What Do You Believe?

[Andre]

I think to find out who was behind a conspiracy or whatever ?
we first should get this forum running and make a little war with ourself and all otherl members
in a kind of civilized way.
what the flying fuck is going on here ?

I always believe  Oswald never really spoke his mind for the tv cameras
he was sure they would get him off the hook in no time
if he would have talked, his life out of prison would have been short

[Kelly]

Thank you Andre! You said what I wanted to say! Come on people, participate a little more. Invite some colleagues and/or friends to join us. We are letting this forum go to waste. By the way Andre, I will address your statement in a civilized way. I agree that Oswald never spoke much for the cameras, but I`m not so sure he thought he would be sprung so quickly. It`s hard telling about that, but he did want an attorney really bad. I think it`s a shame that he didn`t get some sort of civil liberties lawyer to advise him. It`s my opinion that a regular court appointed attorney would have been useless. He never got either! How I wish he had said more than I`m a patsy. He could have helped us understand what was going on. He should have screamed like a little girl and named some names. Perhaps, being killed was the one thing he feared most and he was trying to hang on and figure out what to do with his predicament, but his time ran out!

[Leslie Sharp]

This may not be kosher, and may not pass scrutiny of the moderator(s) here, but in the interest of expediency, I've copied a segment of a conversation started at Jeff Morley's site back in April, April 17th to be precise under the heading "Stephen Hunter goes ballistic.."  Obviously we veered off topic - and are perhaps guilty of doing the same here, but it might be of interest to those studying Oswald's rights in the immediate aftermath.  (The Nichols referred to in this comment was H. Louis Nichols, head of the Dallas Bar Association.)  In defense of introducing this under Allen Dale's thread, "What Do You Believe," this topic represents a perfect segway for what I personally believe; Dallas, in the collective of power brokers in that city,  played a significant role in the success of the assassination and the (ongoing) cover up.

leslie sharp
April 22, 2013 at 2:23 pm
Jean, I can

[TLR]

Thank you Andre! You said what I wanted to say! Come on people, participate a little more. Invite some colleagues and/or friends to join us. We are letting this forum go to waste. By the way Andre, I will address your statement in a civilized way. I agree that Oswald never spoke much for the cameras, but I`m not so sure he thought he would be sprung so quickly. It`s hard telling about that, but he did want an attorney really bad. I think it`s a shame that he didn`t get some sort of civil liberties lawyer to advise him. It`s my opinion that a regular court appointed attorney would have been useless. He never got either! How I wish he had said more than I`m a patsy. He could have helped us understand what was going on. He should have screamed like a little girl and named some names. Perhaps, being killed was the one thing he feared most and he was trying to hang on and figure out what to do with his predicament, but his time ran out!

I don't think he expected to be killed, and hoped that somehow he could salvage whatever undercover role he was playing, or that one of his intelligence handlers would come to his rescue and bail him out. This is why he didn't say very much. I agree that at a trial he would probably have gotten the kind of lawyers Sirhan or James Earl Ray got. At that point he would likely have started telling everything he knew. Which is why he couldn't be allowed to go to trial.

[Kelly]

Hello tlr. I`m not so sure what he expected because he went home and got his gun. This indicates to me that he was expecting something. I never could figure out why he left it in the first place. A guess on my part is that after doing whatever he did at the TSBD he was uneasy. Perhaps he figured out a few things. I know how a lot of you feel about the Tippit murder therefore I`ll leave that alone except to say he either did it or was framed for it. Then his arrest at the theater where he was roughed up. I think he knew he was in deep trouble, but whether he felt like his life was in danger is speculative.

[TLR]

Kelly, I fully admit that the whole period between 12:30 and 1:50pm is loaded with speculation on my part. I don't know what Oswald's role was except that I'm sure he didn't shoot JFK, and I'm pretty sure he wasn't involved in the Tippit murder (unless he was driven there, because the most likely time of the murder was 1:06-1:10pm).

