General Category => John F. Kennedy 1917 - 1963 => Topic started by: Alan Dale on July 11, 2013, 12:39:33 AM
-
The purpose of this thread is to see what we each might offer as a summary of what we believe, not what we can prove, as succinctly as possible. It should not go without saying that this first conversation starter must not overshadow nor ignore its obvious corollary: Why Do You Believe What You Believe?
I'll start.
I used to believe James Jesus Angleton and William King Harvey piggy-backed a sinister plot to kill President Kennedy upon authorized operations which were ostensibly directed against Castro, and that they orchestrated several overlapping but compartmental plans from which a coordinated physical attack upon President Kennedy (arranged by William King Harvey) and a diabolically clever incrimination of the sadly disposable low-level asset, Lee Harvey Oswald (arranged by James J. Angleton) made news that altered History. I now feel that this hypothetical partnership between two infamous CIA executives may be be correct but was not necessarily the result of a collaborative agreement between them. At a cautious minimum, I believe that by examining these particular figures, their careers, and their operational resources, we are focusing upon an important center relevant to these investigations.
I've also come to recognize the importance of the Dallas 488th Intel unit, the immediate post assassination transmission of a physical description of "Oswald" which, in fact, described quite accurately an interesting figure named Robert Webster (search Bill Simpich, Robert Webster) whose identity seems to have been intentionally blurred with that of LHO by CIA executives, and what is described here by Professor Peter Dale Scott:
A more ominous provocation in 1963 was that of Army Intelligence, one unit of which in Dallas did not simply withhold information about Lee Harvey Oswald, but manufactured false intelligence that seemed designed to provoke retaliation against Cuba. I call such provocations phase-one stories, efforts to portray Oswald as a Communist conspirator (as opposed to the later phase-two stories, also false, portraying him as a disgruntled loner). A conspicuous example of such phase-one stories is a cable from the Fourth Army Command in Texas, reporting a tip from a Dallas policeman who was also in an Army Intelligence Reserve unit. The cable was not an isolated aberration. It was supported by other false phase-one stories from Dallas about Oswald's alleged rifle, and specifically by concatenated false translations of Marina Oswald's testimony, to suggest that Oswald's rifle in Dallas was the one he had owned in Russia.
At Professor Scott's urging, I am currently seeking as much information as possible about Col. Frank Brandstetter, Jack Crichton, Philippe Thyraud de Vosjoli, a French intelligence (SDECE) agent who was an associate of James Angleton's, and the tantalizing story of a French assassin named Jean Souetre, whose presence in Dallas at the time of the assassination may be the most intriguing fact of all.
I would be remiss in not referring to David Sanchez Morales/Miami's jm/wave station/Mexico City shenanigans, CIA/Mafia collaborations against Castro, Howard Hughes and Robert Maheu...
At this point I run the risk of not observing my own stipulation of being as succinct as possible. Good luck with that.
Your turn.
-
Wow, Alan. I need time to think now!! LOL
-
For many years, I believed in a relatively low-level plot involving rogue CIA people, some mobsters and Cuban exiles, and maybe some Texas oilmen. In recent years, though, I've come to believe the top plotters were at a higher level: A faction of the Pentagon top brass, a faction of the CIA, a few key Secret Service personnel, plus some Cuban exiles, a few Dallas police and some organized crime figures.
The goal was to kill JFK and make it look like Castro was responsible to justify an attack on Cuba and perhaps the Soviet Union. Similar plans had been drawn up with Operation Northwoods and the 1961 Pentagon/CIA plans for a preemptive strike on USSR by late 1963. The hope was that public/media outrage would be similar to Pearl Harbor or the explosion of the Maine, and will force the rest of the government (such as a reluctant President McKinley in 1898) to go along with war against Cuba and/or USSR. This is not a traditional military coup (like Greece in 1967); this is an attempt to put in power a President friendlier to the military-industrial complex and force him to adopt their agenda.
* CIA, Military, Cuban Exiles and Organized Crime have established connections and working relationships before and after JFK assassination. Sending William K. Harvey to Rome and Lyman Lemnitzer to NATO (France at that time) was a mistake on JFK's part, because it put them in closer contact with the Gladio network of paramilitary mercenaries/fascists/assassins.
