and then again encouraged to re-enter the race. He played exactly the same role as Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 election that stopped the incumbent Taft from getting the 2nd term. This gave presidency to Wilson who brought Federal Reserve and federal tax the the following year and the entrance into the WWI few years later. Was assassination considered as the plan B in case Bush was reelected? Do people from The Lobby talk about killing American presidents among themselves? Yes, they do – even publicly:
ATLANTA JEWISH NEWSPAPER CALLS FOR OBAMA ASSASSINATION. (Jan 22, 2012)
https://www.jpost.com/International/Atlanta-Jewish-newspaper-calls-for-Obama-assassination
Could Obama be trusted with the 2nd term? Netnayahu's Israel was as not very happy with him and Obama in the very beginning was talking very tough about Israel (University of Cairo). W/o his 2nd term there would be no treaty with Iran and there would be a veto of anti-Israel UN resolution.
It seems like George H.W. Bush must have resigned himself to not being reelected. What message was he sending by checking the watch during a debate? Was the message: Do not worry I am just going through the motions. Do not need to kill me.
The question is how come the neocons decided to trust GW Bush? Richard Perle went to Austin TX and announced that Bush ignorance of the world affairs was an advantage: an empty vessel that they can fill. Did he also mean that it will be easy to control him like sending him against Iraq to avenge his father?
GW Bush got coached and tutored by Prince Bandar in 1997:
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=afall97bandargwbush
He lands in Austin, and is surprised when Governor Bush boards the plane before Bandar can disembark. Bush comes straight to the point: he is considering a run for the presidency, and though he already knows what his domestic agenda will be, says, "I don't have the foggiest idea about what I think about international, foreign policy."
Finally, Bush says, "There are people who are your enemies in this country who also think my dad is your enemy." Bandar knows Bush is speaking of US supporters of Israel, and wants to know how he should handle the Israeli-Jewish lobby as well as the neoconservatives who loathe both the Saudis and the elder Bush. Bandar replies: "Can I give you one advice?… If you tell me that [you want to be president], I want to tell you one thing. To hell with Saudi Arabia or who likes Saudi Arabia or who doesn't, who likes Bandar or who doesn't. Anyone who you think hates your dad or your friend who can be important to make a difference in winning, swallow your pride and make friends of them. And I can help you. I can help you out and complain about you, make sure they understand that, and that will make sure they help you." Bandar's message is clear: if Bush needs the neoconservatives to help him win the presidency, then he should do what it takes to get them on his side. "Never mind if you really want to be honest," Bandar continues. "This is not a confession booth.… In the big boys' game, it's cutthroat, it's bloody and it's not pleasant."
• Replies: @Ivan
, @Wizard of Oz
sarz says:
Ron, thanks for your decency and courage. I hope you have a good team of people protecting you.
• Agree: Iris
• Replies: @Skeptikal
Peripatetic commenter says:
Certainly seems like a rogue state.
I don't believe Iran has assassinated any US politicians …
• Replies: @Heros
D. K. says:
JFK was our 35th president; Truman was our 33rd president.
Here is a book that provides a plausible rationale for why the federal government would have covered up an assassination that was essentially a mob hit, ordered by Carlos Marcello and his associates:
https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-7867-1441-4
I read it a dozen or so years ago. It is quite poorly edited, and irritatingly repetitive, but I found much of it to be new and salient information that was facially credible to me, as a former attorney— also trained in, inter alia, History (B.A.), Personality & Social Psychology (M.S.), and Management & Organization (M.B.A.)— who has had a strong avocational interest in the JFK assassination since the 25th anniversary, in 1988, after watching a spate of television specials on the Kennedy Era, including one hosted by noted newspaper columnist Jack Anderson.
http://www.darkdocumentaries.com/conspiracy-documentaries/who-murdered-jfk-1988
Re-posting a comment I made in Part 1:
Jack Ruby directly accused Lyndon Johnson of being responsible for President Kennedy's assassination.
This great documentary ("The day the dream died" – 1988) contains a interview of Jack Ruby never shown before (@38:20).
Asked who he believes is responsible for the murder of the President, Ruby answers:
Jack Ruby: " When I mentioned about Adlai Stevenson if he was vice-President there would never have been an assassination of our beloved President Kennedy".
Journalist: "Would you explain it again?"
Jack Ruby: "Well, the answer is the man in office now"
Jack Ruby made this accusation in 1967, the "man in office now" was Lyndon Johnson
At the time, he was seeking leave to appeal his conviction; this leave was granted.
Within weeks of this interview, he died of a previously undetected cancer.
The woman who shot the interview committed suicide.
• Troll: utu
anon[392] • Disclaimer says:
I think the film entitled 'JFK – the Smoking Gun' makes the most sense.
jilles dykstra says:
" Despite these very difficult conditions, a member of the crew heroically managed to jerry-rig a replacement antenna during the attempt, and by trying numerous different frequencies, was able to evade the jamming "
It was Israeli stupidity that made it possible to send a message despite the jamming.
Israel had constructed missiles that homed in on the antennae and frequencies the Liberty used.
However, the jamming emitters were so strong that the missiles flew in the direction of the jammers.
So these had to be switched off after each firing of a missile.
In these pauses, the Liberty could inform Washington that it was an Israeli attack.
Then McNamara had to call back the two bombers with atomic bombs already on their way to Cairo.
I'm racking my brain where I found this information, but no result, so far.
The Liberty incident is mentioned in many books, articles, and tv reports.
• Replies: @Alden
, @James N. Kennett
, @Joe Stalin
, @Iberiano
, @Eagle Eye
j2 says:
I have found that these "conspiracy theories" are usually quite simple to solve:
– verify that there was a conspiracy
– verify that there was a cover-up
– verify that mass media is in the cover-up
Then, who can make a cover-up in media?
– the mob, no
– the CIA, can try but really cannot do it long
– the US President, like for instance JFK, Nixon, Clinton, no
– the ones, who control the media and suppress publications they do not like, yes
Then only, why?
– the assassination of the president succeeded, so something major in the US politics changed
– only one major thing changed
Solving these problems is easy, but the opponents behave as lawyers in kangaroo courts: deny everything, play a moron, refer to judicial decision, start repeating childish mumble like wackawackaconspeeracy.. and so on.
• Replies: @jilles dykstra
, @Sam J.
For anyone who hasn't seen it, here is a stabilized, panoramic version of the Zapruder film. With this, you can get a clearer idea of the scene and what really happened. For me at least, it removes a lot of the mystery, revealing that the physical event itself was not that remarkable, no matter who did it.
, @TonyVodvarka
, @Heros
, @Kingfelix
, @JonC
JohnnyWalker123 says:
Another well-reasoned and highly-detailed article. I agree that we'll probably never know many of the important details of how the assassination was planned and who was involved, given almost all the participants and witnesses are long since dead. However, we can almost certainly conclude that there was a conspiracy that involved many important individuals from the establishment, including President LBJ.
What are your thoughts on Seymour Hersh and his book "The Dark Side of Camelot"? I recall his book received very negative coverage by the MSM, but I can't really judge how credible his claims happen to be. It's a very shocking book though.
You mention here that you think our alternative media have been dishonest in analyzing LBJ's likely role in the assassination. Why? Was it because the media feared LBJ might have them killed? Was it perhaps because some in our media were on the payroll and being used to distract from the "mastermind" assassin?
So the clear dishonesty of the mainstream media in avoiding any recognition of a conspiracy seems matched by a second layer of dishonesty in the alternative media, which has done its best to avoid recognizing the most likely perpetrator.
Here's a good History Channel special on how LBJ may have been involved with the JFK assassination. I personally think it makes a pretty good case.
• Replies: @j2
, @Ron Unz
Here's a picture that proves that Oswald and David Ferrie knew each other through the Civil Air Patrol.
https://isgp-studies.com/DL_1967_02_22_David_Ferrie_death
It also appears that Oswald may have known Clay Shaw. See quote below.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Clay_Shaw#Later_findings,_and_CIA_revelations
In 1979, the House Select Committee on Assassinations stated in its Final Report that the Committee was "inclined to believe that Oswald was in Clinton (Louisiana) in late August, early September 1963, and that he was in the company of David Ferrie, if not Clay Shaw,"[64] and that witnesses in Clinton, Louisiana "established an association of an undetermined nature between Ferrie, Shaw and Oswald less than three months before the assassination".[65]
The CIA also admitted that Clay Shaw had worked for them in some capacity. See quote below.
During a 1979 libel suit involving the book Coup D'Etat In America, Richard Helms, former director of the CIA, testified under oath that Shaw had been a part-time contact of the Domestic Contact Service of the CIA, where Shaw volunteered information from his travels abroad, mostly to Latin America.[70] Like Shaw, 150,000 Americans (businessmen, and journalists, etc.) had provided such information to the DCS by the mid-1970s.[70] [nb 1] In February 2003, the CIA released documents pertaining to an earlier inquiry from the Assassination Records Review Board about QKENCHANT, a CIA project used to provide security approvals on non-CIA personnel, that indicated Shaw had obtained a "five Agency" clearance in March 1949.[72]
More interesting information below.
New Orleans attorney Dean Andrews testified to the Warren Commission that while he was hospitalized for pneumonia, he received a call from "Clay Bertrand" the day after the assassination, asking him to fly to Dallas to represent Lee Harvey Oswald.[28][29] According to FBI reports, Andrews told them that this phone call from "Clay Bertrand" was a figment of his imagination.[30]
In his book, On the Trail of the Assassins, Garrison says that after a long search of the New Orleans French Quarter, his staff was informed by the bartender at the tavern "Cosimo's" that "Clay Bertrand" was the alias that Clay Shaw used. According to Garrison, the bartender felt it was no big secret and "my men began encountering one person after another in the French Quarter who confirmed that it was common knowledge that 'Clay Bertrand' was the name Clay Shaw went by."[\
So it appears likely that Oswald, Ferrie, and Shaw knew each other. Which is sort of strange.
Then there's George de Mohrenschildt, a very complex and interesting character. I wonder if anyone here could tell me more about the nature of his relationship with Oswald.
• Replies: @Quift
@Carlton Meyer
I really liked Dark Journalist's analysis of Oswald. I think I posted this video in the other thread.
Oswald was certainly a CIA asset, much like the late Osama Bin Laden.
@Buzz Mohawk
Dan Rather lied about the event to the public.
Which was remarkable.
Watch Rather lie here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXFwbIx2mbc
• Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
Anonymous [AKA "MrTruth"] says:
See Col. L. Fletcher Prouty videos and books on the deep background for why the CIA hated JFK.
http://www.prouty.org/
Prouty was the source for Mr. X in Oliver Stone's movie JFK. Prouty was an air force pilot in WWII. He flew missions around the world and witnessed history as it happened. After WWII, he worked in the pentagon as a liaison officer between the military and the CIA. He saw the original documents authorizing military support of CIA operations around the world.
As Prouty explains it, throughout human history war was a means of killing the other guy and taking his stuff. The preparation for war and the prosecution of war provided an organizing principle for human society that gave people the motivation to develop their own societies, lest the other guy become more powerful than you and kill you.
As he describes it, with the detonation of atomic weapons at the end of WWII, conventional war was instantly understood to be obsolete. In any future conventional war, if one side was about to win a decisive victory, the potentially losing side would simply go nuclear, and everyone would lose.
With the end of conventional war, and the impossibility of nuclear war, the global power elite invented the proxy war as the new means for the continuation of war as an organizing principle of society. In the U.S., the CIA was the tool for starting and prosecuting proxy wars.
Prouty describes how, at the end of WWII, he was flying supply missions to Okinawa for the staging of the invasion of Japan. The military bases in Okinawa were overflowing with every conceivable type of materiel necessary to support more than a million man invasion.
After the atomic bombs were dropped and Japan had surrendered, Prouty claims that he asked a supply officer if they were just going to send all the supplies back to the states.
The officer said no. He said that all the materiel was going to be divided in half, and that half was going to Seoul, Korea, and that the other half was going to Hanoi, Vietnam. Prouty believes that by 1945 Korea and Vietnam had already been decided to be the sites of the first proxy wars, and that the CIA was already involved in planning the wars.
Kennedy was planning to dismantle the CIA, and Prouty recounts in his books, lectures, and videos how the JFK assassination reversed the course of history.
The JFK assassination is an endless rabbit hole of history. If you jump in, you won't come out the same way.
• Replies: @Old fogey
The Alarmist says:
I'm reminded of an old joke:
Q: Who fired the shot that killed Mussolini?
A: A thousand Italian marksmen.
Johnson has been my perennial favourite as the person who had the most to gain, but he could not have done it without his Texas machinery, not the least of which was KBR, and they certainly had a lot to gain by elevating their boy to the pinnacle of power if the rumours, that JFK planned to scale back in Viet Nam, were true. Coincidence that it happened in Dallas? Hardly, in that scenario.
Other interesting players on the ground in Dallas that day included GHW Bush, who, unlike most Americans, can't quite remember where he was when the President was shot. Was he behind it? Almost certainly not, but he may have been an unwitting co-conspirator by doing something tangentially connected, e.g. delivering cash. This is pure speculation, but it is interesting that he rose out of relative obscurity to become a Texas oilman, partnered with a former CIA operative, with oil interests in a number of international hotspots, and that formed the basis for him to build a fortune as well as launch a long and storied political career that saw him elected to Congress, then appointed to the head of the CIA, and ultimately crowned as President.
I particularly loved it when Trump tried to connect Ted Cruz's father to Oswald. It is not entirely out of the question, given his father, while a anti-Batista rebel turned refugee-student at the U of Texas might have crossed paths with Oswald while in Texas ….
Yes, all roads seem to lead to Texas, except for that one that goes to NOLA, but that isn's so far from TX, and it seems like the kind of place oil industry types might go to cat around and conspire on a coup. It's also one of the few places in the South where Israelis might not appear to be so out of place.
As for the Israelis … well, they're the Israelis. If they saw a shot to capture effective control of our government by offing a guy more likely to keep them in check for a venal type who probably didn't give a rat's behind for the Israelis, but salivated over destabilising the middle east, because destabilizing the middle east actually made Texas oil and other oil assets around the world controlled by or lifted by Texans in the oil industry far more valuable, then who can blame them for joining the cabal and taking the shot?
Heros says:
@Peripatetic commenter
"Certainly seems like a rogue state"
They went rogue long, long before they birthed the abomination they call Israel. These assassinations, as abhorrent as they are, are just one small example of the degree of hate that these people carry for all of humanity.
"I don't believe Iran has assassinated any US politicians…"
I would be interested in a comprehensive list of foreign politicians murdered by the National Socialists. I don't believe there were any, even though jews and their "communist" useful idiots were busy picking off Germans throughout the entire period.
As Utu discusses, even H.W. Bush was threatened with murder. Imagine how frightening these murders and threats of murder would be if you were a smaller politician in a smaller country much closer to Israel. Or even a smaller poor country on the other side of the planet.
Recently we had an example of Jewish Power on display in Iceland and then Denmark. The vast majority of Iceland's doctors and nurses decided that circumcision was bad, and the got their local politicians to support a bill to ban circumcision for boys under 18. That is when JP kicked in, and now not only has the bill been dropped, but Iceland will now pay for a Synogogue and a Rabbi in Iceland. The same think happened shortly after in Denmark.
35. And now Iceland's circumcision bill has been indefinitely shelved out of fear of Jewish retaliation, NOT because native Icelanders want circumcision. Will the same thing happen in Denmark and other countries considering a ban? pic.twitter.com/h3l2c3M8gm
— Curse (@cursedsalad) June 23, 2018
There is no doubt that Jewish Power is global as their bullying of Iceland shows. There is no doubt that Jewish Power is very old, the Balfour declaration is proof of its scale for at least the last 100 years. There is no doubt that Jewish Power is very evil, with their unceasing campaign of assassination against anyone who threatens their agenda or their power, as this article and the comments are testament to.
Gods chosen people, through infiltration, subversion, murder and theft, have proven themselves to be the enemies of all humanity over and over and over again. Iran is the only country on the planet who have consistently and so bravely made this point. As you say, they don't assassinate opponents, or steal their land and put them in open pit concentration camps for that matter.
The only campaign promise that Trump seems committed to is the destruction of Iran. Trump ran for president fully knowing the power and willingness of Jewish Power to assassinate opposition. He ran knowing that Jewish Power was behind him, because even he isn't buffoon enough to run against Jewish Power. He ran in order to help Jewish Power crush Iran the way it crushed Russia, Germany, Libya, Egypt, Ukraine, Syria and many others.
• Replies: @utu
@JohnnyWalker123
You have the reason already in Maurice Joly's Dialogues. The opposition media is created to nominally represent alternative views but in reality to silence of the issues you want silenced. Even the opposition, which always picks up on everything, agrees with this issue, so it accepted by all. Much of the alternative media has nothing to fear as it is not alternative media in anything but appearance. But with the Internet it is getting harder to do this. Finally they fail.
June 25, 2018 at 10:00 am GMT • 200 Words
@The Alarmist
So, LBJ just wanted to promote Texas oil and to become the President, no special Israel connection? And the Israelis just joined the cabal and who can blame them?
I found it very interesting that young LBJ was helping in the Galveston project. Galveston somehow reminded me of Jacob Schiff. And I also found it fascinating that young Allan Dulles was the guy who produced the very copy of Joly's Dialogues from which Ohrana plagiarized the Protocols. Both were working for the dark side from their youth.
• Replies: @The Alarmist
@utu
Yes it is strange that the elder George Bush, who had exorcised the 'ghost of Vietnam', through his rout of Saddam's forces in Kuwait and earned a 90% approval rating, went on to lose to Clinton supposedly on account of the economy. The idiot Ross Perot, a capitalist weaned on the government teat had of course a role. But I thought that the elder Bush was a shoo-in. Then came Clinton, selling off the Americans' industrial birthright for a song to the Chinese and the kabuki theatre of the Israeli-Palestinian 'peace process'. In James Baker, one had the least sympathetic of Secretary of States to Israel in a long time
I recall the image making by the press when GB became inconvenient, although a veteran pilot in WW2, he was painted as a proverbial wimp.
, @anon
Bardon Kaldian says:
This is a very good continuation of RU's previous article & I agree with most of it to different degrees re candidates for conspiracy: LBJ (probably), Israel/Mossad (possibly, not probably).
But, more important, at least to me, is the question: does it really matter, anymore?
In 1963, US was mostly Euro-American country, with 85-90% whites & "normal" behavior.
Now, 55 years later, both US & most of the white countries, excluding many ex-Communist lands, are so different that Kennedy's ideas, motives,… hardly matter. We live in a radically altered world.
Whites in the US are now 60-65% of the population & dominant discourse is anti-white, anti-European, Negromaniac, Mestizophilic, Asian-fetishist & Judeo-idolatrian. Everything historically Western is demonized.
Lunatic ideologies are step-by-step destroying the West: radical feminism (http://diversitymachtfrei.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-problem-with-feminism-why.html ), homosexualism (not homosexuality) as ideology, media manipulation in favor of miscegenation (always at the expense of whites), deathly combination of crass materialism & failure of nerve- probably in past 400 years European peoples had never been so well off & so hopeless simultaneously. All industrialized people do not procreate at satisfactory levels (Japanese, Chinese, Koreans,..), but there is a bunch of them & at least they are not letting foreigners in. Only various white peoples both invite masses of racially or culturally unassimilable foreigners (Muslims, Africans, Mestizos) & refuse to have progeny because they want "good and unencumbered life".
Add media moronization & addiction to technologies making ego-centric (and anti-individualistic) idiots of most people- what could get wrong?
After counter-cultural 60s that had catastrophically changed Western countries (US, France, UK, Germany,..) for good & the dominance of New Left world-view (loony fake anti-Fascism, hostility towards working class, free sex & promiscuity, homosex popularization, obsession with drugs, radical feminism, hatred toward historical Western culture, moral relativism, hatred for Christianity, anti-male animus, Negrolatry, anti-rationalism & dumbing down of entire generations, ..) for at least 2-3 irredeemable decades – does it matter who & why killed JFK, anymore?
• Agree: Dillon Sweeny
• Replies: @Whoriskey
, @Jeff Stryker
, @fnn
, @jinks
, @utu
Indeed, as with MH17.
Literally overnight EU sanctions against Russia were possible.
And, as with Kennedy, what exactly happened, we do not know, and, I fear, will never know.
On the afternoon of the day of the disaster prime minister Rutte phoned vice prime minister Asscher, who was on vacation in the south of France.
Rutte asked him to call back on a landline 'so that Russia could not listen in'.
Fool Asscher told this in a tv show.
Nobody has asked Asscher what was so secret a few hours after the disaster that the Russians should not know.
Why was the Diana 'accident' ?
I suppose to prevent that the future British king would have a Muslim stepfather.
Why was Anna Lyndh killed accidentally ?
She was to be the next Swedish prime minister, in favor of a EU economic boycott of Israel
Why was the phoney Hess suicided ?
Had he talked WWII history would have to be rewritten.
Why was Kelly suicided ?
He knew quite well Blair's nonsense about the 45 minutes WMD's
And so on and so forth
• Agree: Druid
• Replies: @Wizard of Oz
June 25, 2018 at 11:05 am GMT
OK, so I didn't peel enough layers of the rotting onion. I guess I still accept the story that LBJ was a middle-Texas school teacher who done good for himself.
Anonymous [AKA "Ivan2"] says:
Yes indeed, the Kennedy assassination is a rabbit hole. It's a case you can study for 10 years and still don't know everything there is to know.
As for culprits, don't lose sight of this: the autopsy of John Kennedy was under control of the military. And the Lone Assassin tale could not be maintained if it weren't for the botched autopsy. Ask yourself: what power could make the military doctors do as they did? The maffia? Hardly. LBJ? No. Israel? No sir.
• Replies: @Paul Jolliffe
The killer shooting the fatal shot at President Kennedy's head from the Grassy Knoll was captured on the Orville Nix film.
Anybody can judge by themselves on this extract:
The Orville Nix film was "lost" by the authorities before the Warren Commission proceedings. Fortunately, a secret copy had been made, and was broadcast in the 1988 documentary "The day the dream died".
• Replies: @Thirdeye
Milton says:
June 25, 2018 at 12:00 pm GMT • 200 Words
I believe the Zionists in Israel placed the order and Freemasons in the American Deep State executed the order. It's also quite possible that Zionist terrorists did the actual shooting as they had the experience in killing Western high profile targets (Moyne, Bernadotte, King David Hotel bombing, etc) but more likely that elements of the Deep State in America who hated JFK did the actual shooting. In either case, Oswald was not lone-nut and the case is certainly not closed. We know this because Trump recently reclassified the sealed JFK assassination records which were mandated to be released in October, 2017. He stated that he did so to protect "national security" (aka protect the Deep State and Israel) and to protect the "names and addresses" of individuals still alive. Trump, far from being an opponent of the Deep State, is actually working hand-in-hand with them (the Mueller "investigation" is actually smoke and mirrors to distract the Sheeple from the fact that Trump is actually part of the Deep State).
I made a bad choice of words when I wrote that the event was not remarkable.
I was just trying to say that the stabilized, panoramic film puts me there and it all seems so simple. You can even see how the driver slowed way down. (No conspiracy, just him reacting to all the commotion in the back seat, but also making the head shot easier.)
Anyway, Dan Rather lying probably isn't remarkable. LOL
JFK's head actually did move forward before it moved backward, whether or not Rather or anybody else noticed at the time. (This neither negates nor confirms a conspiracy, BTW.)
• Replies: @Iris
Working and living in Europe at the time of the JFK assassination, and lunching with French colleagues the very next day I explained that the USA has many half-crazed individuals with easy access to firearms and, contrary to what my colleagues all thought, there was no need for a plot.
These many years later I am still convinced: no plot and no plotters just another American with a gun.
(Doesn't anyone else remember his weird mother?)
• Replies: @David In TN
gsjackson says:
I've heard Stone talk about Nixon's reaction to seeing Ruby shoot Oswald, but this surely wasn't an eyewitness account, as Stone was in 6th grade at the time. His career as a political operative goes back about 45 years to volunteering for CREEP as a college student in 1972, somewhat less as an influential one.
Apparently Johnson's mistress said he told her in so many words that the assassination was going to happen. I think there's little doubt that he was aware and acquiescent, perhaps an active participant. Ruby probably was his man, and he and Ruby both likely were Israel's men. A few years later Johnson was blood in the water for the mainstream media shark tank over Vietnam and civil disorder. If he were the prime mover of the JFK assassination, I doubt that the media would uniformly have laid off the subject. Only Israel, it would seem, could have orchestrated such a massive and continuous cover up.
• Replies: @Carroll Price
Desert Fox says:
To see who had JFK killed read the book , JFK, the CIA and VIETNAM by the late Col. L. Fletcher Prouty and the same people are the ones who had RFK and JFK jr. killed and are the same ones who did 911 and the USS LIBERTY, it was the satanic Zionists who are in control of the U.S. gov.
• Replies: @Paw
John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan says:
June 25, 2018 at 12:51 pm GMT
Michael Collins Piper was from Mifflintown, Pennsylvania – a good old central Pennsylvania boy. One of my people. Glad Mr. Unz has seen the light on this one.
Way back many decades (I think the late 1970s) someone gave me a paperback book about the JFK assassination. I recall neither the name of the book nor its title. After I read it, I passed it on to an older relative. When I asked what the relative thought of the book, he said he tossed it in the trash because it was the craziest of all the conspiracy books. He said it likely was a self-published book.
What I recall about the book is that the author suggested that LBJ almost certainly had to be involved, with the CIA and organized crime. The author also suggested that there had to be some major Republican Party involvement, most likely with the CIA the tie.
Whoriskey says:
June 25, 2018 at 1:08 pm GMT
@Bardon Kaldian
There is hope yet, as Pitt the Younger famously remarked after Trafalgar, "we have saved ourselves by our exertions and we shall save Europe by our example".
The number of European leaders who echo him is growing
Thorfinnsson says:
More on Abraham Feinberg: http://www.israellobby.org/Feinberg/default.asp
fnn says:
June 25, 2018 at 1:40 pm GMT • 100 Words
The seventh and final edition of Final Judgment (completed in 2011) was recently published (after PIper's death) by American Free Press. But AFP (in the persons of the Cartos) was the entity that mercilessly harassed Piper in his final years, kept cutting his salary, failed to provide him with medical benefits and ultimately drove him to destitution:
https://afpstore.americanfreepress.net/product/final-judgment-special-double-offer/
prusmc says: • Website
It was a great tragedy that JFK was struck down 13 months before the ending of his first term. Not because he was so good for the country but that Johnson was so bad.
No doubt he would have been returned by the electorate for a second term. However, if some of the scandels had been leaked the margin would be narrow and the landslide in Congress wouldn't occur. Therefore, the most punishing of Johnson's damaging legislation would have died in committee and never become part of the US Code.
Another question: what are the names of the others cited by E.Howard Hunt in his questionable death bed confessions?
Jeff Stryker says:
It matters because 1963 was the year that the sixties sort of began. The hippies, Vietnam, black militancy, entrenched underclasses on welfare, out-of-wedlock births, corrupt and lying politicians etc.
The reason people obsess with the Kennedy Assassination is that society was suddenly blighted.
Wizard of Oz says:
Your last quote from the historycommons website sounds quite plausible but what reason is there to believe that isn't totally made up: essentially a work of fiction?
• Replies: @DCThrowback
Center for Study of the Obvious says:
The 'bad-apples' disinformation relies on the idea that compartmentation and plausible deniability are incompatible with strict hierarchy. CIA lets a thousand flowers bloom when it makes a directive, but its assets are always strictly controlled with inducements, coercion, and compromise. The multiple JFK plots show CIA's telltale M.O. for important programs, not hordes of sneaky bad apples.
All the mafia-did-it disinformation relies on a sharp distinction between CIA and organized crime. Anywhere CIA is, they farm crime for agents and cutouts. Robert Kennedy Jr. makes this point in his book American Values (and that is why it sank without a ripple.)
And of course Johnson had foreknowledge. He was at Clint Murchison's party, in the little closed-door conclave where CIA green-lighted the coup. So was Rockefeller henchman John McCloy. CIA arranged to implicate lots of influential people.
The key point here is CIA impunity. CIA did it because CIA can get away with it. That makes Johnson a figurehead, not a potential threat.
Here's what we all have to face. All of us grew up under an autocratic CIA regime that hires and fires presidents, legislators, and judges. Kills them, too. They still kill or torture anyone they want. Ask Gina.
Anonymous [AKA "It was Kwame Nkrumah. He knew."] says:
Now we're going to get a thousand CIA bots doing minor variants of this,
https://digwithin.net/2018/06/24/disruption/
CIA did it. Give it up, Gina, we know.
• Agree: ians
Heymrguda says:
I too have read Stone's book and, while he did not in any way "prove" that LBJ had JFK shot, he certainly laid out a plausible case for his involvement. Any one who has read Caro's series of books on LBJ will come away with the realization that he (Johnson) was capable of having him assassinated as well as having the means and the motivation. The man had no principles or scruples whatsoever.
I can't comment on any Israeli involvement, but praise for Ron Unz for adding his voice to those who believe LBJ almost had to have played a role in that event. Like others here, I was not a JFK fan either. But johnson's elevation to the presidency was an unparalleled disaster for the USA.
TonyVodvarka says:
The late Col. Fletcher Prouty was assigned to the Pentagon in charge of Air Force support of CIA operations in the years leading up to the assassination. His boss there was Gen. Edward Lansdale, nominally Air Force but actually undercover CIA, father of Special Forces and the engineer of the coup in the Philippines in the mid-fifties. Those familiar with the JFK treachery will recall the clear press photos of "the three tramps", men arrested in the railroad yard behind the grassy knoll, who were led away and never seen again. Two of those men were Howard Hunt (CIA) and Charles Harrelson (Texas mafia assassin). One of these photos shows a suited man passing by casually, seeming to reassure the three men. Col. Prouty, who worked closely with Lansdale for years, positively identified him and this was affirmed by Gen. "Brute" Krulak, who was at the time commander of MAAG in South Vietnam. The distinctive shape of his head and his West Point ring are clearly visible. Go to the website dedicated to Col. Prouty's works at http://www.prouty.org for this and much else directly from the horse's mouth. By the way, toward the end of the nineties, the only fingerprint on the sixth floor of the book depository that was not identified after the assassination was matched to Malcolm Wallace, Lindon Johnson's hitman, reportedly executing at least three murders for him.
Dillon Sweeny says:
Bardon, as usual, has summed the issues succinctly and accurately. Down the rabbit-hole of irrelevant and unnecessary history goes the JFK assassination conspiracy — again.
I am mildly curious as to how much of a workout Cloudflare will get. It's evening in Tel Aviv … the Unz DDOS brigade seems apathetic. Johnson, huh? Okay, back to crushing Iran and plans for the Palestinian Trail of Tears.
Viewing the Zapruder film carefully, one can see that, during the six seconds of shooting, the limousine's brake lights are on and it almost comes to a halt. The chauffeur is looking back all this time and does not speed off until he sees JFK's head explode. There is a film clip that shows that, as the cortege begins to leave Love Field, the SS agents that attempted to ride in the normal protective position on the back bumper were called away by the chief of the detail. The two men protested strongly but were ordered back to a car. There were no motorcycle outriders, a standard security procedure. The 1112th Military Intelligence group, which normally would have secured the parade route was ordered to stand down and there was no additional security to replace them. Make of it what you will.
@jilles dykstra
"phoney Hess?" Are you saying that someone who wasn't Hess aĺlowed himself to be locked up for decades?
And why would a 93 year old who hadn't spilled any beans suddenly become a risk? Anything he said could have been dismissed as the product of dementia?
, @jilles dykstra
CanSpeccy says: • Website
the passage of a half-century and the deaths, natural or otherwise, of nearly all the contemporary witnesses drastically reduces any hope of coming to a firm conclusion. At best, we can evaluate possibilities and plausibilities rather than high likelihoods let alone near certainties. And given the total absence of any hard evidence, our exploration of the origins of the assassination must necessarily rely upon cautious speculation.
What pathetic bollocks. You should write for CNN.
If the doctors attending on Kennedy at the Parklands Hospital, men experienced with gunshot wounds, all agreed, as they did, that Kennedy was killed by a bullet to the front of his head, then he was not killed by bullets from the Texas School Book Depository window where Oswald is alleged to have been. Therefore, the Warren Commission Report is based on lies. In particular, a phony autopsy report and a rewriting of the autopsy report findings by none other than President-to-be, Gerald Ford. That's not a matter of plausibilities or possibilities, liklihoods or non-certainties. It's as hard evidence as you ever likely to get in a court of law.
But Israel didn't do it! LOL. Who said Israel did do it? Only some of the nutters that comment freely here.
What would be interesting, if anyone would take the trouble to do it, is to delve more deeply into the political connections of the people in the CIA who organized the crime. If LBJ was the greatest beneficiary, it is nevertheless likely that there were Republicans on side with the killing, otherwise the CIA would surely not have acted. That E. Howard Hunt, Mexico City CIA station chief at the time of the assassination appears to have been connected with the event through (a) Oswald's visit to the Mexico City CIA office, and (b) Hunt's alleged presence in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination, suggests that Hunt's role in the Watergate burglary was to see what information the Democratic Party may have had relating to the assassination that could have been used to damage Richard Nixon in his run for re-election.
exiled off mainstreet says:
All of this seems pretty interesting and completes my suppositions as to what happened to JFK and RFK and who was responsible and, perhaps even more importantly, who benefited "cui bono" a usual criterion in determined who instigated a murder.
Tony in 46
Tell us : who is the MAN in the suit with a West Point ring that was identified by both Prouty and Gen Krulak?
Births last exceeded deaths in the Federal Republic in 1971. That may be in the process of changing, but it won't be actual racial Germans doing the procreating.
SunBakedSuburb says:
" … Johnson may indeed have been a passive supporter or even an accomplice."
Lyndon Johnson's long-standing friendship/strategic partnership with J. Edgar Hoover points to the "passive supporter" role. Act of Treason (1991), by Mark North, documents Hoover's knowledge of, but not active participation in, the JFK hit. Hoover's job was to provide bureaucratic support of the coup d'état and to ease his friend Lyndon into the White House.
The prime mover in the assassination was the Allen Dulles cabal at CIA: The presence of Lee Harvey Oswald speaks of James Angleton's involvement. But the details of the network that took the operational role still seems to be in question. There was that group of U.S. intelligence officers and Mafia figures that began during the second world war. And now the new research that suggests an Israeli role on one hand, and Fourth Reich elements on the other. (Fourth Reich elements being the Otto Skorzeny network known as Die Spinne or Odessa that had ties with MacArthur's WW2 intelligence chief Charles Willoughby.)
So the mystery continues. But however the network that assumed the operational role in the JFK hit was configured, Allen Dulles was the godfather.
Anonymous[336] • Disclaimer says:
Jackie Kennedy thought Johnson was behind it. I believe Bobby Kennedy did too.
https://www.irishcentral.com/news/jackie-kennedy-lyndon-b-johnson-jfk-murder
jdf says:
Nice summary of the salient points of the assassinations. A couple of things that did not get mentioned:
The "wink" as LBJ was being sworn in. It clinches it.
Marion Brown's statement that LBJ, her lover, told her well in advance that JFK was going to be killed.
Peter Dale Scott stated: The door to the assassination is through Jack Ruby.
Ruby's phone calls were looked at by the FBI and Justice Dept., and catalogued. Almost all were to Jewish mafia figures–not Italians. When the House Assassinations Committee asked for these transcripts, they were told they no longer existed! But old copies were eventually found. Someone in DOJ tried to scrub them from the records.
One of the best books on the assassination IMHO is Gaeton Fonzi's "The Last Investigation."
Piper's book is essential reading, but he focuses only on Israel and the Jewish connections. Because of its lack of "balance", it should not be read as a stand-alone treatise on the JFK assassination.
Among my top ten books are–admittedly a list long out of date:
On the Trail of the Assassins
The Last Investigation
Deep Politics and the Death of JFK
JFK and the Unspeakable
Final Judgment (with above reservations)
Probably more important would be a list of books absolutely NOT to be read–among them Gerald Posner's "Case Closed."
As a general rule, you can consider ANYONE arguing that Unz is full of s$#t and Oswald did it as a crazed lone assassin, is a paid TROLL. The assassinations are grounded in solid research that has been going on since the 1970s, when I attended a four-hour lecture by David Lifton at SUNY Stony Brook–an event that literally toppled my world. It has never recovered.
• Replies: @jdf
, @Tono Bungay
Hollywood mark says:
Oh I get it now. Mr. Unz is attempting to get the massive amount of JFK conspiracy buffs to look at his anti-Semetic tracks by giving them, in Part One, his long overdue acceptance of JFK conspiracy analysis. Woo- hoo. Who needs his stamp of approval? But now I realize, his "approval" is designed to lead his readers down his Jew hatred road to a modern Protocols of the Elders of Zion explanation of not only the JFK killing but most modern day world events. Nice try jew hater.
• Replies: @Dillon Sweeny
, @Thorfinnsson
, @Ivan
Jinks says:
You might want to find a copy of Dr. Mary's Monkey. I think it is a really good read about a side story to the JFK assassination about the goings on in New Orleans and the CIA.
@TonyVodvarka
Watch the film. You can casually count off five or six seconds just between the second and third shots (the neck wound and the head wound). The first shot (assuming you agree with most witnesses that there were three heard at least) happened some time before, missed and is not seen in this film.
For years people have been making a simple, common mistake and thinking there were only six seconds for all three shots, when in fact approximately six seconds passed between the last two shots. This simple thought error has been the basis of a lot of claims that the shooter didn't have time for three good shots. He missed, then hit the neck, and six seconds later hit the head while the car was nearly motionless.
As to the driver slowing down. Think. He is looking back because his passengers are screaming. He hits the brakes and tries to find out what is happening. There is no reason to think he stopped so somebody could shoot.
Again, watch the stabilized, panoramic film. Then, if you need to, go to Dallas and see how small Dealy Plaza really is and how easy it would have been to make those shots from that window.
As I say about 9/11: You don't need to construct some Rube Goldberg series of actions and a magic team to have a conspiracy. There can be a conspiracy even if you agree with Occam and take the simplest route.
• Replies: @ians
It matters only because the truth always matters, and until it is satisfied it will always be a pebble in the shoe. The past is only past because it has happened, but in its own strange way its always with us. Events that occurred 200 years ago affect today, as well as those events from 500 years ago. And sometimes things need to be covered up for very good reasons.
As for our "kulcher", I personally believe it's just part of a nations life cycle. None of us age younger, neither does a nation, it can also die.
David In TN says:
@JamesG
I remember her. She was resentful toward society, a trait her son fully imbibed and inherited. When Ruby killed Oswald, his mother demanded he be buried in Arlington National Cemetery.
In reference to my previous comment about Piper being from Mifflintown, I should also like to point out for Mr. Unz's benefit that drinking too much alcohol, while certainly connected to poverty, is as much a PA Yinzer tradition as it is a poverty problem. If some of these folks were rich, they'd still drink too much. That's the vibe I get whenever I watch videos with Piper. LOL.
@jdf
Sorry for the error: Make that LBJ's mistress Madeline Brown, NOT Marion!
If not for the possible Israeli connection, the truth might have come out by now?
Anything to protect the Jewish Power?
As with USS Liberty.
JoeK says: • Website
Both Parts I and II are excellent. Intuitively, I can agree with your conclusions. A minor point: Margaret is the first name of Harry Truman's daughter.
@Hollywood mark
Oh I get it now. Mr. Unz is attempting to get the massive amount of JFK conspiracy buffs to look at his anti-Semetic tracks by giving them
Unreal! It never fails to amaze me how the most vituperative of Israel-lovers just cannot fucking spell "antisemitic". The single most important factor in their tiny little lives, but they just won't learn how to spell it.