[Leslie Sharp]

apologies, the following is the comment I posted at jfkfacts:
leslie sharp
April 22, 2013 at 2:23 pm
[/quote]
Jean, I can

[Kelly]

Hi Leslie. I`ll check it out. I was looking on the JFK Education Forum and the Assassination Forum yesterday. I`ll check out JFK Facts now.

[Leslie Sharp]

one more effort ... the following was the comment I posted at jfkfacts last April.

"Jean [Davison], I can't speak for others who know that President Kennedy's assassination resulted from a conspiracy to remove him from office.

I would propose, as I have already stated, that [H. Louis] Nichols represented the face of legal propriety in the hours following Oswald's arrest.  I believe that Oswald [by then] was aware that he had been positioned in the depository as a patsy and knew that whoever appeared after his arrest, claiming to have his best interests in mind, could not be trusted.  I believe that is what prompted his insistence on Abt.  I believe that the [Dallas] authorities should have gone to their public defenders Rolodex and phoned a bright, idealistic defense lawyer and introduced that person to Oswald.

Your questions follow the exact pattern that I challenged in my initial comment on this subject - you state facts without placing them in context.  I'm curious, have you spent any time in Dallas?

[Kelly]

Hi Leslie. If you are addressing me, then no I have never been to Dallas. I find your line of inquiry very interesting, but I have looked probably close to an hour for your April 22 post concerning Jean Davison. I am not a seasoned researcher; I`ve done this for a long time, but I will never come close to understanding this case as well as many including yourself. If I am correct, then perhaps the JFK Facts site doesn`t have a search feature. I could be wrong. I would very much like to see your post. I read through many of them and you seem to know your stuff. Thank you. I really am interested in what you have to say. I`m a CT, but try to be careful with my conclusions.

[Leslie Sharp]

Kelly,
My comment dated April 22 was directed to someone posting at jfkfacts under the name of Jean Davison and this was my attempt to recreate that comment.  Nothing in it was directed to you personally.   

I think if you do a simple search, you will find that Davison is a published author on the topic of the Kennedy assassination.    If you do a google search "jfkfacts louis nichols jean" you'll be directed to the particular thread my comment originated from.  Alternatively you can search 'older entries' at jfkfacts.org  for "Stephen Hunter goes ballistic " (thread began on April 17, 2013) and find the whole conversation. 

Thanks for your exchange.  I hold no clout or influence in this debate, and in fact I only joined it early this year after almost two decades of research.  I like what Allen Dale has been doing, and particularly I think he has a great sense of humor, a trait we might all cultivate as we wrestle with these demons.

[Kelly]

Hi Leslie. I didn`t take it that you were attacking me in any way. I thought that you were asking me if I had ever visited Dallas. That`s all about that. I`m on your side, and I just wanted to know where to find the information you were wanting us to see. I am really interested in it and I feel that I`m coming off as a real experienced researcher, which I`m not. I will look again for the posts. Thanks.

[Kelly]

Hi Leslie. I finally found the exchange. I`m reading it now. Sounds really interesting, but I will have to examine it more later as I need to stop and fix lunch for tomorrow and get ready for work in the morning.

[Alan Ewald]

Well. I'll try to be brief, as requested.  I believe (or 'know', in the Schotzian sense of the word) that the assassination was a Cold War coup d'état, instigated and perpetrated at the highest levels of the US Government's power groups.  It's basically Vincent Salandria's "model of explanation", probably best expressed in his "False Mystery" address at the 1998 COPA convention.  I heartily recommend reading the FM essay to any who might be interested, and of course it states that position far better than I could.  I would post a link, but as this is my first day here at jfkessentials I'm not sure of the protocols re linking materials, so I'll just note that Salandria's FM address is easily 'googleable';  I think it can be found at John Kelin's website as well.