* Secret Service stand-down (myth is created that Kennedy didn't want agents on back of the car), photographers' vehicle cancelled. Likely some people in the SS were led to believe that a simulated assassination or exercise
-
So glad you embarked on this site, Alan.
Despite a fair amount of knowledge, I am not near as learned as you other early forum members; but I appreciate the opportunity to share. Since this is not a scholarly piece, please forgive me for not citing all the specific evidence in the portions regarding 'who' and 'why' when I use the phrase "evidence suggests".
I believe the truth of the JFK assassination can be viewed on the larger "crux" question (one shooter or multiple) with near certainty: i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt. More than one person was shooting at the President in Dealey Plaza that day. This is proven by the spacing of the (audible) shots. Bang...........Bang-Bang! Impossible to fire that quickly with the rifle that Oswald reputedly used. This is not even arguable to me: the audio evidence confirmed by every Secret Service man on the ground that gave testimony to the Warren Commission, and the majority of the witnesses, no matter where they were in the Plaza confirm this. Those who believe in one shooter, i.e. Oswald Lone Nutter's have never even begun to try to explain this discrepancy seriously. Usually there are generally comments of "echoes" and "unreliable witness testimony", before the subject is delicately changed to areas where the LN'er feels more confident. The Z-Film, which I believe also supports the audio evidence; adds the extra dimension of DIRECTION of the shots. Despite Lone Nutter's valiant attempts to persuade otherwise; a rational person (or a rational person being perfectly honest with them self) viewing that film must conclude different direction's are likely involved.
After this, my confidence level starts to drop on the who and why. For example, although a fair case can be made that Oswald could not have been shooting, and then had time to make it down the stairs to that lunchroom and Coke machine; I am still on the fence about whether he was one of the shooters or was a 100 per cent patsy as explained in one of the above posts. My studies and reading have me leaning toward a patsy scenario; with the caveat that Oswald was not a total innocent; meaning, he knew something was up that day, and he was part of a plan of some kind. Assuming this is true, I believe it became apparent to Oswald very quickly of some sort of "double-cross", as he exited the Plaza during the confusion just after the shooting.
As for the Tippet shooting? There again, I have heard good arguments on both sides; but I lean toward Oswald himself shooting Tippet. However, I do not believe that a random cop (who is not cruising in his usual "beat") happened to see Oswald looking suspicious, tried to stop him, and Oswald shoots him in a panic. Tippet's actions leading up to his death lead me to the theory that he was not an innocent himself; and that he was involved, at least compartmentally in the post assassination scenario, and was following orders to find Oswald for more than just an arrest. Perhaps they even knew each other. It is possible that, in Oswald's mind, shooting Tippet was literally (as in kill or be killed) an act of self-defense.
Oswald at the theater? I lean toward the theory: prearranged meeting that never happened; but it's possible he just picked it as a last minute attempt to lay low until he could figure out his next step. An early weekday matinee was not in his favor. Not many people to blend in with. Then again, eye witness reports of Oswald's actions after he arrived at the theater may suggest he was looking for someone.
Since there is no reasonable doubt it was a conspiracy of some kind (more than one shooter), who is behind it? The evidence suggests factions of our own government via the C.I.A. decided at some point in 1963 that killing their own Commander in Chief, was vital, for a variety of reasons: the perception that JFK wanted to diminish the "Industrial Complex" i.e: make the USA weaker militarily; combined with his failure, in the last minute, to support the Cuban invasion against Castro...you all know the arguments. I do not believe it was mainly a Mafia hit, as some theorize. But, underworld figures cooperated fully in aiding and abetting the plan. Their motives were obvious; Bobby Kennedy's crusade against them with his brother's support; not to mention their business banishment from Castro's Cuba, with no help from JFK. And of course, the (factions of the) C.I.A. found it easy to recruit Cuban dissidents who hated JFK for what they believe was his abandonment at the Bay of Pigs. Many held him personally responsible for what turned out to be a slaughter.
As for the F.B.I.? Evidence suggests Oswald was a low level informant for them. The C.I.A. took advantage of this fact to manipulate Oswald in some way. Hoover and the Feds were only involved after the fact in a cover-up to save Bureau face; or more charitably, because, like Johnson felt, the Lone Nut Myth had to be perpetrated to avoid a possible war.