Ron Unz says:
You mention here that you think our alternative media have been dishonest in analyzing LBJ's likely role in the assassination. Why? Was it because the media feared LBJ might have them killed?
I very much doubt that. Johnson died at the beginning of 1973, a very widely despised and hated figure, and surely few people feared any retaliation much after that, let alone Talbot and Douglass writing forty years later.
I suspect there were several factors, mostly the ones I outlined in my discussion.
First, most JFK researchers were strong liberals or otherwise admired "Camelot," and it surely would have been very difficult for them to psychologically accept that most of JFK's top people were perfectly willing to continue working for LBJ, if the latter had murdered the former.
Also, "LBJ Killed JFK" might sound like such a ultra "crazy conspiracy theory" to publishers and editors who overwhelmingly may still believe that a "lone gunman" killed JFK. So writers who considered making such a claim might fear having their careers totally ruined. I think fear of humiliation, reputation-loss, and the resulting financial damage is a far greater factor than fear of physical harm.
Here's another factor. Having a vice president come to power by assassinating his predecessor is the sort of thing that just doesn't happen in developed First World countries. Offhand, I can't think of even a single case in any major country over the last couple of hundred years. It would probably be pretty embarrassing for even a Third World banana-republic. What respectable American historian would want to admit that the politics of our own country at the height of its international prestige during the early 1960s may have actually made Guatemala look like a shining example of orderly, constitutional government?…
• Replies: @Carlton Meyer
, @David In TN
Ron Unz is Jewish and grew up in a Yiddish speaking home.
Nice try Jewish fanatic.
@jinks
"Culture" is not a subset of "nation". The American culture has changed — all culture changes in accordance with external influences. America, as a nation founded under a set of Enlightenment principles, has ended. There remains a huge morass/aggregation of conflicting cultures, overseen and manipulated by a horrificly corrupt government.
@Ivan
Why the neocons called him a wimp?
In 1990 George H.W. Bush was very reluctant to go against Saddam Hussain. He seemed to really believe in the so called "peace dividends", base closings and scaling military down. And then Saddam Hussain with possible approval April Glaspie fucked it all up for him and us. It was Margaret Thatcher that twisted his arms to go against Saddam Hussein. Then when in the Dessert Storm he did not let escalate the plan and stopped the troops form going all the way into Iraq. The neocons did not like him.
Why we can call him a wimp?
In 1991 he decided to confront Israel but then backed off instead of escalating and letting the American people know that he needed their support against The Lobby and the sold out Congress.
@Heros
Good point about JP exercise of power in Iceland. Circumcision is more important to them than they let us believe.
Abe says: • Website
Very nice. Just one thing, though- anyone who was an adult during the Cold War understands the immense importance of propaganda and 'optics' as they say now. In 1981 the French Communist Party won 15% of the Presidential vote. Together with the Socilaist Party that was a combined 40%.
Much of what constituted American' political theater' in the Cold War era consisted of 'double bank-shot' efforts to convince a somewhat cold and borderline hostile European public to support the trans-Atlantic alliance and the American system which underlay it, a difficult proposition given that European leftists were ideologically opposed to America's capitalist system, while seemingly natural-ally European rightists were often repulsed by the gauche nature of American culture, critical of unrestrained 'Anglo-Saxon' capitalism, plus resentful of American pop-cultural 'imperialism' as well.
In such a climate the cultivation of a positive American image abroad was a primary concern of the Deep State, and given what immeasurable harm the exposure of a CIA coup would have done to America's standing as 'leader of the free world' I cannot imagine the plot was CIA-hatched or led. CIA connivance and behind-the-scenes assistance raises very interesting possibilities, though.
I recently learned of another smoking gun. After JFKs Limo arrived at Parkland hospital, many people looked it over and took photos. There was a bullet hole through the front windshield. It entered from the front, yet was never discussed afterwards by anyone. The Limo was hauled away to Washington within hours and secretly repaired. There are lots of links about this, such as:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/06/douglas-p-horne/photographic-evidence-of-bullet-hole-in-jfk-limousine-windshield-hiding-in-plain-sight/
• Replies: @tac
Si1ver1ock says:
Something to consider is that these people in the intelligence agencies are supposed to protect America, but they can't even spot an assassination when it occurs right under their noses with a pile of evidence stacked to the ceiling. The majority of Americans can see it, but not the people tasked with "keeping us safe." WTF?
In the RFK assassination we have video and photos of CIA assassins in the hotel when it occurs, but they can't see that either.
We have endless crime shows on TV with forensic experts tracking killers, but our real law enforcement officials can't see anything wrong with the way WTC building 7 implodes.
We are talking about treason and it is ongoing, not simply in the past. Trump delayed release of the Kennedy files yet again.
Who killed RFK?
does it matter who & why killed JFK, anymore?
If a lonely nut killed JFK it does not matter. If Israel and Jewish Power killed JFK it matters very much. If by a magic wand I could make people believe that Israel and Jewish Power were behind JFK assassination it would be much easier to stop and undo all those things that you have listed:
the dominance of New Left world-view (loony fake anti-Fascism, hostility towards working class, free sex & promiscuity, homosex popularization, obsession with drugs, radical feminism, hatred toward historical Western culture, moral relativism, hatred for Christianity, anti-male animus, Negrolatry, anti-rationalism & dumbing down of entire generations, ..
• Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
ians says:
'hit the neck'. There you go, bs on stilts, proving instantly you know damn all. The bullet hit in the back, several vertebrae down from the neck. The holes can be seen in the jacket and shirt. This bullet did not penetrate more than a couple of inches, as established at autopsy. Therefore, it could not have traversed the body and gone on its magical mystery tour, grievously wounding Connally, yet remaining virtually pristine. Ford, as he admitted, moved the notation of the location in the back upwards to the neck in the Report in an unsustainable attempt to make the Magic Bullet bs believable for cretins who hadn't the wit nor the inclination to do any digging. The earth is not flat, there was no lone nut.
No, it will be done by all those conspiracy teorists who will argue minor points about bullets, gunmen, second Oswalds, missing brains, Zapruder films and so on ad nausea. And most of them will be doing it in good faith not realizing they are useful idiots for CIA etc. Idiots usually do not realize.
The technical discussion of JFK assassination should be banned from this thread. If you want to talk about technical issues go to the Part I of Ron Unz's article.
• Agree: Buzz Mohawk, renfro
, @ians
donald j. tingle says:
You ask cui bono for an assassination of a US president in a cold war with the Soviets and their leftist puppets and don't come with the answer "the Soviets and their leftist puppets"?
Tono Bungay says:
Anyone who can write that a "wink" "clinches it" without joking is beyond help.
Eighthman says:
A remote viewer psychic came up with an interesting notion as to why JFK was murdered. The power brokers believed he was reckless and a danger to the whole world.
It's a miracle that the Cuban missile crisis didn't end the world. USSR sub commanders had immediate authority to use nuclear weapons if attacked – and they were depth charged.
It may have been the icing on the cake.
Which is why I wrote:
As I say about 9/11: You don't need to construct some Rube Goldberg series of actions and a magic team to have a conspiracy. There can be a conspiracy even if you agree with Occam and take the simplest physical route.
Please forgive me if anything I posted on this thread lead in the technical direction and away from the theme of Part II.
My very point was to show how the physical event can be seen very simply and set aside so as not to interfere with a clear-headed examination of the people and powers that may have been involved.
As I am in agreement with your comment, I will not further reply to anyone arguing bullets, wounds, shooters, etc.
If Israel and Jewish Power killed JFK it matters very much. If by a magic wand I could make people believe that Israel and Jewish Power were behind JFK assassination it would be much easier to stop and undo all those things that you have listed:
This is simply wrong. Basically, it's the Joo (or any other) conspiracy, according to this world-view.
The crucial mistake virtually all conspiracy- theories minded people make is that they try to pin-point a clearly defined group (mostly religious, ethnic, racial,..) as the source of major socio-cultural changes, and frequently it's Jews (sometimes masons or something similar).
And this is a major misfire, because no such group exists. There is no causal connection between any ethnicity/race/… & great upheavals in the West (and in the US) in past 3-4 decades, especially re immigration debates, influx of culturally & racially foreign and inimical masses, disintegration of family & denigration of national loyalties etc. To think that a group (or groups), which is relatively easy to identify, can be the source of such monumental upheavals bespeaks of historical illiteracy.
There was no ethnic nor ideological group of people behind such shattering revolutions & world-view changes like transition from Roman republic to Imperial Rome, Protestant Reformation, Crusades, formation of national monarchies, Enlightenment, collapse of "divine rights" of kings, imperialist expansion of European powers, national awakening in the 19th C, WW1 and WW2,… Not Jews, not masons, not Illuminati, not Rosicrucians, not some occult brotherhood residing in the Himalayas.
Simply, Western civilization has come to a dead end -as it was the continuity of the 18th C Enlightenment- and we are witnessing the processes of further decay, encapsulated in famous hypothetical question ascribed to Lenin: " Are the forces which propel us to greatness the same that will, transformed by mutations of History, eventually lead to our collapse ?"
A man who, despite his shortcomings & delusions about the role of technology, various national cultures and their dominant currents, understood this better than most was Oswald Spengler. The Western civilizational matrix is old and tired. And this is the root of the Western decline. That what plagues the West & the US the most (race replacement, PC "liberal" ideological muzzle, hedonist emptiness & biological collapse manifested in infertility, pathological altruism, lunatic ideological fashions like n-th wave of feminism, media aggression promoting "diversity" & homosexualism- as different from homosexuality, self-hatred of European & Western culture….)-this is as present, although a bit modified, in Italy, Spain, Denmark, Norway, France, Germany, Switzerland,.. as in the US. And in these countries Jewish presence in the media & the overall life is negligible or non-existent.
Although ruling elites differ in these countries, they are a mixture of hereditary aristocracy, established bourgeois families & plutocratic oligarchs. These groups have, historically, served their countries. Now, they are morally & culturally bankrupt and serve outmoded gods whose future is annihilation- similar situation that had befallen pompous & deluded aristocrats in the 18th-19th C or imperialist jingoists in the 20th.
The failure of nerve that comes with exhausted & geriatric social-cultural matrix is to blame, not some group conspiracy.
But, the societal-cultural matrix is exhausted, not the people. Our flaw is linear extrapolation of current events which leads to paralyzing pessimist fatalism. We should know from history this is a fatal mistake. Just compare Europe in 1930 (cars, planes, fascism, communism, cubism, quantum mechanics, relativity, psychoanalysis, radio, tanks, films, ..) and during 1900 (technologically, scientifically, ideologically and artistically more or less the same as 1880).
So, we should not give up hope, and some of us who are obsessed with Jews, should give up this tired old chestnut. If all of US Jewish ethno-nationalists were booted to Israel, life would be somewhat easier for Euro-Americans in some respects, but not essentially different. Blacks would remain blacks, PC muzzle would remain PC muzzle, dopeheads would remain dopeheads, Pentagon would remain Pentagon, …
• Replies: @peterAUS
, @HallParvey
Meeting place/honeypot (70/30).
The former:obvious.
The later: collection->analysis. Mostly as exercise and just as a slight precaution.
Zionist conspiracy theorist's look at Piper's Final Judgment. Barry Chamish is the one who worked on Rabin's assassination and his conspiracy theory got some traction. He notes that JFK Jr. was publishing and working and Rabn's assassination before being killed in the plane accident near Martha's Vineyard. Anyway, it is worth reading:
http://www.rense.com/politics5/zionist.htm
"Oswald's handler was on the board of a Geneva-based trade promotion company called Permindex, which I accept was a Mossad front for covert operations."
"Kennedy infuriated Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion by demanding an end to Israel's nuclear program. "
"The CIA was involved because its top gun James Angleton was an Israeli agent. His duty was to prepare the patsy and plant "false flags" in the Cuban exile community."
"The real killers were OAS-employed Corsican hitmen, or at least one was for certain, and they were recruited by the Mossad's European chief assassin, Yitzhak Shamir."
"I would dismiss the whole thing as a fantastic yarn, except four years ago I began researching the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, and I independently discovered too many facts in common with Piper's. The most uncanny is that I also conclude that French intelligence provided the operational guidance behind Rabin's murder."
"All in all, Piper doesn't sound like an anti-semite and I can spot one. I believe he is a sincere truthseeker."
"Piper mentions the well-known fact that Jack Ruby met with "Israeli journalists" at the Dallas police station the night before he finished off Oswald. Possibly enforcing Piper's claims, many of my correspondents have pointed out to me that in Leah Rabin's biography, she notes that her husband Yitzhak was in Dallas on November 22, 1963. And Rabin, himself, admitted that he was in Cambodia the next year inspecting an Israeli "experimental farm." Yes, Rabin could have been one of the "journalists" and yes, the farm could have been growing poppies."
• Replies: @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
, @Sean
, @phil
I remember at the time that Bush failed to sufficiently goose the economy. By the time it became obvious, it was too late. Does anyone else remember the tax rebate checks mailed in 1992?
They went out in early 1992 and kicked in the Fall, to late for the election, but Clinton got full credit for an improving economy. Any wonder why the Fed didn't pitch in?
@Ron Unz
What about the Nixon coup? First they got rid of his VP and installed Warren Commission stooge Gerald Ford. Then they framed Nixon for BS and pressured him to resign. Nixon knew what happened to JFK who resisted.
Read about the thugs who arrived to stop the Florida vote recount so that Bush II could take over, along with the Supreme Court intervetion to stop democracy. Gore went along because of threats to his family.
Both very third-worldy to me.
• Replies: @redmudhooch
I gotta go with the dog that didn't bark. The only actor that could suppress any mention in print is the prime candidate. But if they could do it, did they need to do it?
Dagon Shield says: • Website
First, you assassinate the man and than have his widow sack up with one of the Tribe and to add icing on the cake, have his beloved daughter also marry one to let the world know who is the real boss!
And who better than Israel to get in the political assassination business… you need a white Jew to do a Swede in, no problem! You wanna knock off a Gandhi… no problem! Just get one of Kochin ones or a Idi Amin… get a falasha. How about a Mao or En Lai if they act against the Tribe? Get a Kaifeng convert ready. How about a Sadat? Well! There are Arab looking ones dime a dozen. You can't escape the machine…
Alden says:
Blood Money & Power by Barr McClennan
Murder From Within by Fred Newcomb
Both books claim Johnson killed Kennedy.
McClennan is the son of one of Johnson's attorneys
I read them both along with Piper's book.
They make a lot more sense that the right wing atmosphere of hate Dallas PD including officer Tippett another of Oswald's Victims and president bush & cia fbi secret service army navy Air Force departments of agriculture and every other government department and of course the man directing the military ambush by 15 shooters, umbrella man.
Have fun with your myths legends and fairy tales, naive credulous gullible idiots.
This is simply wrong.
If all of US Jewish ethno-nationalists were booted to Israel, life would be somewhat easier for Euro-Americans in some respects, but not essentially different.
Brave statements here.
If you find time while surviving the coming onslaught, I meant re-education/informing, well, what's the solution to the:
Simply, Western civilization has come to a dead end….
But, the societal-cultural matrix is exhausted, not the people.
Nixon knew what happened to JFK who resisted.
The Warren Commission Report was a cover up. The evidence for that is clear for the reasons I have stated here.
And if the Warren Commission Report was a cover up, what had they to cover up? Government complicity in the assassination of JFK, obviously. So who, in particular, was involved. Well obviously that branch of government that does assassinations, the CIA. But that does not mean that the CIA went rogue.
The CIA serves the powers that be, so whatever the antagonism of some individuals within the Agency, the CIA would not have acted on the assassination of JFK without bipartisan political support.
LBJ, the obvious beneficiary, had every reason to give the CIA the nod, but someone on the other side of the aisle had to be complicit too. Who?
Well Nixon had been the Republican Presidential candidate in the previous election, so he was the effective head of the party and thus the man to go to.
As I argue here, Nixon's guilty knowledge of the assassination may have been the real cause of his downfall. Nixon's Vice President, Gerald R. Ford had been appointed to the Warren Commission by LBJ and it was he who made a critical falsification of that report, therby casting responsibility for the killing on Lee Harvey Oswald.
It is likely, therefore, that Ford had the goods on Nixon and blackmailed him into resignation over the Watergate inquiry.
What exactly did the editor of Atlanta Jewish Time who called for Obama assassination say? I could not find the original but here is the quote in The Atlantic
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/what-earth-would-prompt-newspaper-editor-call-obamas-assassination/332854/
Three, give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States' policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies.
Yes, you read "three" correctly. Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel's existence. Think about it. If I have thought of this Tom Clancy-type scenario, don't you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel's most inner circles?
Where from did Mr. Andrew Adler, who was forced to resign later, get the idea of killing a president so he would be replaced with Israel friendly VP? Did Mr. Adler study JFK assassination and LBJ policy with respect to Israel? Or is it a common knowledge and common Jewish modus operandi: kill whoever does not like Israel? Do Jews think and talk about assassinating of American presidents who are unfriendly to Israel? Do Jews believe that the Deep Sate in Israel considers assassinations and act on it when necessary?
• Replies: @Anon
, @redmudhooch
Buzz, don't let U2 buffalo you. He is invariably full of his personalized bullshit. If you wish to raise issues relating to physical evidence, please do.
I've noticed that some of the "autopsy" photographs abounding on the Internet seem to have morphed into gory displays of brain tissue, literally piled up at the back of the skull. Easily double the amount of brain matter actually present in the shallowly-transected segment of the skull traversed by the bullet. This is odd, because the photos initially released showed the impact hole on the right, rear side as being small, and concealed by hair. I haven't looked for those first releases recently, but I do wonder how that came about?
Much like the Bldg 7 photographs, I suspect. In 2018, any video or still photograph you might desire is easily created, while retaining the "irrefutable identifiers" called out by "experts",
The information about the Liberty sending signals in intervals between jamming was in the book Attack on the USS Liberty.
Bragadocious says:
This is all very interesting, but I'm surprised no one ever brings up Puerto Rican nationalists. They were the #1 domestic terror threat in 1963. They were highly pissed at JFK for reneging on his anti-colonial rhetoric and continued use of Vieques Island for ordnance testing.
It's not like Puerto Ricans were newcomers to the assassination game. They tried to get Truman in 1950 and much of Congress in 1954. And many had served in the armed forces, meaning they were good shots.
nickels says:
Been_there_done_that says:
While we're on the topic of nefarious conspiracies to kill a U.S. President for the sake of promulgating various policy objectives that were not being pursued theretofore, I was curious how many readers of this thread have considered the following "Plan-A" objective embedded inside the larger 9/11 operation, for which planning obviously began more than a year before finally being executed. For instance, do people really believe it was just a coincidence that the film Pearl Harbor, over three hours long, just happened to be the blockbuster hit at the theaters earlier that summer, conveniently entrenching the often recited "New Pearl Harbor" meme into the minds of millions?
Since a common expectation during the time of the earlier planning stages of the operation was that Al Gore would be the new President, beginning in 2001, getting rid of him in the context of dynamiting the three World Trade towers in Manhattan could have subsequently been presented in the media almost as incidental, within the scope of thousands killed, though nonetheless highly unfortunate and grave. Joe Lieberman, an orthodox Jew, would then have succeeded Gore and would subsequently have surely pursued military wars on behalf of Israel far more vigorously, among other things.
Perhaps Gore should consider himself lucky that he lost the 2000 election. Instead, on that fateful day we got to see the following scenario, during which the Secret Service exposed that they somehow knew that George W. Bush was not a target of the big attack operation, as it was still unfolding; otherwise, had it been a surprise to them, they would have immediately taken him away, out of the classroom to an undisclosed location.
Bush & Kids – Six Minute Video Without Narration
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTDixBG5qF4
Lest somebody think the choice of the children's book (The Pet Goat, 1995) being recited in a well rehearsed cadence that morning was purely coincidental, take note that while attending Yale as an undergraduate, Bush, like a few previous American presidents, was a member of the Delta Kappa Epsilon (ΔKE) fraternity, for which a controversial initiation rite is to sexually copulate with a goat, a theme even alluded to as a double entendre in at least two of the published fraternity songs, and a practice that has repeatedly gotten this fraternity into trouble over the years. Since Bush himself was likely "out of the loop" about what was happening, event planners may have wanted to subtly remind him that, if he didn't play along with The Script, their cohorts in the media could easily make a very big issue of him having drunkenly played out the role of the Greek God Pan in his youthful college years, as shown in a famous sculpture at the archaeological museum in Naples.
It wouldn't be a bad idea if the term coincidence theorist were to become more widely used.
While commenting at the Part I I had similar thoughts concerning the 9/11 as you. The preponderance of mutually contradictory technical theories of JFK assassination completely detracted anybody from looking at the qui bono which inevitably would lead to Israel. It occurred to me that 9/11 may share a similar fate. This thought was very depressing. Relatively recently we have learned about the term of the 'cognitive infiltration' from Cass Sustain. It seems clear to me that exactly this cognitive infiltrations were successfully carried out in the case of JFK truthers.
LBJ had a crew of Texas Oil magnates and John Birch Society types in place and ready to help. They even posted a 'Wanted for Treason' poster the day Kennedy arrived:
If this is to be believed, the Birch society was in bed with the Zio crew, which might be believable, because the crusade against Russia was mostly utilizing the bitterness of the Trotskyites against Stalin's siezure of the Russian state, and thus a natural alliance between the Zio and Birch groups:
http://www.dcdave.com/article4/050308.htm
Details on the Hunt crew:
https://stevenhager420.wordpress.com/2013/11/27/h-l-hunt-is-a-key-to-the-jfk-assassination/
And, of course, LBJ was an admitted murder, and of Catholics:
• Replies: @prusmc
Did you read Lifton's book? He claimed that sometime between landing in Washington and the arrival of the corpse in the autopsy room; the conspirators has a Dr standing by.
The Dr dug big holes in the wounds. The Drs who did the autopsy were fooled by the wounds dug in a corpse that had been dead several hours.
Apparently the navy Drs who did the autopsy didn't realize that bodies don't bleed after death.
If all the JFK killing books I've read, Leftin's is the most ludicrous and unlikely.
And like so many idiots, he seems to think endless speculation about the wounds would prove who did the killing and why.
Start an investigation by asking who benefits. Insurance & arson investigators are experts at this. Police detectives start with an open mind.
Insurance investigators start out assuming that the beneficiary set the fire, committed the burglary car theft himself or killed the insured business partner or spouse.
As I see it, none of the authors of the books I read are investigators or even bothered to learn a bit about investigations before they decided that CIA FBI Dallas PD secret service did it.
Rib was right that almost all the books were written by leftist liberals seeking to prove that the lefts bete noir, law enforcement was responsible.
Remember that by the time Rush to Judgemetn and other leftist propaganda was written the blacks were rioting. , The Jewish left led the black rioters. The Jewish press defended the black rioters and castigated and blamed the the police.
It was no different from the recent Ferguson Mo riots after the vicious thug Michael Brown was shot as he attacked a police officer.
The left has always hated the police because the police are the only defense against the criminal blacks who target Whites.
The left has been attacking the police since the 1920s. That's why the left myth makers attacked Dallas PD. That's why the left will
always attack the police who control the criminal underclass tools of the left.
Anonymous [AKA "john parker"] says:
Nobody in this comment section (or the article itself) mentioned anything about the ARRB so this is not a well informed audience or author.
The key to unraveling this mystery was the ARRBs ability to nullify the military s non-disclosure statements that all autopsy participants were forced to sign. Once that was accomplished Robinson and Reed were able to talk about the illegal PRE-AUTOPSY surgery that they saw Humes performing on the president to remove trajectory evidence.
"Inside the ARRB" by Doug Horne (five volumes). Horne was a member of the ARRB. Read the book(s) and you will know what happened.
Remember these names. Robinson and Reed. If we had an honest MSM they would be among the most famous names in America.
Every time I see that Zapruder film I am reminded by the Kinks song "Give the people what they want":
When Oswald shot Kennedy, he was insane
Yet still we watch the re-runs again and again
We all sit glued while killer takes aim…….
Hey Mom there go the pieces of the Presidents Brain
Both Kennedy assassinations were also a massive psyop, and they remain so today. All the talk shows, all the movies, all the images flashing on screen, all the background music. But the scandal, is always used to push the sexualize and destroy the family agenda. Kennedy publicly had so many lovers, including Maralyn Monroe, another psyop herself.
It is the same with Clinton's famous cigar. This obsession with perverse sex is a very strong indicator of where the scandal is emanating. All the dogs not barking that point to this place are evidence too.
I agree with you completely. Great minds think alike.
I was in my late teens when it happened and virtually every magazine and newspaper article and book written for the next 30 years was written from a left liberal propaganda point of view.
Much of it was the shock that the only suspect was a left liberal who had defected to the left heaven, Soviet Russia.
2 days later a man with an obvious Jewish name shot the only suspect. And this Jew was not a poor but honest small businessman, attorney crusading for social justice or refugee from anti Semitic Poland.
He was a pimp and sleazy strip club operator.
The left spent 30 years spouting ever more fantastic theories.
Rurik says:
Who Did It?
JFK wanted to rein in the Fed and their dog on a leash, the CIA
who benefited?
would the Six Day War even have been waged, (which was catastrophic to the Arab nations in the region, and hugely beneficial to Israel)?
Who had the power to drag the United States into WWI, [see Declaration, Balfour]
Who had the power to drag the United States into WWII?
Who had the power to cover up the USS Liberty event?
Who today, has the power to perpetrate a crime so monstrous as 9/11, and then cover it all up?
Personally I don't know who ultimately was responsible, but if we ask Cui Bono?
if we ask who had the means and the will to do so…
Especially when you consider JFK's threat to the Fed. The Eye of Sauron for Zionist power.
@Si1ver1ock
There is no proof that Thane Cesar or anyone else in the kitchen when RFK was shot was a CIA assassine.
You may think so, but thinking and accusing doesn't make it so.
@Tono Bungay
What about the ridiculous claim that the expressions on the faces of the police officers around Oswald when Ruby shot him prove they were co conspirators.?
Iris even claimed that officer Levealle wore a white suit so as to signal Ruby from a window in police headquarters.
MacNucc11 says:
I don't buy Johnson as the mastermind because I don't believe things were as dire as RU depicts if he is dropped from the dem ticket. Big deal, he is doing pretty darn well as a corrupt Texas politician which I would assume he would continue to be. He would still be a power broker in Texas politics with his mob and oil connections. What is obviously true is he would certainly help cover the tracks of the killers which he surely did.
James Angleton was suspected of leaking information identifying an agent the CIA had in the KGB, because Angleton had become convinced it was a KGB triple cross. DCI James Schlesinger recalled that listening to him was "like looking at an Impressionist painting". Angleton was regarded as having lost his mind by many subordinates, would anyone have obeyed an order from him to kill Kennedy?
What makes Angleton such a conundrum for the historian and biographer is that he was losing his sense of proportion and his ability to live with uncertainty right around the time, 1959–63, when it became startlingly evident — agents compromised, operations blown, spies uncovered — that something was seriously amiss with Western intelligence and more aggressive CI and security were needed.11
Ben Johnson the character actor in John Wayne films was worth over a 100 million by the end of his life. LBJ declined to run for office again, if he had anything to hide he would have tried to remain president so as to control the situation and continue to reward all the people who would presumably expect to be rewarded for clipping JFK or helping cover it up.
I really doubt that anyone, even the US vice president or director of the CIA has the authority to order anything like a political assassination of a sitting President .
How would the people at the bottom know that their order actually came from the top of the CIA or even the VP? How would they know that the person who told them was not a KGB double agent (even directors of the CIA have been suspected by colleagues of being Soviet agents) or someone working for some cluiqe) or out of their own unfathomable motive, or madness. If they obeyed such order they would know too much to be left alive, as secret agents would instantly realise. They would certainly want assurances of being protected for ever after, but how could they believe them?
If it was CIA, it was someone lower down than a head of department (like Bill Harvey) and someone in command of a tight little team trained for assassination (like Harvey's operation Mongoose teams) and someone with a personal motive, like Harvey after he was sacked for not accepting there would be no invasion to depose Castro.
• Replies: @Sean Sean Sean
@Bragadocious
Puerto Rican revolutionaries were never accused because like the blacks, PR revolutionaries were beloved by the left liberals eager to accuse the Dallas PD and the FBI.
@Alden
Beautiful. Just beautiful.
A Libertarian says:
I am extremely impressed by Ron Unz. I wish he would run for president.
• Agree: Dan Hayes
• Replies: @Haxo Angmark
On these questions, the passage of a half-century and the deaths, natural or otherwise, of nearly all the contemporary witnesses drastically reduces any hope of coming to a firm conclusion.
Perhaps. One thing that becomes more clear over time is who benefited. Look closely at those who were put into positions to enable the coverup, people like George Joannides and Richard Helms. Who was promoted?
The Israel angle is interesting, but Israel doesn't work for me. My government owes me an explanation. They have a duty to uphold the constitution. They swear an oath to see that the laws are faithfully executed. It is their duty to protect America from All Enemies Foreign and Domestic.
OT, but learnt about this:
http://www.investmentwatchblog.com/italy-bans-freemasons-from-cabinet-minister-positions/
Much better articles in italian or spanish. They basically say that's because of 'recent' events of P2 sect fraud in 1981. More sensible to think they don't want globalist with hidden loyalties infiltrating a new inexperienced government, but I don't follow italian developments closely. Any thoughts?
On the bright side, "the axis of the willing" against immigration seems to include this new Italy. https://global.handelsblatt.com/politics/axis-merkel-csu-cdu-seehofer-kurz-salvini-asylum-934938
( A geographically Hasburgian axis, almost) Globalist vs nationalist. Now those are identity groups one can identify with.
Since you broached the subject, why didn't those alleged deep-state operatives who wanted JFK out of office hit him with a sex scandal? Why make him a martyr (and risk being executed) when you can destroy JFK politically and make him a laughing stock?
• Replies: @lysias
, @MacNucc11
The fact that the President's head first moved forward would very much confirm a conspiracy.
If the agent driving the limousine applied the brakes, the head would go forward first.
Braking amounts at applying a negative acceleration to the car.
The negative acceleration does not however apply to a body inside the car, which will go forward until stopped by its own inertia. (This is a simple application of Newton's second law of motion).
So the head going forward could indicate the driver was braking to make the President an easier, slower target, which in turn would confirm a conspiracy.
, @Spud Boy
egregious philbin says:
one thing for sure from the zapruder film: jackie wasn't in on it. her crawling across the trunk – she would've worn capris pants for that & not a dress.
Another JFK's conflict with Israel. JFK was pressuring Ben Gurion to have Palestinian refugees returned to Israel.
Kennedy's insistence on right of return prompted Ben-Gurion to rewrite history: They fled 'of their own free will'
http://mondoweiss.net/2013/05/kennedys-insistence-prompted/
"after John F. Kennedy assumed office as president of the United States, calls for the return of some of the Palestinian refugees increased. Under the guidance of the new president, the U.S. State Department tried to force Israel to allow several hundred thousand refugees to return. In 1949, Israel had agreed to consider allowing about 100,000 refugees to return, in exchange for a comprehensive peace agreement with the Arab states, but by the early 1960s that was no longer on the agenda as far as Israel was concerned. Israel was willing to discuss the return of some 20,000-30,000 refugees at most."
Under increasing pressure from Kennedy and amid preparations at the United Nations General Assembly to address the Palestinian refugee issue, Ben-Gurion convened a special meeting on the subject.
Ben-Gurion went on to explain what Israel must tell the world: "…[T]his was of their own free will, because they were told the country would soon be conquered and you will return to be its lord and masters and not just return to your homes." In 1961, against the backdrop of what Ben-Gurion described as the need for "a serious operation, both in written form and in oral hasbara," the Shiloah Institute was asked to collect material for the government about "the flight of the Arabs from the Land of Israel in 1948."
lysias says:
Philip Nelson' s two books on LBJ present a lot of evidence against the man, about the JFK assassination, the attack on the Liberty, and many other matters.
@David In TN
The assassination was a public execution. The people who counted were meant to understand what had happened. The deed was meant to intimidate anyone who might have thought of imitating JFK.
Who or what was KBR?
• Replies: @Sandy Berger's Socks
One of the books I read was published in the late 1990s. All the tramps were young men who had identification. The book traced them. All went on to long term employmentwith employment and tax records. One lived with his sister. The other two had owned homes for years with property tax records to prove it. One was a city building inspector.
Of course the writer may have been lying as part of the coverup by the CIA.
• Replies: @TonyVodvarka
, @Paw
redmudhooch says:
All signs point to Israel, as usual. The USS Liberty and Lavon Affair give them away, if they're willing to attack an American ship, attempt to murder everyone on board that ship, no doubt they would kill the prez if needed. Just imagine if they had succeeded in sinking Liberty and killing everyone, we would have never known. The Zionists are well known for assassinations and false flags, they threatened Obama with assassination if he stepped out of line, all of this makes them prime suspect in 9/11 as well. Who benefited from 9/11? Certainly not Muslims. Just ask Netanyahu.
It all makes sense once you start looking at Israel/Zionists and their history of lies and murder to get their way.
Why does it still matter today? Just look at what The Lobby is doing to American politics, congress is subservient to AIPAC and the 6 million other Jewish lobbies, wonder why America is going down the drain? Had a real investigation taken place into JFK and RFK assassinations, USS Liberty would have never happened, 9/11 would have been prevented, Libya, Syria, Iraq would have been saved, the thousands of Christians slaughtered, all of the Palestinians murdered and kicked off of their land. All of the young Americans sent to die fighting the "neocons" wars. They're currently doing their best to provoke real WW3, which not many of us if any will survive. Why does it still matter?
It matters a lot! If you have children, and you want their future to be better than what we have now, not worse, cause it's gonna get a LOT worse, you better start caring, the Zionists intend to rule the world from Israel, it won't be a world worth living in. Conspiracy FACT!
DCThrowback says: • Website
@Wizard of Oz
Bush ran the CIA, secretly ran Iran-Contra, like knew about and planned an assassination attempt on Reagan in '81 and "had no plausible thoughts about foreign policy"? LOL, ok, sure
In writing my article, I'd forgotten to mention that in 1946 Zionist groups led by future Israeli prime ministers Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir had apparently planned to assassinate British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin. There's a link to a 2003 article from the Daily Telegraph:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1430766/Jewish-groups-plotted-to-kill-Bevin.html
Interestingly enough, the British government files also claim that an American Jewish activist named Rabbi Korff planned to organize some sort of aerial terrorist bombing attack against London around the same time. Korff later enjoyed a moment of considerable fame as a very high-profile supporter of President Richard Nixon shortly before his resignation during the Watergate Scandal.
• Replies: @Kiza
Unfortunately they also swear an oath to protect Israel. Sorry.
renfro says:
I had a relatively easy time securing the rights to include it in my collection of controversial HTML Books, and I have now done so, thereby allowing everyone on the Internet to conveniently read the entire text and decide for themselves, while easily checking the multitude of references or searching for particular words or phrases.
Great !—thanks, have not read this before.
Sean Sean Sean says:
"I really doubt that anyone, even the US vice president or director of the CIA has the authority to order anything like a political assassination of a sitting President."
Authority is not the word you're looking for. The appropriate term, depending on your point of view, is either absolute sovereignty or impunity. A US Secretary of State formally defined sovereignty in absolute life-and-death terms repudiated two millenia ago by the Germanic tribes of pre-modern Europe. The entire world has negated this viewpoint by acclamation, so the USA's a throwback.
In universally-acknowledged law, sovereignty is responsibility. But the US government thinks state responsibility is bullshit, and always did do. The US government has been assiduously undermining it ever since WWII. The US fights tooth and nail to make sure its citizens have no recourse to actions of the state, lawful or not.
Congress wrote absolute sovereignty into municipal law in the Central Intelligence Agency Act, various bureaucratic loopholes, and secret confidential legal pretexts. They gave it to CIA. The CIA command structure exercises not authority, but something akin to the divine right of kings, concealed for appearances' sake as state secrets. So you misunderstand, or misrepresent, the government bureaucracy when you imagine that there's that someone CIA would be scared to kill. They do what they want. And you do what they tell you to, or else.
• Replies: @Sean
Almost certainly what gave the conspirators control over what was said in the U.S. media was Operation Mockingbird. That was (is?) a CIA operation.
Here is a commenter at Mondoweiss who brings up many assassinations linked to Israel.
http://mondoweiss.net/2015/07/president-inspections-facility/
What we have in the case of the Zionist movement and Israel is a pattern of a serial perpetrator of murder, mass murder and terror. This is a well established fact. That pattern started well before the creation of Israel, see eg the murder of Jacob Israël de Haan on 30/6/1924 or the King David Hotel bombing on 22/7/1946. That murderous pattern continued after the creation of Israel, see for the early days for example the murder of Folke Bernadotte on 17/9/1948 and then read "Israel's sacred terrorism" based on Moshe Sharett's Personal Diary:
https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/essays/rokach.html
Since the early days of Zionism there are so many proven Zionist and Israeli state sponsored murders that it is hard to keep tracking them all. The murderous pattern of Israeli behaviour continues to the very recent time, think for example of the attampted assassination of Khaled Mashal on 25/9/1997, the car bomb killing Imad Mughniyah on 12/2/2008, the murder of Brig Gen Mohammed Suleiman on 1/8/2008 (which was just recently proven by US documents to be an Israeli job), the assassination of Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh on 19/1/2010 or the recent serial murder of Iranian scientists.
The murder of Jacob Israël de Haan proves that the Zionist movement targeted also jews. It was not a single case. Naeim Giladi wrote in detail about his role as a Zionist in attacking Iraqi jews on behalf of Israel in his book: Ben-Gurion's Scandals: How the Haganah and the Mossad Eliminated Jews. We also know from things like Operation Susannah and the attempt to sink the USS Liberty that Israel also has already attacked US targets in the past.
Generally I'ld say Israeli murders and terrors fit in two motive categories: either Israel committed state sponsored murders to get rid of anactual or perceived enemy like Khaled Mashal or Imad Mughniyah or someone deemed otherwise harmful to Israeli interests like Folke Bernadotte, or Israel committed acts of terror and murder with the intention of blaming the crime on someone else, ie perpetraiting "false flag operations", like it was the case with attacking Iraqi jews or Operation Susannah. One regular motivation for Israeli false flag ops was to enlist the US in fighting Israel's real or perceived enemies, ie starting US-led wars of aggression in the service of Israel. AIPAC/WINEP operatives publicly talk about using such "options" in the service of starting wars Israel wanted to get started:
A typical Israeli method to ensure false blame was faking signal intelligence. Victor Ostrovsky wrote about how the Mossad did falsely blame Libya of terror in his time with radio signal boxes placed by the Mossad in Libya for that purpose. In the case of the Ghouta chemical false flag terror attack, Israel simply provided the US with faked signal intelligence, essentially saying to Obama: now you must go to war, because we proved hereby that Syria crossed your chemical red lines.
So, now comes the funny thing. Despite this whole record of serial Israeli murder, terror and false flag terror targeting likewise enemies and friends, terrorists and innocents, Arabs and Westerners, Muslims, Christians and Jews, Syrians and Americans, and clear motives for Israel to perpetrate the crimes, there still exists a big taboo of talking about and investigating a possible Israeli sponsorship of the JFK murder and 9/11. It's even deemed anti-semitic to speak about this.
The thing is, one would have to take into account the obvious presence of Gen. Lansdale amongst them, no insignificant figure he. Somewhat improbable if their presence were benign.
This is the original article:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/284979-ajt.html
Stolypin
Tsar Nicholas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Bogrov
Bogrov, like Oswald, played all sides.
Kennedy killed by same kind of people?