I suppose another way of putting it, in a 'whodunit' fashion, is that JFK was murdered (and the crime covered up) by the military/intelligence/industrial/media complex. Eisenhower got it partially right, but unfortunately didn't DO anything about it, and instead left it for Kennedy to grapple with. No favor there, to put it mildly.

That's about as succinct as I can put it.  I sometimes say I'm of the "Salandria/Garrison/Douglass school" re 'conspiracy realism'.  While I don't necessarily agree with 100% of the entirety of those authors' work, any differences are insignificant in a 'big picture' sense.

Thanks for allowing me the opportunity to opine.

All the best,
AE

[Alan Dale]

Well. I'll try to be brief, as requested.  I believe (or 'know', in the Schotzian sense of the word) that the assassination was a Cold War coup d'état, instigated and perpetrated at the highest levels of the US Government's power groups.  It's basically Vincent Salandria's "model of explanation", probably best expressed in his "False Mystery" address at the 1998 COPA convention.  I heartily recommend reading the FM essay to any who might be interested, and of course it states that position far better than I could.  I would post a link, but as this is my first day here at jfkessentials I'm not sure of the protocols re linking materials, so I'll just note that Salandria's FM address is easily 'googleable';  I think it can be found at John Kelin's website as well.

I suppose another way of putting it, in a 'whodunit' fashion, is that JFK was murdered (and the crime covered up) by the military/intelligence/industrial/media complex. Eisenhower got it partially right, but unfortunately didn't DO anything about it, and instead left it for Kennedy to grapple with. No favor there, to put it mildly.

That's about as succinct as I can put it.  I sometimes say I'm of the "Salandria/Garrison/Douglass school" re 'conspiracy realism'.  While I don't necessarily agree with 100% of the entirety of those authors' work, any differences are insignificant in a 'big picture' sense.

Thanks for allowing me the opportunity to opine.

All the best,
AE

^ Thank you, Alan.

I just recently had an interesting telephone conversation with Mr. Salandria, and I agree with your assessment of distinguishing between certain disputable details and the Big Picture in the work of Salandria/Garrison/Douglass. During our discussion, Mr. Salandria recommended that anyone with an interest in his thoughts on the assassination should read the work of James Douglass and David Talbot.

Here's how Mr. Salandria concluded his False Mystery address in 1998:

 We now understand the deep significance of President Kennedy’s killing. Our cities blight while we build B-2 bombers and an unattainable but military-industrial-profit-generating anti-ballistic missile system. Our poor suffer miserable existences as we continue to fatten the military-industrial complex for protection against imagined or impotent enemies. Our public schools in the urban areas decay while we maintain military bases throughout the globe. We desperately search for terrorists and weak nation states which we can designate as “rogue states” and therefore make them necessary targets for our Pentagon to show off its newest weapons systems.

By coming to understand the true answer to the historical question of who killed President Kennedy and why, we will have developed a delicate and precisely accurate prism through which we can examine how power works in this militarized country. By understanding the nature of this monumental crime, we will become equipped to organize the struggle through which we can make this country a civilian republic in more than name only. Until we understand the nature of the Kennedy assassination, and until we express the truth openly on this vital aspect of our history, we will continue to be guilty participants in the vast amount of state criminality involved in the killing of President Kennedy and its cover up.

We cannot consider ourselves a free and democratic people until we understand and address the evil nature of the warfare-state power which murdered President John F. Kennedy. Until then we cannot begin the vital work of ridding the world of the terror produced by our mighty war machine that crushes hopes for true substantive democracy here and elsewhere.

We can no longer afford to shield ourselves by asserting that the murder of President Kennedy is a mystery. There is no mystery regarding how, by whom, and why President Kennedy was killed. Only when we strip away our privileged cloak of denial about the truth of the killing will we be able to free ourselves for the hard global work of changing our unfair and brutal society to one that is more equitable and less violent.

The entire speech may be found here: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/Unspeakable/COPA1998VJS.html

Thanks for joining us. We appreciate your participation.