Other than the question of conspiracy, which I feel is settled, I am open to be persuaded on other areas, where I am not so certain. Let the journey continue...
-
^ Excellent post. Thank you for joining us in this journey of careful and thoughtful consideration.
Very glad you're here and participating.
-
Other than the question of conspiracy, which I feel is settled, I am open to be persuaded on other areas, where I am not so certain. Let the journey continue...
It is the evidence as it has been shaped for our knowledge which makes all of this so difficult to understand. What the evidence was is not what it is now thus the case cannot be made sense of.
-
What I believe.....
I wish it was something I could put into a few sentences. I believe LHO was certainly involved. I believe it is possible that he did it all by himself as well, but also believe its likely that others were involved. I believe that the majority of any conspiracy took place after JFK was assassinated rather than before.
I believe there were far too many statement revisions and simple mistakes....and I believe that they werent simply mistakes. I believe that the waters have been so muddied that even if actual proof did emerge very few would recognize it as proof at all.
I am more of a reader than a talker. More is learned that way, at least in my experience. :)
-
I have to agree with yellowbirch that the evidence as we know it has been shaped , shaped to fit a pre conceived version of events and shaped to convince the public that Oswald and Oswald alone was the guilty party in both crimes .
I think what came out in the first few hours was probably as near to the truth as we will get ,but even that leaves a lot of un answered questions . its difficult to be sure of exactly what occurred that day but im convinced that it involves a lot more than just lee oswald.
I believe one of the intentions that day was to leave evidence of conspiracy , if the object was war against castro etc then I doubt framing a so called loner nut would be any use to the conspiritors . in my view the lone nut scenario was designed to difuse a dangerous situation and Oswald the patsy was used to avoid a proper investigation . .
I don't think for a second that Weitzman was wrong about the rifle I believe it was a mauser , he knew weapons quite well and well enough that boone believed him and wrote down mauser on his affidavit aswell ,Weitzman saw the rifle up close and gave a a very detailed description and so detailed
-
Not that I am arguing....but of they deliberatly left evidence of a conspiracy in order to gain public support for a raid on Cuba, why didnt we invade Cuba?
-
sorry im having a problem posting .
the description was so detailed even down to the texture of the wood that it makes a joke of his I ONLY SAW IT AT A GLANCE comment which our LN friends like to use so much . I think there was probably two weapons found , one at about 1.06 and another at about 1.20 or the mauser was switched for the carcano . I think the conspiritors wanted it to look like a conspiracy and the various government agencies had to make it look like there was no conspiracy . that's what I think , am I right ? I don't know but that's what I feel .
I also feel that Oswald knew some thing , but id say he knew little but perhaps he thought there would be a staged event that day and maybe he was asked to help someone into the building via the back door , upon hearing jfk had been shot at 12.30 he thought the plan had gone awry , unknown to him it had gone to plan .
in all likely hood he was driven all or part of the way to his rooming house , the only evidence that he was on the bus is a pristine transfer , its like ce399 its to pristine given the scuffle at the theatre . I think oswald Oswald left the rear door seen by frazier while the guy Oswald helped to access the building left via the front door seen by craig . Oswald gets home and gets changed and plans to go to the theatre , bringing a gun must mean he must have been meeting an unknown or someone he didn't trust ,the unknown doesnt show up but a fleet of police cars do .
Oswald may have been at the tippit murder scene about 1.10 but if he was I believe a second man was there .this is all speculation of course .
-
Not that I am arguing....but of they deliberatly left evidence of a conspiracy in order to gain public support for a raid on Cuba, why didnt we invade Cuba?
what ever evidence of conspiracy was there was removed or altered in favour of the lone nut scenario , just like any witness statement that could point to conspiracy was ignored , evidence that put Oswald on lower floors was ignored or witnesses were told they were wrong . they changed the original charge against Oswald which was that he killed jfk in the furtherance of an international communist conspiracy , they were never going to allow anything that pointed to a conspiracy only what pointed to their lone nut scenario . and they went beyond the ridiculous to do it by coming up with the ludicrous single bullet theory .
-
Ahhh......I get it.
Seems to me that there was maybe 2 conspiracies going on.
One to kill JFK and another one to cover up any tracks that proved a conspricay in the first place.