Haxo Angmark says: • Website
@A Libertarian
recently ran for a US Senate seat in Mexifornia.
it did not end well. I suspect
he will not be seeking another elective office and, in any case,
has more important work to do.
• LOL: Rurik
I think the "neocons" tried to get their wars started under Clinton with the USS Cole attack October 12 2000, while it was being refueled in Yemen's Aden harbor, that they also blamed on Al-Qaeda.
Sounds very similar to USS Liberty eh? Same people again, same story….
I guess Clinton refused to go along even after ((((Lewinsky))) sex blackmail, and false flag attack on USS Cole. So they knew they had to get a Republican into office, thats why there was such a fuss about that election, should also tell you where the Supreme Court stands…
9/11, WTC planning, demolition rigging, probably started soon after USS Cole false flag.
It all adds up when you start thinking about it.
and I don't doubt Johnson played a huge role, he obviously did, I also believe some in CIA played a role as well as in Military/MIC, and probably even Wall St/Banking, Big Oil, that is what makes it a CONSPIRACY!
But I think the head honcho is Israel/Zionist intrests, and their plan of world domination.
JFK – The Speech That Killed Him
@nickels
I thought JFK was President when Diem was killed?
, @Hu Mi Yu
, @James Kabala
Oooh, thanks for posting! Very interesting.
Don't really buy his argument that Oswald's being a stooge since 1957 was a clear sign that this is an American-dominated plot. The CIA had lots of stooges. Plus, JFK wasn't a threat to the CIA in 1957.
Nice of Mr. Chamish to say Piper was not an anti-Semite and lacked that kind of bias. Mr. Chamish's Zionist bias does, inevitably, shine through, though. This sentence, for example:
"But I take the opposite view of Piper: my research says America corrupted Israel and not the other way around."
Whatever you say, Mr. Chamish!
• Replies: @Mike Gerrett
Paul Jolliffe says:
The late Harold Weisberg once told me exactly the same thing: figuring out precisely who was in control of the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital on the evening of 11/22/63 was the key to unraveling the cover-up.
U. S. Military authorities ran that thing and made every single damned decision. (Not RFK or Jacqueline Kennedy.)
Hell, there is credible, provocative and reasonably persuasive evidence the no less a figure than the legendary USAF Chief of Staff Curtis LeMay flew in to Bethesda and was playing a major role in directing the autopsy.
The (suspiciously undated) autopsy report was re-written after Ruby shot "Oswald" on Sunday morning, and the original "draft notes" were burned. The hand-written version was then edited with very significant changes, most infamously the original wording that JFK had a "puncture" wound in his neck – WHICH MEANT A SHOT FROM THE FRONT! – was changed in the typed version as "much smaller".
These changes were not because Humes, Boswell and Finck demanded them. These changes were done at the behest of military brass, for reasons known only to themselves.
The autopsy was the start of the cover-up, and the autopsy was controlled by the U.S. Military.
By the way, LeMay was the inspiration for the General Buck Turgidson in "Dr. Strangelove".
• Replies: @Dube
, @Carroll Price
, @tac
Then why kill him Oz? He was bludgeoned to death almost literally on the day of his release. He was the only prisoner in Spandau, and Gorbachev had always wanted to release him. The man had some secrets he took to the grave.
Sandy Berger's Socks says:
Kellogg, Brown & Root, a Texas based defense contractor that made an enormous amount of money in Viet Nam.
RE: USS LIBERTY
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/uss-liberty/
Entries categorized "USS Liberty"
"It appears that Belfield, an Englishman, has obtained through FOIA the tapes of the in flight conversations among the Israelis concerning the strikes on USS Liberty. I wrote in my post quoted below of having read transcripts in the Spring 0f 1968 that were of exactly the same material. It seems likely that this is the same material now released by NSA. .
"I quote below from my Athenaeum post written in 2010 and entitled "What I know About the USS Liberty.
"What I know about the USS Liberty" re-published from October, 2007
Jim Ennes, who was a watch standing officer on the USS Liberty asked me for a statement as to what I knew of the transcripts of Israeil conversations and the ship. This is what I sent him. I was quoted about this in the Chicago Tribune and Baltimore Sun on Monday. pl
(Wednesday, 19 July 2017) I have re-published this because people have written to me saying that the transcripts were not published before the recent Haaretz article. pl
I was a student in the Military Intelligence Officer Advanced Course at Ft. Holabird, Maryland (Baltimore) in 1967-1968. The course lasted about ten months. We students were required to take several electives from a group offered and I took a course in Cryptology. This was taught by people from the NSA School at nearby Ft. Meade. This course was taught in the winter or early spring of 1967-1968. There were several sub-courses, one of which had to do with voice intercepts. In the course of this, the instructor introduced a booklet produced at Ft. Meade as material for the course. It contained various course materials. Among them were transcripts of the translated intercepts of radio conversations between the Israeli strike commander and his base before and during the attacks on USS Liberty. The instructor, a retired cryptologic warrant officer or NCO identified the transcript as being of the Liberty incident. It was also so marked in the booklet.
In the transcript, the flight leader spoke to his base to report that he had the ship in view, that it was the same ship that he had been briefed on and that it was clearly marked with the US flag. I think he said that the ship was displaying the US flag on an upper deck, but my memory of that might be inexact. He asked for confirmation of his orders to attack the ship and seemed reluctant (understandably) to attack the ship. He asked more than once and was told to carry out his orders and attack the ship.
There was some further discussion of damage to the ship.
That is all I remember.
Colonel (Ret.) US Army"
http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/printedition/tuesday/chi-liberty_tuesoct02,0,1050179.story
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/the_athenaeum/2007/10/what-i-know-abo.html
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/07/httpwwwhaaretzcomus-news1800584.html
The BBC documentary on this is " Dead in the Water "……https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjOH1XMAwZA
The film by Belfield "The Day Israel Attacked America"…..https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RE4hMlB9ZU
https://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/specialseries/2014/10/day-israel-attacked-america-20141028144946266462.html
Extensive Interviews with USS Liberty Survivors' – Audio tapes obtained by award winning British film maker Richard Belfield prove what every USS Liberty survivor, former Secretary of State Dean Rusk, and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Thomas Moorer have said all along: that Israel deliberately attacked an American ship. The plan was to sink it, blame Egypt, and draw the US into the Six Day War on the Israeli side, but the heroism of the Liberty crew in fighting ship damage, often while wounded, prevented it from sinking with all hands. The tapes are featured in "The Day Israel Attacked America" by film-maker Richard Belfield, whose previous production credits include National Geographic TV and Discovery Channel."
You can read the audio tapes of some Israeli radio transmissions here…..https://archive.org/stream/CopyOfUSSLibertyCard2/Jerusalem%20Post%20confirms%20Israel%20knew%20USS%20Liberty%20was%20American-7_djvu.txt
One important aspect of Piper's book is that his overwhelming focus on Israel and the Mossad provides a very helpful corrective to the CIA-centricism that I've noticed among so many "conspiracy people," who seem to believe that the CIA is some sort of all-powerful controlling force.
For example, in Appendix Six, Piper suggests that Mossad may have assassinated former CIA Director William Colby, as well as John Paisley, another former high-ranking CIA official:
https://www.unz.com/book/michael_collins_piper__final-judgment/#appendix-six-retribution
I certainly don't know enough about these cases to comment, but the NSA is supposedly also a pretty powerful intelligence organization, and lots of NSA people were killed or wounded during the Liberty attack, with absolutely no apparent consequences. And if top CIA people could also occasionally be killed with relative impunity, maybe that organization also isn't really so all-powerful.
Furthermore, one of Piper's major arguments is that long-time CIA counter-intelligence chief James Angleton had effectively become a Mossad intelligence asset at least by the 1960s, and he seems to provide a great deal of circumstantial evidence in favor of this notion. Therefore, he points toward Angleton as the likely CIA figure who spearheaded the CIA involvement in the JFK assassination.
One nice thing about my HTML Book software is that it allows full text searches of the books in question, controlled by the little Search icon next to the Email button. Or you can use this link:
https://www.unz.com/book/michael_collins_piper__final-judgment/?search=angleton+and+mossad
, @renfro
, @The Alarmist
, @Anonymous
Just because Unz may be 'a self-hating Jew' does not mean that he is necessarily incorrect. In fact the 'self-hating' variety has a far better record of telling the truth, warts and all, than the kosher variety.
"..CIA-centricism that I've noticed among so many "conspiracy people," who seem to believe that the CIA is some sort of all-powerful controlling force."
The CIA was also the "easy" and "obvious" culprit after 9/11. It came under an incredible amount of criticism from the "courageous" media, and George Tenet, its director at the time, was almost forced to resign.
It turned out later that the CIA had previously warned G. Bush about the increased risks of terror attack, and that their warnings were dismissed by Rumsfeld and the NeoCons, who a contrario were never blamed for anything.
This really shows who is higher up the food chain.
Bludgeoned to death? You mean that the professional murderers of a 93 year old couldn't stage a hanging properly (but still managed to get it reported as a hanging)?
Are you relying on his son's version as in
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_R%C3%BCdiger_Hess?wprov=sfla1
His version, according to this, was disproved by reference to the opened archives which had the British supporting release on humanitarian grounds long before Gorbachev could change the Soviet resistance. Anyway, anyone who knows anything about the UK would know that the prospect of Hess making new disclosures of *anything* at 93 in 1987 would have produced a big yawn.
Sam J. says:
I agree. That's really the root of the whole issue. No one had more motive or could have had the ability to cover this up but the Jews. The CIA and the Jews killed Kennedy.
Achilles says:
June 26, 2018 at 2:35 am GMT • 1,000 Words
Jack Ruby was running guns and ammunition from Galveston Bay to Fidel Castro's guerrillas in Cuba about 1957, a former poker-playing partner of the Dallas nightclub owner told The News Thursday.
James E. Beaird said he waited until 1966, almost three years after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, and "nothing had come out so I called them (FBI) just to find out why … I was curious. However, they didn't see fit to even mention it to me again, so I never heard of anything they ever opened up on it."
Beaird said the FBI finally "sent a man out in 1976. I don't know why they did it then."
…The FBI agent who interviewed Beaird in 1976 didn't mention in his report that Beaird had volunteered information about Ruby's gunrunning to the bureau in 1966. The report stated that since the 1963 assassination, "there had been so·much speculation as to possible foreign connections and he (Beaird) thought it better not to mention his knowledge of Jack Ruby in Kemah (southeast of Houston on Galveston Bay)."
The Warren Commission in 1964 investigated numerous allegations of gunrunning by Ruby but concluded that no factual information existed.
Beaird told the FBI that he "personally saw many boxes of new guns, including atltomatic rifles and handguns," stored in a 2-story house near the channel at Kemah and loaded on what looked like a 50-foot surplus military boat.
"He stated each time that the boat left with guns and ammunition, Jack Ruby was on the boat," the FBI report said.
Beaird, who was an automobile dealer in Houston from 1955 to 1957, said Ruby "was in it for the money. It wouldn't matter what side, just one that would pay him the most…I don't even know who the ship belonged to. But he was in command of it. He went out every time it went. It was meeting a connection down there (in Cuba), that's all I ever heard."
Ruby would show up in Kemah, generally on weekends, to play poker and "just killing time until the boat was loaded," Beaird said, and usually was there not more than one or two hours.
"They loaded up at least twice while I was down there," be said. "Pickup trucks would carry it from the house over to this boat."
By 1959, Castro had taken control of Cuba and Ruby was beginning to switch sides as Castro threatened to force Mafia-backed professional gamblers out of the casinos in Havana.
Dallas Morning News, 18 Aug 1978
What was Ruby's connection to the splinter groups of left-over Cubans in Dallas? Was he selling them guns? Was he hiring them for odd jobs? Did he hear of the crazy violent commie anglo Oswald through his connections to these Cubans?
What were these Israeli goats doing in Cuba shortly after the revolution that brought Fidel Castro to power? It turns out that Castro had taken notice of Israeli goats and was just waiting for the chance to taste their milk following the establishment in 1960 of diplomatic relations between the two countries.
"Fidel thought there were goats in Israel that produced milk like cows," recounted Clarita Malhi, who worked at the Cuban embassy in Israel. "He was really enamored by the technical progress Israel had made in the field of agriculture."
The Cuban ambassador in Israel was a Jewish millionaire revolutionary by the name of Ricardo Wolf (Ricardo Subirana y Lobo in Spanish), who decided to fulfill the dream of his boss who had sent him to Israel. The ambassador went looking for goats that "produced milk like cows" and could be shipped far across the ocean.
Yitzhak Zilber, a Cuban Jew and a member of Kibbutz Gaash, was chosen for the mission. Zilber, 89, sent Haaretz photos in which he is seen with the goats he found, waiting for a plane at the airport and travelling around Cuba.
…Ultimately, when the goats for the mission were found, they were brought together at the airport, awaiting the moment when they could be airlifted to Cuba. An El Al plane landed in Israel from Cuba with new immigrants from the Cuban Jewish community who had decided to flee Castro's revolution. They came as part of an agreement under which Cuba effectively exchanged the immigrants for the goats.
…The Haaretz archives contain a piece of information that might buttress the story about Castro and his Israeli goats. In an article in July 1961, it was reported that the Israeli Agriculture Ministry had sent an expert to Cuba to help the Cubans improve goat breeding.
…Wolf, who was born in Germany, emigrated to Cuba in the 1920s and became a close associate of Castro. As a wealthy industrialist, he gave a large sum of money to finance the revolution. He later politely declined the offer of a cabinet position, but asked Castro to appoint him ambassador to Israel. Castro assented and Wolf arrived in the country in 1960 as Cuba's first – and only – ambassador. The trade involving the goats and the new immigrants was funded by Wolf personally.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-jews-for-goats-castro-s-secret-deal-with-israel-1.5475376
'Twas not ever thus. Not only did Cuba establish ties with nascent Israel in 1949, but Castro dispatched a key supporter, Ricardo Wolf, as his ambassador to Israel in 1960.
Dworin says Wolf, who made his fortune as a pioneer in the metal industry, helped finance the purchase of the yacht Granma, the cabin-cruiser built for 12 that ferried the Castro brothers, Che and 80 other revolutionaries from Mexico to Cuba in 1956 — on the voyage that would culminate in the overthrow of Batista.
"What can I do to repay you?" Castro, once installed in power, asked Wolf, in Dworin's telling. "I want to be ambassador to Israel," he replied.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/when-our-woman-in-havana-asked-fidel-castro-to-the-synagogue-hanukkah-party/
Was Ricardo Subirana Y Lobo (Ricardo Wolf), a Cuban Jew and supporter of Castro, the bridge between Castro and Mossad? Castro originally offered Wolf the post of Minister of Finance in the communist government, but Wolf preferred to be Ambassador to Israel.
Very sorry, I should have been more careful. Apologies for the error. But my point still stands. The younger Hess was a dutiful son who had been pressing for his father's release since a long time. Why should Rudolf Hess commit suicide on the day of his release? I believe the precedent Rudiger Hess used was the early release of Albert Speer an actual orchestrator of the Nazi war machine. And yes I agree that anything Hess had to say would have produced a big 'yawn', in most people, but there are always others.
@Iris
The fact that JFK's head moved forward proves nothing but that his head moved forward.
The fact that Detective Levelle wore a white suit proves nothing but that he wore a white suit.
The fact that the driver braked when he heard shots and screaming proved nothing but that he braked when he heard the shots.
@prusmc
He was president when JFK was killed
Ron Unz's version in the article above is different from the one you are replying to and the differences cannot be insouciantly ignored if Ron isn't just in Dan Brown mode.
Ron has Johnson recalling planes launched to protect Liberty from the attackers – which presumably might have been doable with a bit of luck – but, though it isn't discussed, could presumably have had something to do with the US, at the relevant level, having been assured that the Israelis had been terribly shocked and were dealing with the appalling error. The account you are responding to has Macnamara ordering back nuclear armed planes which obviously had nothing to do with seeing off Israeli fighters and gunboats.
Have you sources to resolve this dilemna?
• Replies: @Ron Unz
Dube says:
@Paul Jolliffe
[Paul Jolliffe]: "The autopsy was the start of the cover-up, and the autopsy was controlled by the U.S. Military."
Well noted.
• Replies: @Laurent Guyénot
Kiza says:
Hello Ron, I found your comment about growing up with the belief in the lone gunman official story interesting. I grew up in a communist country which was not part of the USSR block and I grew up with a belief in the official story that CIA was the main culprit in the JFK assassination although without a direct mention of LBJ. I would be interested to learn also what the official story inside the Eastern block was.
Even to this day, I have to admit that this official story was actually very close to the truth. So many years later and even after reading your high quality article I tend to believe that LBJ was heavily involved but at arms length distance, that CIA has done all of the ground work, that Mossad probably assisted and that Oswald did not even shoot let alone kill anyone.
Why is a local belief relevant? Well because whoever killed Kennedy tried to point blame at communists, those of USSR and Cuba. What I was lead to believe in this instance proves the old saying audi alteram partem – do not form any belief before you hear both sides. This applies to practically all strange events of history. Historical, geographical and ideological distance make quite a difference in the beliefs that we grow up with.
Next, the culprits would probably be mirrored in the case of 911, where the Israelis have done most of the ground work, whilst the dual citizens and the US agencies they control played the supporting and enabling role.
Obviously, the logistics of 911 dwarfs the logistics of the Kennedy assassinations, but it would be the same team, different era and with a different emphasis. The acts becoming more self-confident and brazen.
• Replies: @Jeff Stryker
The account you are responding to has Macnamara ordering back nuclear armed planes which obviously had nothing to do with seeing off Israeli fighters and gunboats.
The more "mainstream" account that has been widely reported is that squadrons of U.S. jets were twice dispatched to rescue the Liberty, and then twice recalled based on top-level instructions from D.C.
I've sometimes seen another account floating around on the Internet that the Johnson and the Israelis had concocted a plan to have the latter sink the Liberty with all hands, after which Johnson would blame the attack on Egypt and launch a nuclear attack against Cairo in retaliation. Frankly, I find this scenario *extraordinarily* implausible, and until someone provides a credible source, I would just dismiss it. And by a "credible source" I mean something more than some random guy making the claim somewhere in some book.
• Agree: Wizard of Oz
Someone trying to kill a president is normal. Each of the JFK scenarios is individually improbable. By contrast with the USS Liberty affair the hard evidence is slight.
Ron has left us without the fortification we might hope for from demonstration that there was more than one deliberate shooter and/or that Kennedy was hit by a bullet from the front and/or that RFK wasn't killed by Sirhan Sirhan's bullet(s). It's not that Ruby saying (if he did) that he did it for Israel isn't an interesting detail (though it might only mean that someone told him he needed to kill Oswald to stop the connection to Israel becoming known- though why Ruby would then say anything about Israel would need explaining). But Ruby doesn't give us the hard evidence to take us beyond Oswald and some vague Cuban connection.
@Kiza
Kennedy's ATTEMPT to meddle with Castro was probably the reason-it is documented that he approached key members of the Italian mafia via the CIA to assassinate him because the thinking was that the Italians wanted their interests in Cuba back. The Italians declined.
Kennedy also broke an agreement with the Italian mafia that he would not bother them if they co-opted the unions, Italian-Americans, stuff ballot boxes in order to get Kennedy elected-immediately RFK went after the mafia and in particular the mob bosses he'd KNOWN who helped Kennedy get elected.
Kennedy had also ordered the death of a mob-connected baseball player's ex-wife actress-Marilyn Monroe. The man himself was corrupt, sleazy, amoral.
Finally, Ruby worked for the Chicago mob and Oswald himself hung around their strip clubs the way that losers with nowhere else to go do.
Americans just cannot face up to the fact that Kennedy was into sleazy deals with Italian mafia with whom his family had been doing business and they killed Kennedy merely for reneging on a backroom promise.
The Kosher Mafia Rubinstein involvement deed, speaks loud and clear , indeed.
Backwoods Bob says:
Well that article was quite a surprise!
I certainly agree on Johnson. One statement by his mistress tells me he became certain of the hit one day prior. He may have known something was in the works, but on that day he made a very explosive statement about "after tomorrow…"
His job was the cover-up: to remove the body and meddle with the forensics, to wrest a murder investigation that should have been conducted by the district of Dallas out of their hands, and put it into the hands of a bunch of compromised or corrupt political appointees.
As for the Piper thesis: just wow. It is worth a look. Thank you Mr. Unz.
Sparkon says:
Agents go on record:
• JFK did not order Secret Service off Dallas limousine.
• Kennedy never ordered security stand-down or bubble-top removal.
• Presidential security mysteriously "stripped" and… compromised for fatal motorcade.
• Secret Service ignoring of advance warning of threats documented.
The suspect actions and inaction of Secret Service agents during the planning stage of the 1963 Texas trip, and in the Dallas motorcade on November 22, 1963, cry out for explanation.
Thanks to the courage of former Secret Service agents who told the truth for the record, defenders of the discredited Warren Commission theory of the assassination no longer can accuse JFK of complicity in his own murder. One fact remains clear: President Kennedy did not seal his own fate by ordering his guards to stand down.
That order originated elsewhere.
http://www.jfklancer.com/LNE/limo.html
Tony, get noticed that unusual "Dallas policeman", who guided them !! Too. Not apprehended them .
@Desert Fox
All above , just as 9/11, were the Demonstration of the HUGE Powers hold, the deep government have. Thousands , millions of people saw it all .They nevertheless KNOW AND SAW NOTHING. !!
You prompt me to note some thoughts for future development. What precedes revolutions and attempted revolutions? The unifying of a majority of active people (the age distribution has to be significant) by some ideas that power the changes. Thus, when Marx and others provided the ideological fuel the underlying idea was "we are much poorer than we need to be and others are denying us the cure". Huge rates of reproduction then were part of it.
I wonder what one could find in the Western World today when material comfort is established. Perhaps inequality in America while national wealth is squandered on wars is enough to recreate a dangerous Left???? In Europe the problems would be different though discernible in the concerns about immigration.
Carroll Price says:
@gsjackson
LBJ would have played roughly the same role in JFK's assassination as George Bush played in the 9/11 false flag attack. That is, both would have been informed when the event would occur and issued instructions on how to act and what to say and what not to say etc. Neither man possessed enough intelligence or know-how to play any active role in what (like 9/11) was a professional Mossad operation
• Replies: @CanSpeccy
, @Laurent Guyénot
"…That what plagues the West & the US the most (race replacement, PC "liberal" ideological muzzle, hedonist emptiness & biological collapse manifested in infertility, pathological altruism, lunatic ideological fashions like n-th wave of feminism, media aggression promoting "diversity" & homosexualism- as different from homosexuality, self-hatred of European & Western culture…."
Well who is the primary promoting this? We know. It's not difficult. It has been 70,80 maybe a 100 years of this.
"…So, we should not give up hope, and some of us who are obsessed with Jews, should give up this tired old chestnut…"
I agree we should not give up hope but the Jews must go. We need to get rid of them. A simple analogy, if someone is stabbing you in the back you don't worry about the guy down the street that might stab you later. You first deal with the guy stabbing you in the back. Dealing with the Jews, getting rid of them, is a first step towards renewal. That we may have other problems is immaterial to the problem with the Jews and they are exacerbating all the problems we have.
I would be fine and dandy with the Jews doing whatever they want but as far as I can see it's impossible to have them in your country without almost civil war level constant destruction. The only way that's 100% shown to deal with them is to deport them. This has worked every single time. We just need to make sure they never come back this time.
@lysias
LOL. Nearly every Democratic party presidential candidate ever since has been "imitating JFK."
• Replies: @gsjackson
Ron, I think you may have a problem getting imaginatively into the minds of most of the people working every day in the MSM despite your acute analysis of reasons why book authors may have shied away from thinking LBJ guilty. They work hard, whether bylined or not, to get their work noticed for their medium's sales and their own advancement. New news easily scooped is best. So consider how the JFK business strikes them. "OMG not another book on it. I'd better notice it but please don't make me spend every night for a fortnight devouring the literature up to date including the loonies". And then they can't help noticing that people with vastly greater resources actually have followed up on the JFK assassination theories for the History Channel or whatever. (MSM ?)
• Replies: @skrik
Let me add the wish that someone would do a proper job on the actuarial mathematics of witness deaths (with judgment exercised as well – actuaries are meant to notice significant facts). If it were true that lots of witnesses were being knocked off it would clearly point more in some directions than others.
Useful thinking expressed with appropriate respect for detail if I may say so.
Lansdale was not one of the 3 tramps.
I certainly don't know enough about these cases to comment, but the NSA is supposedly also a pretty powerful intelligence organization, and lots of NSA people were killed or wounded during the Liberty attack, with absolutely no apparent consequences
There are never any consequences for Israel. Not even in the case below where Mossad impersonated CIA agents and faked American passports in order to recruit terrorist to carry out bombings and assassinations in Iran and elsewhere.
The thing is Mossad isnt even particularly skillful, but they are 'brazen' because they can always play the Jew card to escape any punishment, at least by the US……and that brazen reliance on going scott free regardless makes them mostly successful. Trump made a statement to the effect that he could shoot someone down in the street and get away with it—the Israelis have the same belief.
And posing as Americans is a habit with Zionist—they posed as US officials in 1948, visiting countries to threaten them with dire US actions against them if they didn't vote in favor of the partition of Palestine to create Israel. Truman got wind of it when calls from those countries seeking clarification started coming into the WH and State Department but Truman did nothing about it then ether.
A series of CIA memos describes how Israeli Mossad agents posed as American spies to recruit members of the terrorist organization Jundallah to fight their covert war against Iran.
By Mark Perry
| January 13, 2012, 3:13 PM
"Buried deep in the archives of America's intelligence services are a series of memos, written during the last years of President George W. Bush's administration, that describe how Israeli Mossad officers recruited operatives belonging to the terrorist group Jundallah by passing themselves off as American agents. According to two U.S. intelligence officials, the Israelis, flush with American dollars and toting U.S. passports, posed as CIA officers in recruiting Jundallah operatives — what is commonly referred to as a "false flag" operation.
The memos, as described by the sources, one of whom has read them and another who is intimately familiar with the case, investigated and debunked reports from 2007 and 2008 accusing the CIA, at the direction of the White House, of covertly supporting Jundallah — a Pakistan-based Sunni extremist organization. Jundallah, according to the U.S. government and published reports, is responsible for assassinating Iranian government officials and killing Iranian women and children.
But while the memos show that the United States had barred even the most incidental contact with Jundallah, according to both intelligence officers, the same was not true for Israel's Mossad. The memos also detail CIA field reports saying that Israel's recruiting activities occurred under the nose of U.S. intelligence officers, most notably in London, the capital of one of Israel's ostensible allies, where Mossad officers posing as CIA operatives met with Jundallah officials.
The officials did not know whether the Israeli program to recruit and use Jundallah is ongoing. Nevertheless, they were stunned by the brazenness of the Mossad's efforts.
"It's amazing what the Israelis thought they could get away with," the intelligence officer said. "
continued……http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/01/13/false-flag/
@Sam J.
Who should count as Jews for your Nuremberg laws?
ohmy says:
It took you awhile to get to the Israelis but, you got there. As you said a lot has been written about the JFK assassination but only recently has the Israeli theory been seriously offered. Israel has the motive, the Dimona's nuclear secret secret, which is reason enough for them to kill Kennedy. However, my money is on the central bankers as the main perps. No one has survived the wrath of the bankers. The list of those who tried goes back to Jesus Christ and, JFK proved no friend of the Fed when he authorized the printing of the silver certificates he was as good as dead. One can make the argument that the London bankers worked closely with hardline Israeil nationalists to get the job done, as Israel has the means and, Johnson. Either way it was the tribes. Now that there is some focus on them as the killer we suddenly see a resurrection of the original misdirection; Chicago's Sam Giancana and, the Italian mob did it bull shit angle. This was always a dead end. One thing the Italians hate is the limelight. No, it wasn't them.
When it became clear that RFK had a good chance to win the 68 election it was his turn. But, it wasn't over, not by a longshot. Senator Kennedy and the Chappaquiddick story hasn't been written yet and, when Robert Jr's magazine "George" was about to run investigative articles about his father's murder his plane took a dive into the Atlantic. Strange how that works. And the beat goes on.
@Abe
Sound reasoning….
@Backwoods Bob
Please take us through the mind of the very cunning and suspicious Johnson as he considers in careful detail how to avoid being implicated. Difficult? He couldn't be seen to be interfering in e.g. the forensic examinations and post mortems so the extraordinary incompetence or carelessness of many people, as it appears, couldn't be plausibly blamed on him.
RE: Johnson
My thinking right now is that Johnson may have 'suspected' something , may have inferred something from conversations he had with certain people or a light bulb went on in regard to the murder after it happened based on something he had previously heard…..even if he was not outright involved.
I have come to this consideration after reading thru his diary and phone conversations during that time period.
What they reveal:
*Johnson didnt actually want any investigation at all. He wanted it left to the Texas police and AG to declare Oswald the lone shooter. iow he wanted the assassination to be under state of Texas jurisdiction with FBI findings sent to them.
*While Johnson was calling friendly reporters at the NYT and WP seeking their support they told him that the country would demand a 'bigger investigation.'
*At the same time congress was making noises about a full house investigation into the assassination.
*Johnson called Hoover and told him about congress planning a investigation and said he didnt want that—that it would be , quote–'a three ring circus'. And that it would be better if the FBI just issued a report on it for the public.
*Congress balked at this and then Johnson suggested a compromise….a commission of a few senators and congressmen with 'outside' former officials and figures …thus the Warren commission was born.
*Johnson himself picked Dulles and Dulles was his first pick of all the other members. In fact Johnson (or his advisors) picked most if not all of the members of the commission. What he would do is call someone like Gerry Ford after he picked him and say "what would you think of so and so" and of course no one would have a objection to the person so he would be brought on.
One thing comes thru loud and clear or as loud and clear as swarmy Texas politics allows …..Johnson wanted the assassination event to be over with …..with no big hullaballoo surrounding it.
Because he knew who did it, suspected who did it or didnt care who did it…..one of those three.
• Replies: @renfro
@renfro
Addition to my comment….
When Johnson called Dulles about going on the commission the first thing Johnson said to Dulles was….."have some unpleasant news for you".
I guess we have to guess what that meant since he didn't say why the news was unpleasant before he even recruited Dulles….. but Johnson did go on to say that Dulles 'had to do this for him.'
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=893
• Replies: @James N. Kennett
The book is something everybody should see and evaluate. I suspect that it is largely true, and I appreciate Mr. Unz for providing easy access to it. I hope this posting remains easily accessible for a long time, since there is a lot there to digest in the book and, as an old man, I'm not used to accessing booklength stuff in this sort of format.
@Paw
Yeah, Jake Rubinstein's alleged sympathy for JFK, a Catholic and second son of Joseph P. Kennedy, who in American hagiography is an ANTI-SEMITE in the league of Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh always left me cold. Some were taken by his blubbery protestations about his undying love for Kennedy, but the criminal classes are full of those who can cry like Vivien Leigh when needed. Otherwise, who would believe them during interrogations? Oswald, whatever his provenance, was silenced – that should be clear as daylight.
skrik says:
a problem getting imaginatively into the minds of most of the people working every day in the MSM
You must be Joe King, eh? Evil is as evil does, and the MSM is a functioning propaganda agency [ref Bernays haze] of the CCC = covert criminal cabal 'lording it up over' = ruling 'the West.' Both the 'for profit' and 'publicly financed' parts of the MSM are the willing handmaidens of the 'rot from the top' – and as such, have stone hearts and s**t for brains.
In other words, mate, the great majority in the MSM are beyond 'truth seeking.' Faaar beyond, and right down the gurgler in fact. Any "vastly greater resources" contribution would likely be 'controlled opposition' anyway, more for effect than substance. Oh! Only and always IMHO.
A big Q is why do you try to be their apologist? Suggested A; a guess: You actually know one or two 'higher ups,' you extend 'the benefit of the doubt' to them and thus refuse to see the wood for the trees.
Next Q: Do you think that any 'stone hearts and s**t for brains' could be impressed by such flattery?
True enough, @Tono Bungay, I overstated it. Blush. How about the "backyard photographs" found in the Dallas Police files, which were used to "frame" LHO with the rifle and a copy of Pravda in his hand? Ridiculous. When shown the photos, Oswald said that it wasn't him in the pictures. It was the simple truth. Or how about the photo of the fake Oswald in Mexico City who unsuccessfully tried to get an "escape" visa that would be used to claim Oswald was fleeing to Cuba after the assassination? There are so many "clinchers." Some elements of the Dallas Police were deeply involved in the assassination, along with elements of the CIA, and to a lesser degree the FBI. It is not considering these wider involvements that limits the value of Piper's "Final Judgment." And yes, @Anon, in the early 70's when I heard Lifton's lecture, the view was still widely held that the source of the assassination was among right-wing oil men, like Hunt and the Murchisons. Many early researchers, particularly Jewish ones, honestly believed that they were working to uncover a right-wing plot. This was likely true of Norman Mailer, too. But Jack Ruby was the problem. Would he sacrifice his life to protect right-wing oil men or Italian Catholic mafioso? In Mark Lane's "Plausible Denial," (which I should have included among my favorite assassination books) he recounts a public debate with A. L. Wirin at Beverly Hills High School, where Wirin said, "Thank God for Earl Warren. He prevented a pogrom in this country." Interestingly, the largely Jewish audience booed Wirin's comment. Nevertheless, I think many were well aware, from the outset, of the implications of Jack Ruby's murder of Oswald. As Peter Dale Scott stated in "Deep Politics," Ruby is the key to unlocking the assassination, because his murder of Oswald is the only time the conspirators had to come out of hiding.
Tyrion 2 says: • Website
So much self-contradiction.
E.g we are to accept that LBJ both kowtowed to Israel and sent in the USS Liberty to show them who's boss.
That RFK chose an entirely Jewish staff because he thought Israel had shot his brother.
Or the big one:
We are accept that rather than leaking scandals about JFK to supposedly their media to stop what was a potentially minor clamp down against their interests, the Israelis literally risked everything and shot JFK. (Just imagine what would have happened had they been found out – a likely situation if you think about it, also a dire one for them.)
That's like betting on England winning the World Cup and getting £100,000 if you win but having your head chopped off if you lose.
Only a total lunatic would do it and a total lunatic would be long dead by now.
Nataurally, your commenters take your nonsense to the next level.
Supposedly the former Director of the CIA and President if the US was undone by Israel…
And that is one of the less crazy comments.
Basically, the game here is: anything bad – Jews did it. Anything good – Jews tried to stop. The most amusing arguments come when two lunatics disagree on what is bad and what is good. Naturally, such disagreement is then resolved by which side had fewer Jews.
Has all human politics always been like this? If there is something an SJW dislikes, they'll find a way to blame normal white people. If they're fat they'll even blame a normal white person on the basis of that person looking at them (straight, white male gaze.)
Or is this stuff new?
Here's a test to take to see if you've lost the plot. Make a list of 10 really bad things from around the world and throughout History. Then work out if you end up blaming the same people for all of them. If you do, you've lost your mind.
As for whether LBJ did it, is being Veep that bad? The TV shows says yes, but risking your huge wealth to murder your sort of friend seems a bit much. I don't know LBJ, but he'd have to be a total psycho to do it. Tinpot dictators get murdered by their number 2s because their number 2s are scared of being murdered themselves. They live in a very different culture. American Presidential politics is still not kill or be killed.
, @peterAUS
Not with(out) respect to Israel, which is the point.
Though maybe that's not entirely true. Carter's peace-making efforts likely went unappreciated by Israel, but instead of killing him they just had the media set him up as a clown. I can still remember shabbos goy George Will's sneering reaction to Carter's "malaise" speech. In fact, malaise may have been Will's word. It wasn't in the speech.
@Jeff Stryker
No Jeff, I do not subscribe to the theory that the Italian Mafia in US killed the Kennedies. I agree with Ron that they were one of the groups which hated POTUS, but POTUS is way above their pay grade and the Kennedies would have been the first and the last high level politicians to be knocked off by the Mafia. Highly indiscrete, highly implausible and not the MO.
In all these deliberations, we should not forget that killing Kennedies was a relatively easy task, covering it up was not. In similar proportions for 911. Firstly, only the highest level story creators (Deep State) can successfully feed people the coverup bullshit when it is such obvious bullshit. Secondly, although Deep State is not monolith, it still maintains unity on the big cover ups (them versus us). I find this the most important and the most telling.
The level of cover up is not proportional to the crime, then to the level of those who did the crime. Chickenfeed cannot cover anything up.
• Replies: @MacNucc11
CIA & NSA have always had a fierce and sometimes acrimonious rivalry. Some of the gossip around Snowden was that he was a Company plant to take NSA down a notch.
laz says:
Mr. Unz,
When you have time in your busy life, please read "Best Evidence" by David Lifton and "Crossfire: the Plot that Killed Kennedy" by Jim Marrs. And watch the video series "The Men Who Killed Kennedy." Then write another aticle.
I remember where I was when the news of JFK's assassination occurred: walking across the University of Tulsa campus after class, heading to the Student Union. Old friend Richard Johnson called out the news to me as our paths crossed. It was not until the mid-1970s that I heard Lifton speak at SUNY SB. I had not been asleep for 10 years, but had not looked closely at the assassination. My brother had read Mark Lane's "Rush to Judgment" when it first came out, but my basic reflex was to trust the government–not yet suspecting that it could be capable of dishonesty on such a scale. Lifton's presentation was the first lift of the curtain. He wouild later publish "Best Evidence." My first book after the lecture was "They've Killed the President," by Robert Sam Anson. I plunged into the literature and research that was emerging. There have been many milestones in this "dark enlightenment." I should have mentioned Jim Marrs's "Crossfire" in my list of good books on the assassination, and the early photo compilations of Robert J. Groden, and, of course, Jim Fetzer's work. I should also have mentioned the curious study of "DC Dave," who was looking into the murder of James Forrestal. Forrestal was being threatened for "dragging his feet on the recognition of Israel," and was "hospitalized" at Bethesda Naval Hospital–probably as much for his protection as treatment for "paranoia." The evening before his "suicide," Forrestal was visited by LBJ–whom Forrestal had absolutely no desire to see. The visit left him agitated and upset. I have little doubt that LBJ had made the proverbial "offer Forrestal couldn't refuse"–very much in Godfather fashion. That night he fell to his death from his hospital room window. LBJ appears to have been the emissary of dark, shadowy forces, not just then, but throughout his career. If Unz's analysis of the JFK assassination is an example of his views and methods, he is not a "self-hating Jew," but an honest man tackling the tough, contentious issues of our time in an earnest, straightforward and unblinking fashion. There is no other way out of the darkness. Hats off!
, @jdf
Any 'minor ponts' to date have been repeatedly raised by lone nut theorists, desperate to muddy the waters, avoid the glaring evidence that it had to be a conspiracy, primarily to avert attention being focussed on the CIA who, let's remember, introduced the term 'conspiracy theorists' in their document detailing how to combat those who disagreed with the bs the Warren Commission foisted on America.
@donald j. tingle
How on earth would they benefit fromLBJ's ascendancy to the Presidency, particularly when Kennedy was putting out feelers to Castro and Kruschev, both of whom were distraught upon hearing the news.
to Ron Unz, as a comment to him American Pravda on the whole
Here is how you disturb the universe to make meaning. It isn't pretty, and there's a reason most who are able to do it on a grand scale are above forty.
Winning before making. This is survival.
Making before beauty. This is perpetuation.
Beauty before virtue. This is leadership.
Virtue before truth. This is realism.
To win you may need to do destructive, ugly, vicious, and false things.
Then, to create, you may need to do ugly, vicious, and false things.
To make your creations endure, so they don't go away when you stop believing in them, you may need to do beautiful, vicious, and false things.
Then, you may need to do beautiful, virtuous, and false things to create happiness.
And finally, you may choose to seek truth. This is an optional, meaningless, and essentially solitary activity. Something the immortal and free may choose to do, to entertain themselves in the amusement park that is the part of eternity that does not go away when you stop believing in it.
@skrik
I see you ask a potentially genuine question so I shall answer that it is not just "higher ups" that I have known (and families that have owned controlled newspapers and other media) but I have had decades of familiarity with people, including family members, who have worked at all levels from having holiday jobs and being copy boys and girls all the way up. I have had experience of them too when I have been trying to arrange publicity or get a favourable angle accepted and known their bad behaviour as, for example, when a journalist writes a story he has been given by a politician and then goes home before the real, different, version of the story eventuates. Not an apologist at all: just someone who knows a bit about the real human beings involved.
There were two autopsies performed with the 1st done by civilian doctors at Parkland in Dallas, followed by a 2nd autopsy the following day by military doctors at Bethesda, Maryland. Where the results of the 1st autopsy were obviously erased and reversed by the removal or altering of bullet wound entrances & exits etc. The book, Best Evidence does a good job of covering this angle of the conspiracy
, @Sparkon
@Carroll Price
The 2nd autopsy may have occurred at a 3rd location prior to FK's body arriving at Bethesda, MD. With this being indicated by the fact that JFK's body was photographed leaving Dallas in a civilian type (wooden) coffin, but arrived at Bethesda in a military style (metal) coffin. Meaning that what doctors at Bethesda observed in regards to bullet wound entrances & exits etc would have agreed with what became the official autopsy report, which was totally at odds with results of the original autopsy performed by doctors at Parkland Memorial.
https://www.amazon.com/Best-Evidence-Disguise-Deception-Assassination/dp/0025718703
jimmyriddle says:
"trying to unseat a Guatemalan leader on behalf of supposed American national interests"
It was on behalf of United Fruit, aka Chiquita Brands, in which the Dulles brothers were substantial shareholders.
Anonymous [AKA "Diamond\'s Insurance files"] says:
Be careful not to confuse impunity with omnipotence. Impunity is a social assemblage vitiating rule of law. Omnipotence is a purely notional attribute of deities, which no sensible person attributes to any existing bureaucracy. Absent effective rule of law, you don't have all-powerful control, you have crime that goes unpunished. And often, criminal gang wars. If Mossad contended with other criminal enterprises for control of the levers of power, that does not undercut CIA's impunity, it highlights it. Mossad has shown you how to get the USA by the short hairs.
But Piper's Appendix 6 cracks me up. A power grab for the CIA. But it's not CIA that wants that, it's… Israel, Huh huhhuh huh huh huh huh hee hee hoo ha ha ha… That power grab happened to follow hard on the heels of the Oklahoma City bombing. In retrospect it presents itself as a classic example of CIA's strategy for metastatic growth: an attack on the domestic civilian population (look up Andreas Straßmeir) to justify increased repressive capacity (look up the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.) and c.f. 911/the PATRIOT Act.
As for NSA's putative power, Snowden's disclosures, as curated by Suzie Dawson, show that NSA and CIA are in lockstep. Many key NSA employees, from Snowden to Visner, were CIA and NSA both. Whose focal points are they? Who's interpenetrating whom? [Hint: that's a very rhetorical question.]
Thnx for your respectful – and direct – response, and I can understand your dilemma; one could hardly be invited to garden parties then go about harassing the hired-help to lift their game. Still. As an activist for truth + justice = peace, I feel compelled to beard the lion in his den, whenever I possibly can. In particular, I once trusted the reporting of a publicly funded broadcaster – which had deliberately retailed wicked lies [that was '67, their worst lie was 'brave little David confronting the ugly Arab (these days now add Muslim) monster;' now we know that the Zs were/still are the aggressors.] The MSM's 'nominal' job is reporting facts, they must know the underlying truth, a functioning democracy would depend on such, and so all the worse for their filthy lies. The fact that they had lied in '67 only became apparent to me much later [WMD lies were one trigger, followed by 9/11 analysis + USS Liberty = definitive, add current topic JFK conspiracy.] Of course, '67 was only the 1st detected-by-me case, since then we all should know that the corrupt&venal MSM retail much more deliberately constructed to deceive 'fake news' than a few harmless truths.
Here's a partial quote:
But it remained for …, with their unqualified capacity for falsehood, …
"Hell hath no fury …" etc.. rgds
"Carter's peace-making efforts likely went unappreciated by Israel, but instead of killing him they just had the media set him up as a clown."
And why didn't they have the media expose JFK on a sex scandal and set HIM up as a clown?
• Replies: @James Brown
, @gsjackson
HallParvey says:
One of the best ways to cover up a real conspiracy is to promote as many competing theories about conspiracies as possible. Where there's smoke there's fire. Where there's enough smoke, nobody can see the fire.
Also, a conspiracy doesn't have to involve secret meetings in obscure places. It only requires like minds arriving at some conclusion that benefits the group. Then it's all about the mechanics of the operation. i.e. what's possible.
Hu Mi Yu says:
He was. Diem was overthrown on Nov 1, 1963, and he was killed a day or two later. JFK came on TV in an unannounced live broadcast to confess complicity saying: "The CIA exceeded my instructions."
If you sift carefully through newspapers for early November you will surely find some mention of this.
June 26, 2018 at 2:41 pm GMT • 1,000 Words
I think Ron Unz needs no lessons from anyone, he has been able to get things done in business and politics because he is a one man army. Possibly Unz he has had bad experiences delegating tasks a la the principle-agent problem:-
I suspect Ron is temperamentally predisposed to do things himself ; he does heavy lifting to get the ball rolling, putting all his energies into a tremendous personal effort, and then it gathers mass and momentum, and people bandwagon on his idea (and platform). That is the way of the men of action whose energetic determination and elan carries the day. To me it seems odd to think of a Kennedy assassination starting, not with one person's act of will, but rather an amporphous all encompassing elite international zietgiest initially taking in disparate-interest groupings but filtering down to a tiny cutting edge, which after the event would a predictably disposable one.
Israel was founded in the wake of numerous murders, yes Yitzhak Shamir joined an organisation that attempted to collaborate with Nazi Germany, then made attempts on the life of the Palestine police who killed 'Yair', like Tom Wilkin, and British and UN officials, but this was before Israel was a country. It was not equivalent to the intelligence service or political auxiliaries of Israel commissioning the assassination of a friendly foreign state's president. Eisenhower gave Israel a nuclear reactor and JFK continued all of his predecessors policies.
As the one Israel would turn to, America wanted to keep the Arabs from going to the Soviets but they did. That brought about a reversal of policy on. The election of Kennedy with 80% of the Jewish votes president was followed by the first US supply of arms in 1962 Israel (the state of the art HAWK antiaircraft missile) over the objection of the state department He never would have pressured Israel to give up its nukes program the (inspections were running interference internationally, and when they came proved to be perfunctory) any more than he would have would have withdrawn from Vietnam without victory . He couldn't if he wanted to be reelected.
In 1967 the Israelis were counting on their tactic of coming in from the sea getting past Egyptian radar, I expect the order to destroy the Liberty was taken thinking it was an enemy ship under a false flag.
Going back in time to before the founding of the Jewish state, there is one aspect of Shamir's conspiratorial activity that has great relevance; he became leader of the Stern gang by killing the old boss (the reasons are a matter of dispute, some say it was partially because the victim was gay).
In the light of this, lets examine the putative wide ranging JFK conspiracy and what its ranking members might reasonably expect to accrue to them afterwards with a quote from Bostrom's Superintelligence
Another major factor that can inhibit groups from exploiting a potentially decisive strategic advantage is the problem of internal coordination. Members of a conspiracy that is in a position to seize power must wonder not only about being infiltrated from outside but also about being overthrown by some smaller coalition of insiders. If a group consists of a hundred people and a majority of sixty can take power and disenfranchise the non-conspirators, what is then to stop a thirty-five-strong subset of these sixty from disenfranchising the other twenty-five ? And then maybe a subset of twenty from disenfranchising the other fifteen. Each of the original hundred might have good reason to uphold certain established norms to prevent the general unraveling that could result to change the social contract by means of a naked power grab
Trust is key.
http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2018/06/doing-better-in-promised-land.html
Why do Ashkenazi Jews do worse in Israel than in the United States? […] Just as importantly, however, it also offered a high-trust culture. Americans could generally be counted on to do what they said they would do and charge only what they said they would charge. When two Soviet journalists, Ilya Ilf and Evgeny Petrov, visited the U.S. in 1935, they were struck by the integrity of the average American:
[…]] Should an American say in the course of a conversation, even incidentally, "I'll do that," it is not necessary to remind him of anything at all in the future. Everything will be done. The ability to keep his word, to keep it firmly, accurately, to burst, but keep his word—this is the most important thing which our Soviet business people must learn from American business people. (Ilf and Petrov 1937)
Hence Sam Zell (and Arnon Milchan). As John Wayne's character says in The Comancheroes, "Words are what men live by, words they say and mean". An oath is sworn by US government officials of course.
If anyone could have done it, Bill Harvey could. He headed the CIA assassination of leaders resources and had trained teams http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKzrrifle.htm
Might have found out about Oswald's location and proclivities and used him as a patsy? Most certainly.
• Replies: @HallParvey
Primo: In the 60's, the mafia (Israel is a mafia state) didn't have the total control of the media in the USA as she has today.
Secondo: Mafia likes to make an example of. After JFK, no other "American" president did dare to disobey.
No, there was no autopsy in Dallas.
In violation of Texas state law, Secret Service agents hijacked JFK's body from Parkland before any autopsy could be started.
Please see my earlier comment, which was held up in moderation here for several hours last night until it could be buried, an old newspaper man's trick:
https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-jfk-assassination-part-ii-who-did-it/#comment-2390207
@Tyrion 2
I've just come across your sensible points while doing a search for the post where Ruby is supposed to have killed Oswald "for Israel". Is it not surprising that it doesn't occur to anyone who is inclined to believe in a conspiracy that Ruby might have done it because he thought he was helping Israel by preventing Oswald blabbing? His motive is quite consistent with a CIA or even Cuban exile group's conspiracy which Ruby believed was Israel's.
• Replies: @Tyrion 2
Old fogey says:
Many thanks for the link and the video. Col. Prouty was an extraordinary man.
He supposedly said it was for the "Jewish people" and to a Rabbi. At least, that is what was written above.
Considering how much American Jews seem to have loved Kennedy and how ridiculously disproportionately they voted for him, it's likely that he was mostly just trying to give a decent answer in the context of the conversation and that he meant that Jewish hopes and dreams had been manifested in Kennedy so killing the killer was revenge.
LBJ would have played roughly the same role in JFK's assassination as George Bush played in the 9/11 false flag attack. That is, both would have been informed when the event would occur and issued instructions on how to act and what to say and what not to say etc.
You're saying, that in killing Kennedy, the CIA had not gone rogue, it was just performing one of its intended functions, namely that of removing unsatisfactory heads of state.
But in the case of the removal of the US head of state, one imagines that bipartisan approval would have been required. For the Democrats, there seems no doubt that LBJ was the man. But who on the Republican side would have given the nod? Richard Nixon, the man defeated by Kennedy, was the de facto head of the Republican Party at the time, so likely it would have been him. That would tie together the CIA, Dealey Plaza, and the Watergate Hotel, the link being E. Howard Hunt: CIA station chief in Mexico City, where the CIA monitored Oswald's contacts with the Soviet and Cuban embassies; self-confessed assassination "bench warmer" and, with Frank Sturgis, possibly one of three tramps arrested in Dealey Plaza the day of the assassination; and with Frank Sturgis, arrested during the Watergate Hotel break-in, checking, perhaps, to see whether the Dems had evidence of Nixonian complicity in the JFK assassination.
Perhaps Ruby merely had to be motivated by believing he was doing it for Israel.
@Sean Sean Sean
That explains why, while he was CIA Director, John Deutch was caught going to pornographic web sites by Pentagon investigators and publicly humiliated.
The government does not take orders from the CIA or the FBI. The President controls both. And if necessary he can call out the Army against either or both of them.
Since there has been repeated mention of the medical handling of JFK' s body and the one or more autopsies, I should mention that the work to read, although it is very long, is Douglas Horne' s five-volume "Inside the Assassination Records Review Board". That board, established by Act of Congress with power of subpoena as a reaction to Oliver Stone's movie, operated in the 1990s and caused the release of a lot of new evidence. Horne, a retired naval officer, was the board's chief analyst of military records. He took part in interviews of a lot of survivors of the handling of JFK' s body at Bethesda Naval Hospital.
• Replies: @Tono Bungay
Probably not the only one, but following his successful operation (conspiratorial viewpoint here), the need for similar people evaporated. The nation went into mourning and the following election was another landslide for landslide Lyndon.
I read Posner's Case Closed years ago. It convinced me so I put that subject behind me. RU's recent twin articles have been a pleasant diversion to read, so I checked out Posner's book from the library. First time around I read the whole thing so that I would have a sense of the whole argument. This time around it is a tedious chore to double check my original impression. I have also been reading the comments and I did dip into Piper's 30,000 word writing which RU has kindly made available. I'm still agnostic although favoring the lone gunman theory. RU has suggested we look for the cui bono of the event. I suspect a giant logical error here. That Johnson stood to gain and the Israelis as well has no bearing on who done it. Which favors the lone gunman theory. He was the last child of a racketty mother and was erratic up the wazoo. He shot at and missed retired Gen. Walker. His real life employment was episodic. He didn't like assembling radios in a factory in Kiev any more than any of his other paid employments. He's like a county music loser song. His employment at the building where the Dallas school books were stored, was advertised for in the jobs section of the paper, and the Quaker good-do'er woman who was do gooding Marina, the baby, and Oswald collaterally, as she told Posner, had pointed the ad out to Oswald. He applied for it and got it. Who knew he had a rifle other than Marina? A thought experiment – what if Oswald took the rifle to shoot one or many people as a statement to reinforce his overall grand aim that the world recognize him? And/or he may have sussed out the likelihood of a cavalcade taking that route where he by chance was working. He apparently was adept at surreptiously transporting a rifle into the building, just as he was adept at clumsy forgering. He may have been a 100% loser wacko but he knew his way around in real life. Maybe he took the rifle in and out of the building more than once.
, @F Batts
@CanSpeccy
Trust me they don't vote on conspiracies. The deep state are fully bi-partisan or more accurately non partisan. Nixon was taken out by the same deep state for the same reasons. He was not loyal to the CIA and wanted it reigned in. JFK was first, Agnew was taken out second because Jews did not want him and then Nixon. Ford of course was the guy they wanted from the Warren commission.
@Anonymouse
My suspicion is that 1, he never took the rifle to the building because not just one, but multiple people would have seen him ,and 2 the person who stated he did see him with it was probably lying to help set him up.
Your affectation of dewy innocence is undeniably charming.
https://whowhatwhy.org/2011/12/13/the-military-and-those-strange-threats-to-obama/
Deutsch, Petraeus, McCone, Turner – hood ornaments. Dulles, The Safari Club, Bush, Gates, Cheney, Haspel – the real thing. You are apt to think dumb things when you look at the solid lines on the org chart and not the dotted ones. Have you ever been cleared for collateral of any sort? You are so sure, yet so out of it.
Treason in America is defined as levying war against the United States and or aiding the enemy in time of war.
Furthermore, no person can be convicted of treason unless there is testimony of 2 witnesses to the same overt act or confession in open court.
His defection wasn't in time of war and there were no witnesses or evidence of any overt act when he was in Russia.
You can blather on and on about what you think treason is and what you think he may have told the Russians about our radar systems or the U 2 flights but it's just speculation on your part.
We have a confession from James Files and a lot of other evidence that gives us a picture of what really happened. The exact details will be ambiguous simply because it is a conspiracy. You will get conflicting testimony from different participants. The ambiguity is intentional. It was engineered into the plot, designed to be ambiguous.
The main point is that the government still denies what most people find to be an obvious truth. This make them incompetent at best or, more likely, accessories to treason.
Why do we continue to tolerate clear lies and deceits by our government? Pretty much every column by Paul Craig Roberts these days is detailing blatant deception and crimes by our government and media.
As an aside, if the Israelis were involved, they were likely just another faction.
What precedes revolutions and attempted revolutions?
Impoverishment and depredation of the productive class appears to not be a reason.
Generally, acquisition of power and wealth by some sizeable minority having an opposing political or religious philosophy tends to be operative.
Let me add the wish that someone would do a proper job on the actuarial mathematics of witness deaths
LOL. You mean, you have some question as to the actuarial reasoning behind why, f'rinstance, 28 people who were in or around Dealey Plaza later died?
ROFLMAO. Zero correlation can be found. The population of such "statistic" cannot be quantified. It's bullshit.
@MacNucc11
You must mean Frazier who gave Oswald a ride to work that morning and was told by Oswald that the package Oswald carried into the building contained curtain rods.
The entire population of Texas must have been in on it.
I'd guess:
(1) Kennedy's offenses were more egregious and threatening than Carter's. Kennedy also spoke about secret collaborations and nefarious deeds, while Carter's analysis of what ails us largely conformed to the decades-old (and substantially Jewish) academic critique of a nation sunk low in materialism; i.e., relatively harmless stuff.
(2) Time may have been of the essence. Once the nuclear reactor was shut down (or maintained in the face of Kennedy's public damnation), and the lobby forced to register as a foreign agent, there probably would have been substantial PR problems undoing those actions.
"I suspect a giant logical error here. That Johnson stood to gain and the Israelis as well has no bearing on who done it."
This is either a truly choice non sequitur, or you are announcing the arrival of the latter sentence with the former. Are you seriously saying that motive is irrelevant in determining who committed a crime?
, @Anonymouse
The man in Spandau indeed was not Hess.
The USA prison doctor wrote a book about it.
The real Hess in all probability died in a flying boat crash in Scotland in 1943 that has never been explained, there was a body to many, probably Hess picked up there from a lake.
Lynn Picknett, Clive Prince and Stephen Prior, 'Double standards, The Rudolf Hess cover-up', London 2002
A brother of the British king died in the accident, what the destination of the flying boat was has officially never been explained.
The theory was that the flying boat was on its way to Stockholm to declare peace between GB and Germany, both Hitler and Churchill stepping down.
Of course Churchill not voluntarily.
As the crash could not be admitted a phoney Hess had to be introduced at the Neurenberg show.
This Hess had memory problems.
Had he been able to speak freely, official WWII history would have to be rewritten.
The great thing about truth is consistency, our prince Bernard dined with the mentioned brother the evening before the crash.
The above is consistent with the letter that Bernard is said to have written to Hitler at the time, asking to be made regent or so of the Netherlands.
Who the Spandau man was, and why he played the game, nobody knows.
The USA doctor writes 'when I said to him 'you're not Hess' he shitted'.
I did not read this book.
Of course not, he's walking by from the opposite direction apparently making sure all is well. Are you familiar with the photo I refer to? Go to http://www.prouty.org.
The Watergate break in was 9 years after Kennedy was murdered. 9/11 was 38 years later.
Trust me …
LOL. A sure give away that you don't have a scrap of relevant knowledge.
Who's them?? Killing a president is not included in the definition of treason.
• Replies: @Si1ver1ock
Carter and his CIA director Turner fired more than 800 CIA workers from the operations division, yet no CIA agents tried to kill Carter or Turner.
Firing most of the operations was a concrete, actual thing that destroyed the operations division for years
So why didn't the CIA kill Turner and Carter in the midst of the firings?
Kennedy just fired Dulles and made a threat.
That's a perfectly valid argument, but I actually think it generally supports my own analysis.
There were certainly lots of powerful factions that hated JFK and wanted him out of office. Anti-Communist Cold War hardliners, CIA people, the mafia, Hoover, right-wing Texas oilmen, and a very long list of others. But I don't think any of these groups were particularly time-sensitive, so they could have just waited until shortly before the 1964 election and began dumping a huge amount of scandalous material into the media to try to ensure JFK's defeat. I really think that's what someone like Dulles would have normally have done.
However, there were two major exceptions. At the time of the assassination, LBJ was just weeks or even days away from being destroyed politically as the media with Kennedy encouragement was about to expose all of his gigantic corruption scandals, and not long afterward he might have been on trial, facing a long prison sentence. Also, once his political power was broken, maybe some of the fearful witnesses to his alleged several past Texas murders would have come forward, placing him at even greater legal risk. Johnson couldn't wait.
Meanwhile, Israel was under enormous pressure by JFK to abandon its nuclear weapons program or risk a full cut-off of aid. And the nascent Israel Lobby in the U.S. was also close to being forced to register as foreign agents and effectively shut down. Israel couldn't wait a year either.
All the various anti-JFK groups that are the overwhelming focus of conspiracy people didn't really have much reason to take such an immediate risk, but Johnson and Israel did.
, @Dube
, @Jon Baptist
It's not necessary for a prosecutor to bring up motive in the charges or in the trial. Judges frown on prosecutors emphasizing possible motive instead of concrete evidence.
There were at least 10 entities who allegedly benefited from the murder according to the Kennedy Killing industry and hobbyists.
To file charges that wouldn't be dismissed at the prima facie hearing, a prosecutor would have to prove at the proms facie hearing that he had believable and proveable evidence that the defendant did kill Kennedy.
It's obvious there are no investigators or anyone working in the legal field on this thread.
I honestly wonder why the Jews objected so much to AIPAC registering as agents of a foreign government.
It is an agent of a foreign government.
Why pretend it isn't?
AIPAC got rid of one of our most prestigious foreign policy Senators, Fulbright because he wanted AIPAC to register as a foreign power.
I absolutely agree with you Ron. If Johnson didn't do it. Israel would have to avoid Kennedy revealing its nuclear weapons and withdrawing the aid that allowed Israel to exist.
Henry VIII's personality, not divine right, was the decisive factor in his ability to impose his authority over all institutions of the country and remake them most fundamentally . The leader of a country always has the real power if he chooses to use it. Trump does, and the CIA can do nothing.
Nixon's greatest mistake was resonding to Hoover's failure to come up with evidence that anti Vietnam war sentiment was a communist plot by getting CIA incompetents like Hunt to work on gathering evidence on the leaks. Hunt was experienced at writing spy novels, not burglary ( Hell's Angels would have been more professional) How anyone could think Hunt would be left alive, and used on a covert operation after participating in an assassination is beyond me. The CIA were and are full of liberals like Angleton's henchman Cord Meyer the world government enthusiast. With the possible exception of Bill Harvey, they didn't have the guts* for assassinating the president then, and they still don't.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/05/07/the-spy-who-came-home
In October, 2016, one of Skinner's closest friends in the C.I.A. was killed by isis forces in Afghanistan. Skinner was despondent. A few months later, he left the Soufan Group and joined his local police force, taking a pay cut of more than a hundred thousand dollars a year. For the Savannah police, the biggest obstacle in gaining the community's trust is the city's history. Savannah is around fifty-five per cent black, and Georgia practiced segregation well into the second half of the twentieth century; after Skinner completed his training, he was startled to find that many interactions he had with older black men began with them reflexively putting up their hands.[ect ect]
Torrey is a proponent of the bug theory of schizophrenia. The gene most implicated in schizophrenia is one that amps up the inflammatory response, so he is at least half right.
*Your gut bacteria own and manipulate you, altering your behaviour for their own benefit. That is even more true of your immune system.
Evolution in action. One thing leads to another. Positive feedback in the form of self help organizations which have learned to manipulate others is beneficial for the group. Likewise negative feedback in the form of being able to stifle any and all criticism is a net positive for the group.
Darwin observed and wrote about a very narrow part of one feedback loop.
Loops are everywhere, in everything, both positive and negative, and sometimes observable from the outside but difficult from the inside. And those loops make up evolution of everything.
Eventually, even evolution reaches it's natural end, and the evolving system is replaced with a new system. Birth, growth, maturation, replacement production, decay, death.
Almost like life itself. Cycles of evolution.
But the risks of killing the president is SO HUGE that I can't imagine there being a conspiracy to kill him. To bring him down, yes. That happens all the time. But to KILL him?
Israel would risk that? And was it a rogue Mossad operation or was it ordered from the very top? I can't imagine the leaders of Israel telling their agents to kill the US president. It sounds too crazy.
It's one thing to assassinate some Palestinians or lower officials here and there. But the president of the US?
Also, if word gets out, there's a good chance someone will squeal.
Imagine if Pence wanted to kill Trump. He would have to contact some people. We know the Deep State hates Trump and wants him gone. But if Pence approaches people and says, 'psst, psst, lets kill Trump', how can he be sure if they will nod and go along. There is a good chance that even the anti-Trump Deep State will sound the alarm and stop the plot.
There's too much risk involved. Too much chance that SOMEONE will get the wind of it and squeal.
So, if there was a conspiracy involving Johnson, it must have a totally rogue operation carried out by henchmen Johnson totally trusted and knew for a long long time.
As for the Jews, they have the biggest (character)assassination machine called the media. Just by spilling the beans on certain politicians, Jewish power can ruin them for good. No need to kill them.
But maybe that is now. Back in the 60s, maybe Jewish media power wasn't as overwhelming and maybe the nation wasn't PC for Jews to destroy just about any politician. After all, George Wallace was a major candidate in the late 60s. So, maybe they had to resort to tougher means.
tac says:
NAVY DOCTOR: BULLET FOUND IN JFK'S LIMOUSINE, AND NEVER REPORTED
This is the story of a bullet — a spent, misshapen, but otherwise intact, bullet — that James Young, a Navy doctor, said was found late at night, on the floor, in the back of Kennedy's limousine. He inspected it himself.
The bullet was found by two chief petty officers who, during the autopsy, were sent to retrieve any skull fragments they could find in the limousine. They came back with three pieces of bone, and the bullet. The skull fragments were reported — but not the bullet.
https://whowhatwhy.org/2017/10/06/navy-doctor-bullet-found-jfks-limousine-never-reported/
@James Brown
All it would have taken is one news story to get it started.
Jimmy Carter "dared to disobey." And why didn't Israel assassinate Eisenhower? In the 1956 Suez crisis he displeased Israel considerably.
You have to understand the times. Kennedy failed in taking a firm line with the Commies, in Cuba over the missiles, in Cuba over the Bay of Pigs and in Vietnam, where he planned to pull the troops out after the '64 election. This was treason, and the penalty for treason is death.
Why the US Government Killed John F. Kennedy
Thank you for the reply, but I stand by my argument. Destroying JFK politically and morally by a sex scandal would have been easier and safer than a complex murder plot with numerous players.
Speaking of LBJ, JFK was compromised through involvement with a woman from Bobby Baker's Quorum club. See Ben Bradlee's book, "Conversations with Kennedy," pages 227-228. On November 5, 1963, a little over two weeks from the assassination, Kennedy was giving Bradlee some disinformation. He anticipated trouble from the Ellen Rometsch Affair, the woman from Bobby Baker's stable.
A perfect way for the Deep State (and Israel) to totally destroy JFK had they desired to do so.
Doesn't matter.
Basically, the game here is: anything bad – Jews did it. Anything good – Jews tried to stop.
Most of the time.
Has all human politics always been like this?
Most of the time, for the proles. Keeps things simple.
That probably is the way they thought, that JFK was committing treason. But that was their paranoid Cold War thinking speaking. They couldn't imagine that someone like JFK could in good faith want to end the Cold War. They were wrong. They were the ones that administered a critical — and probably in the end fatal — blow to the American system. They — at least the Americans among them — were the ones who committed treason.
The route of the motorcade was announced Wednesday the 20th of November. The workers at the TSBD knew the motorcade would go right by the building.
The next day, Oswald went to the Paine home and stayed the night. The morning of Friday 11/22 Oswald brought a package he claimed were curtain rods out of the Paine home and into the TSBD.
Oswald owned a Mannlicher Carcano rifle. A Mannlicher Carcano was found by a window on the sixth floor of the TSBD. Workers looking out the 5th floor window directly under the window where the rifle was found heard shots, felt the vibration, and saw dust fall from the ceiling ducts.
When the police searched the Paine home and garage Oswald's rifle was not found.
Those are verifiable, indisputable facts.
All else is just fantasy, speculation and ignorant hero worship of Kennedy.
• Agree: David In TN
@Dillon Sweeny
Not always. Russia (Communists in), Soviet Union (Communists out).
So, I'd change the second into
Generally, acquisition of power and wealth by some sizeable group having an opposing political or religious philosophy tends to be operative.
and, would add "a crisis in society".
When crisis happens the power is likely to be taken over by the best organized group.
As for the West, the only crisis I can think of is the economy.
Or, there won't be any change, let alone a revolution, while an average person has enough breads and circuses.
Now, defining that "enough" could be a tricky manner. Greed is universal.
You may be right. But I was in college when Kennedy was President. The entire media was in love with Kennedy. His fathers PR machine was still going strong for years after his death.
The media worship was worse than Obama's Kennedy supposedly got a 15 year old baby sitter pregnant and arranged a then illegal abortion when he was a senator. That and his other sex scandals were completely covered up.
The Kennedy PR machine didn't start when Kennedy ran for Congress. Joe, Rose his wife, Arthur Krock, magazine editors, especially women's magazine editors carefully nurtured the Kennedy PR machine for 30 years before he was elected president
The Kennedys owned the media. The sex scandals would not have been revealed.
Kennedy was only kept alive by through medication to keep his Addison's disease under control. That too was completely covered up. He had been in and out of hospitals all his sickly life and that was covered up as childhood diseases and a bad back from a navy injury.
Like Obama, Kennedy was a media creation. Unlike Obama, Kennedy was beneficial or at least did no harm.
Look up the definition of treason according to the US code. Killing the president is nurder, not treason.
Just type "definition of treason" into any search engine.
Here is a video about the autopsy and the skull fragments (***Warning: GRAPHIC***):
Here is one on the bullet trajectory that hit (JKF and Connally) and its most likely origin (and another "coincidence" involving the whereabouts of Jack[ob] Ruby[enstein]):
Kennedy was thinking of
1 redcuing the power prestige fianning and machinations of CIA
2 He was palnning to restore noninterventionist attitude to Cuba
3 He was thinking of esatblishing better relation with Soviet
4 He was planning to get rid of fiat money and redcue Fed Res power
5 He was planning to dismantle nuclear ambition of israel
6 He was thinking of giving Palestine a betetr deal
7 He was not interested in escalating Vietnam
– So many forces combined and collided together against him.
SEx scandal may or mayn't have damaged him That was different time and he was not gay.
I knew the Israelis killed Forrestal but I didn't know LBJ visited him the night before.
Good points. To be clear, I'm running with the Israel as prime mover thesis right now, so what you say undercuts the case against the chief competitor, the CIA. I do think elements of the CIA were involved, and Bill Harvey might have gotten the three shooters from the European mafia, as Talbott argues.
@Sparkon
Watch Secrect Service agent Clint Hill's (left-hand side of JFK's detail) prepostorous explaination of Secret Serivce Don Lawton's (right-hand side of JFK's detail) series of shrugs in reaction to Emory Roberts' stand down order(from @14:00-14:59):
"Ok,.. you guys I'm going to lunch … have a good trip"
I never noticed the absence of motive in the court rooms of the Virginia jurisdictions where I practiced criminal law. Judges may not be so interested in it, having seen thousands of defendants and knowing that 99.5 percent of them are just terminally stupid and dishonest, but juries certainly are.
Goatweed says:
Was there an explanation for LBJ's associate's fingerprint being recovered from the sixth floor of the TSBD?
Israel was too powerful for the Arabs conventionally, and America had Israel's back anyway. The nukes were just to threaten America with in a last resort "If you don't help us we will need to nuke the Arabs". America would never let it come to that. Nukes were a luxury, evidence of the special relationship Israel has with the US. America gave Israel a nuclear reactor in 1952 for goodness sake!
@tac
I should mention that Vince Palamara's video (the first of the two videos I've linked) should be watched in its entirety (and not just for the Clint Hill interview as some may interpret my original comment) as Vince is the person who has spent the most time researching the Secret Service angle in the JFK assassination.
Treason in America is defined as levying war against the United States
Killing the President of the United States is an act of war if ever there was one.
If you want to know who them are, take a good look at this headline.
Trump delays release of some JFK files until 2021, bowing to national security concerns
Read it carefully. Someone, some unknown person or persons, forced the President of the United States to bow to their wishes. In our constitutional form of government, who has that power?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-trump-jfk-files-20180426-story.html
• Replies: @Peripatetic commenter
If I may explain myself. There are obviously many results that issue from one president replacing another. Some parties will be advantaged, others the reverse. All of the advantages are subsequent to the event. Sure, it's at least theoretically possible to contrive and execute a plot without getting caught. But doing this massively breaks the KISS principle (keep it simple, stupid). The simplest explanation is that the weirdo Oswald did the deed for Oswaldean reasons, for which there is a great deal of evidence, unless it can be demonstrated that he could not have done so. Is there a book that specifically addresses why it was impossible that Oswald was the lone gunman? If there is no clear evidence that Oswald couldn't have done it, that it seems otiose to detect a conspiracy on the basis of who was advantaged by it happening. Even if so and so was advantaged, that in itself is not evidence that there was a conspiracy of so and so. That is what I was trying to say: that identifying those advantaged does not disprove that Oswald was the lone killer. Which is why I suspect that he was.
, @Marty
Anonymous [AKA "Diamond\'s insurance file"] says:
"All the various anti-JFK groups that are the overwhelming focus of conspiracy people didn't really have much reason to take such an immediate risk, but Johnson and Israel did" [225]
(1) What risk? Impunity means nothing happens if you get caught. CIA got caught off the bat, ten different ways, and it's been 65 years and nothing has happened. Now they have a DCI publicly implicated in systematic and widespread torture constituting crimes against humanity. They could not be more fuck-you-whadda-ya-gonna-do-about-it if they put a thawed-out hitler embryo in that chair.
(2) The notion of murder as a drastic last resort is not consistent with state conduct, which indicates that the coup had a demonstrative signaling function.
https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/FalseMystery/ThePainesRoleInHistory.html
As lysias says above, "The assassination was a public execution. The people who counted were meant to understand what had happened. The deed was meant to intimidate anyone who might have thought of imitating JFK." Now all nominal US heads of state know to stand by for instructions.
That the paraffin test administered to Oswald after his arrest indicated he had not fired a rifle that day seems to me pretty decisive evidence of his innocence.
While each individual candidate for conspiracy scenario is unlikely and it is almost certain that some sort of outlier is involved if there is a conspiracy, whether it is the near paranoid madness of an Angleton or just an extraordinarily insouciant or oblivious attitude to risk (even thrillseeking), nonetheless it is worth considering what the rational risktaker would probably do.
If you were setting up Oswald as sole shooter you would want to make sure he fired shots at the time Kennedy was to be killed. Oswald's weapon should be one that could do the job but didn't point to the conspirators, or, preferably, any conspirators. (That checks out).
You want to make sure of the killing so you arrange for more a highly professional killer to shoot as soon as Oswald shoots, using a silencer. That shooter must use indistinguishable ammunition (save inevitably for barrel markings which suggests that some kind of disintegrating bullet would be chosen). The other shooter must also *not* shoot from somewhere that is likely to disclose that there has been shooting from two (let alone three) different positions.
F Batts says:
the problem with the lone gunmen theory is that you have a single bullet, after passing through JFK, making a 180 degree turn in mid air to cause the wounds on Connoly… not to mention that the Zapurder film documents that the shots were fired in x number of seconds which the bolt action rifle was incapable of producing…. not to mention that all 3 shots hit their mark and finally the kill shot pushed JFK's back and not forward which it would of done had the shot come from behind… simple physics, no?
Even though I stick with the Oswald-done-it, I am truly amazed at how even the Mass Media in the West have been openly in bed with the Deep State on Russia(and Russia hacking), Libya, Syria, Iran, and so many lies. All brazenly told out in the open.
It's gotten to the point where I don't know whom to trust. So many double-standards. And ideologically blinded people just don't care. They don't care how many lies are told as long as it serves their narrative or biases.
How does delaying until 2021 help?
Will the US no longer exist after that?
Will all those who might wish for revenge be dead by then?
As to why the deferral unless you assume that there is deadly revealing stuff about the CIA or Israel involvement to be hidden AND that those assessing the material for release know that is a live issue you will look to the typical and properly regular behaviour of bureaucrats at all levels where "better to be safe than sorry" comes readily to the tongue even if it is just a question of saving some elderly widow the pain of what is probably an outrageous slander and it would take days to deal with each such problem – without any possibility of dealing with every one.
Excellent November 2011 interview with Michael Collins Piper (Final Judgment):
That's the permission gesture I use with the dogs. I don't allow them in the kitchen or the dining room when we're eating. They aren't allowed to hang around when I'm fixing their food.
They have to sit or lie down at least 5 ft away when I'm fixing their food. When I put the food in the floor for them they aren't allowed to get up till I make that gesture. Then they can come and eat.
Same gesture to come through a door, get in and out of the car.
For humans, it looks like an ok, we're finished here go do something else gesture.
Killing the president is defined as murder, not an act of war.
Good thinking. No need to suppose he wasn't a volatile sentimentalist just because he was a sleazebag with criminal associations.
Yes, can someone spell out the consequences then – and now for that matter – of registering? Also can anyone make comparisons with the activities and any inhibition of the activities of other foreign agents that are registered?
It occurs to me that litigation would have been a usual step to take before assassination. Unless we consider what litigation with what arguments might have been available I can't see that the registration of foreign agents problem is a part of the JFK assassination mystery. Indeed, U suspect that it is a red herring because the AIPAC solution us probably legally legit. Indeed I guess there would be a good First Amendment case against forcing AIPAC to register *because it is no doubt financed entirely by US Jewish money". In fact I wonder how the issue even got up to anyone noticed. As Israel itself depended so much on American Jews' money how can a "foreign agent" even have been needed? Is anyone going to say that a foundation set up to lobby for Mexican interests by Jeb Bush's wife with her money would have to register as a foreign agent?
Ephesians 6:12 King James Version (KJV)
The assassination of President John F. Kennedy was a public sacrifice of the King of Camelot. The forces of darkness intended the rape of the American mind. The executioners utilize public spectacle, shock, and impunity imprinting the America consciousness that forces of evil with power, will, memory, and hubris understand and control the world, its institutions, and people as if we are mere sheep in a slaughter house. We are invited to see and worship evil display cunning, power, and immunity for our submission, acquiescence, and service. It is the choice humanity cannot and does not resist, except a remnant.
The assassination was a psychodrama, a psychological operation preparing the human mind for a bee hive police state, with human community, trust, love, creativity, tradition, and aspirations murdered. Earnest, naive minds are mesmerized by minutia of the spectacle! We stare at the horror of a worldwide concentration camp. It is entertainment and distraction from work, beauty, eternity, and memory of what we could be and were for a few moments in the long ascent of the spirit of human dignity. We live on circus and bread, fear and greed, without hope, mere animals on the farm, not daring to look beyond and behind the details; but the subconscious mind knows, so we live in fear and adoration of torturers and mind rapers. And yet…..the strongest minds dare to see, remember, and live are as a remnant who wait as seed for a new era as HUBRIS brings down this Tower of Babel!
• Agree: MacNucc11
Like 9/11 and other high-level false flags, we'll never know the full story because most participates simply followed orders and played minor roles, leaving only a few trusted Zionist at the very top of the pyramid being fully aware of all the details. Which explains why so many well-meaning people dismiss obvious conspiracies like 9/11 and the JFK assassination, with the comment that if it had been a conspiracy, then surely someone would have spilled the beans and come forward with the details, without realizing that no single individual in the position to talk knew enough details to spill the beans.