-
yes that's sort of what im saying ,but I would say one conspiracy and one cover up as opposed to two conspiracies .
our LN friends try to blur the two together to make one vast conspiracy which they say must have involved a cast of thousands , this is of course to make CT look silly . for example often I have seen LNs post saying CT THINK DR BOSWELL WAS A CONSPIRITOR , but I don't know of any CT that's ever claimed such a thing .
conspiracy and cover up are two different things , because a person for example dr boswell reluctantly agrees to go along with a cover up which would help avoid a war that doesn't make them a conspirator . so yes I feel there was a conspiracy which was quickly followed by a cover up .
-
The plot was initiated by the Mafia and developed courtesy of the CIA-Cuban exile-Mafia nexus.
Kennedy's lack of action in returning Cuba to the exiles rankled and his attempts during the summer to establish some kind of diplomatic settlement possibly meant that the plot reached the point of no return. The Mafia hated the Kennedys regardless.
It suited the purposes of these three groups to kill Kennedy rather than Castro and blame a Communist, with the aim of instigating a US invasion of Cuba.
All this is hardly original and represents the most commonly held view among those who believe there was a conspiracy.
As time advanced and the plot came closer to Dallas, some of the groundwork was 'outsourced'. I see DPD as having a role in two murders that weekend and Jack Ruby's function was to liaise with corrupt, right-wing police officers.
I sense that security was deliberately stripped in Dealey Plaza and have always been suspicious of the two policemen on the overpass.
I also wonder if people like Fritz knew in advance what was going to happen.
The presence of James Powell and Stuart L Reed also suggests prescience among the military intelligence community.
The suspicious actions of several DPD patrolmen in Oak Cliff points to widespread foreknowledge.
The actions of several employees within the TSBD arouse deep suspicion, particularly Truly, Shelley and Dougherty. Could Shelley have been the man with the 'brown suit coat'? Dougherty helped the TSBD assassin escape by the west elevator in what was probably a pre-arranged move with Truly.
Oswald was on the first floor near a storage room and the 'lone nut' solution kicked in shortly after Baker filed his first affidavit. He was part of the plot, though.
There was panic in finding how Oswald could have returned to 1026 North Beckley other than by the station wagon on Elm Street, although Mary Bledsoe and William Whaley came to the rescue. I am sure both lied and the bus transfer was planted, as was just about all the physical evidence.
Oswald didn't kill Tippit and the wallet left at the scene was a crude attempt to frame him. Even Fritz didn't buy this.
The CIA framed Oswald, who may have been an inside informant for another security/intelligence agency.
I see at least one Cuban exile in DP (DCM), another (if not the same) driving a station wagon and possibly one in the car-park being handed something by the chap wearing a tan-jacket and seemingly fond of military about-turns - observers noticed a similar character during the protest against Adlai Stevenson.
The two men near the stairway leading to the car-park were also involved, I believe - their function would be to restrict access to the knoll and make sure someone like Emmet Hudson didn't go any further backwards. One may have been the man with 'dirty fingernails' flashing fake SS ID.
Walker's involved somewhere but I can't figure out just how - there were certainly links between him and anti-Castro Cubans.
I've always suspected that the rifle order and the BYPs were related to the so-called attempt on Walker's life and that Oswald was intended as the scapegoat. Was this plan aborted and resurrected with Kennedy the target?
The Tippit murder is confusing but thee intention was either to take Oswald out of Oak Cliff (perhaps by Carl Mather's car) and feign an 'escape' (although LHO would be killed) or simply to murder him before he reached the Texas Theater. I sense there was some kind of argument and Tippit was keeping an eye out for someone who was to meet him at 410 East Tenth.
The wallet was possibly originally meant to be found on a dead Oswald.
Tippit may simply have taken cold feet.
The main problem I have (and I've just spent over a week debating the case on a Scottish football (i.e., soccer) forum with two rather obtuse LNs) is that the conspiracy was so obvious - too obvious, in fact.
Did those behind it really think that no-one could work it out?
-
I remember when Alan first started this topic back on JFKHISTORY.
I was unable to contribute anything meaningful back then and I find myself unable to contribute anything meaningful now.
I do not believe that we will ever truly know exactly what happened that day, and who was involved, and in what way.
The more I learn the less certain I become.
Having said that, there are two things of which I am as certain today as I was on the very first day I took an interest in this case.