Jett Rucker says: • Website
I became convinced of Israel's central complicity after reading Jeff Gates's Guilt by Association. I believe Johnson's Zionist bedmate Mathilde Krim may have been instrumental in animating his pro-Israel sympathies, and in qualifying him for the favor of the Mossad's services in elevating him to the presidency of the United States.
• Replies: @Brewer
….using a silencer….
Rifle, muzzle speed, supersonic crack, custom rounds, ballistics/ballistic tables/zeroing….
….. silencer, subsonic accuracy….ballistics/ballistic table/zeroing
…..suppressor……bullet speed-ballistics/ballistic table/zeroing….
Things like that.
But that was their paranoid Cold War thinking speaking.
That was the liberal-left take on it, sure. But were the liberal-left right? The world was divided between the Communist block and NATO. If America and Europe had gone Communist it would have meant a bullet in the head not only for the plutocratic elite and their hangers on, but most of the liberal-leftie elite too. In those days, Commies weren't pussies, they killed people who were of the wrong social class.
In fact, the West only beat the Communists because (a) the had nuclear weapons to deter Soviet aggression and (b) the Soviets were so corrupt and the Chinese under Mao were so crazy that beating them was not difficult. But the perceived danger was a true reflection of reality.
I never said killing the president was treason. I said:
Kennedy failed in taking a firm line with the Commies, in Cuba over the missiles, in Cuba over the Bay of Pigs and in Vietnam, where he planned to pull the troops out after the '64 election. This was treason
1. Trump may not be president in 2021.
2. Who is to say they won't delay 10 more years.
3. George Bush the Elder may no longer be with us.
closeup of bullet hole in windshield of JFK's limousine:
Tell it to the judge.
Once more, look up the definition of treason. Kennedy did not commit treason.
Miles Mathis thinks that JFK and the Kennedy family faked his assassanation for nefarious purposesz
@peterAUS
Okay, "group" is acceptable, although it seems likely the group would not be a majority. 😉
Also, "crisis in society"? What social crisis induced the American Revolution? The October Revolution? And the rest? I would concede a social crisis crucial for the French Revolution, but I believe institutional injustice is more frequently operative.
Supplemental link to my previous post:
http://www.jfksouthknollgunman.com/index.php/04-2-bullet-hole/
https://archive.org/details/451DougWeldon20091203
If as Mr. Jolliffe indicated, the cover-up…uh the responsive steps began under the capital M military at Bethesda. That's pretty massive as a "faction," indeed a necessary condition.
Well, that's a rather big/wide topic.
Depends on a lot of variables, would be the best answer.
Not a copout.
What triggered Hutu/Tutsi "event"?
What triggered Balkans "games"?
What I am absolutely positive about is that much smarter people than all of us here, with access to funds and data we can't dream about, have as a full time job to asses that and recommend a course of action/inaction to the powers that be in any serious country.
So, to get into a serious conversation about what could,say, trigger a crisis and what could happen based on that crisis in Greece would be, I think, quite different from Austria, of Spain, or…etc.
As for USA, well, can't even begin to contemplate that, seriously.
Having said that I think you are onto something here:
….I believe institutional injustice is more frequently operative.
Read a book ages ago, stating that the operative is when a middle class starts believing in institutional injustice. Or, better, when a middle class doesn't want to play the current role in the current game.
When the middle class wants the game changed.
I left the main reason out because it was in the article. The main reason was " Time".
Mafia didn't have time. Ron just made it crystal clear in his post.
"All it would have taken is one news story to get it started."…You need time for that and You're not sure about the results. Kennedy might or might not have lost the next election.
Of course no one can prove that Mossad did it. Nothing that is really important in this life can be proven.
But what a reasonable creature can conclude is that the Mafia (Israel) had the motive and the means.
And the means for cover up…Unless one is naîve or dishonest, one knows who has almost total control of all the branches of power in the USA since, at least, 1945, and total control since 1963.
Can you give me an example where Carter "dared to disobey" ?
Well, one also can say that even Obama "dared to disobey" and they didn't kill him…
"And why didn't Israel assassinate Eisenhower?"…
I don't know but they probably thought about it. Maybe they didn't have all the resources they needed.
Killing other people is just part of Mafia's DNA. Who has been killing Iranian's scientists ?
I believe that is Mossad with help of American and European secret services.
Can I prove it ? No one can.
Again: who has the motive and the means ?
Maybe an interesting question is why did they choose to execute Kennedy instead of, for example using poison ?
I'm not an expert on Mafia, but I believe the main reason was to make of JFK an example.
After JFK, I insist, no other "American" president dared to disobey. They may or may not be stupid, but they all know who is the boss.
@F Batts
Not to mention that the pristine bullet path through Kennedy's neck is a non-starter from the off. The wound was in the back (probably from a shot from Daltex building) and that bullet hole could only be probed to half a finger length. It did not pass through the body, so, obviously, could not have caused damage to Connally. Ford, self-admittedly, changed the description to read that the shot hit the neck.
As regards the anon clown who keeps bloviating about Oswald bringing a rifle to work. Frazier and his sister were unshakable in their evidence that the package was cupped in his hand and fitted under his armpit. Therefore, too short to be the rifle.
Oswald was in the lunchroom when shots were fired. Two female employees were on the stairs at the time he supposedly ran down these after the shooting and have both categorically declared that no one ran by them.
• Replies: @Sparkon
Someone, forgot who, said to Clinton 'make the UFO information public'.
Clinton is reported to have answered 'they'll kill me'.
Assuming that this is true, who are the 'they' ?
A USA admiral, shortly before his death, recorded on video 'that the technology for providing every houshold with the energy they needed from a device as big as a vacuum cleaner was known, but that it would probably never be used'.
Think about the consequences if oil, gas and coal became worthless overnight.
What to think of this, I'm not sure, but maybe Rosswell provided this technology.
E=MC² still is true, but we do not know how to do it, except by fire etc., nuclear fusion, and nuclear fission.
By these methods a very tiny mass is converted into energy.
It is in his book-length article, "Who Killed James Forrestal." (http://dcdave.com/article4/021110.html)
Brewer says:
@Jett Rucker
Johnson was a Zionist long before he met Krim.
A key resource for uncovering LBJ's pro-Jewish activity is the unpublished 1989 doctoral thesis by University of Texas student Louis Gomolak, "Prologue: LBJ's Foreign Affairs Background, 1908-1948." Johnson's activities were confirmed by other historians in interviews with his wife, family members and political associates. Research into Johnson's personal history indicates that he inherited his concern for the Jewish people from his family. His aunt Jessie Johnson Hatcher, a major influence on LBJ, was a member of the Zionist Organization of America…..
According to historian James M. Smallwood, Congressman Johnson used legal and sometimes illegal methods to smuggle "hundreds of Jews into Texas, using Galveston as the entry port. Enough money could buy false passports and fake visas in Cuba, Mexico and other Latin American countries…. Johnson smuggled boatloads and planeloads of Jews into Texas. He hid them in the Texas National Youth Administration…
According to Gomolak, Novy and Johnson then raised a very "substantial sum for arms for Jewish underground fighters in Palestine." One source cited by the historian reports that "Novy and Johnson had been secretly shipping heavy crates labeled 'Texas Grapefruit' – but containing arms – to Jewish underground 'freedom fighters' in Palestine." …..
..while serving in the Senate, Johnson blocked the Eisenhower administration's attempts to apply sanctions against Israel following the 1956 Sinai Campaign. "The indefatigable Johnson had never ceased pressure on the administration," wrote I.L. "Si" Kenen, the head of AIPAC at the time. As Senate majority leader, Johnson consistently blocked the anti-Israel initiatives of his fellow Democrat, William Fulbright, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Among Johnson's closest advisers during this period were several strong pro-Israel advocates, including Benjamin Cohen…
https://www.jpost.com/Features/A-friend-in-deed
If that is not your opinion as an expert who's considered opinion as an expert are you relying on and why was that opinion not accepted by the Warren Commission?
What did the Warren Commission and subsequently the House Select Committee say about such evidence?
Excuse me if I find it odd that an anonymous blogger can find the alleged result of an alleged test so conclusive for the purposes of forming his opinion on a vital matter without inquiring what those charged with assessing the evidence made of it and relating the results of his inquiry to back up or qualify his opinion.
Laurent Guyénot says:
@Dube
To be precise, the autopsy, in Washington Navy Hospital, was controlled by the Navy, and the Navy was heavily under Johnson's control. Johnson had pushed for the nomination of Texan John Connally as Navy Secretary, then Fred Korth (who was just being forced to resign because of the same corruption scandal which was also threatening LBJ). Oswald, by the way, was also a marine, working for the ONI (Office of Naval Intelligence), not CIA.
That's a bit too much connected information and thinking for some of those here who know that Zionist Jews have controlled everything that matters since 1945, or maybe 1845. Makes sense.
Rubbish. If someone had been one of the dozens of people involved in rigging up the WTC buildings for demolition they would have had enough information to prove the official version wrong. If someone had been one of the other supposed shooters in Dallas, or just a driver helping their getaway they could have blown the Warren Commission version.
The trouble with that is attributing a strong enough motive for Israel to take the risk of assassinating the popular president of its one indispensable ally. True, you could no doubt find Zionist thugs within Israel's secret services, and maybe in Cabinet, who would stop at nothing but you'ld have to work hard to see how and why they are going to manage an Oswald centred conspiracy when the majority view amongst their colleagues – and very likely their contacts – is that it would be madness. There would even be the risk of someone unexpected having scruples. True, once it happened, the choice by decent senior people might come down on cover up rather than confession and plea for forgiveness. Imagination offers various scenarios including "Don't worry: we can produce evidence of a conversation with Johnson which he won' t want to explain to anyone even if it doesn't prove foreknowledge and approval by him".
I can't see Mossad rogues having a strong enough feeling for the reality of Israel's nuclear arms situation to do it off their own bat and Cabinet wouldn't have risked it. The PM wasn't dominant either.
Killing US presidents is clearly not off everyone's menu but it is always going to involve serious risktaking and therefore likely to be the work of the unbalanced or fanatically ruthless. I agree with your view that a clique in the CIA would be more likely able and willing to organise it than the Israelis. But the Cuban connection, which apparently RFK suspected, seemed plausible enough in the telling by Bob Baer.
The problem is that none of the scenarios were a priori probable. It matters a great deal that forensic detail be known precisely. What does it say, for example, that conspirators who could rely on Oswald firing identifiable bullets from the Book Depository yet arranged to make sure Kennedy died by firing different weapons from one or more completely different positions and angles?
If you want to compare, you have to compare the two vice-presidents: on 9/11, George W. was neutralized, turned into a dummy, the next thing to a corpse, and Cheney effectively was running the country (as a mercanary for the neocon zionists).
I just did a Google search for "dark enlightenment." I intended no reference to other books or blogs on the internet. I only meant to image "waking into darkness." A kind of enlightenment, but not of the "sunlit rationalism" variety.
One of the great things about the Unz Review is that the comments are usually as interesting as the articles. Thanks for the forum! Lots of fun.
With all the details explained different ways, why could not that test be faked by the conspirators? It seems to me that conspiracy buffs are falling down an infinite rabbit's hole. Posner claims that the first bullet missed and the second and third were about 6 seconds apart.
@Achilles
Wow! I haven't begun to formulate a scenario in which Mossad and Cuba might have combined forces. I wonder if anyone else has.
I can't see any bullet holes but I've listened to the very long David Weldon interview/exposition and it is hard to mount more than minor quibbles. I wonder if he provides much of Ron's reasons for believing in more than one shooter?
Mantiq al-Tayr says: • Website
Many thanks for writing this and helping revive Mike Piper's legacy. Near the end of his life I had the great pleasure of being able to call him a friend after having been a fan of his for many years.
When I saw part 1 of your essay I was afraid it was going to be another milquetoast discovery that something was up. But today I saw that Mike's book was featured right above your article on your site so I read part 2 and I am very glad I did. Good for you.
Kingfelix says:
The problem is there is strong evidence the Zapruder film was doctored/frames removed, so making inferences from it is problematic.
You make a good prima facie case for Johnson having the strongest motive but
1. How does your account of everything relevant to do with Johnson check out with the Robert Caro biography which I haven't read but seems to be highly respected?
2. Where can one read what was about to be unloaded on Johnson in the Kennedy favouring MSM?
3. When and what did Johnson know about that threat to his future?
4. If Johnson had to start the plotting as soon as he was apprised of that threat how could and did he go about it – or should we believe that he was able to take advantage of the happy coincidence of conspirators ready to go who needed to know that he wouldn't pursue them or indeed allow them to be pursued? (As Attorney-General RFK could clearly have set some investigations and preservations of evidence in train. So it is worth asking what he did even if he were only investigating the Cubans and the mob as Schlesinger's diaries record him as suspecting. A further thought: RFK may well have become more comprehensive in his suspicion of conspiracy as the successive conspiracy theorists ideas were aired and some of the evidence began to appear in a fresh light or to have been suppressed or corrupted. Could that provide a partial reconciliation with the Bugliosi view that RFK accepted the Warren version?).
I do not subscribe to the mafia theory because the mafia is too disjointed and competing interests. The two criminal groups with the most to gain were Israel and the CIA. Sure some mob figures were used but only to help though.
Carroll Price is correct. You missed the part obviously where she stated "in a position to talk." If you are one of the shooters of JFK who are you going to talk to where you are not simply killed first?
Besides the people that they trust with that kind of information they are sure of. Those people know they and their whole family will perish if they betray the plot. The rest of the people know very little.
You are forgetting also that JFK was not without a considerable PR machine that could adeptly counter any such attempt. Besides it is not as if such would have guaranteed his removal from office. Can you cite such and example where a president has been removed over a sexual scandal? The other thing you need to remember is whoever would expose such would also be tipping their hand that they wanted him out.
Well, since most of us won't have the time to read these five volumes, can you summarize what they say or suggest about the present case?
You don't know much of anything.
@Laurent Guyénot
"George W. was neutralized, turned into a dummy,"
May I suggest to you that you are wrong ?
George W. Bush wasn't "neutralized and turned into a dummy". G.W.Bush wouldn't never been "elected" president, if those who control the USA weren't sure that he wasn't going to do what he was told to do. And one of the qualities the forces who colonized the USA like in their president is ambition and stupidity. GWB had both. He wanted to go further than his father..And he succeeded. He was elected twice and he was a war president, therefore a "great president".
"Cheney effectively was running the country (as a mercanary for the neocon zionists)."
That is also, IMHO, a mistake. Not all of those serving Zionists are their "mercenary".
One of the reasons why Zionism is so powerful is because they find in white Anglo-Saxon tradition (well represented by Cheney, Trump, Clintons and other disgusting creatures) the same world-view, same values, same hate of others,Islamophobia, deep racism etc…which makes it easy to co-opt, convince lots of gentiles to work for "the cause".
One should distinguish between mediocre and ambitious guys like GWB, Tony Blair etc…who are willing to sell their mother, their country, their soul to achieve power, and guys like Trump and Cheney.
Trump and Cheney are really dangerous. They really believe in the cause. They are honorary members of the tribe. They can even marry their daughters into the tribe.
And of course , one should never forget that it's not only wasp that are compatible with Zionist's world view.
One of the most important member of Zionist enterprise is, as you know, The House of Saud
• Agree: Carroll Price
What was Joe DiMaggio's connection to the mob? In his book Michael Collins Piper demonstrates that the Kennedy mob connection was more Jewish than Italian. Meyer Lansky, Mickey Cohen and Jack Ruby and Joe Kennedy had dealings with the Stern Gang. Many Italian Americans admired the Kennedy's simply because they were Catholic. I can speak for my own family.
Horne' s five volumes make very clear what a fraud the Bethesda autopsy was, meant above all to conceal the fact that JFK was shot from the front.
Dit it hurt ?
It wasn't my intention. I thought your "questions" and "doubts" were sincere. I tried to answer them.
When I don't know something, I have no problem in saying so.
As you know a lot, maybe you can teach me.
Just kidding. No need to reply.
Kennedy did not commit treason.
In the view of those who, at the time, accused Kennedy of treason, he had betrayed his country by failing to face up to to the Communist menace. Got it now?
Which means you are not looking objectively…deflection is an Israeli (Israeli-firster) tactic used to perfection my (((Australian))) friend, yet when one REALLY takes a magnifying glass to the major events of at least the past century one can deduce the common denominator in the political tectonic shifts as none other than Israel and its very (Israeli-firster) interests. You and your partners are very busy these days indeed deflecting, but rest assured there are those out there who are wise to said tactics …. 🙂
But the Cuban connection, which apparently RFK suspected, seemed plausible enough in the telling by Bob Baer.
But according to other accounts RFK held LBJ responsible, Kennedy saying to Johnson:
"Why'd you have my brother killed?"
In any case, from the testimony of the experienced doctors and trauma surgeons who attended on the dying president at Parkland Hospital, I accept as established beyond reasonable doubt that the fatal head shot did not come from behind the President's car, i.e., from the Texas School Book Depository, where Oswald was supposed to have been shooting.
That means, as I have discussed here, that the Warren Commission Report was a cover up. And if the Warren Commission Report was a cover up, then it almost certainly covered up a conspiracy to murder involving the government.
So who in the Government? Obviously, that branch of government responsible for the assassination of heads of state; namely, the CIA. And if the killing was undertaken by the CIA, then it would certainly have required bipartisan political authorization, specifically from LBJ and, on the Republican side, quite likely Richard Nixon.
As I have discussed here, in the political context of the time, this makes perfectly good sense. In the aftermath of the World War, America stood virtually alone against Communism, and Kennedy repeatedly failed to stand firm against that menace. This, in view of many among the elite, amounted to treason. Kennedy had to go.
The only person who accused Kennedy of treason was that John Birch society anti communist Weissmsn who paid for an ad in the Dallas newspapers.
Weiss man was a private citizen and that was his opinion of Kennedy. It wasn't the view of government agencies.
@ians
Oswald was in the lunchroom when shots were fired.
No, I don't think so. Why would he stay in the lunchroom when he could watch the President pass by? It makes no sense.
In fact, Oswald told Will Fritz he had lunch "out with Bill Shelley in front." Indeed, just moments before Kennedy's motorcade passed, Oswald was spotted standing inside the front door of the TSBD by another TSBD employee.
The most likely scenario that comports with all the known evidence is that Oswald went down to the front of TSBD to eat lunch with Bill Shelley and watch the motorcade. After the President was shot, Oswald went up to the 2nd floor lunchroom to get a coke, where he was confronted by Officer Baker, as witnessed and reported by Roy Truly.
Oswald apparently learned of the passage of the motorcade by the TSBD only on the morning of 11/22 in his conversation with fellow employee James Jarman, who has sworn in an affidavit, and was also questioned by Gerald Ford:
Mr. JARMAN. Well, he was standing up in the window and I went to the window also, and he asked me what were the people gathering around on the corner for, and I told him that the President was supposed to pass that morning, and he asked me did I know which way he was coming, and I told him, yes; he probably come down Main and turn on Houston and then back again on Elm. Then he said, "Oh, I see," and that was all.
https://www.giljesus.com/evidence-oswald-did-not-know-the-motorcade-route.html
My interpretation of the available evidence is that Oswald was photographed by Altgens standing in the doorway of the TSBD at the time the President was shot in the throat. James Fetzer and others have detected tell-tale signs of sloppy and probaly rushed editing on the Altgens photo, where Billy Lovelady's face was pasted over Oswald's.
However, Lovelady was wearing a short-sleeve shirt with bold vertical stripes on 11/22, where Altgen's photo shows Oswald wearing the same distinctive, mostly unbuttoned, long-sleeve brown tweed shirt he was wearing when arrested at the Texas theater.
Image: Time
If you weren't there at the time you don't realize the formidable Kennedy worshipping media machine .
It started about 1955 nationwide when he was a Senator. The Kennedy PR was better and longer lasting than the Obama worshipping media machine.
It doesn't make sense to me that RFK would wait until he became president to begin an investigation of his brother's murder.
The Kennedy's had hundreds of millions of dollars and at least a thousand hard core worshippers of JFK. Kroll security wasn't founded till 1972. But there were national and international security groups in the 1960s.
It's just my opinion that if RFK really thought Johnson was responsible for the murder he could have just hired the best to do an investigation.
Or maybe RFK knew it was Castro killing JFK before JFK could kill Castro.
The truth will never come out because more than 2,000 books and hundreds of documentaries promulgated 2,000 different theories over the last 55 years.
, @CanSpeccy
Oswald was not charged with, or arrested, for the murder of Kennedy. He was arrested on suspicion of murdering officer Tippett. That's all.
Arrested on Friday afternoon he would have been brought before a judge on Monday and charged with the murder of Tippett.
Because he had no attorney and refused the services of the Dallas Bar Association to provide him with an attorney; Oswald wasn't really questioned by the police about either murders.
Oswald just proclaimed I dindu nuffin I am innocent I don't know why I was arrested during the police questioning Friday and Saturday.
Oswald probably anticipated some kind of grandiose trial in which he represented himself and made endless speeches about the evils of capitalism like the 19 th century Russian revolutionaries did when they were on trail.
Since Oswald was never charged with the Kennedy murder, I fail to understand why the Kennedy hobbyists are so defensive and enamoured of him.
The Oswald defenders are almost as admiring if Oswald as the JFK worshippers are of the Kennedys.
• Replies: @D. K.
RFK did indeed commission experts to investigate. The experts were French intelligence. The result was the book by "James Hepburn" whose English-language title is "Farewell America," which for years the F B I prevented from being imported into the U.S.
So I am supposed to believe what someone called "Anon" claims to know about "the view of government agencies," if the view of government agencies had anything to do with what I said, which it doesn't.
Just because you are posting as "Anon," does not exempt you from the obligation to think before you comment, and to read intelligently what you are commenting on.
So why didn't Oswald carry the package in his hands? Putting packages in the armpit is standard shoplifter technique.
What was in the package? A bible, Book of Mormon? Writings of Mary Baker Eddy?
Frazier testified that the package was long and narrow like a rifle. Frazier also testified that he asked Oswald what was in the package Oswald replied curtain rods.
No curtain rods were found in the TSBD.
Why the admiration for this wife beating unemployable high school drop out grandiose loser?
• Replies: @Bombercommand
The Kennedy's had hundreds of millions of dollars and at least a thousand hard core worshippers of JFK.
The Kennedy's were rich, but not that rich. JFK's estate was worth $10 million, according to Forbes Magazine, consistent with my recollection that he'd received $3 million from his father. True, a million dollars was real money in those days, but if RFK had as much as his brother, why spend it on a major private investigation when, by winning the Presidency on a sympathy vote, he'd have had control of the FBI, the CIA, military intelligence and every other relevant instrument of government.
That RFK was too dumb to let sleeping dogs lie, and known to be too dumb to let sleeping dogs lie, was surely the reason he was killed.
If, as reported here, JFK, Jr. told the world that the CIA killed his father while he simultaneously prepared for an entry into politics, he also was likely judged too dumb to live.
That both Kennedy aspirants to the Presidency died young, is consistent with the presumption that the assassination of JFK was a Government job, the truth about which is to be withheld from the public indefinitely. And if that is so, it would, as I've argued here, have had bipartisan political support.
So the CIA did not go rogue, it was doing the will of the elected political leadership. That the leadership decided on the necessity of removing the Head of State, is not such a bizarre conclusion to reach. Such decisions, have been made time and again throughout history.
G W Bush started out as a benign buffoon and later revealed himself to be a vicious and unscrupulous failure. Particularly, when he sat silent for eight years of ridicule and defamination by Obama and company only to lash out at President Trump. No question he is simple, ungrateful and disloyal. That being said, I Can't buy the argument that Israel and the big jewish money/media actual wanted him over Gore and Joe Lib. In 2000.
LOOK NO FURTHER than the demand that Dade, Palm Beach and Broward counties be the only ones to be recounted to see where the real Zionist influence was exercised. Consider also that late absentee votes from APO or FPO addresses were not counted but late absentee ballots from Israel were declared valid.
I despise Bush but I voted for him twice, that does not mean that Kerry or Gore would have been an improvement. Reminds me of the unmitigated love campaign for Kennedy amid the trashing of a fictious " Right Wing Hate Machine" theme when Kennedy was assassinated. IN RETROSPECT, IT is not that Kennedy was so good and pure, He wasn't. The kicker is that Johnson was so bad and he was able to get away with his destructive programs where as Kennedy would be check mated on similar policies.
Going back to 2000, before the election Pat Buchanan said it best "George Bush won't fight and Al Gore is in the other side.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/lee-harvey-oswald-arrested-accused-killing-jfk-1963-article-1.2431162
"Oswald, dressed in a rumpled brown shirt, open to the waist, was arraigned before Justice of the Peace David Johnson and charged with the murder of Kennedy at 11:26 P.M. (12:26 A.M. New York time.)"
Oswald is informed by a reporter that he has, in fact, been charged with the murder of the president:
You obviously are an expert on the JFK assassination– aside from your not knowing what all of us who watched any of the three national networks on the night of the assassination knew.
If a president is struck down by an unknown group of conspirators […] raises a very strong suspicion that he [lbj} at least had had some awareness of the plot,
Johnson was indeed the obvious beneficary, and suspect. Johnson would seem to have the strongest possible motive to not object and to insist that his acqueiscence in the assasination of JFK was strictly on the undestanding that the assasination must not implicate him to any further extent, and, and not only look at first blush like the work of a lone patsy , but maintain that cover story and conceal the plotters existance despite an investigation of unprecedented intensity. Robert Kennedy at the Justice department had his own investigatory resources (vasty greater that Garrisons) and RFK was personally farmiliar with the personalities in the CIA who were in departments capable of mounting such a very special operation as would be required to fake a lone wolf hit by commie Oswald .
One thing stands out immediately, the assassination was in the home state of LBJ; if he was merely a fellow traveler friendly onlooker of others' plot he can't have approved Dallas beforehand, or been very happy with it, given the added weight of suspicion it placed on him. John Connally being wounded took very little sting out the inherent fishiness of Texas, anti-Catholic powerbase of LBJ, being where a sniper put him in the White House.
If the plot succeeded and Johnson became president, the conspirators must surely have felt reasonably confident that they would be protected rather than tracked down … the only means of ensuring this would be to sound him out about the plan, at least in some vague manner, and obtain his passive acquiesce.
The conspiracy would not know for certain what Johnson would do if they violated the spirit of caveats he would surely place on his approval in principle for the assasination of JFK. If the plotters assassinated Kenedy in Johnson's home state, not exactly excupatory of his possible involvment, Johnson's reaction would be very uncertain at best, unless he was actually in on the operational planning stage and approved the Dallas location. To be a a central figure in the subsequent cover-up, Johnson would have to have done more than equivically think out loud about an accident or illness geting him the into the Oval Office, he would have to have requested a dead pres and taken steps to bring about Kennedy's death so that the plotters knew he was one of them.
Lyndon Johnson being a homocidal Boss Hogg type with Texas law enforcement in his pocket and gunmen at his disposal would raise the question in the minds of the assasination team' of their life expectancy after the asassination. Once JBJ was president, the higher reaches of the conspiracy , especially those used to sound out Johnson or otherwise known to him would surely fear their demise had become expedient. However, if Johnson was as ruthless and conected to murders as Stone says, why would he wait to to have it suggested, and why would he need the CIA?
Texas presumably has a police intelligence files and there were private investigators keeping an eye on communists (for Birchites and people like Nelson Bunker hunt). Oswald might well have come to the attention of an assasination team commissioned by Johnson. That would explain why it was done in Dallas where Johnson could keep it tight, the proqutity raised suspicions, but would be the only place he could do it–and with the perfect patsy. A Texas location Johnson-sanctioned assasination with firearms required a patsy and complicated staging. This comment section ids full of people saying the whole thing was obviously faked, but the risk odf a ballistic snafu would be unavoidable for a parochial Johnson hit.
The CIA on the other hand has labs and expert doctors at its disposal. John F. Kennedy did not enjoy robust health and suffered from Addisons disease requiring poewerful hormones He also had meth amphetamine injections from the notorios medic Dr. Feelgood often demanding more than even the good doctor thought advisable (on one ocassion JFK, high as a kite, stripped naked and pranced through the corridors of a hotel while the secret service watched aghast). I think Stone (and Lazenby) is right, LBJ is the best bet for a conspiracy, bearing in mind where and how Kennedy actually was killed . Bill Harvey using ZR/rifle personell are second favourites in my book.
High level CIA involvemt seems much less likely becuase they could have overdosed him and had his his preexisting medical condition (lied about by the Kennedy family and their physicians) and drug use to explain his death. That way (switching bottles in his doctor's bag) would be less accident prone and require less resources and delay than using rifles in a public event where film cameras were a posibility and trying to pin it all on a patsy.
The timing being not long after Mongoose was cancelled suggests Harvey, it does not particular;y implicate Johnson though because Kennedy needed him to win Texas and be reelected. Whether Kennedy would have held fast with pressure on Israel and its organised Lobby despite that hurting his chances of getting reelected is a moot point, unless you think he was a man who would rather be right than be President.
, @lysias
You are correct on everything but bi-partisan support. This was not party politics. A hit on Kennedy would not have even had democratic support much less bi-partisan support. The fact that LBJ helped cover up does not indicate anything close to democratic party support.
If Oswald was not to be charged with the murder of Kennedy then why are lone nutters everywhere sure he did it?
You are correct on everything but bi-partisan support.
Whether the CIA killed Kennedy with bipartisan political suport is, obviously, a hypothesis only. No one has provided proof that LBJ gave the CIA the nod on the Kennedy assassination, and no one can prove that Richard Nixon gave any support either, although the Howard Hunt connections with Oswald in Mexico City, with the Dealey Plaza tramps, and the Watergate buglary, provide a reasonable basis for suspicion. In any case, the idea that the CIA is a law unto itself, beyond political control, is itself a hypothesis that I find unconvincing.
• Replies: @TS/SCI/TURNIPTRUCK
Bombercommand says:
Anon(257), the Carcano Modello 91/38 with 21 inch barrel is 40.12 inches in length. With receiver/barrel removed from the stock( the Carcano is NOT a takedown), the longest piece is 34.8 inches( that would be the stock). I am 6'2″ with long arms and placing a yardstick in my armpit(no shirt) I can hold a maximum length of 25 inches to my hand. There is also the width of the buttstock, and the width of the scope and mount and the width of the magazine, a very unwieldy package. In short, Anon(257), you lose.
• Agree: Iris, ians
Hardly a man who would rather be right and a patriot than be President.
THROUGHOUT both threads there have been references to Bill Harvey of the CIA, is there any definitive biography or study about his life and Times?
Homer Echevarria; " Taking care of Kennedy"
On November 21, 1963, a government informant named Thomas Mosley was negotiating the sale of machine guns to a Cuban exile named Echevarria. In the course of the transaction, Echevarria said that "we now have plenty of money – our new backers are Jews" and would close the arms deal "as soon as we [or they] take care of Kennedy." Echevarria also expressed a favourable opinion of LBJ. The next day, Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas.
Mosley reported his conversation to the Secret Service. On 26 Nov 1963, the SS wrote:
"Investigation by the Chicago office did not disclose any violation under our jurisdiction and check-ups never initiated. Subject not interviewed."
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Homer_Echevarria_-_Taking_Care_of_Kennedy.html
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10490#relPageId=363
Late President Gaddafi on the murder of President Kennedy:
" Kennedy decided to monitor the Dimona nuclear plant. He insisted on doing so in order to determine whether or not it produced nuclear weapons.
The Israelis refused, but he insisted.
This crisis was resolved with the resignation of Ben-Gurion. He resigned so he would not have to agree to the monitoring of the Dimona plant.
And then he gave the green light for the killing of President Kennedy"
In his 1991 book, "The Crisis Years," historian Michael Beschloss wrote:
"Kennedy knew that sexual compromise and blackmail was one of the oldest instruments of espionage. In the America of the early 1960's, if the president was shown to have slept with a woman not his wife, his political career would have been gravely damaged. If that woman was shown to be connected in some important way with a Soviet bloc government, he would have almost surely been thrown out of office."
TS/SCI/TURNIPTRUCK says:
"In any case, the idea that the CIA is a law unto itself, beyond political control, is itself a hypothesis that I find unconvincing."
Yes, you've made multiple unsupported assertions to that effect. What part of the Huston memo, the IIPA, the operational files exemption, and the political questions doctrine do you find unconvincing? What part of 50 U.S.C. §403w "shall be final and conclusive and shall not be subject to review by any court" do you find unconvincing?
CIA is not out of control, it's firmly in control. The DCI can designate his crimes a state secret. That is arbitrary power negating the idea of rule of law. 1949 marked the end of the ancien régime. Your notion that an entity with absolute sovereignty needs a 'nod' from someone is a relic of those days of yore. Do you mean to contradict Fletcher Prouty, who was there at inception, and watched CIA systematically consolidate its policy and programmatic initiative? Feel free to debunk him in depth:
https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ST/ST.html
The US government is CIA, full stop.
President Kennedy on secret societies and their hijacking of the government:
" The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. […]
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumour is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match."
What would President Kennedy have made of AIPAC, if he hadn't been murdered?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1994/08/07/the-fourth-tramp/1f58fbe9-a0fa-4fc2-8ebf-d62694845bbe/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ce9fe84c043f
It turns out that there were arrest records for Nov. 22, 1963. The Dallas City Council, in response to Stone's hit movie, voted to make public all city documents concerning the assassination; among these files the long-lost arrest records were found. When the names on the records were traced, the three men were found to have been underemployed, hard-drinking transients who liked to hop rides on railroad trains — in a word, tramps.
The debunking of the three tramps legend first appeared in our front-page story for the Houston Post of Feb. 9, 1992.
[Laurent Guyénot]: "To be precise, the autopsy, in Washington Navy Hospital, was controlled by the Navy, and the Navy was heavily under Johnson's control."
[Dube]: Thank you. That would seem to explain how LBJ might have influenced the Bethesda post-mortem. But does it?
Could LBJ, acting from afar in terms of both distance and forensic knowledge, order an admiral to have the surgeon alter or misreport JFK's wounds, possibly to fit a predetermined scenario?
One might consider that LBJ would be expected to authorize it, but that seems to presuppose an understanding among the officers in the room.
Where does that take us?
, @ChuckOrloski
The next issue of Life magazine, already all put together and scheduled for publication days after Nov. 22, and which had the cooperation of RFK and his Justice Department, was about the Bobby Baker scandal and LBJ's involvement. It would have meant the end of LBJ' s career. Once JFK was killed and LBJ became president, the issue was canceled. LBJ had to act fast.
The Lavon Affair in 1954 also happened during a period when Ben Gurion was out of office.
The US tried to keep an arms race out of the Middle East. Frustrated, Nasser turned to the Soviet block which started to supply Egypt with weapons in 1955. Britain France and Israel invaded Egypt the next year, and the Soviet Union became close to Nasser. But Egypt never posed a threat to Israel that would require nukes to stop, the Israeli nuke was just a way to force America to sell advanced arms to Israel so that it had overwhelming conventional superiority and would thus never need to nuke the Arabs. The HAWK advanced anti aircraft missile, the forst real cutting edge weapon they got, was sold to Israel soon after JFK became pres. As far as taking their aid away that would only happen if they admitted they had a nuke (the inspections were kept been perfunctory) , Kennedy was a Navy man. His attitude was "Don't ask, don't tell". Kennedy's best friend and long time roomate was gay by the way. Jackie* was puzzled he had a room at the White House and their almost every weekend.
*A chemical straightener disguised the naturally kinky hair she hated. The teased bouffant masked a low hairline. Kid gloves covered large, strong, mannish hands that an early boyfriend had likened to those of a peasant. The cut of her suit jacket artfully concealed the breadth of her shoulders, and her muscular back and arms. The skirt disguised hips she thought much too broad. The shoes were specially cut to make large feet look smaller and more feminine. Sunglasses hid brown eyes set so far apart that her optician had had to special-order a suitably wide bridge
See Part I commenter Jim Christian, who clinched the matter with simple geometry, noting (per his 1984 viewing of the nest), that Oswald could only have made the shot by hanging out the window by his toenails. Caveat: Jim also was also quite strident that Ian Poulter wouldn't make the cut at the U.S. Open.
@TS/SCI/TURNIPTRUCK
Yes, you've made multiple unsupported assertions to that effect.
Hypotheses are, by definition, unsupported.
What part of the Huston memo, the IIPA, the operational files exemption, and the political questions doctrine do you find unconvincing? What part of 50 U.S.C. §403w "shall be final and conclusive and shall not be subject to review by any court" do you find unconvincing?
USC 50 §403w concerns the CIA Director's authorities relating to the hiring, pay and pension benefits of employees of the agency. It ain't got nuthin' to do with the present discussion.
He had dirt on John F Kennedy too including his having lied about suffering from Addison's disease. Kennedy did not dare sack Hoover for that reason.
Killing Bobby's brother achieved little but pissing Bobby off. RFK was still alive and kicking in Justice and rich and influential and with relations like Ben Bradlee. He could have got the story out through a backchannel and had nothing to lose either
JFK would not have been president without LBJ, and he could not been reelected without winning Texas again. LBJ could have weathered any storm. Reporters in the mainstream studiously ignored concealed, all sorts of things about JFK while he was pres that were common knowledge ,but after he was dead lo and behold they had all these stories they were working on about his priapic personal life and liaisons with women from the criminal underworld or the Soviet Block which were just about about to be published. Don't you believe it, or that the Kennedy's would have got into a slinging match with Johnson at that point and given up any hope of winning reelection for another term in the White House.
It turns out that there were arrest records for Nov. 22, 1963.
It turns out that there were arrest records? Is that supposed to be surprising, or what?
When the names on the records were traced, the three men were found to have been underemployed, hard-drinking transients who liked to hop rides on railroad trains — in a word, tramps.
That's not a debunking. It merely indicates (if the Dallas Police records have not been falsified) that if the three tramps were CIA operatives in tramp's clothing, they had a convincing false bios. to go with their attire. In the case of CIA operatives, one would expect nothing less.
Skeptikal says:
@sarz
My first thought:
Watch your back, Ron.
This is explosive.
For an "in passing" reference to how the guns were procured for the assassination,
and also a very interesting and instructive read, I highly recommend
"I Heard You Paint Houses: Frank "The Irishman" Sheeran and the Inside Story of the Mafia, the Teamsters, and the Final Ride of Jimmy Hoffa," by Charles Brandt. Also suggests that the best person to carry out an assassination is the one closest to the target, even the closest friend. Also, shows how someone can play a role in a conspiracy, as a cog in the machine, without having any idea of doing so.
Regarding the suspicion falling/not falling on LBJ, I believe this was a complicated psychological dynamic. Because, as Ron points out, OF COURSE!!! LBJ would be the prime suspect. And many, many, had this thought. But then a reverse thought entered: It is so obvious that OF COURSE it cannot be true. This latter stance is then reinforced by all of the theatrics that follow and the idea is considered absurd and nuts.
This ploy has been used as a plot device by many, many mystery writers. I am not a great reader of mysteries, but I have seen enough on TV etc. to suggest this, and I believe it would be quite useful for someone who is a mystery maven to provide a list of mysteries where the plot turns on suspicion falling on the "obvious" suspect, who was the one in the same room, or the beneficiary of the huge insurance payout, etc. Then the plot turn is that the sleuth basically discards this idea because it is too obvious and follows other leads that look more promising—in the sense that they provide a showcase for the sleuth's cunning and methods, etc. The sleuth, having discarded the too obvious and therefore not credible idea may even enlist the aid of the original prime suspect, who of course throws the sleuth off the scent. So that the sleuth develops a psychological block against seriously considering the obvious perpetrator. And it takes a shock —maybe an overheard conversation; a new source suddenly appearing; a new motivation suddenly being revealed—for scales to fall from the eyes of the sleuth and see that the "first suspect"—say, the one who first reported the person missing, etc.—is the actual murderer.
In our case, I think the Piper and USS Liberty revelations fall into the last category, of new motivations. (I recall very well the first time I heard of the Liberty event, and I didn't believe it could be true; I thought this must be some crackpot! It just didn't seem possible that such an event would not be common knowledge. A perfect example of how effective media suppression is.) It is even possible that Mossad already had enough stuff on Johnson to apply pressure to him to go along with their plan. I have the Piper book and read it a few years ago, and although I have forgotten most of the specific details, since then I have been hyper-aware of the Israeli connection and how this points to Lansky as an instrumental part of the plan. And that is why my antennae started twitching when I read the Frank Sheeran account. Read it. And forget relying on the movie! AFAI can see, it is a cleaned-up version of a fraction of the real story that Sheeran tells. Sheeran is immensely sympathetic. And Brandt supplies very useful analysis and commentary to frame the Sheeran interviews.
I agree on Prouty.
Very good, credible source.
I don't know why some discredit him as a source.
Most likely because they have an agenda to discredit good sources!
One point on which I think I disagree with Ron is his implication that Vietnam policy continued as before under Johnson. Per Douglass, this was not the case. Kennedy was ready to start trying to get out of Vietnam, and things were reversed under Johnson.
"Italians wanted their interests in Cuba back."
Actually, I believe the jewish mob had more extensive interests in Cuba.
Traditionally the Jewish mob controlled illegal liquor networks (originating in Canada/Bronfman—I think maybe Piper mentions this). And gambling.
Also, the mob could not have relied on the cover-up mechanism. In fact, an investigation of the mob would have been a two-fer for most Americans!! So why didn't Johnson direct his Justice Department to investigate them?
T. Weed says:
Another reason why Israel would want to wipe out JFK and his brothers is the belief that the family was tainted by antisemitism, from the father, ambassador in England before WW2, who believed, and said, (correctly) that the Jews in England were the ones pushing for war with Germany, to JFK himself, who, in his book Profiles in Courage, singled out for praise Senator Taft, who condemned the Nuremberg trials as revenge, not justice.
@Brewer
I wouldn't put much stock in the claim that Johnson had an 'emotional feel' for the Jews.
No one in his years (in his bios) before politics remembers him ever talking about Jews or Israel.
What most happens regarding politicians and Jews/Israel is that presidents who have aided Israel are written about by the Jews as ' loving Jews or Israel.'
Why do they do this? For the same reason it is done today—-Jews dont want to portray Israel friendly presidents or politicians as 'loving Jews for the money/campaign donations and helpful media —–and politicians of course don't want to say they love the Jewish money instead of Jews and Israel……So the both play the 'spin game' of loving Israel as the reason they support it.
The time line of Johnson's life shows that his first 'awareness of the JQ/meet up with Jews began thru newspaper owner Charles Marsh. It was Marsh, at the behest of his mistress and later wife Alice Glass , who sent Johnson on errands to aid the Jews. It was mainly Alice, who although not Jewish, fancied herself a sort of queenly lady bountiful with Marsh's money and pursued causes.
It was Marsh's new papers that made the poor school teacher Johnson a congressman.
It was also Marsh who financed Johnson 's helping the Jews. Here's an example of Marsh and Johnson;
"Leinsdorf, a Jewish musician did not want to return to Nazi Germany and asked Marsh and Alice if they could help him to stay in the United States. The next day Marsh drove Leinsdorf to Washington where they stayed in his suite at the Mayflower Hotel. Leinsdorf explained in his autobiography, Cadenza: A Musical Career (1976), that Marsh summoned Lyndon B. Johnson to the hotel: "A lanky young man appeared. He treated Charles with the informal courtesy behooving a youngster toward an older man to whom he is in debt." Johnson then arranged for Leinsdorf to become a "permanent resident" of the United States.'
Johnson complained to Marsh later that he found it difficult managing on his Congress salary. Marsh arranged for Johnson's wife to buy nineteen acres on Lake Austin for $8,000, which he knew was an area that was likely to be developed and would increase dramatically in value. Lady Bird Johnson later sold the land for $330,000. He also provided the money for Johnson to buy the Fort Worth radio station that he said would be "some day worth $3 million". Marsh also offered Johnson the opportunity to buy some of his oil wells cheaply. Johnson declined the offer as he feared that this "could kill me politically".
During the 1938 campaign, Marsh agreed to ask his business friends to contribute to the campaign. He eventually arranged for Johnson to be paid $5,000 a week. Mary Louise Glass, (Alice's sister) Marsh's private secretary, said it was her job to "keep track of who paid."
Marsh was a strong opponent of Adolf Hitler and urged United States intervention in the Second World War. He joined forces with Walter Lippmann, Claude Pepper and Benjamin Cohen to help draft a plan to send military aid to Britain.
To Johnson if the Marsh and Jews friends money tree was for it he was for it.
This was the real marriage of the Jews and Johnson and brought in Abe Feinberg , Eddie Weisl and Abe Fortas and all their contacts. They greased his way into the senate and his presidential run.
They were among the first calls he made the day after Kennedy was killed.
What we can truthfully say about Johnson and Isr and Jews is that he literally "outsourced' all that policy to his Jewish benefactors ….in return for their support.
One interesting link that does not appear in these comments is James Angleton's extreme admiration and support for Israel, especially Mossad.
– The body of President Kennedy was removed from Parkland hospital under armed threats from the SS. It should been undergone autopsy there, to respect the law and to preserve the chain of evidence. Moving his body was already a cover-up action.
– The doctors in charge of the autopsy at Bethesda (Humes and Boswell) had never conducted any in their life. Not one autopsy, ever.
– The autopsy was at all times under control of the SS, and its lead Roy Kellerman. There were around 30 people around the body during the entire autopsy.
– Radiographer Jerrol Francis Custer took X-rays of the president's head: it was riddled with bullet fragments, indicating a frangible bullet, and hence a second murder weapon. He was told by his manager Dr Ebersole to "keep his mouth shut" (AARB, 1997).
– Forensic Material evidence, photos taken, pathology slides, were all handed to Roy Kellerman, head of SS. All later disappeared.
– Dr Humes' boss G. Berkeley got hold of the President's brain, which would have kept traces of the fatal shot. The brain later disappeared and is unaccounted for to the day.
– Later after the autopsy, and after a meeting with the SS, Dr Ebersole required radiographer Custer to tape full-metal jacket bullets to the President's bone, and to produce forged X-rays.
– J.E. Hoover required agents Siebert and O'Neill to stay with the body all throughout the autopsy. Their report strongly contradicted the magic bullet theory; it was discarded by Arlen Specter and not presented to the Warren commission.
– Dr Humes autopsy notes "disappeared" too.
….And the list goes on. It is very clear that the most active actors in the forensic cover-up were certain individuals within the SS and at Bethesda Navy Hospital.
Ethics , idealism , class, intelligence and beauty: the Kennedys will never be forgotten.
ChuckOrloski says:
Dube favorably quoted Laurent Guyenot:
Hi Dube,
Above, I note that there remains a special need to consult with Lifton's great forensic work, his book, "Best Evidence."
Step by scientific step, Mr. Lifton demonstrated that the work & findings of Parkland Hospital E.R. doctors profoundly differed from that performed under control of "the Navy and Johnson."
W.T.F.?
For me, to let the Texas doctors do & report their E.R. "thing" unsupervised was either a major operational boo-boo or diabolically intentional. Fyi, I support the latter motive which guaranteed enhanced cognitive dissonance among shocked Americans.
"Best Evidence" is & always shall be the type of evidence that Chief Culprits particularly enjoy turning away from ZUS citizen-consumer's attention.
Thanks dube, and don't bogart that Bethesda joint? Such takes you nowhere!
You're obviously too ignorant to understand that professional assassins don't use a "someone" as a shooter or driver. As to 9/11, the demolition professionals were in all likelihood flown in from Israel months before 9/11 to do the job and then flown back Israel on the morning of 9/11, if not before.
George Bush wasn't turned into a dummy, he was born a dummy. The best part of George Bush ran down his mother's leg, with the same being true for Marvin Bush, and the rest of the family.
You're reading it wrong. Next time read it twice before you laugh out loud so you don't look dumb. Lower-case letters are the top-level subdivisions of the section titled Intelligence operations and cover enhancement authority. Equivalent language governs legislative inspections, investigations or audits. Another provision at the same level gives the DCI equally non-reviewable discretion to exempt designated employees from mandatory compliance with any Federal regulation, rule, standardized administrative policy, process, or procedure. They've set aside everything but Emily Post's Etiquette, for christssake.
This could not be clearer. Congress and the courts know arbitrary power when they see it. Surely you've noticed how abjectly they suck CIA ass. You've seen them try to write loopholes into jus cogens at CIA's behest.
You're consistently quite sensible at Craig Murray's place; what is the mental block here? Is this some kind of american patriotic thing, not being able to face living in a totalitarian state?
There was always an Italian mafia and a Jewish mafia. Over the past 40 years or so, the Italian mafia has largely faded from view, while the Jewish mafia has prospered and expanded to the point where it effectively controls (through bribery, blackmail and intimidation) all three branches of the United States government.
You're reading it wrong. … Lower-case letters are the top-level subdivisions of the section titled Intelligence operations and cover enhancement authority. Equivalent language governs legislative inspections, investigations or audits.
Cut the bafflegab and give us some exact quotes, or we can safely assume that you're BSing.
As for CM, I rarely comment there unless he's having a sane spell, or a particularly insane spell.
I just read the book online. Unfortunately it's white print on a navy background. Why do people do that? I suppose they think it's cool. It's not. It's just pretentious and annoying to read.
The investigators never named any suspects that could be charged.
It was just the standard mish mash of KKK minutemen?? right wingers White southerners anti Castro Cubans oil companies big business segregationists CIA FBI. At least he didn't claim the secret service killed JFK, just claimed it was incompetent.
One of the on line reviews of the book said it was commissioned by Robert Kennedy to help him with his presidential run. After he was killed it was withheld because he was dead and the book couldn't help him obviously. The review claimed the Frenchmen were Petroleum experts. Maybe they worked for the French government gas company ELF??? Since France imports all its gas and oil I suppose ELF needs a security force.
At any rate, no suspects, just groups and speculation.
You need to express yourself more accurately. You said "knew enough details" to spill the beans. Obviously as I point out, there are many details that are capable of upending the official stories.
Your loose thinking, which was what I was getting at, extends to
(a) using the word "ignorant" in a way that implies the ludicrous claim that one of the subjects you can speak of authoritatively is how professional assassins arrange their logistics (yes, *I guess too* that professional assassins would *try* and choose the drivers and other assistants carefully),
(b) not even emphasising "in the position to talk" which another commenter has picked up on.
As to the other commenter's suggestion that effectually no one is ever in a position to talk because they fear for their own and others lives, it is, obviously not something any conspirators can rely on and not actually likely. We already have Howard Hunt's alleged death bed confession and of course many people after several decades would no longer fear that there were some dedicated professionals ready to carry out retribution in a way that might matter to them. They would often prefer to take the money, enjoy the fame, or just do the right thing. The fatwah on Salman Rushdie was never lifted but he came out of hiding decades ago.
You at least replied with more logic than Carroll Price to whom I have just said:
As to his [your] suggestion that effectually no one is ever in a position to talk because they fear for their own and others lives, it is, obviously not something any conspirators can rely on and not actually likely. We already have Howard Hunt's alleged death bed confession and of course many people after several decades would no longer fear that there were some dedicated professionals ready to carry out retribution in a way that might matter to them. They would often prefer to take the money, enjoy the fame, or just do the right thing. The fatwah on Salman Rushdie was never lifted but he came out of hiding decades ago.
"which for years the FBI prevented from being imported into America". C'mon. That's a fantastic story. needs to be backed with your evidence was my first thought but then I remembered my internet manners and did a search. I append what I found but still leave you to explain please what real evidence of RFK's employing (how could he?) French Intelligence there was. As to the pseudonymous James Hepburn's book it clearly has as much credibility as former British intelligence officer Peter Wright's "Spycatcher" of 1970s fame and seems to have been written by a Dan Brown. (I appreciate that you are not saying it is any good but you may not recall that it is, apparently, partly a compilation from conspiracy theories already published). NB said to be "now dated"!
Originally published in 1968 in France under the title L'Amerique Brule (America Is Burning), Farewell America quickly became a best-seller in Europe in eleven languages. It was the inside story of the assassination of President John Kennedy. Although borrowing heavily from published critics of the Warren Commission Report, the book describes the roots of the Cold War, the linkage between large corporate and banking interests, the ever-growing American intelligence apparatus, and the international petroleum cartels that were lined up with a bevy of military brass and Mafia chieftains against JFK. A combination of these powerful interests called "The Committee" coordinated all aspects of the murder, from setting the time and place of the shooting to the recruitment of the gunmen and the coverup of the conspiracy afterward. The bottom line was that enemies of JFK collaborated with the CIA to erase the perceived threat to their interests by John and Robert Kennedy. Heady stuff for 1968. So incendiary, in fact, that importation of the book through Canada was squelched, allegedly at the instigation of the FBI. Farewell America wasn't just another book about the assassination conspiracy; it bristled with restricted information about U.S. intelligence agencies, the White House, global business, and military and political affairs that had to have come from a knowlegdeable source, in this case, French intelligence. It also represented the surreptitious intrusion by those in French government circles into American politics, namely, the 1968 presidential elections.
Originally published in Europe in 1968, this is a once-notorious, now-dated look at John Kennedy's assassination and an excoriation of the American scene in its aftermath. Turner (Rearview Mirror, etc.) explains in his introduction that the book was first published under mysterious circumstances and was "aimed at advancing the 1968 presidential campaign of Robert F. Kennedy," but its U.S. distribution was rapidly curtailed after RFK's death. The authors ("James Hepburn" is a pseudonym) conducted clandestine research among KGB and Interpol agents and French petroleum espionage specialists and relied on a rare, unmodified print of the famed Zapruder film. The book seethes with aggrieved passion in defending the Kennedys and their ideals, and seeks to defrock the "lone gunman" theory of JFK's assassination. Most of the text is a damning jeremiad, portraying pre-1964 America as a vicious, discriminatory oligarchy controlled by alliances of Big Steel and Big Oil, the military and organized crime, which all had reason to fear JFK's proposed reforms. According to "Hepburn," these interests combined with ultra-right-wing paramilitary groups like the Minutemen and Cuban exile groups to plan the assassination. Chapters discussing the assassination itself will be grimly convincing to some readers, with excellent analyses of the Secret Service's failures and the ambiguous roles played by the CIA and FBI during this tumultuous era. This is a pungent historical document, but its conspiracy theory is familiar by now, and its information has been surpassed by more recent studies such as Murder in Dealey Plaza, edited by James Fetzer.
Penmarin Books deserves high praise for allowing Farewell America to reach a new and expanded audience. — Ed Tatro, JFK assassination expert
Herve Lamarre, the publisher of the original edition of Farewell America, admitted that the author of record, James Hepburn, was fictitious and that the true sources included Andre Ducret of the Surete; Interpol; and, among others in French intelligence, Philippe Vasjoly, the chief French petroleum agent in the United States. William Turner is an authority on the Kennedy assassinations, the FBI and the CIA, and the author of nine books, including his recent memoirs, Rearview Mirror: Looking Back at the FBI, the CIA and Other Tails.
George de Mohrenschildt, who handled Oswald for the CIA for a while, was an international petroleum engineer who belonged to the Dallas Petroleum Club. That's just the sort of person intelligence agencies like to hire.
As for "Farewell America," I cited it not because I agree with all of it, but as evidence that RFK enlisted experts to investigate his brother's death.
James N. Kennett says:
Some versions of the story have the bombers 3 minutes from Cairo when they were recalled. I don't believe that: they would have been in Egyptian airspace. It is unlikely in any case that the US would have been willing to nuke Cairo, then allied to the Soviet Union, in response to a supposed Egyptian attack on a US warship.
As a general rule, you can consider ANYONE arguing that Unz is full of s$#t and Oswald did it as a crazed lone assassin, is a paid TROLL.
The lone assassin theory is important because it is the null hypothesis that must be disproved.
It wouldn't have just been RFK's Kennedy money that was available to finance an investigation though presumably he could get a fair bit done as Attorney-General, which raises the question where would he first want to aim the investigation. (Someone above said btw that RFK would have known all the relevant CIA people but that seems to me wrong. Why would the Attorney-General be close to the CIA?)
It seems likely to me that RFK didn't have any well formed suspicions of conspiracy for quite a long time. No doubt the question "who would have wanted to do this?" would have crossed his mind but maybe it would have taken a lot of pondering on published theories and musings with friends before he decided that he would want to reopen inquiries. That seems likely since he would have remembered all the shots at Presidents that came from lone nutters:: Lincoln, McKinley and, while campaigning, Theodore Roosevelt come to mind. To the extent he suspected Johnson he might also have reflected that it was unlikely that Johnson's networks were sufficiently insulated from the Kennedys to make it likely that Johnson was responsible.
I find it surprising that you can entertain for a moment the involvement of Richard Nixon. What possible reason would he have had to want Kennedy killed in 1963 at ANY risk to himself, or at all? And did he have sufficient power or influence then to guarantee a cover up so that anyone wouĺd want to involve him? And what would such a paranoid person think of being involved (if he could trust the intermediaries) with alleged co-conspirator and about to be President LBJ?
Your detailed approach is the right one IMO as you get to test connected ideas in your own mind and with the help of others. As one of the others allow me to point out just one small matter. RFK as Attorney-General would not have had a lot to do with the CIA in the way you suggest, I think.
Don't play dumb. Anybody here can look it up on the Google. Even you. Last comment, you were pretending to explain it all to me. Now when I rub your nose in it, you're all baffled by headings.
The Central Intelligence Agency Act confers impunity on CIA. How come you can't handle it? Proud to be an American, ♬ so at least ♭♪ you know you're free?
The message to those who counted was not very clear, because even today we are wondering which of JFK's policies prompted his assassination!
The fatwah on Salman Rushdie was never lifted but he came out
We can always hope the fatwa on this low-life will one day succeed.
I don't think you need to look for a sinister explanation as to why the news was unpleasant. LBJ was asking a 70-year-old man to come out of retirement and do nearly a year's onerous work.
As Peter Dale Scott stated in "Deep Politics," Ruby is the key to unlocking the assassination, because his murder of Oswald is the only time the conspirators had to come out of hiding.
TheBoom says:
Fascinating article. What I find most fascinating about it is that it was published in anything resembling a semi mainstream website. As the Jews cement power I can't see this being allowed to continue even though Ron is Jewish. Not just this article but too many other thought crime pieces noticing Jewish power and Israeli misdeeds are posted on Unz.com.
Given that few of the mainstream "right" and conservative sites will look at these obvious issues more and more mainstream people are likely to gravitate to unz in the years ahead. At what point and traffic size does unz.com become too big of a threat to continue? I imagine that the next Democratic presidency will not bode well for unz.com or Ron's personal safety.
@James N. Kennett
Indeed. And a shot through the windscreen would be one of the best proofs . I spent a lot of time listening to the David Weldon interview/address that someone linked. (I now see it was "tac" and he has just diminished its weight in my mind, albeit not wholly logically, by a truly bizarre response to what was actually a positive response by me). I would like to check whether the windscreen was armoured glass so as to be effectively bullet proof. Another question that occurs to me results from the description of the fatal wound being by a frangible bullet and there being, accordingly, bullet fragmants in the brain. How does that square with the (frangible) bullet hitting even an ordinary laminated glass windshield? For completeness I add the speculative possibility that Oswald might have fired his first shot through the windshield. While there is some evidence of a bullet hole in the windscreen it is less clear that it is a front to back hole.
, @D. K.
For James N. Kennett:
The lone assassin theory is important because it is the null bull hypothesis that must be has been disproved.
In the autopsy room, when Humes asked, "Who's in charge here?" an admiral replied, "I am," as repeated by Humes – as I think I recall reading. O. Stone represents it in his JFK film.
So who was in command – the military or the Secret Service?
I find it surprising that you can entertain for a moment the involvement of Richard Nixon. What possible reason would he have had to want Kennedy killed in 1963 at ANY risk to himself, or at all?
Geopolitics.
The US was the only real bulwark against the threat of global communist revolution. The Soviet Union was the largest contiguous empire the world has ever seen, and it possessed a vast military establishment that was armed with bigger nukes and better missiles than the Americans possessed at the time. Moreover, the Soviets were aligned with the Chinese empire, the most populous state on earth.
What was to stop the Soviets and the Chinese taking all of South-East Asia while instigating Communist revolution in S. America and Africa? Only America, with the feeble support of her NATO allies.
But Kennedy was soft on Communism. He failed to give the Soviets a bloody nose over the Cuban missile base. He failed to back the CIA-orchestrated Bay of Pigs invasion of Communist Cuba, and he indicated he'd back out of the war against Communist revolution in Vietnam if he won in '64. And he would have been unbeatable in '64.
What to do? Kill the SOB.
If you look at it from that point of view, a bipartisan decision to terminate Kennedy was vital to the security of the Western world, and thus morally justified.
At the time, it never occurred to me, or I suspect to more than a very small number of Americans, to look at it that way. Therefore, the incident was viewed, as it is to this day, as a heinous crime. But with an appreciation of the geopolitical situation at the time, it must surely have appeared to the national security establishment as a fortunate development in the struggle against the Communist menace.
While there is some evidence of a bullet hole in the windscreen it is less clear that it is a front to back hole.
Just listen to the testimony of the doctors, Oz, then you'll be in little doubt as to the direction of the fatal bullet.
Anybody here can look it up on the Google.
Ha! As I thought. You cannot provide the evidence because it is a figment of your imagination.
• Replies: @Anonymous
" I Can't buy the argument that Israel and the big jewish money/media actual wanted him over Gore and Joe Lib. In 2000."
I've never suggested that. "Israel and the big jewish money/media " always support both candidates. They always win. Only those naîve people -and American people seem to be naîve and some would even say stupid – believe that there are differences between the candidates that every 4 years, those who colonized the USA, decide to present to the American people so they can "choose" who is the best for them.
Only fools really believed that there were differences between the war criminal HC and future war criminal Donald Trump.
I'm sure that even the "socialist" candidate , Sanders, – if he had been elected – wouldn't have changed "American" foreign policy.
"I despise Bush but I voted for him twice, that does not mean that Kerry or Gore would have been an improvement. "
Agree. I'm sure Al Gore would have taken the same decisions that GWB took. No doubt Gore would have destroyed Iraq and become a "great president"/ a war president.
"I despise Bush but I voted for him twice"..
Maybe that is the problem, isn't ?
Maybe a peaceful revolution is possible if 98% of American people just decide to stay at home instead of giving their consent to the mafia who then go on slaughtering innocent people around the world to "defend" Israel.
Dr. Evalea Glanges (a medical student at the time of the assassination):
"But it was very clear, it was a through and through bullet hole, through the windshield of the car, from the front to the back". [sic]
"No way there's even any cracks associated with that bullet hole, It seemed like a high velocity bullet that had penetrated from front to back in that glass pane" [sic]
George Whitaker, Sr. (Ford Motor Company manager at the time of the assassination):
"It was a good clean bullet hole right through the screen from the front, right, this had a clean round hole in the front and the fragmentation coming out of the back" [sic]
"Etc., etc., etc.!" — Yul Brynner
If Lee Oswald had shot the first shot, that Friday afternoon, through the middle of the presidential limousine's front windshield, from the "sniper's nest" in the southeast corner window on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, where would that bullet have hit, after passing through the windshield? What are the chances that it would have continued almost to the triple underpass, hitting the curb and thereby wounding an onlooker on his cheek?
Your assertion that my response to you was in some way "bizarre", by your own individual perception, has both its origins and, more importantly, its limitations in your–and thereby its very nature all of our individual very limited personal experiences in many ways limited to that of our own perceptions–inability to formulate the necessary judgement based on the ingredients of its foundation.
You see, my response to your claim that my response to you being "bizarre" in your estimation, but in my sphere of thoughts and deliberations is finely-tuned and a result of a deductive reasoning simply based on the evidence you have thus far presented in my relatively short-lived time here on UR–when the genesis henceforth is taken into account. In other words, one formulates opinions and beliefs based on on external stimulii, and conversely the inputs based on biological input sensors, personal experience, and to some extent inherited traits. So then when one formulates a response, in this particular example, it is based entirely on the aggregate of one's personal experience along with the consumption of the other individual's past proclivities to be either objective or to lean in a certain direction, no matter what is presented to them–especially his/her past statements, or, more importantly (to some individuals), their non-statements (to some extent). Nonetheless, one must always be cognizant of the possibility that one can be wrong at any time, but am I wrong in your case? Hardly, I posit…
A few examples for your consideration–assuming, for a short time, that you are not merely a thespian actor[ess] in the theatrical production played by and choriographed by Hasbara induced syndicate:
Did you not recently fall head-over-heels when your partner Incitatus (on a thread authored by Eric Zuesse in response to David Irving), being seemingly over-confident that [s]he single-handedly evicirated the 911 truther movement when [s]he posted the collapse of the [abandoned for more than 17 years] building in San Paolo, Brazil as some sort of ironclad proof that this building fell in its own footprint solely because of a fire in the suposted conclusion that this spells the end of the 911 truther movement with this ONE SINGLE example, and to which YOU, WoZ, threw your overwhelming support in a serires of replies to Incitatus–all the while consciously IGNORING MY substantive reply to Incitatus, complete with "logical" reasoning and substantiated with photographic evidence to counter that argument–CHOOSING, as YOU DID so cowardly, to ignore my presentation, in the aftermath–just as you seemingly gloss over YOUR considerable requests at peer review, PHD level analysis (as others lack any competent ability to produce substantive results by your own admission) and others claims to authority–all the while saying naught of the same when it comes to the holocaust narrative!!!
What other "bizzare" conclusions did I arrive at (perhaps for some unbeknownst conspiritorial related reason) when it dealing with just you, WoZ….?: Namely, that you are my (((Australian))) friend??? Your own words gave you away:
The name of L. Fletcher Prouty on this thread rang a bell that didn't flatter any image I retained of him. Your link brought it back. He had never been of great seniority or importance and the words of a witty former Foreign Minister of ours came back : he was suffering from "relevance deprivation syndrome".
(https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-jfk-assassination-part-i-what-happened/#comment-2379980)
Gareth John Evans
"from 1988-96 – Foreign Minister"
Website http://gevans.org/
"Welcome to relevance deprivation syndrome, a common but difficult to define experience for those climbing off the corporate treadmill."
"This "syndrome" is in fact not medically defined. The expression was coined by former foreign affairs minister Gareth Evans after his retirement. After 21 years in public life, Evans was upfront and honest about the internal battle he expected to face out of the limelight."
https://www.afr.com/business/facing-irrelevance-after-life-on-the-corporate-treadmill-20130305-j126m
"Gareth John Evans AC, QC (born 5 September 1944), is an Australian international policymaker and former politician…and most prominently, from 1988 to 1996, as Foreign Minister."
"He also did not enjoy the move to opposition after thirteen years in government, coining the expression 'relevance deprivation syndrome'"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gareth_Evans_(politician)
"When you wake in the morning and say, 'What am I going to do today' it's actually really difficult. When you finish being a minister you suffer from relevance deprivation syndrome. If Moore's comments sound familiar, it is because he was purposefully parroting the sentiment expressed by the former foreign minister Gareth Evans, who famously suffered from the same syndrome after losing office in 1996."
https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/relevance-deprivation-syndrome-does-it-really-matter-20131209-2z1bu.html
Letter written in prison by Jack Ruby to his brother Earl. It was reprinted in a book written by his appellate attorney Gertz (and quoted on John McAdams' website):
EARL:
You must believe what I've been telling you for the past two and a half years. If you only would have believed me all along you would have found some way to check out what I said. You would have saved Israel, but now they are doomed, because they think the U.S. are for them, but they are wrong because Johnson wants to see them slaughtered and tortured. Egypt is making believe they are an ally of Russia, that is only to fool Russia and the rest of the world. The Arabs are going to over- run Israel. They are going to get help both from Russia and the U.S. It's too late now to do anything, and we are all doomed.
They are torturing children here. If you only would believe what I'm telling you. Phil [Burleson] was in on the conspiracy all along, and he was very instrumental in the frameup they planned, that I was in on the assassination of the President. Don't be fooled by his working on the briefs, now that has done all the dirty work, he put himself in a position to make every effort that he is on our side. Please you must believe all I've been telling you. Earl, they are going to torture you to death, and you will witness your own family being put to death. Forgive me for all this terrible tragedy I've caused. Love
I know you won't listen to me Earl, but if you go to a public phone booth, they may be watching you, pretend that you are going to a department store or a movie, and then give them the slip. Try the phone booth and call some people in N.Y. you know, and if you don't find them in, you will know something is wrong. Try your family again and if they are not at home, then try Eileen or Ann. If they don't answer then you know something is wrong. Earl I know what I am talking about, and I'm sure you think that I'm crazy. But don't forget the jury found me sane, so I'm not crazy anymore! If you know your family is gone, then you know that all is lost and you can't save anything. But you still may be able to save Israel. By getting to Miami either hitch-hike or some-way. You won't be able to fly because they will be watching for you. From Miami you must find a way to Cuba, by pretending to rent a boat to go fishing, and get to Cuba someway. From there you must find a way to Russia. Then you tell the Russians how Egypt has been using them all along, but they are much closer to Johnson, because of what is happening to the Jews in the U.S. Then they will understand what kind of person Johnson is, and then they may be able to save Israel.
Russia will then be in a position to tell Johnson, that there first move if any trouble starts is not to bomb the U.S., but to wipe out Germany, that one thing Johnson don't want to happen, because he is counting on them to be the master race, also all the other former Axis partners South America, Egypt, Italy and Japan.
Earl, as God is my judge, you must believe all these things I've been telling you. When you go back to your hotel, they may have a bug in your room. Don't say anything to Elmer, just take off without your clothes. Good luck and hope you believe me this time, Love always.
If you should follow what I said, and you are hitch-hiking give a fictitious name, such Fleming etc. Try calling some local people, maybe they are missing already, Scheppo, Jacobson, Kaufman and others through the phone book. Please Earl, I know what I'm asking of you.
you [sic] must get to either Miami or Mexico City and then to Cuba. You may have lost your family by now, but there is nothing you can do about it now and you can save millions of people who are doomed to be slaughtered. This country has been overthrown.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ruby.htm
Somehow Mike Piper missed this note as I cannot find discussion of it anywhere in his book.
McAdams cites the note as evidence of paranoid delusions on Ruby's part.
But what I find remarkable about it are the following points:
1. The extreme degree of concern by Ruby for Israel.
2. Ruby's belief that something he or Earl Ruby could do personally might "save Israel."
3. In this account, Johnson is anti-Israel. Under Mike Piper's theory, JFK was anti-Israel and Johnson was pro-Israel. Of course, that doesn't mean that Ruby was not under the impression that Johnson was pro-Israel, or was informed by Mossad to that effect, at the time of the JFK assassination.
4. In Ruby's telling, Cuba is the safe place to which he advises Earl to go and from which he "still may be able to save Israel." From Cuba he can go to Russia, and Ruby thinks if Russia is told the 'truth' then Russia will save Israel.
5. Ruby certainly doesn't come across here as some patriotic American who killed Oswald to spare Jackie emotional distress. Israel appears to rank much higher in terms of his loyalties than the USA.
6. In Ruby's so called 'deathbed interview' to his lawyer Gertz he certainly doesn't seem delusional: http://www.jfk-online.com/rubydeathbed.html
I think the evidence of Oswald as the shooter (and the only shooter) of JFK is conclusive.
Nevertheless, the killing of Oswald by Ruby and the unsatisfactory explanations for it raise a very strong suspicion of a conspiracy involving at least those two, even if the connection to each other in the conspiracy were merely indirect until the moment of the killing of Oswald.
I suspect the plan was for Oswald to escape with the help of the Cuban exile splinter groups in Dallas, using their safe houses, as detailed in Bob Baer's recent documentary on the History Channel "Tracking Oswald." Perhaps Oswald's plan was to get to Cuba and then on to the Soviet Union, where Marina as a Soviet citizen could come join him with their child and live out their lives in Minsk or Pinsk or some such place.
But having been caught by police (thanks to the heroism of Officer Tippit and others), Oswald needed to be silenced if there was a chance he would divulge the identities of others who knew beforehand of his plan to kill JFK.
This is why, for example, Ruby shows up in the Dallas police headquarters among the group of reporters observing the situation as Oswald is processed the evening of the shooting. To reconnoiter the situation with respect to Oswald on behalf of his Mossad contact.
It has been claimed by a defector who was a member of Cuban intelligence that on the day of the JFK assassination, Castro instructed the intelligence bureau to redirect their equipment from Virginia to Dallas. I noted earlier in this thread the interesting close connection to Castro of Ricardo Wolf, a Cuban Jew who was sent by Castro to Israel as ambassador.
Perhaps the means of communication to Castro of the impending attempt on JFK in Dallas was not the Cuban exiles floating around Dallas (or perhaps in addition to them), but rather Mossad.
• Replies: @Achilles
To elaborate on a possible theory of this:
1. After the JFK appearance in Dallas is announced, Mossad starts fishing around to see if there is some local goy in Dallas willing to take a shot at JFK.
2. In furtherance of this, Mossad liaises with US organized crime Jews about the situation in Dallas. Mossad is told that there are some violent Cuban groups in Dallas left over from the Bay of Pigs effort. And that the local man in Dallas known by organized crime Jews is Jack Ruby.
3. Mossad passes money to Ruby to hand out to the local Dallas Cubans to see what might turn up if they drag some money through these groups. This is why one of the Cubans was said to have remarked that "the Jews were now providing them money" to buy arms.
4. None of the Cubans seems interested in killing the American president. However, they happen to know of a crazy gringo named Oswald who comes to their meetings and harangues them with diatribes about the superiority of communism. Oswald with the help of a couple of the Cubans had tried to assassinate a conservative retired American general a few months before.
5. Oswald had already been talking about his hatred for JFK after the assassination attempts on Castro had been reported in the press, and Oswald had been making outbursts along these lines as early as his trip to Mexico City. The Cubans dare Oswald to kill JFK and to prove that he is as tough as he claims, tougher than these Cubans, and a man of his word. If Oswald kills JFK, they will help him escape afterward.
6. Oswald goes through with it. Not that many people know of his plan beforehand. The Cubans; Jack Ruby and his Mossad contact, and whomever Mossad tells; Castro learns of it through infiltrated Cubans in Dallas or from the Mossad; organized crime Jews and a few pals like Giancana and Trafficante; perhaps even CIA minders of the Dallas Cubans though they may not have taken the rumor seriously.
7. Oswald bungles the aftermath and is captured alive. Mossad contacts Ruby. To save Israel, we must silence Oswald so that no word of Israel's involvement can ever be discovered by investigators. To save Israel, Ruby kills Oswald and never speaks a word of Israel's involvement.
Apologies for not being entirely clear, but I was making reference to the hard evidence that he was witnessed in the lunchroom at 12.15 and, just after the assassination, was confronted by Baker when Oswald had a Coke in his hand. He had, most definitely, not just come down from the 6th floor as two female employees who had been on the relevant stairs stated, categorically, that no one had come by them in the aftermath of the killing.
'2,000 different theories'. No, there aren't. Another desperate, pathetic attempt at deflection from the hard facts that point towards conspiracy.
Nothing to do with Castro, who rebutted any suspicions he may be involved in a major speech shortly afterward, making very hard-hitting accusations as the who may be involved.
JFK was going to 'splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and cast it to the winds'. Do you sincerely believe that rogue agents within this murderous, deeply corrupt organisation would not wish to take action?
Total crap, yet again from the primary troll. He was questioned for hours, no substantial notes taken. 'Probably anticipated some grandiose trail..'. Laughable speculation to deflect from the fact that Oswald denied any involvement in any crime whatsoever and, given the magic bullet, the lunchroom appearance, the failed paraffin test, the impossibility of him getting to Tippit's location, exit wound in back of JFK's head, he was right to do so and any semi-competent lawyer would ah e destroyed a prosecution's case.
That's not up to your scientific standards. Whether there was more than one shooter is one important question for which the state of the windscreen would appear to be weighty evidence. Whether the bullet which killed Kennedy was from the front is a separate question with no necessary connection to the question whether there was a bullet through the windscreen and, if so, from which direction.
I concede the ļogic of your argument but I am doubtful about the factual elements you expressly and implicitly rely on. However I do not have sufficient command of those facts to elaborate my doubts.
Anonymous [AKA "TS/SCI/TURNIPTRICK"] says:
We don't take assignments from manipulative weasels here. Is this all you can do, run from evidence and talk big like you made a point? That's more convincing when you're able to argue your way out of a paper bag. So work on that. That way people will not giggle when you use big words like hipoffasiss.
CIA has impunity in municipal law. They use it to control the USA. They killed JFK, RFK, Mary Pinchot Meyer, George de Mohrenschildt, and lots of other cognizant people because that's what CIA was chartered to do, kill or torture people to maintain totalitarian control.
What you will do now is passive-aggressively avoid that evident point and repeat some variant of nyah-nyah-nyah. All to hold on to the CIA line that CIA's not in charge. Funny how in all this perseverative Internet noise, that is the residual message, the irreducible core.
• Agree: utu
, @Dillon Sweeny
@D. K.
Thanks. It is quite baffling that something so apparently simple wasn't (I presume) wrapped up by the House Select Committee.
Douglas Horne' s five-volume "Inside the Assassination Records Review Board"
It is possible that convincing evidence for a conspiracy is hidden in plain sight, for example in a work such as this one.
A five-volume work is great for documenting facts for the historical record. However, it needs something more to get the story heard, and make people think – a much shorter summary, covering the essential points and the most important evidence, serialized in a newspaper or on a website such as this one.
LondonBob says:
I read a couple of books on JFK years back including Piper's, and basically came to the same conclusion. Interestingly Colonel John Hughes-Wilson, with his impeccable military intelligence background, agrees with Piper's hypothesis too. I don't take much interest since as it seems we know everything now and most JFK researchers are going round in circles. No doubt Angleton was key to the execution, and LBJ to the coverup, both had reasons of their own, as well as very close links with Israel.
Only interesting thing I have come across since is that the mysterious babushka lady, who filmed the assasination from the best angle, bears a remarkable resemblance to one of Jack Ruby's sisters. Then that is why it is an interesting whodunnit.
Well, it has been an interesting conversation. It is one thing for some of older us folk to chew the fat about JFK, RFK, LBJ and so forth, but what are young people to think about all this? How are they supposed to make sense of our occulted history?
For me, the lesson is to be vigilant. That is hard to do when the nation has been traumatized. The JKF, MLK, RFK, 911, attacks were all traumatic events. People were so overloaded they simply went into shock. So, what to do?
1. Demand a real forensic investigation.
2. At the first sign of evidence tampering, scream loudly.
3. Government panels like the Warren Commission and 911 Commission are deeply suspect.
Donald Jeffries has a new book out called:
Hidden History: An Exposé of Modern Crimes, Conspiracies, and Cover-Ups in American Politics
https://www.amazon.com/Hidden-History-Conspiracies-Cover-Ups-American/dp/1510705376
It should probably be required reading in civics classes. He gives an interview here:
Yes, you're quite right that TSBD employee Carolyn Arnold reported seeing Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom around 12:15 in an interview with the journalist Earl Golz in 1978.