JFK WAS MURDERED BY A CONSPIRACY.
THE CONSPIRACY THAT RESULTED IN THE DEATH OF JFK WAS COVERED UP.
I have seen nothing that would make me think otherwise.
I do believe that the assassination and the subsequent cover up were two different beasts. What I am unable to decide is whether or not the conspirators planned the assassination in such a way as to make the cover up a necessity and inevitable, or whether the cover up, ultimately, thwarted the true agenda of the conspiracy; an invasion of Cuba. Because different elements had different agendas - to answer this question we first need to know who was behind the conspiracy. :o
-
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
-
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!
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
apologies, the following is the comment I posted at jfkfacts:
leslie sharp
April 22, 2013 at 2:23 pm
[/quote]
Jean, I can
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
Thank you Alan Ewald for citing and Alan Dale for linking the excellent address by Vincent Salandria. An epic indictment of CIA as sword and shield for the cabal responsible; a j'accuse for all its willing handmaidens.
As Mr. Salandria suspected Roosevelt let Pearl Harbor happen, giving us a view to Salandria's larger sense of historical conspiracy, I recommend Kevin Ryan, Another Nineteen: Investigating Legitimate 9/11 Suspects, a catalogue of scoundrels with blood on their hands--the business model of Lyman Lemnitzer's Operation Northwoods.
As Salandria insists, Douglass is superb in providing overarching context, the treacherous miasma of Gibson's Battling Wall Street, and Colby & Dennett's Thy Will Be Done. The president was an obstacle. See also Executive Action and Seven Days in May. Arthur Krock and Richard Starnes knew better than the cheap cover proferred by the state.
Dulles & Dulles had learned under Wilson, been introduced into the Versailles preparation expanded upon by Guido Giacomo Preparata, Conjuring Hitler, 2005, in which director of Bank of England 1922-1944 Montagu Norman takes long walks in the woods with Hjalmar Schact head of Deutsche Bank.
Germany is built up to a nationalist eruption entangling the Bear until the Eagle lands and the Cold War can commence. By chance? Not a chance. And Dulles, who met Goebbels and found his enthusiasm admirable, helped via Sullivan & Cromwell.
Now we have the next version of Perpetual War, The War on Terror. Kissinger advised Iran would be a future ally last March and a year later sanctions are lifted and business resumes.
As we learn from John Newman in Oswald and the CIA, 1995/2008, and reiterated in Salandria False Mystery, Oswald was an intelligence agent, and the only agency capable of the manipulation of his file and the impersonations in Mexico City was CIA. Which is not to say CIA killed Kennedy either per se or via "rogues". When we see "rogues" or "Mafia" we see the snake shedding a skin to survive for another day.
I now have Gladio: NATO's Dagger at the Heart of Europe by Richard Cottrell, to augment the light shed by Sibel Edmonds who stipulates Gladio was born in the mind of Allen Dulles.
As the danse macabre in Dallas was The Castle telling citizens they are powerless, the periodic act of terror is required to keep them off balance.
Regarding McGeorge Bundy named by Salandria as the agent of the cabal in the situation room, researcher Greg Burnham did a 2010 COPA presentation on that Bundy as author of NSAM 273 never seen by Kennedy though attributed to him and signed by LBJ the Tuesday after the Monday funeral. Tonkin Gulf false flag casus belli to follow (see also Pearl Harbor, 9/11).
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17083 (http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17083)
Bundy's brother was married to Dean Acheson's daughter; Acheson named by Donald Gibson as one of a handful who handed down the Commission concept sometimes falsely attributed to Katzenbach (Katzenbach was a tool). Acheson omitted Korea from US security perimeter in 1950 resulting in Kim Il Sung and Mao Tse Tung's attack. Perpetual war.
As befits a looking glass war, JFK's partner in clandestine peace negotiations Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev was replaced by hawk Leonid Brezhnev October 1964.
An interesting parallel to Salandria's instant certainty of government assassination is the November 23, 1963, speech by Fidel Castro who smelled what the CIA was cooking:
Concerning the Facts and Consequences
of the Tragic Death of
President John F. Kennedy
November 23rd, 1963
by Fidel Castro
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/HWNAU/FC112363.html (http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/HWNAU/FC112363.html)
-
^ Thank you, Phil.