However, in her initial statement to the FBI on 11/26/1963, Arnold said she thought she saw Oswald standing inside the front door of the TSBD:
Statement to FBI, 26 November 1963
Mrs. R. E. ARNOLD, Secretary, Texas School Book Depository, advised she was in her office on the second floor of the building on November 22, 1963, and left that office between 12:00 and 12:15 PM, to go downstairs and stand in front of the building to view the Presidential Motorcade. As she was standing in front of the building, she stated she thought she caught a fleeting glimpse of LEE HARVEY OSWALD standing in the hallway between the front door and the double doors leading to the warehouse, located on the first floor. She could not be sure that this was OSWALD, but said she felt it was and believed the time to be a few minutes before 12:15 PM.
Note that the initial "statement" is rather the FBI's paraphrase of Arnold's actual words, which are not included.
In her second statement to the FBI in March 1964, Arnold merely said she did not see Oswald at the time the President was shot.
http://22november1963.org.uk/carolyn-arnold-witness-oswald
The precise nature of points 1 to 6 may be different; but point 7 is the important one.
What motivated Jack Ruby to kill Oswald? Either Ruby was part of the conspiracy, and would have got a longer sentence if Oswald had talked than he did for actually killing him; or Ruby believed in a cause that was more important to him than his personal liberty. Maybe both.
Several commenters have suggested that Israel would never have dared kill a US President because of the dire consequences of being caught. That risk to Israel would have been evident to Jack Ruby.
It's been some years since I read Horne' s work, but my recollection is that the fifth of the five volumes adequately summarizes the whole work. In fact, even if you read all five volumes, my recommendation is to read the final volume first, so that you can better understand the argument of the preceding volumes.
In 1978 longtime CIA Counter-intelligence chief James Angleton and a colleague provided Marchetti with an explosive leak, stating that the agency might be planning to admit a connection to the assassination, which had involved three shooters, but place the blame upon E. Howard Hunt, a former CIA officer who had become notorious during Watergate, and scapegoat him as a rogue agent, along with a few other equally tarnished colleagues.
If Marchetti can be believed, you have to wonder why Angleton would take such a step: it would prove a conspiracy involving CIA staffers and, if followed through, it would have encouraged Hunt to tell everything he knew.
Perhaps by this time Angleton had gone completely mad.
I read a couple of chapters of Piper's book after it was promoted in an earlier article on this site. There is plenty of intriguing material there, but the book has a number of faults that are partly a result of self-publication. It is rambling, self-congratulatory, and polemical; and it mixes important and overlooked information with half-truths and the unimportant. It clearly would have benefited from the services of a professional editor – or better still, a trusted co-author who had an open mind on Piper's main hypothesis. Nevertheless the book is worth reading.
That letter is certainly evidence of paranoid Israel worship. There is a good movie on Netflix, Beyond JFK.
It's a documentary about the Garrison investigation and charges against Clay Shaw.
Earl Ruby s featured. He claims that Jack didn't really intend to kill Oswald. All Jack wanted to was woundOswald to cause him physical pain. Yeah right.
The only way killing Oswald would help Israel is if Oswald had knowledge implicating Israel in the killing of Kennedy.
It's interesting how authors of the 2,000 books all managed to pick what they'd include in those books.
Another interesting thing is the way the Kennedy killing hobbyist lunatics grandiosly assume that anyone who deviates from their particular obsession is a government spy after then.
If 35 government agencies conspired to kill Kennedy they have no need to search the internet refuting hobbyists.
All your crazy ideas refute themselves and are so crazy it's no wonder no one believes them.
It's almost as if the CIA and 34 other agencies who killed Kennedy just let the hobbyists write their books until the country lost interest.
Very interesting. Ruby's letter to his brother is mind blowing. It sounds delusional and psychotic but we must keep in mind that this level of delusion and psychosis for Jews is kind of normal when it comes to the preservation of Jewish people. When was it written?
A theory that Mossad actually was using Cubans has some legs. However it is possible that Oswald was a patsy and did not shoot anybody but wad involved. Then killing him was imperative for the plotters to make an assassin out of him. It is hard to believe that plotters would depend on one guy who decides to do it w/o a good escape plan. We will not solve the problem of one or many shooters within the realm of qui bono and alternative scenarios. But we need to test some of these scenarios to see how possibly Ruby and Mossad were connected to the assassination.
Do you have something on Ruby meeting a journalist from Israel before killing Oswald and a possible connection to Yitzhak Rabin's presence in Dallas.
Piper, I think did not know about (1. Ruby's letter, (2) Mark Felt was behind the Deep Throat, (3) that Rabin was in Dallas.
Is this all you can do, run from evidence and talk big like you made a point? That's more convincing when you're able to argue your way out of a paper bag.
Keep in mind you are dealing with a senior citizen who does not have all the cards in the deck left to play. He often does not know what he argues for or against but he likes to argue anyway. He does not realize that he casts himself in the role of a troll. Wiz of Oz is another one.
@redmudhooch
Thanks for the copy of Atlanta Jewish Time oped calling for the assassination of President of the US on account of him being bad for Israel.
We don't take assignments from manipulative weasels here.
Yet another arrogant, know-it-all peckerhead mounts the Bullshit Soapbox. Ain't a one of you Internet kitchen knights knows jackshit — of conspiracies, plots, or CIA intrigue. I have not seen such an assemblage of trumpeting blowhards blatting wild presumption since DB Cooper collected his $200K.
You sure think highly of yourself don't you? 55 years and 2,000 books later you know all the answers; although you can't name one person or 10 persons who did the shooting or organized the killing.
It's just CIA CIA and 35 other police departments including the entire Dallas PD. And how many motives are there? 10?20?30?
You don't even know what municipal law is do you??? It's city town and village ordinances. According to its charter CIA is not supposed to do anything at all in the United States.
Anonymous [AKA "SVU Dumbshit City"] says:
Murders of scores of influential dissenters including but not limited to a US head of state and a UN Secretary-General. Domestic mass murders including Oklahoma City, the WTC, and Boston. All blatant insults to your intelligence, with gimpy fake investigations or half-assed corny frame-ups sagging over like Clouseau's inflatable parrot, lamer every day. And nobody in authority gives a shit about the overwhelming evidence you stuff in through their transoms.
Now you could keep beavering away at your endless succession of whodunits like a syndicated Angela Lansbury carcass on TV. Or you could step back and think – hm. Forest, trees, you know.
One government organization has been granted the power to commit crimes and declare them state secrets. But somehow nobody ever thinks to suggest, Hey, how about we take away CIA's get-out-of-jail-free-card, and see if this shit dies down to a dull roar?
Now this is not some genius brainwave nobody ever thought of. The entire outside world has been telling us this for more than a decade. The US government really, really, does not want to hear it. When the US shoehorned Bolton into the UN with a recess appointment, he had one job. Know what it was? He constipated the UN Summit Outcome with 700 amendments, just to keep the word impunity out of the touchy parts. No Stalinist Soviet delegate ever was a bigger asshole. Gee, ya think maybe the whole frickin world is onto something?
So you decide. Up to you. The next president can accede to the Rome Statute with a quick concurrent resolution (and don't give me this Senate shit – What do think fast track is?) That commits the government to prosecute or extradite CIA criminals. Or, we can wait till CIA loses their war with the SCO and Russia hangs Gina Haspel's droopy ass, plus all of Washington, DC.
" because even today we are wondering which of JFK's policies prompted his assassination!"
Just because "we" are still wondering doesn't mean a potential target of the message failed to get it.
That logic is faulty.
*If* the assassination can be seen as a "message" at all, clearly the perps didn't give a flying F about what the public thought. And this has continued for the past 50 years, as large portions of the public have demanded a new investigation, but basically none has taken place. So the unintentional message has actually been read loud and clear by the American and world public: this event involved some element(s) of the deep state who don't have to care what the public thinks. They do their own thing!
The same message, actually, was beamed to future presidents: the Deep State was in charge, so don't fuck around and think about leaving the reservation. Clear message there!
There are people still alive who know who was responsible for the assassination. They have learned the lesson that you keep your mouth shut if you want to live long. Another class of the people who know who ordered and planned the assassination are the lanner(s) themselves. These people have heard the message that you *can* get away with murder of a president. It was part of their pre-Dallas skill set was knowledge of how to do t his and confidence that they could bring it off the assassination and the cover-up.
Actually, the Assassination is kind of like the mystery on the Orient Express. There were so many possible perps with credible motivations. In the end, it turns out they were all involved. It as a—wait for it!—conspiracy!! think there were multiple motivations and parties involved in the killing of Kennedy. It was a conspiracy that possibly involved hundreds of people, but many of them not knowing what they were a part of. So, a major opeational challenge. Someone out there was up to setting all of the pieces in place. Who had this ability? What type of person or entity? Figuring out how all the parts were related operationally is the challenge for investigators.
One element of the value of Ron's essay is his attempt to parse the significance of the failure to conduct a real investigation to identifying the actual perpetrators. This point is a significant piece of the puzzle.
As for the suggested perps as citizens or affiliates of the State of Israel, the assassination was probably a graduate-level challenge but one for which they had been practicing and preparing for years, in both a theoretical and a practical sense, so that they became ever more expert. On to the next: 9/11 . From Lansky to Silverstein . . .
Oops! Anti-semitism alert!!!!
, @AL Tru
If you ever had any law enforcement experience you would know that the fact that a suspect says he dindu nuffin musa been some other dude doesn't mean the suspect is innocent.
Why this defense of Oswald? Do you identify with this weirdo loser who couldn't hold a job? The loser who had to depend on the Paines to pay for his wife's welfare fee for childbirth at the county hospital? I mean, it's one thing to have a baby at the county hospital. But not even to have the sliding scale fee charged people on welfare?
And then he shot a police officer in full sight of 3 witnesses just feet away. Some conspirator.
Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit (sp?) and the paraffin test(?) didn't show the nitrogen?
Is a negative result likely after two killings?
All the forensics in the world won't help if there is no suspect that can be charged.
And 55 years later the only suspects were Oswald who's dead and Clay Shaw who was only charged with conspiracy because Ferrie died and was found innocent and exonerated in less than an hour.
So you believe Castro's statement? It's my personal opinion that Castro had nothing to do with Kennedy's murder.
But I don't base my belief on anything Castro said. You've never heard of objectivity have you?
One last tidbit. There are still some people around today who may have insight into the JFK incident. I guess we could make a list and have someone go around and ask them for their take on the matter. One last chance to get their views on the record before they pass on.
G. Gorden Liddy
Ah, that explains everything. Anon's a washout cop! Who else could possibly be stupid enough not to know what municipal law is? Only some guy on a featherbedded white-man's welfare cop job who passed his Wonderlic test with flying colors. Safely under 104 IQ.
President Carter and his CIA head Turner fired more than 800 CIA agents from the operations division which does the dirty work.
Yet no one tried to kill Carter and Turner although Carter and Turner actually destroyed the operations division.
If CIA is as powerful as you claim, they would have seen to it that JFK was not re elected in November 1964. It was the Illinois electoral votes that won the presidency for Kennedy. And there was massive fraud in favor of Kennedy in crooked corrupt Chicago.
Today's media is insanely anti Trump but his voters still approve of him and many who didn't vote for Trump are turned off by the insane anti Trump media.
There was a similar situation when Kennedy was president. The media was insanely pro Kennedy. But the Kennedy worship didn't change the mind of those who voted against Kennedy. And the ridiculous Kennedy worship was beginning to turn a lot of Democrats away from Kennedy.
The intellectual wing of the Democrat party such as Eleanor Roosevelt, Adlai Stevenson, Fulbright never liked Kennedy and didn't want him nominated
The then powerful labor wing of the Democrats endured 10 years of brother Robert investigating corruption in the unions and was turning against Kennedy. The White southerners were turning against the Democrats as well.
There were a lot of democrats turning against Kennedy. Some claimed that pushing Jackie into the spotlight was to make up for JFKs weaknesses and to hide his medical condition and dependence on steroids, amphetamines and strong pain killers?
Why not wait a few months and help the anti Kennedy Democrats and the republican candidate in the 1964 election?
That scenario makes a lot more sense than a murder that was never solved and just lead to more Life of Saint John the Savior and Miracle Worker books
Better a 100 IQ than a 70 IQ like yours. One of the biggest problems the Development Disabled like you have is that they will believe anything they are told.
I always heard the Kennedy hobbyists were a lot of lunatics.. These comments confirm it. No real suspects, just ridiculous wanking over autopsy photos
I concede the ļogic of your argument
The Soviets, who surely had some hard-headed KGB analysts, followed the same logic. Thus according to a memo from FBI Director Edgar J. Hoover to President Johnson's office, the Soviets believed that the assassination was the result of:
some well-organized conspiracy on the part of the 'ultraright' in the United States to effect a 'coup.'
Moreover, according to this informant, the Soviets:
seemed convinced that the assassination was not the deed of one man but that it arose out of a carefully planned campaign in which several people played a part.
So the Commies got the intended message: Kennedy was killed because he was soft on Communism. And although Kennedy had failed the test of leadership, American leadership consisted in more than one man, and thus the poor judgement of of a weak president would not be allowed to prevail.
You don't need to bother with the opinions of the likes of Henry Kissinger, people that is, who would lie to you as readily as they would tell the truth if it suited their argument.
Just pay attention to the eye-witness testimony of the doctors and surgeons who attended on dying President at Parkland Hospital. There you have proof that the Warren Commission report was a cover up. After that, you just have to use a bit of imagination and you come to the same conclusion as did the Soviets, who recognized the assassination for what it was: a coup d'état, against a weak president who was soft on Communism.
That is why it is never definitively shown that a president slept with someone other than their wife. The people he had to arrange his trysts were trusted and for good reason.
Does being a marine qualify him as a loser? From what I hear from a lot of commentators it makes you at least capable of pulling off a pretty impressive feat with a gun. No one is identifying with this guy. That is clearly projection on your part. Someone stating that it is implausible that he pulled this off on his own and was not part of a conspiracy is not defending Oswald. One could ask you the question why proposing the phony lone nut over the obvious conspiracy?
George Bush sr.
@Skeptikal
I agree although I personally differ on one point. It is not that they are all in on it, but that they all could have been and had sufficient motive. That makes them all suspects, which means they all close ranks on a false narrative after the fact so long as it leads away from them. They also all benefit. I made a similar point to a comment about Johnson. He would have helped cover up just because he was such a prime suspect himself. Whatever he does he needs to side with the powers who have the ability to point people in the wrong direction. Was he in on it? Maybe. Would he help cover it up? Absolutely.
Except that their cover story led men being arrested, and photographed.
And Edward Lansdale managed to get in the photo call too
Not only booked but photographed by newsmen in the street and recognised as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_tramps#Other_allegations:_Charles_Harrelson,_Charles_Rogers,_and_Chauncey_Holt or
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_tramps#Early_allegations:_E._Howard_Hunt_and_Frank_Sturgis
They don't look all that well dressed, and they are not even trying to hide their faces. But considering how incompetent Hunt was that is perhaps not surprising.
Nothing has been disproven. Only one thing has been proven; Jack Ruby shot and killed Oswald
It's good that the shooting happened on a Sunday morning when millions of people were watching the murder on TV.
Otherwise all the Kennedy hobbiest lunatics would be writing books and ranting on the internet that Ruby did not kill Oswald.
Anonymous [AKA "bier"] says:
Time for Part III. This thread is starting to smell like one of Anon's Miller High Life burps.
https://whowhatwhy.org/2016/02/16/the-full-story-of-the-sirhan-sirhan-parole-hearing/
A lot of the hobbiest lunatics don't know the difference between government agencies or federal and state law.
It's just a big conspiracy against their childhood hero JFK.
• Replies: @bluedog
Seems to me that the soviets got it partly right. Kennedy was weak on a cold war. It was the communist system that was weak. Maybe he realized this maybe not. Most of the soviet military might was faked but they did have the bomb. They also got it right that Oswald was no commie.
Kennedy was always presented as a cold warrior. Most considered him very anti communist as was every President from Truman to Regean and Bush until the end of Soviet rule over Europe in 1990.
Kennedy "won" the 1960 election by promising to build more missiles than Russia and claiming the Republicans were soft in Russia.
Maybe the 35 government agencies that conspired to kill him had it on tape that Kennedy was secretly pro communist.
I guess I take your point.
Although if one wasn't the actual perp, how would one recognize the "false narrative" as false?
Of course, in this case the official narrative is so absurd that it is obvious that it is a false narrative.
And therefore, one would think, that much harder to maintain . . .
Actually, though, I do think that in a sense they were "all" in on it. That is, not "all" people iwth an ax to grind with Kennedy, but a few pivotal figures who could count on silent support from many other very influential people who would be better off if that "son of a bitch" Jack Kennedy were removed from the earth.
1. Because the interests of the prime suspects who have identifiable motivation overlap in so many ways. This I feel is the value of Douglass's book, JFK and the Unspeakable: he maps out the big picture following the end of WW2, which really wasn't that far in the past. And in so doing he shows how many of the threads of hatred of Kennedy actually were intertwined. This makes it harder to figure out who is "the single plotter," but easier to imagine the outlines of a broader conspiracy where a few pivotal players know that others, even if not actively involved, will be delighted if the murder is pulled off and will help in any cover-up.
2. Because it seems credible and likely to me that different players (Texas pols/CIA/French mob/Israel) were active on different layers of the event, depending on their area of expertise and control. For just one example, I would think that whoever organized and put in place the actual shooters probably was not the same person who was able to order that the corpse be spirited away for a "makeover" before the official autopsy. There has to have been someone within the Dallas Police Department who was getting orders from someone, but would that DP guy have known the actual outlines of the whole conspiracy and who is in the next layer or two layers above? I bet the answer is no. There had to be a mastermind of some kind coordinating the field maneuvers, even if that entity was not the origin of the plot. But I bet the thing was set up with a cell structure that would allow deniability for the grunts on the ground.
I think Ron is right: this thing wasn't put together by a bunch mob rubes who could maybe organize a simple ambush of an enemy, but not such a complex operation as this. The cover-up and competence to monitor potential witnesses and, over a multi-year time span, to eliminate them suddenly when it became necessary seems to me like another significant piece of evidence. Who had this capability, combining both surveillance or humint on hundreds of individuals with the competence to administer accidental death quickly via "heart attack" etc.?
There's more than one way to skin a cat, and of course Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter were entirely different breeds of cat, so to say.
Certainly, Pres. Carter wasn't planning on removing VP Mondale from his ticket in '80, nor did he have the twin scandals of Bobby Baker and Billy Sol Estes hanging around his neck.
According to the president's secretary, Evelyn Lincoln, Kennedy had decided that because of this emerging scandal he was going to drop Lyndon B. Johnson as his running mate in the 1964 election. He told Lincoln that he was going to replace Johnson with Terry Sanford.
On 22nd November, 1963, a friend of Baker's, Don B. Reynolds told B. Everett Jordan and his Senate Rules Committee that Johnson had demanded that he provided kickbacks in return for this business. This included a $585 Magnavox stereo. Reynolds also had to pay for $1,200 worth of advertising on KTBC, Johnson's television station in Austin. Reynolds had paperwork for this transaction including a delivery note that indicated the stereo had been sent to the home of Johnson.
Don B. Reynolds also told of seeing a suitcase full of money which Baker described as a "$100,000 payoff to Johnson for his role in securing the Fort Worth TFX contract". His testimony came to an end when news arrived that President John F. Kennedy had been assassinated.
https://nostalgia049.wordpress.com/2013/09/25/lbjs-options-assassinate-jfk-or-go-to-prison/
No need for bullets when you've got Reagan, Thatcher, and Bush:
With thousands of documents to support his position, Mansoor says that the "hostage crisis" was a political "management tool" created by the pro-Bush faction of the CIA, and implemented through an a priori Alliance with Khomeini's Islamic Fundamentalists." He says the purpose was twofold:
• To keep Iran intact and communist-free by putting Khomeini in full control.
• To destablize the Carter Administration and put George Bush in the White House.
Mansoor produced a confidential document called the "Country Team Minutes" of April 26, 1978, more than a year before the hostage crisis. The meeting was held in Iran. The second paragraph of the routine minutes, states, "The Ambassador commented on our distinguished visitors, Ronald Reagan, George Bush and Margaret Thatcher, and commented that Teheran seems to be the site for an opposition parties congress."
https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-real-iranian-hostage-crisis-a-cia-covert-op/5324385
Think about this way. They did not have a know know how to pull it off. You need a good control of media. While killing people has been practiced for thousands of years. Torah can be considered as a text book manual for how to kill people. It is much easier to kill you than to plant a body of a dead woman or live young boy in your bed.
The King is Dead Long Live the King.
Does the secret service have jurisdiction over, and responsibility for a dead president? It's job is to protect the president, his family and other officials.
Johnson was president the minute Kennedy died.
I'd say the Admiral, not the secret service was in charge of a Navy building and Navy personnel.
The secret service are shits. They rampage into a city, close down major streets for 24 hours with no notice what so ever leaving thousands stranded.
They close down half the airport with no notice.
They didn't even notify city police when Obama came to Los Angeles the first 2 times. They wanted to arrest a woman I know who drove out of her own garage and driveway onto the street in front of her house because they had closed it without notice the night before. She called the BH police who rescued her.
Even though Los Angeles is an Obama worshipping city, the Mayor and council critters managed to force the secret service to give us a few days notice after the first 2 fiascos.
First time it happened we assumed it was an earthquake or some other horrible event.
Some people never got home that night. There are hundreds of city buses that go to the main train station and people take the train to their suburban homes. Those commuter trains usually stop
at 8 and the buses weren't allowed to move till Obama was on his flight home.
Bus drivers were happy because they got lots of overtime hours.
Well it surprised me, but:-
http://spartacus-educational.com/SSgolitsin.htm
He demanded that he be interviewed by James Angleton. He insisted that no one else in the CIA was smart enough or knew enough to question him. Attorney General Robert Kennedy went to see Golitsyn and was told that the CIA was deliberately keeping him away from Angleton. He promised to take up the case with President John F. Kennedy. (4)
As a result of President Kennedy's intervention, Golitsyn was interviewed by Angleton. A fellow officer, Edward Perry, later recalled: "With the single exception of Golitsyn, Angleton was inclined to assume that any defector or operational asset in place was controlled by the KGB."
Angleton was chief of CIA Counterintelligence from 1954 to 1975.
This is somewhat tangential to the danger that Robert Kennedy would pose to plotters after the Assassination of JFK, but one might wonder how the conspiracy inside the CIA trying to feel out potential allies could establish its bona fides as authentic CIA or Israeli and not b a KGB operation to assassinate the President of the United States of America by using the country's own agencies. Angleton was far from the only one in the CIA who thought that there were Soviet agents at the highest levels.
Real estate investor Sam Zell, a Jewish billionaire extremely devoted to Israel, had orchestrated a leveraged-buyout of the Tribune Company, parent of the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune, …while he bore relatively little of the risk. ..the complex deal quickly collapsed into bankruptcy, and although Zell emerged almost unscathed, the editors and journalists lost decades of their accumulated pension dollars, while massive layoffs soon devastated the newsrooms of what had been two of the country's largest and most prestigious newspapers.
Even if presented as a home grown Texas patriot/gangster coup, how could anyone in the CIA be sure that the conspiracy he was joining was not a leveraged coup by Soviet intelligence. Jews may trust Jews, but even the ones on Kennedy's staff (assuming for the sake of argument they had loyalty to the Jewish state) would have no way of knowing if they were approached to participate in a Mossad operation that they were not being duped and co-opted by an American or Israeli who was really working for the KGB. Many Soviet spies in the US were Jewish, so an even an Israeli would not be beyond suspicion.
Anyway, Robert Kennedy involved himself far more in the CIA's counter- intelligence than his official duties would lead one to expect. This was especially true of the CIA subversion/ terrorism/ assassination attempts, and he knew the leading personalities in the CIA ZR/rifle assassination resource or Mongoose AKA Cuban Project. Planning the assassination of Cuban leaders including Castro was a part of that plan. .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Project
The U.S. Defense Department's Joint Chiefs of Staff saw the project's ultimate objective to be to provide adequate justification for U.S. military intervention in Cuba. They requested that the Secretary of Defense assign them responsibility for the project, but Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy retained effective control. […] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Project#Planning
U.S. Air Force Major General Edward Lansdale, head of Operation Mongoose Mongoose was led by Edward Lansdale at the Defense Department and William King Harvey at the CIA. Lansdale was chosen due to his experience with counter-insurgency in the Philippines during the Hukbalahap Rebellion, as well as because of his experience supporting Vietnam's Diem regime. Samuel Halpern, a CIA co-organizer, conveyed the breadth of involvement: "CIA and the US Army and military forces and Department of Commerce, and Immigration, Treasury, God knows who else – everybody was in Mongoose. It was a government-wide operation run out of Bobby Kennedy's office with Ed Lansdale as the mastermind."[24]
Peter Janney' s book "Mary's Mosaic" indicates that it was the CIA that was responsible for the murder of Mary Pinchot Meyer, one of those witnesses. Since the author was the son of a high CIA official, whom he accuses of being involved in the murder, and also knew such CIA figure as Cord Meyer and James Jesus Angleton, as well as Mary Meyer herself, I am inclined to believe him.
Oh my God crazier and crazier.
So you claim that 12 months before the 1980 election the CIA Georgr Bush 1 and Ronald Regean convinced the Iranian revolutionaries to seize the American embassy and hold the staff hostage for more than a year.
I thought the original conspiracy theory was that Regean and Bush didn't conspire with Iran until October 1980 11 months after the embassy was seized.
You people are unbelievable
• Replies: @manorchurch
Aren't you one of the fools who claim that Oswald hadn't the skills to shoot Kennedy?
Check Bob Woodward "State of Denial". He interviewed Prince Bandar about his visit to Austin in 1997.
https://books.google.com/books?id=FHn-M8fZ96MC&pg=PT626&lpg=PT626&dq=george+W+bush+prince+bandar+1997&source=bl&ots=9XAbgg6gNQ&sig=xDQnIBal2JpK5SWhvZJ0t2s–jw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwje47C5nvfbAhXIxYMKHTUICjk4ChDoAQhAMAQ#v=onepage&q=george%20W%20bush%20prince%20bandar%201997&f=false
Kids watch TV and Netflix and use the internet. There are dozens of documentaries about mysteries and conspiracies. I like the one that claims there's no gold in Fort Knox.
Maybe the CIA stole the gold and killed Kennedy because he found out
True, I believe he did not. My point exactly. Does not mean I am defending him.
I agree with this. There were plenty of people involved, and the only thing most of them would have to talk about is something vague like they were told to change something on a medical report. They were told to stand in a window, they were told to say they saw something, they were told to carry a package to work, they saw Oswald here or there. After the fact they would possibly suspect that something they did may have had some impact but they would not have had anything all that remarkable to tell anyone about.
The press knew all about Kennedy's willing sex slave interns. None of it came out because the Kennedy's aids knew all about the press corps sexual peccadillo's , and they would have been reprisals in kind. She was from behind the Iron Curtain which made it more dangerous that the countless others including other men's wives he had as pres, but women did not rat on Kennedy, and without her testimony they had just another rumour . It's like Bill Cosby, reporter know their audience people don't really want to hear about their hero being a shit.
There is that book Secret Coup arguing that Watergate was actually to do with the risque past of John Dean's wife. Liddy knows more than anyone and he believes if and Dean failed to win a civil case against Liddy. The Watergate bugs were not in a room used by senior democrats for strategy , they were on the phone of a minor functionary who may have been involved in arranging female escorts. Kennedy might have been able to get down after the first shots but he was in a back brace in Dallas (possibly due to him over exerting himself at a ranch pool party with a gaggle of German airline stews, not long before).
Trivial things and motives can have big consequences. I think that is a big reason why people find it difficult to believe that a twerp like Oswald could really smoke Kennedy without something much bigger behind the scenes.
That Bilko episode in which to get rid of a thug in the unit he pretends to be plotting to rob Fort Knox could have been "We are going to kill the president, you want in?". Hunt said it happened to him.
It was actually the plot run by top Illuminati cabal, mostly Ashkenazi Jews, with some lizard bloodline here and there. They used Mossad which then gave orders to CIA and KGB to steal the gold.
It's now in a secret storage in Israel.
Hess knew about it and that's why he was kept in prison for so long and later murdered by Shin Bet operatives.
A rogue FBI agent compiled the story and shared it with Naval Intelligence fellow. The fellow was on "Liberty" and that's why the ship was bombed by IAF.
One copy of the manuscript was in Building 7 and that's why it was brought down my termite put there by Mossad working together with Delta Force. Other two buildings were brought down just to throw off the potential investigation.
Assange was also on that and that's why he is in trouble.
A couple of things are still missing in all that, but I am working on it.
The conspiracy started around 10 000 years ago and has some very bad plans for human race in not so distant future. That's why we must unravel it and inform the people.
I'l continue when get back from my G.P. Run out of meds.
More to follow tomorrow.
I just read Farewell America on the internet White print on a navy background. I hate that.
The book was nothing but a generalized diatribe against America.
JFK instituted affirmative action federal jobs and government contracts fir blacks so the evil White racists killed Him
Kennedy was going to make Peace on Earth with Cuba Russia and China do the anti communist evil Americans killed him.
Robert Kennedy re created himself from the anti labor union anti communist who worked for Joe McCarthy exposing communists to a 60s 70s radical. He already had one victim group the blacks. He planned on more affirmative action He made Hispanic farm worker activist Cesear Chavez famous. He was going to stop the war in Vietnam. He was going to desegregate the schools so black kids would be as intelligent and educated as Whites.
That was RFKs platform. He commissioned that book to represent America as evil racist right wing
Then Saint Robert the Redeemer would become president, wave his magic wand and Saint Robert would uplift the blacks and farm workers and institute Peace On Earth forever and ever amen
But then he was martyred.
Read the book. It's online It's just typical 196os left wing crap.
On a more serious…hehe…note, it was me I am afraid.
I stick to it, depending on a timeframe.
Now, we don't know the actual timeframe so, the point is moot.
Bang/start stopwatch…..bang…..bang/stop stopwatch.
3 shots within 7 seconds..no way.
3 shots within 9 seconds..doable.
3 shots within 12 seconds……easy.
That rifle, that angle, that distance, that target.
C'mon…Americans….of all people at least you can test it with ease. A beauty of the 2nd.
I believe some people tried and failed.Seven seconds fail I mean.
So why did they not eliminate Kennedy by the same heart attack method? He got non medical amphetamine injections from Dr Feelgood. His Addison's disease required he take cortisol to keep him alive; even so his health was poor. Easiest way to kill a junkie is …
You must still believe in Santa Claus.
You must be one of those women who poured over all the pictures and articles about Jackie, Ethel Joan and Rose in all those magazines glorifying them.
Well, Jackie was the Princess Dianna of her era, from 1955 till the day she died.
James Kabala says:
I think that deserves a bit more attention here. We all know that LBJ was sleazy and ruthless, but he does seem to have had qualms about outright murder. After the JFK assassination he would deliberately infuriate RFK with out-loud musing that it was divine retribution for the murder of Diem. (In the clip above he accepts responsibility with a collective "we," but he doesn't seem very happy about it.) And he was also not a supporter of the various plots against Castro, which he memorably compared to Murder Inc.
That "treason" poster is also remarkable for never mentioning South Vietnam. You would think there would hardly have been a better example of "betraying our friends" than the murder of an allied leader, but that is ignored and instead references are made to now-forgotten controversies about Portugal and the short-lived Republic of Katanga.
Who had this capability, combining both surveillance or humint on hundreds of individuals with the competence to administer accidental death quickly via "heart attack" etc.?
Eisenhower. The deep state was divided in its loyalty. Some refused to accept Kennedy was legally elected. They claimed the 22nd amendment was not valid. Johnson was Eisenhower's plan B for remaining in power.
I heard this kind of talk along with the words "treason" and "communist" a lot in 1962-63. One CIA employee claimed that evolution was a communist propaganda, and when I suggested to him that Kennedy probably believed in evolution he promised he would find out. If Kennedy believed in evolution, then he was a communist, and they would "do something" about it.
I asked him what they going to do, and he said "With fifty armed men on drugs, we can change the government."
Possibly the 50 armed men on drugs could have been Eisenhower's secret service detail which was equal in size to Kennedy's.
This CIA employee drugged me many times, starting at the age of 11. His favorite drug was scopolamine. Now scopolamine is commonly prescribed for seasickness, but it has many uses. It induces amnesia. It can also put people into a zombie-like state where they will do whatever they are told and not remember it later. It is hard to believe how dangerous this drug is unless you have experienced it.
This man's picture is in Piper's book. His alias in Dallas was Guy Bannister.
@TheBoom
"As the Jews cement power…"
So the Jews are just now cementing power? So how were they able 55 years ago to swoop into Dallas, Texas, kill the POTUS without being seen? LOL.
I was in a Barnes and Noble today and the magazine racks had new Special Issues with those very pictures and articles.
So, as Ron argued in comment 226, look for those who couldn't afford to wait until November 1964.
This suggests that the CIA were not running the conspiracy. However, they would have helped with the cover-up, if only to avoid the charge that they didn't detect and thwart the plot.
It is also possible that they became aware of a plot, and did not act to prevent it, because they wanted it to succeed. Like the Mossad agents who were tracking Al Qaeda in the US and were seen celebrating on 9/11.
Odd that you should make this comment on an article that discusses real suspects who are usually overlooked.
Thus according to a memo from FBI Director Edgar J. Hoover to President Johnson's office, the Soviets believed that the assassination was the result of "some well-organized conspiracy on the part of the 'ultraright' in the United States to effect a 'coup.'"
RFK had privately told the Soviets the same thing.
I just thought to look up victim James Tague on Wikipedia.org– where I learned that he was a fellow Hoosier, by birth, and also a fellow Purdue Boilermaker (albeit he dropped out to join the Air Force)! This is what Wikipedia.org claims in its introduction: "Tague received a minor wound to his right cheek immediately prior to the assassination, caused by tiny pieces of concrete debris from a street curb that was struck by fragments from the bullet that killed Kennedy." In the nearly thirty years in which I have studied the JFK assassination, avocationally, I cannot recall having encountered this claim before my just reading it on Wikipedia.org. The entire reason for Arlen Specter's infamous "Single-Bullet Theory" was to account for the fact that one of the three bullets alleged to have been fired by the "lone nut" had missed its target altogether, and collaterally wounded Mr. Tague by its defacing of the curb along the south side of Elm Street. The claim also is internally inconsistent, of course, by claiming that Tague was wounded "immediately prior to the assassination," while also claiming that his wound was caused by "fragments from the bullet that killed Kennedy."
There were 3 shots within 12 seconds from the TSBR. Life Magazine muddied the waters by claiming that the Zapruder film covered the whole of the shooting, but in fact it omitted the first shot (which missed).
Though of course there may have been other shooters…
I absolutely agree re Mary Pinchot Meyer (and Douglass names so many o thers who checked out a day or so before they were supposed to provide new info). I havne't read Janney's book but watched a detailed documentary on the murder and its background and also read up on Cord Meyer, the Ben Bradlee connection, the Angleton connection. All extremely suspicious and the Bradlee involvement can't help but set Watergate antennae twitching. Can anyone imagine that Mary's sister and her husband gave no thought to the possible reasons why Mary had been eliminated???
I have read Russ Baker's Family of Secrets and find it convincing concerning a Bush involvement in Dallas. But what would have been the motivation for Bush? The Bushes were more friendly to the Arabs than to Israel, I believe. Would Bush be involved purely as a CIA man with no other motivation other than being a company man? Would Bush have known about the elements that are being discussed on this thread (and others), namely, the likely involvement of the Israelis, the mob (as executioners), the Texas pols (who probably controlled teh Dallas Police). Was Bush a Navy man? Would Bush have had any interest in seeing Johnson become president? Would there be a Vietnam motivation such a desire to see the American involvement continue and not be wound down? That doesn't seem like a sufficient motivation for Bush. Maybe Baker discusses this and I have forgotten what he said about this.
But why would Curtis Lemay obey orders of the CIA killers?
Well, in that case no problem with Oswald being the single shooter.
I just don't believe that.
Summary of my own:
Oswald was a CIA guy.
Some people within CIA knew he was going to try to assassinate the President. That qualifies as collusion and, probably, even as a conspiracy. Don't know.
After the fact they did their best to cover up their knowledge.
The rest is incompetence and power play.
Digging into/around that event has nothing to do with the event itself.
Motives, agendas…actually needs….are something else.
The day the dream died
….Camelot….
Etc….etc……
Feels almost as….religion. US brand of it.
No wonder.
manorchurch says:
Yes. Participants here are loonies — conspiracy theorists. They will take anything — anything at all — to absurd, demented lengths, in pursuit of extremes of wild imagination. It is amusing for the sane to read — until nausea sets in.
You have probably noticed that most posts are from people who do not comment much on other topics. 2000 comments on this insanity/inanity, all told, each one nuttier than the previous. I think Unz did this for kicks.
Would Bush have had any interest in seeing Johnson become president?
What difference did it make to Bush? If Johnson had not become President, JFK, surely a more popular Democrat, would have been re-elected, which would not have been in anyway to be preferred by a Republican.
Kennedy was always presented as a cold warrior.
But in the event, he proved not to be. To repeat myself:
He failed to give the Soviets a bloody nose over the Cuban missile base. He failed to back the CIA-orchestrated Bay of Pigs invasion of Communist Cuba, and he indicated he'd back out of the war against Communist revolution in Vietnam if he won in '64. And he would have been unbeatable in '64.
By failing to deliver, he proved himself to be, not only soft on Communism, but a double-crosser, who lied his way to the Presidency. Two reasons to eliminate the SOB.
What's ARRB?
Seems to me that the soviets got it partly right.
When the Soviets said Kennedy was the victim of a right wing coup, they were right.
Whether Kennedy's decisions on Cuban matters and Vietnam, judged by his critics to be evidence of weakness, is open to eternal debate.
Vietnam was certainly no great victory for America. However, it cost the Commies something as well as the Americans. The Vietnamese killed a lot of Americans and brought down a lot of American planes, all with bullets and planes supplied by the Soviets or China. Moreover, the huge American investment in Vietnam signaled to the Communists that America would not ignore Communist aggression wherever it occurred. That may have been a significant deterrent to Communist "adventurism".
Photo evidence will never be conclusive — at least in a public debate. However much the tramps look like Watergate burglars Hunt and Sturgis, there will be those who say there is no real resemblance. And however unlike Hunt and Sturgis the tramps appear to be, there will be those who say they are a spitting likeness. More significant, therefore, is E. Howard Hunt's deathbed confession where he appears to admit involvement in the assassination. I am inclined to believe him, because that provides a plausible basis both for the Watergate burglary and Hunt's role in that burglary.
I just got an idea re Bush Senior.
Oil Depletion Allowance.
Robert Bryce's "Cronies: Oil, the BUshes, and the Rise of Texas, America's Superstate" is worth a careful read, as he chronicles the transfer of Bush from Connecticut to Texas. "Heavily documented history of the growth of power of long-entwined families and firms such as the Bushes, the Bakers, the Hunts, and Halliburton."
Another description of the book:
Bryce "tak[es] on the state of Texas and its enormous political influence over American life, from oil and gas to business to foreign policy. Bryce traces the network of Texas "cronies" that he says helped bring Lyndon Johnson and both Bushes to power in the White House."
The same "cronies" might have had a hand in getting rid of JFK.
Bryce describes how the first order of business for any Texas pol, regardless of party, was the protection, in Washington, of the Oil Depletion Allowance. A quick search for "oil depletion allowance" leads to a quote from Phil Nelson, that JFK wanted to eliminate the ODA. More info on that is in the Spartacus article cited below.
Bush's position as a Texas oil man, plus his CIA credentials, plus his planned political role would put him on the same side as Johnson if part of the plus of sending Johnson to Washington would have been to protect the ODA—which Johnson had been doing all along—and to protect other big financial interests in Texas.
As recounted by Bryce, part of Bush's brief in his political move from Connecticut to Texas was that he was tasked by the party with "turning" the state from being Dem Party territory to being a Republican stronghold. Thus, George Bush Senior was a political operative as well as CIA intelligence operative and in bed with oil interests. It is quite possible that the reason Bush went into the oil business in Texas was to create a good cover for his real political goals. Quite possibly getting Johnson out of Texas and in Washington would be good for Texas oilmen and good for the Republican Party's designs on Texas. In this scenario, Bush's CIA role would be subservient to a larger political strategy. In other words, he would be instrumentalizing himself as a CIA asset in service to the Republican Party and the party's long-term plan for America. If there is anything to this, then Nixon would surely have had some idea of the party's plans for Texas.
This essay (http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKoildepletion.htm) on the ODA and centrality of the tax breaks that made the oilmen rich as Croesus lists all the names of the parade of pols who protected the oil money tree in Texas. Weren't man;y of these in the group that, according to LBJ's mistress, gathered for a meeting at I think Murchison's ranch the night before the assassination? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gx6E5JgO5E)
Johnson "was always in the pay of the oil industry." The industry that Bush had entered. This background might provide a motivation for Bush to provide CIA support to the plot hatched in Texas. This would meet the "bipartisan" standard for the removal of JFK.
According to this account, the Texas plotters were already deft in the art of setting up commissions that they could control: "Senators called for an investigation into the lobbying of the oil industry by Thomas Hennings, the chairman of the subcommittee on Privileges and Elections. Johnson was unwilling to allow a senator not under his control to look into the matter. Instead he set up a select committee chaired by Walter F. George of Georgia, a member of the Southern Caucus. Johnson had again exposed himself as being in the pay of the oil industry."
Two years into his presidency, Kennedy wanted to do away with the oil depletion allowance: "On 17th January, 1963, President Kennedy presented his proposals for tax reform. This included relieving the tax burdens of low-income and elderly citizens. Kennedy also claimed he wanted to remove special privileges and loopholes. He even said he wanted to do away with the oil depletion allowance. It is estimated that the proposed removal of the oil depletion allowance would result in a loss of around $300 million a year to Texas oilmen.
After the assassination of Kennedy, President Lyndon B. Johnson dropped the government plans to remove the oil depletion allowance. Richard Nixon followed his example and it was not until the arrival of Jimmy Carter that the oil depletion allowance was removed."
Instead, JFK was done away with. Strangely (dog that didn't bark?) there is no mention of George Bush in this account.
I hope others on this thread will read and assess the Spartacus document in light of the Texas original of the plot. It seems to me to lend weight to both the theory of a Texas origin of the plot, a strong motivation for the plot (also, the fact that the Texans surely believed that Johnson should have gotten the 1960 nomination all along), and suggest a possible role for George Bush and explanation for his being in Dallas. Maybe as a Texas oilman he stumbled on the plot, like the looks of it, but never officially came on board, but just decided to travel to Dallas unofficially to keep his thumb on the pulse of what was going on and was wearing only his oilman hat, not his CIA hat. Or, perhaps he was wearing his CIA hat and was a CIA liaison with the Texas faction.
Another neat parallel between Dallas and 9/11 is that in both cases the Big Event was partially designed to sideline investigations or misdirect attention away from major crimes that had already been committed (the Bobby Baker scandal and the Pentagon's mislaying multi trillions of dollars). At the same time, even more neatly, the Big Event also resulted in the destruction of the evidence needed to solve the Big Event crime itself (tampering with JFK's head wounds and other evidence; the destruction of Building 7, which alleged contained documents relating to not only the Pentagon debacle but I think a number of other related investigations and possibly some Silverstein-related material).
@manorchurch
You have probably noticed that most posts are from people who do not comment much on other topics. 2000 comments on this insanity/inanity, all told, each one nuttier than the previous.
Don't say.
I think Unz did this for kicks.
I believe that the "event" just doesn't feel completed and he is just trying to make the full sense of it. As some of posters are.
The problem is that the topic tends to attract ……certain….profiles.
Some of them quite……interesting.
Thanks. If Wikipedia is so far off the pace it suggests that interest in the JFK assassination is in severe decline. And if that is right it is surely OK for 85 year old witnesses to come clean without worrying that James Jesus Angleton's Israeli godson's ex Mossad grandson will knock off his family 😉
I haven't tuned into this conversation but I would agree that sex scandal wouldn't have been reliable enough because there was so much sex scandal involving Kennedy being discussed around Washington that one could only conclude that maybe nobody cared and that it could never be made a big deal of.
You're right that Kennedy let the Soviet's run over him. But the millions who worshipped him and his family believed he was a crusader against communism.
I'm confused. What does the watergate burglary have to do with the Kennedy murder?
Robert Kennedy jr wants to run for president in 2020. The 90 year old Kennedy PR machine is gearing up for that.
That's why all the interest in the Kennedys and the memories of Saints John and Robert, martyred before they could save the world.
Excellent post you've convinced me that the lizard Illuminati did it.
I agree. Most of the more rational books mention the back brace. The more lunatic books and their fans ignore the back brace and focus on CIA FBI uniformed Dallas PD snipers.
Phillips Andover, Yale and Harvard MBA Bush is no dummy despite what the demo rats claim.
Assassination Records Review Board.
bluedog says:
My My My you seem to have a very big dog in this fight,I wonder why you attack everyone who has a different point of view,anyone who thinks that the shinning light on the hill would'nt stoop to killing the president seeing big business controls the country, and wars are very big business for the corporations and bankers that feed from…
You've previously stated pompously that you 'do not have time to read Who Killed Kennedy books'. Given your stated ignorance and given that the sum total of your moronic contributions to both threads has been to spread misinformation, disinformation and facile crap, why don't you just butt out and let those with legitimate points to make, on both sides, to discuss those?
Yet again, you betray your lack of knowledge of the subject with your claims relating to the Tippit killing. Your attempt to bait me is pathetic, as ever.
Castro made extremely cogent arguments why he would not have wanted JFK killed and also pointed out the likely suspects. I also believe Castro had nothing to do with it, based on evidence other than his personal statement.
Why the pathetic comment about 'objectivity'?
Quite possibly nothing at all. But I had a theory, which I wrote about here:
Did Gerald Ford Blackmail US President Richard Nixon into Resigning Over Complicity in the JFK Assassination?
Castro did not want Kennedy killed.
Kennedy, under great risk to himself, had opened a secret unofficial back channel to Castro and wanted to normalize US relations with Cuba.
Ditto, Kennedy and Khrushchev.
You can read about the Castro back channel here (and elsewhere):
Simon Reid-Henry,
Fidel and Che: A Revolutionary Friendship. 2009.
it is surely OK for 85 year old witnesses to come clean without worrying that James Jesus Angleton's Israeli godson's ex Mossad grandson will knock off his family
The CIA operatives of 1963 are retired or dead. It is very unlikely that present-day operatives would feel motivated to kill, in order to preserve the (not particularly hallowed) memory of the organization half a century ago.
Mossad is a different matter – because, if somebody divulged credible evidence for the Piper hypothesis, it would impact present-day US-Israeli relations.
Reduced to hysterical insults now. As you've consistently displayed an utter lack of knowledge regarding the events, it's probably not a surprise. Lunatic may be an appropriate epithet for people who believe in magic bullets ans shots from the rear that exit the back of a head.
55 years. 55 years during which, at absolutely no time, did it make any difference whatsoever whether or not there was a conspiracy.
It's like Lincoln's followers shrieking about Jeffersonian connivance in the election that made Burr Vice President.
Sheer, unvarnished lunacy.
Shit like "Montezuma was not the legitimate ruler of the Aztecs, so Mexico is not a sovereign country."
Lunacy complicated by stupidity, if such is possible.
Impossible. Israel, through Israeli-American traitors and Mossad, DEFINES what "US-Israeli relations" are to be. The Congress, Presidency, Supreme Court, military, and federal government are owned and operated by Israel. Lock, stock, and barrel.
Now, is that all a bad thing? Maybe not. It keeps the US currency stable and competitive, despite a completely-hollow national economy. It provides Israeli-Americans with a low-cost labor supply, while providing Americans with Happy Meals and $35K vehicles worth $5K. The rich get richer, right? Existence will be bearable until such point in time as Israel has wrung the last 5-cent dollar out of American workers. By then Israel will hold the entire Middle East, and their attention will turn to doing the same thing to Europe.
Not my problem: I will have Roy Rogers' roast beef and strawberry milkshakes until the day I die. Tough on you younger guys, but I'm told the lash becomes bearable, even unnoticed. Good boys get meaningful titles. [nelson laugh]
Hunt is supposed to by one of the three tramps arrested near the assassination just after it . At comment 424 everyone can see press photography of two of the tramps being escorted by police after they were arrested, and of all three tramps being released. They are not even trying to hide their faces, which are crystal clear –some covert operatives! Fletcher Prouty says Air Force Brigadier General Edward Lansdale is a passer-by in the first arrest photo; more like a red carpet photo call by show ponies than anyone practicing counter surveillance techniques
Israel had French Mirage jets in 1967. America could have given them better but didn't.
What more land could they have taken and digested? The West Bank was their objective. Perhaps the more pertinent question is what Israel could do with the indigenous population of its actual territorial gains in 1967, Mere limited support against Egypt which had begun getting arms from Czechoslovakia, seen as a move toward being a client state of the Soviet Union.. Nothing to suggest a special holds over Johnson or him operating as a stooge of Israel at all in this.
Israel did not expel the bulk of West Bank Arabs when it conquered the West Bank in 1967. If Israel could go back and do 1967 over again it would expel the West bank Arabs and yet it didn't. My reading of history is Israel did not dare expel the occupied territories' Arabs, because it did not think the US under LBJ would go along with not go along with the Arabs being kicked across the river.
In the 1973 October War Nixon favoured Israel, no question about it. and the Western economies were never the same after the oil crisis the Arabs retaliated to US -Israel relationship. However Nixon did not expect the oil crises or the war that folowed it because Israel did not start that war. Only after the bruising 1973 war and damage to Western economies did America do something extraordinary for Israel; the Camp David Accords were the US buying off Egypt for Israel and thus freed of the Egyptian deterrent to Israel's aggression, Israel promptly started attacking Lebanon. Carter was probably motivated by keeping the Egyptians from another war as client state of the Soviet Union, and stablising the energy crisis than helping Israel.
The big oppertunity israel had to make a clean sweep of future Arab population problem in the West Bank was in 1967 when LBJ was in power, and yet they didn't dare. Not the most persuasive evidence that Israel had any wedge on LBJ's Middle East policy decisions, is it?
• Agree: PV van der Byl
Actually, it has made a huge difference.
You are the one who sounds like a lunatic.
I see it as the sacred duty of my generation, who remember the events of November 22, 1963, and their immediate aftermath—and who have the maturity and perspective to see the links between that day and the trajectory of the USA in the decades that followed—to do all in their power to understand the Dallas event.
I am finding these essays at UR, including the one by Laurence Guyenot, to be immensely valuable because people are pooling information, theories, and hypotheses and generating some new directions. That is my view. In the course of reaind the essays and the comments, I have been able to sharpen some of my own thoughts on the subject and to see some new combinations.
Specifically, the current state of my thinking is that the plot originated in Texas, with the Oil Combine, which was, however, also the Texas-based MIC in the form of companies such as Brown & Root. The Oil Combine has determined major aspects of our foreign policy for decades. It sent us to war in throughout the Middle East and thought nothing of deposing and murdering leaders who got in its way. This is the violent political culture of Texas (in Texas, party doesn't really matter). And of Lyndon Johnson. He was the pawn of the Oil Combine and also, a fixer in DC for Brown & Root.
Check out Brown & Root and KBR/Halliburton on Wikipedia. The dots just scream to be connected.
These companies stood to make billions off the Vietnam War, and they did. They built all the military bases. They pioneered the privataization of military construction and procurement and shouldered aside the Army Corps of Engineers (see Bryce, "Cronies"). They owed Johnson a favor.
Just like in a Western, such as the Magnificent Seven, a few central figures are the core, and they gather more to their team as they progress, each new member having his own reason and his own specialty (Israel, Jewish Mob, Cuban malcontents). And in this case each major "team" member has grunts in the layers below who don't know the big picture and are siloed. In the "Magnificent Seven" scenario, the core plotters were members of the Oil Combine and Texas MIC. The core of Texas's power is the megabucks that flow to Texas oil barons from the Oil Depletion Allowance. They will kill to protect it. They wanted to get rid of Kennedy and put Johnson in place. The question cui bono is very easily answered. They all profit bigtime in $$$ and in influence, but Johnson and Co. control the ground, the Dallas Police, Jack Ruby, etc., as someone earlier commented. Possibly the Secret SErvice, although how this could occur is unclear to me.
Bush enters the picture as an oilman who is probably not really part of the Oil Combine—he is too new to the scene. He probably doesn't have much of a local power base or influence (but wasn't he Navy?). His connections are far away, in DC, where the CIA may be taking a "hands-off" approach, as they, too, would like Texas to do the dirty work. Bush gets wind of the plot and reports it to the CIA—or vice versa: someone in the CIA is already on the Texas team. Meanwhile, Bush has his own political agenda in Texas, gaining control of the state for the Republican Party, which the elimination of Johnson from Texas can only advance. He doesn't give a shite about Kennedy or his program for the USA or anywhere else. Bush's background is already war profiteering (cf. Prescott Bush/Nazis/Brown Bros Harriman) and making money from oil and international finance. So he brings in a few other CIA guys (3 tramps) to keep an eye on the Event so as to report back to CIA central. very likely the CIA is tasked with surveillance and monitoring of possible leaking and witnesses with getting rid of them one way or another.
So, that is my current hypothesis. I think that Ron, to get a deeper grasp of all of the elements, may have to read a few books that are not ostensibly about the assassination. I highly recommend Bryce's Cronies. He sort of does for the political empire of Texas what Douglass does for the USA as a whole in JFK and the Unspeakable.
This territory may have been covered by Phil Nelson and Roger Stone—I haven't read their books yet.
Well…..not quite.
There is a missing link there.
Let's say that Oswald was the only shooter. I, personally, unless some new data come in, believe that.
Oswald, at the very minimum, had very close ties with CIA.
That means having, at least, a "contact".
The "contact" was, at the very minimum, supposed to, as a part of his/her job/assignment, "monitor" Oswald and report his work (observations, even hints) to his/her superiors.
The "contact" must've been aware, even slightly, about Oswald's intention and he/she did put that into the reports.
That is the key here.
True, the reports could've been simply chats, in person/persons,but, still, those people, especially management level, tended to write that down, somewhere. Even in some personal diary. Always.
So, I believe that a certain level of CIA management knew about Oswald intention.
The interesting questions would be:
Was any action taken (say, inform FBI/local police/whatever)? If not, why?
If yes, follow that…..
Say, no action was taken because it was estimated those were all empty threats. Fine. Incompetence. Those people are paid to make correct estimates.
Or…..well….they didn't want to stop that hoping that Oswald would succeed. That qualifies as collusion, even conspiracy.
So, that is my current hypothesis.
There has been no shortage of hypotheses for 55 years. Hundreds of hypotheses, in fact.
Go ahead — waste your life on conspiracy theorizing. You will achieve nothing. A net loss, unless you can sell enough books. There's one born every minute, said Barnum.
Oh, good lord.
Write it up. Get it published. I think Unz proves there's at least a couple dozen out there who will buy the book. IMO, the sales curve is trailing down. But, could be. Santa Claus still sells Christmas presents from Amazon.
The CIA are not ten feet tall you know, many at the CIA during the early 60s thought the agency was full of Soviet agents, ie they did not know much about their own turf. The CIA did do high level funding of academics and foreign student and elite art and cultural movements , but they had have few ways of gathering intel on things on the ground in the US–unlike the FBI The FBI were constantly being requested by Angleton to put senior staff at the CIA under the tightest possible surveillance. Philby says the FBI thought CIA were mainly interested in fine food and wine and marrying wealthy women . The FBI was a more effective organisation and very, very intolerant of of the CIA encroaching on the CIA's domestic remit The FBI knew all about Oswald and not lone before the assassination he phoned asked for an agent by name and left a message to complain about his wife being pestered by special agents doing routine checking up on him .
The only person in the CIA who was maybe reckless enough to try an assassination plot was the drunken brawling gun-nut, sex addict and head of the agency's foriegn leader assassination program William King Harvey, but he had sent an unauthorized Mongoose team to Cuba during the Missile Crisis, and as a result was sidelined to Europe as Italy station chief during the time frame of the assassination.
• Replies: @PV van der Byl
"very likely the CIA is tasked with surveillance and monitoring of possible leaking and witnesses with getting rid of them one way or another. "
And the CIA supplies the patsy.
"I, personally, unless some new data come in, believe that."
Gosh this is hard to grasp.
So much data are in that utterly undermine the official narrative
Even the Committee on Investigating the assassination (can't recall exact name) concluded that there had been a conspiracy. Are you saying that the conspiracy went to work to put all of their confidence in one lone shooter, one bullet, one guy who didn't have much of a record for straight shooting?
What type of more new data would shake your faith in the single-shooter single-bullet story?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/22/jfk-documents-could-show-the-truth-about-a-diplomats-death-47-years-ago
In a once-classified 2013 internal CIA report, the agency's chief historian concluded that the CIA had conducted a "benign cover-up" to withhold "incendiary" information. The cover-up, the report said, was intended to keep the commission focused on "what the Agency believed at the time was the 'best truth' – that Lee Harvey Oswald, for as yet undetermined motives, had acted alone in killing John Kennedy".
CIA files on Oswald that remain classified today are likely more things about what he said to staff of Cuban Consulate and the meeting and the call to KGB at the Soviet Embassy. We already know the Warren commission omitted from its report loose hearsay pointing to a possible Oswald motive of helping Castro. Funny way of making him a 'patsy', to hide incriminating reports of his meeting with emissaries of a communist regieme JFK was trying to overthrow. As to what the stuff in CIA archives that is still classified is about, everyone must draw their own conclusions. But we know what happened a couple of weeks later, don't we?
Did Oswald try to kill General Walker for the CIA?
Write it up. Get it published.
You know, not everybody is in making money. Some of us have enough for a life we like.
Besides, what to write, really?
That Oswald had connections to CIA?
That serious outfits maintain contacts with their former assets/employees?
That those contacts get documented?
That low/middle management of bureaucracies make mistakes? Funny, a?
That low/middle management of bureaucracies first loyalty is to their careers?
That low/middle management of bureaucracies when making a mistake do their best to cover them up/pass it to somebody else?
That higher one goes up the chain of management/bureaucracies people are better in that game?
That's for incompetence/covering up somebody's ass.
Not important.
You refuse to accept a fact that the real schemers, and people working in such outfits are good at that, are able to subtly guide, even help, people doing something they want.
Hint here and there in conversation; lost document here and there. "Forgetting" to report/write down an observation. Things like that.
I am not saying it happened, but could've happened. Impossible to prove a negative, of course.
"Did you have a feeling that Oswald was going to…."? "Yes, vague, but I really believed he was only bragging".
"Did you write that down?" "Yes, but did emphasize it was just bragging".
Of all the people commenting here I got a feeling for only a couple who worked in such environments and get the game.
, @manorchurch
Both side of this…ahm…."discussion" think I am utterly wrong.
Hehe….funny, a?
Hahaha…you are like the other fellow I just responded.
Crackup. Love this site. Thank you Unz.
Are you saying that the conspiracy went to work to put all of their confidence in one lone shooter, one bullet, one guy who didn't have much of a record for straight shooting?
Depends of what kind of conspiracy we are talking about.
Yes, yes, I know, if "conspiracy" then it must've included Johnson, Illuminati, lizards and Satan.
I have another for you.
"Collusion, on low level, which could be seen as conspiracy". Maybe some lawyers here could clarify.
I'll spell it for you and your types.
I am a local CIA chief (whatever the title was/is/will be). As in Dallas area.
I have a couple of guys below me. One of them has a job/assignment, to "monitor" Oswald. We just had a chat over drinks. He mentioned Oswald planing "that". He is not sure how serious it is, my call. My…….call….
Don't like the President. Wouldn't be bad if Oswald, or whoever, does that.
I'll "archive" that. My estimate is, "not serious/requires no further action".
Now, when it happens I do my best to "dissapear" the report in limbo.
Am I conspirator? Or just doing "collusion"? Or, well, I was simply making a wrong call?
Wrong ……………call…….
Now…hehe…..now it's funny…..do you think that my superriors, how didn't like the President even more than me, would punish me for that…ahm…."oversight/mistake"?
Tell me…have YOU ever made a mistake in your work and then tried your best to cover that mistake? Rhetorical question, of course.
What type of more new data would shake your faith in the single-shooter ..
You probably meant
What type of more new data would shake your estimate in the single-shooter …?
Finding another gun would help. Or a shooter. Hopefully both.
Manochurch is a troll.
I wouldn't bother to try to respond to anything he/she says
His/her brief is not to join in a discussion but rather to ridicule and annoy those who do and try to in fact ridicule them out of further participation.
I expect he/she is paid by someone to do this.
Otherwise, why else would he/she bother?
As with "anon" on the first JFK thread, I can't imagine why he/she wastes his/her time reading this thread and spending his/her valuable time and energy—irrecoverable hours from his/her life— writing trollish messages unless he/she is a paid troll.
"your types"
"Finding another gun"
You mean, a weapon—that is, evidence—that someone, a highly skilled sniper, just left lying around to be found?
Sort of like the passports that just drifted down from the WTC?
What has happened to common sense?
Moi? Mais non. 😉
There are some well-established physical facts. Particularly, Kennedy was killed by two 6.5mm bullets from the Mannlicher-Carcano owned by Lee Harvey Oswald.
There's the confirmed, verifiable physical facts of the assassination, right there.
Was there a vast, multinational, multi-participant, deep, dark, mysterious P – L – O – T ?????? [Gasp!]
Dunno. Could be. Fifty-five years later, it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. And, why grown men would spend hours a-burble with imagined discovery, in 2018, just fucking beggars belief.
Arioch says:
Hijacking the thread fir Saturday!
A little quiz for you all, Kremlin shills and fake news spreaders here.
I am putting a quote and you try to guess WHO published that gem.
Here it goes:
To highlight the progress that the Ukrainian Armed Forces have made under his command, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko has cited a military index created by a clickbait military-themed site without any expert, academic, military or government endorsements.
This site, GlobalFirepower.com, ranked Ukraine's military 29th globally in its "2018 Military Strength Ranking." In his May 8th nationally televised address, President Poroshenko called Global Firepower an "independent, authoritative analytical center." The site is virtually unheard of among respected military experts and academics we consulted, and is apparently run by an American blogger and web-entrepreneur named Daniel Puczek whose other online ventures include weddingdresscreator.com and other infotainment sites. GlobalFirepower.com is part of the MilitaryFactory.com network of sites and "Military Factory" is a trademark registered to Puczek
So, some bitter knowledgable person calls out cheap propagandists on promiscuously using non-expert sources.
Now, the QUIZ: guess where on Earth did i find this gem?
Answer goes in….
Here it is: https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2018/06/29/ukrainian-president-cites-clickbait-ranking-national-address/
Of all places to complain about fake experts and non-experts – Bellingcat!
Ж8-[…]
This shit just can't get any better.
You are correct, manochurch is a troll but is peterAUS not a troll?
You aware of the concept called "introspection"?
Because the quote above could apply to you too…..
True, much easier to call anyone you disagree with "troll".
He has a certain conviction and posts here; you do the same; I do the same.
Crackup.
Agree. Common sense I mean.
As the concept of a "murder weapon" and such.
Particularly, Kennedy was killed by two 6.5mm bullets from the Mannlicher-Carcano owned by Lee Harvey Oswald.
As the fact that Oswald had strong connections with CIA.
Was there a vast, multinational, multi-participant, deep, dark, mysterious P – L – O – T ?????? [Gasp!] Dunno. Could be.
I think there was a collusion within low/mid level CIA management.
Fifty-five years later, it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.
You mean if a collusion, at least, is proven, it wouldn't affect certain branches of US intelligence community? At least how general public perceives them?
Sure…..
And, why grown men would spend hours a-burble with imagined discovery, in 2018, just fucking beggars belief.
You mean "why grown men would spend hours discussing a possibility of incompetence, even a collusion, within US intelligence community, regarding assassination of US President"?
True. Better to watch Kardashians. Or go shopping. Taking selfies for FB too.
Yeah…..
Uh-oh. Skeptical is cynical.
Do I laugh at you? Hell, yes. You're a credulous idiot.
Am I wasting my time? Well, I am listening to a damn good recording of "Revolver" at the moment.
I win.
And, just to be clear:
If I had an absolute proof that there was a collusion within US intelligence community regarding the assassination I would not do anything about it.
That is where I do agree, up to a point, with
It would be some, minor, difference:
Memories about certain, long gone, figures would be tarnished. People connected to them in any way, today, could have some minor difficulties too (public perception etc).
It would give some ammo to certain parties within the intelligence community and Government in general in their current power play.
It would create a major difference in my life and probably lives people connected to me. At least unpleasant and most likely really bad.
PV van der Byl says:
Excellent book on the cultural differences and institutional competition between the CIA and the FBI.
https://www.amazon.com/Wedge-Secret-War-Between-FBI/dp/0679414711/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1530315999&sr=8-1&keywords=The+wedge+mark&dpID=51e7AVxzt6L&preST=_SY344_BO1,204,203,200_QL70_&dpSrc=srch
USAF Chief of Staff Curtis LeMay hated President Kennedy. LeMay regarded JFK's foreign policy as a giveaway to the Soviets. LeMay wanted nuclear war with the USSR, and JFK stood in his way.
This has been well-documented and written about in many publications, even "left-wing" magazines such as The New Yorker, for decades.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1995/06/19/the-general-and-world-war-iii
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/god-no-the-u-s-air-force-doesn-t-need-another-curtis-lemay-37de19c11652
During the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis, at a moment of maximum tension and danger, here is Curtis LeMay telling President Kennedy "he is in a pretty bad fix" for refusing to order air strikes and an all-out invasion on Cuba:
Sorry, that was the wrong video clip in the previous comment. Ignore it (it's a parody, not the real thing.)
Here is the actual tape:
https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/educational-resources/you-re-in-a-pretty-bad-fix
Chacun a son gout, as always.
I do not believe the case is made regarding Oswald as a CIA asset. While the fact of his move to and from Russia, in 1963 post-Cuba-crisis no less, is a bit suspect for other reasons, it does point emphatically to him NOT being a CIA asset. JMHO.
That is, I really don't see the CIA regarding him as a threat to the CIA, thus "to-be-eliminated". Not to be invidious, but the CIA I've met are bean-counters (in the sense of data-gathering, not accounting). Troublemakers, yes — they destabilized Central America with bribes and gun-running to multiple opposing groups.
Next thing you'll be telling me is I can't watch Jeopardy 'cause it's dumb.
Yeah, that. Mostly, I see it as utterly and pathetically counterproductive. 1963 is just waaaaay too far back to affect the present or future.
Better to spend one's time awakening America, don't you think? It's almost too late.
"Manorchurch", you disgusting little CIA weasel. A man of the One True God.
A troll isn't someone you disagree with.
This is another trollish comment.
So I guess PAUS is probably also a troll.
I find it quite fascinating that commenters who pour out reams of material rehashing the causes of WW2 seem to want to shut down threads devoted to inquiry regarding the truth behind Dallas 1963.
This topic seems to threaten quite a few commenters.
@PV van der Byl
SO there is a different culture between the Hooverite's and the CIA? WHAT is the common denominator : corruption and launching a current coup to take down the President. Would the past be the key to the present.
I think you are on the right track with LBJ and Bush.
But Bush had more in the game than this.
Hasbara agents like Anon, Wizard of Oz and a few others like Peter AUS are apparently compensated by volume, not quality. I assume their managers have simply given up on any legitimate approach and come to the conclusion that the only possible way to combat Giraldi is flooding the comment section of his articles with meaningless bullshit.
• Agree: jacques sheete, Iris
George Bush Senior
I only wish I were a well paid Hasbara agent. Sounds like a great job, lying in the couch cruising the internet and being paid for it
I didn't know that. I generally don't believe a word in left wing publications.
You betray your naive credulous belief in the craziest of the 2, 000 books about the murder.
The more of the books I read the less I believed any of them.
I read about 50 of the Who Killed Kennedy books 1998 to 2000. I considered them very entertaining in the genre of Le Caree Deighton and other spy thriller books.
Reading them all at once made me realize they were all nonsense. I wouldn't pay 50 cents at a garage sale for any of them.
Never saw Iris Turnip truck ians before.
They've probably been going to the Kennedy hobbyist conventions for years. The younger generation goes to the Star Trek conventions
The difference is that the Star Trek hobbieists know it's all a fantasy.
What suspects? Most of the suspects are not people but government agencies and big oil big steel Dallas PD.
But the only names I've seen are George Bush which is just a fantasy and the men who did the Watergate burglary 11 years later.
People commit conspiracies, not agencies and business organizations.
June 30, 2018 at 11:43 am GMT • 1,000 Words
Eisenhower was going to overthrow Castro and the plan that turned into the Bay of Pigs was inherited by JFK .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian%E2%80%93Czechoslovak_arms_deal
[…] Nasser's hope was that faced with the prospect of Egypt buying Soviet weapons, and thus coming under Soviet influence, the Eisenhower administration would be forced to sell Egypt the weapons he wanted.[.] The news in September 1955 of the Egyptian purchase of a huge quantity of Soviet arms via Czechoslovakia was greeted with shock .
Eisenhower was concerned to keep the US dominant in the Middle East and the USSR out of that region (a major reason for opposing the Suez invasion was to keep from inciting the Nasser to fall under Soviet influence and being given arms they would use against Israel. With its large population, a Soviet armed Egypt would be dangerous to Israel. He thought that Israel was safest without arms from the Soviets coming into the area. Thus Eisenhower tried to supply Nasser with weapons (opposed by the american public )and did not give Israel advanced weapons out of concern for Israel. Eisenhower was also concerned about the defence of south Vietnam, considered a extremely difficult problem that could not be shirked, not turning into another Chinese intervention in the way the Korean war did.
President Kennedy made the Bay of pigs Plan more low key and the CIA did not tell him that this would make getting off the beach and into the mountains very difficult. The CIA officers involved in the operation (including Howard Hunt) were shunted by the Kennedy administration into its new Covert Action for the Domestic Operations Division, which the CIA leadership strongly opposed. and exBay of Pigs Howard Hunt was Chief of Covert Action for the Domestic Operations Division, where he "dealt largely with the subsidizing and manipulation of news and publishing organizations in the US". Then CIA director gave him the assignment of writing a series of Peter Ward spy novels the US's answer to James Bond (see here.
Kennedy was in the tradition of Eisenhower by trying to avoid an arms race in the Middle East On Israel Kennedy was forced to send the very first advanced American weapons (HAWK AA missiles) to Israel (now facing Egypt with MiGs), but he also tried to keep Nasser from getting in even deeper with the Soviets and to portray the US as an honest broker in order to keep other nuclear powers from pressuring Israel over its nuclear weapons program. The US strategy was to keep the inspections in friendly hands (when Dimona was finally inspected many years later, it was by a Jewish American, who made a perfunctory look round and reported nothing improper was going on). President Kennedy faced a South Vietnam that was turning into a conventional military confrontation with the communist North and indirectly with its backers especially China whose direct intervention was to be avoided at all costs. To this end JFK tried to keep the war fought by South Vietnamese with America taking a back seat. President Kennedy sending US counterinsurgency experts and military advisers into Vietnam and speaking of the need to keep the war South Vietnamese effort, one that the US could withdraw from as soon as possible was NOT an indication that he ever contemplated withdrawal from South Vietnam before a military victory over the Communists had pacified the country. "Bear any burden" and all that. America was willing to lose rather that fight the Chinese army, but it was not willing to quit before it had been beaten. To make south Vietnam more effective at fighting the communists Kennedy approved the overthrow of the Diem brothers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Lansdale#Vietnam
According to Daniel Ellsberg, who was at one time a subordinate to Lansdale, Lansdale claimed that he was fired by President Kennedy's Defense Secretary Robert McNamara after he declined Kennedy's offer to play a role in the overthrow of the Diem regime
When he became President, Lyndon B. Johnson greatly increased the US's commitment in Vietnam in a surreptitious manner seriously straining the economy and his political credibility. The resources that LBJ was able to devote to Vietnam also greatly decreased his political capital internationally and thus the support he was able to give Israel. Israel was not able to sweep the bulk of the Arabs out of the West Bank Territories it captured in 1967, something I am sure is now thought a major mistake.
Under Nixon the US was trying to disengage from Vietnam by bombing the North Vietnamese into accepting the concessions that the US was making. However, Daniel Ellsberg became a secret source for The New York Times and 1971 Ellsberg' leag of the Pentagon Papers demonstrated, that the Johnson Administration "systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress" in going ever deeper into Vietnam. Howard Hunt, now retired from the CIA because he was regarded as not very good at intelligence operations, was brought into Libby's White House covert operations squad of ex CIA and ex FBI to find out where the leaks were coming from, and they bugged Ellsberg 's doctor. they also, for reasons that are mysterious bugged minor functionaries' desks (not where top level matters were discussed) in the Democratic party headquartered in Watergate building. It is worth noting that John Dean who had sent them in to place the bugs was once sacked from a law firm because "He was alleged to have started negotiating his own private deal for a TV station broadcast license, after his firm had assigned him to do the same exact thing for a client of theirs.". There have been allegations, supported by Gordon Liddy, that Dean may have been doing something something similar in the Watergate bugging, ie clandestinely leveraging his employer's resources for the furtherance of a personal project of John Dean's. Unlike Liddy, Howard Hunt cooperated with the investigation. Even so his fines and legal costs over the affair amounted to a million dollars and he became bankrupt.
The original plan was the CIA's planes would pretend to be from Castro's air force and suddenly shoot up and bomb the actual Cuban air force on the ground well before the landing of a tame Cuban exile force (fronted by a ex sergeant) getting ashore and to a coastal town with port facilities where they could announce they were the government. Then the US would with bombing of the Cuban army as if to support an indigenous uprising. The original Cuban town to be taken was Trinidad which was anti Castro and had nearby mountains to fall back to if it got too hairy. Casto had agents in the exile force and understood he had to stop them on the beach, although the original plan would have likely worked anyway because all they had to do is get ashore and radio for assistance for their supposed popular uprising, even from the mountains.
But the potential international reaction was worrying so Kennedy asked for a more clandestine operation. The CIA scaled down the prepatory air strike, and offered the a night landing (extremely challenging even for regular Marines) at the remotely rural, surrounded by swamp Bay of Pigs with only one road in and no mountains to retreat to, which Castro knew well because he went fishing there and the locals loved him. Kennedy approved the Bay Of Pigs in ignorance of the total unsuitability of the place and so when the CIA force got pinned down immediately and the Cubans brought heavy artillery with range of the beach, Kennedy was asked to authorize bombing. He refused. Kennedy was in a bad position because he wanted to crush commie Cuba, but not overtly invade. LeMay merely articulated that Kennedy was in an impossible position. Any hint of scorn or threat to Kennedy would have got LeMay instantly sacked (Obama sacked Stanley McChrystal for far less).
Kennedy sacked Director Dulles who had told him it would work. The CIA stiffs involved in the Bay of Pigs were sent to work in a new domestic department of the CIA that the Kennedys insisted on setting up over the CIA's objection. E. Howard Hunt Jr. (sometime novelist, who had ghosted Dulles's book Craft of Intel) was one of those people from the Cuban project moved and he was made chief of the domestic section. At the behest of Kennedy their newly minted Covert Action for the Domestic Operations Division of the CIA, headed by Hunt, started subsidising various media outlets in an attempt to influence culture and reporting of the news. The CIA's greatest triumph was in the area of elite art.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2002/06/richard-cummings/art-and-the-ciaAs the CIA covertly supported the Abstract Expressionist movement by funding exhibits all over the world in promotion of the idea that the culture of freedom was superior to the culture of slavery, and by covertly promoting the purchasing of works by various private collections. Indeed, the CIA named its biggest front in Europe the Congress for Cultural Freedom. It worked. Soviet art became a laughing stock, and New York became the center of the art world, not Paris, where Picasso, a long-time member of the Communist party and winner of the Stalin Peace Prize (who can forget his doves of peace?), still reigned supreme.
What the CIA did, it was criminal.
Yes, Kennedy did sack Dulles for telling him it would work. At the time, JFK was naive to believe that Dulles was telling him the truth, but the historical question remains: did JFK later come to believe that Dulles had deliberately lied to him?
We now know that Dulles did lie to Kennedy about the CIA's certainty of the "uprising", and the success of the invading force.
In November of 1960 – five months before the planned invasion – the CIA admitted to itself that the invasion would fail!
Their solution?
Let it fail, and as that played out, in the heat of battle, Kennedy would (the CIA assumed) cave in and authorize the overt use of the USMC and the US Navy to "save" the invasion force.
So, the CIA and the Joint Chiefs predicted that they could manipulate Kennedy into the only action they knew had a chance to work – to send in the Marines.
From the CIA itself:
"CIA officials, from Dulles on down to the branch chief who ran the operation, professed this same belief but tacitly assumed that President Kennedy would commit US troops rather than let the Brigade be overrun."
To their astonishment and anger, Kennedy refused and instead accepted the losses.
They hated him and never forgave him.
Here is a page from documents declassified in 2005 and a cite from the CIA itself:
https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB355/bop-vol3_p149.pdf
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/winter98_99/art08.html
I wouldn't bother responding to the clown, manorchurch. He's recently confessed his utter and complete ignorance of the entire matter on the initial thread. Don't waste your time feeding the troll.
Fact-free, insulting posts yet again. Something is clearly getting under your skin. There are some awful books out there on the assassination, with Posner and Bugliosi both topping the list. However, why not try to rebut the evidence against the pristine bullet and the exit wound in the back of the head with some hard facts!
Militarily the invasion was a total failure and no amount of air support would have altered that, although it might have let the navy get in to take them off the beach, Well the real plan, as Castro understood, was always to get to a town or the mountains in a pinch then claim to be the popular government asking for help. Then the US would invade.The CIA planners went along with their bosses and didn't bring up the problems to get inland long enough to pretend to be a rebel army because no one would have thanked them. All they had to do was get inland and survive for 48 hours.They could not get off the beach so the air cover by that stage was for an evacuation of a failed invasion. Kennedy OKed it as a covert operation so it would appear a grass roots organisation of Cubans were rebelling and asking for help, and not as an totally external D day-style invasion. No one in the CIA could possibly have thought anything like that was possible
Kennedy and especially RFK had a great deal to do with the Cuba operation after the Bay of Pigs with Operation Mongoose headed by Edward Lansdale and William King Harvey. CIA people who worked on the Bay of Pigs were reassigned, not sacked.And the Kennedy's were mounting operation Mongoose sabotage and terrorismran with |Robert Kennedy so it was not like Kennedy had given up
I had forgotten the factoids about Connally:
Son of a Texas Served in the Navy during the war, became an aide to Johnson after the war.
Became Secretary of the Navy at Johnson's behest.
Navy one of the biggest users of oil and MIC services.
"He had close ties with Johnson before his navy days and maintained them till the former president's death in 1973."
So, was Connally the guy who made the arrangements regarding the autopsy and removal of body to Bethesda Naval BAse? Connally was riding in the limo with Kennedy, but he was LBJ's man.
Because we have been requested to leave that discussion for the Part I thread, which has 1000 comments on the subject. Please go there, and take your demands for your opponents to prove you wrong with you.
What are you raving on about?
Who appointed you Thread Monitor?