The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewRon Unz Archive
American Pravda: the JFK Assassination, Part II – Who Did It?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_1081177994

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

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.

 

ORDER IT NOW

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.

ORDER IT NOW

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?

ORDER IT NOW

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.

 

ORDER IT NOW

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.

ORDER IT NOW

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.

ORDER IT NOW

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.

ORDER IT NOW

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.

ORDER IT NOW

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.

 

ORDER IT NOW

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.

ORDER IT NOW

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.

ORDER IT NOW

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.

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.

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.”

Related Reading:

 
The American Pravda Series
Hide 882 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. jake89 says:

    you’re a real jerk unz

    Read More
    • LOL: Seamus Padraig
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. 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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. 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:

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    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.
    , @Anon
    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.
    , @Skeptikal
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. peterAUS says:

    I see.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. 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.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivan
    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.

    , @Wizard of Oz
    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?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. sarz says:

    Ron, thanks for your decency and courage. I hope you have a good team of people protecting you.

    Read More
    • Agree: Iris
    • Replies: @Skeptikal
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Certainly seems like a rogue state.

    I don’t believe Iran has assassinated any US politicians …

    Read More
    • Replies: @Heros

    "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.

    https://twitter.com/cursedsalad/status/1010594731154235392

    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.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. 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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. D. K. says:
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. Iris says:

    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.

    Read More
    • Troll: utu
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. anon[392] • Disclaimer says:

    I think the film entitled ‘JFK – the Smoking Gun’ makes the most sense.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. ” 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    The information about the Liberty sending signals in intervals between jamming was in the book Attack on the USS Liberty.
    , @James N. Kennett

    Then McNamara had to call back the two bombers with atomic bombs already on their way to Cairo.
     
    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.
    , @Joe Stalin
    Really. The Israelis were able to construct directional HF antennas (3-30Mhz or 80-10 Meters) that could generate azimuth data and install them on missiles with body widths on the order of around a 1 foot or so? That would take some doing in 1967 or even today, considering the physics of electromagnetic radiation.
    , @Iberiano
    Pardon my ignorance, having read this excellent article by Ron Unz, but what was the actual motive for the attack on the Liberty? To send a message to Johnson? No doubting this possibility, but was the message to demonstrate a cavalier attitude, and/or to re-affirm prior involvement in the JFK assassination. What did Israel gain, or what would they have gained?

    I have only heard of the Liberty being attacked and how it was possibly done on purpose, but I am unclear why, even accepting the most malicious of intents, what those would have been, ultimately.

    Anyone?
    , @Eagle Eye

    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 attempt, and by trying numerous different frequencies, was able to evade the jamming
     
    This does seem to be the consensus account, but it is highly dubious in light of radio technology at the time.

    The "main communications antenna" would have been a simple dipole antenna, i.e. a horizontal wire half the length of the transmit/receive wavelength, with a feed line at the center. There would have been several such antennas available for TRANSMISSION by the vessel's radio room. (In addition, there would be countless antennas used to pick up radio signals for sigint.)

    Put simply, the "main communications antenna" is not a compact, readily identifiable installation.

    It would be exceedingly difficult for a ship (let alone an aircraft) attacking the Liberty to figure out which of countless wires strung hither and thither. While one of the dipole antennas could have been destroyed COINCIDENTALLY in the course of the initial attack, an attacker could NOT reasonably have counted on eliminating ALL transmit antennas.

    It must also be recalled that "JAMMING" interferes with the proper operation of a radio RECEIVER, not the TRANSMITTER. On a jammed frequency, the Liberty radio crew would have been unable to HEAR any responses to their requests for help, but they were able to SEND requests "blind."

    In fact, the consensus account indicates the radio crew ultimately managed to establish TWO-WAY communications with U.S. Navy vessels, presumably by using a fall-back frequency that had not been jammed and thus could be RECEIVED clearly.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. 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.

    Read More
    • Agree: Iris
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    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
    , @Sam J.
    "...Then, who can make a cover-up in media?..."

    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    Dan Rather lied about the event to the public.

    Which was remarkable.

    Watch Rather lie here.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXFwbIx2mbc
    , @TonyVodvarka
    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.
    , @Heros
    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
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0hWhCOx4U8&t=2m28s

    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.
    , @Kingfelix
    The problem is there is strong evidence the Zapruder film was doctored/frames removed, so making inferences from it is problematic.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @j2
    "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?"

    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.
    , @Ron Unz

    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?...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Quift
    Check out Kennedy series on viseup

    http://visupview.blogspot.com/2018/06/goodfellas-part-vi-cliveden-games.html?m=1

    A great source on all kinds of fringe subjects. He has an extensive background on Mohrenschildt.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. @Carlton Meyer
    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:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpyMuduBmtQ

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. @Buzz Mohawk
    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.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqk3sdfXFkc

    Dan Rather lied about the event to the public.

    Which was remarkable.

    Watch Rather lie here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    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.)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0d6LG27hQM
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Old fogey
    Many thanks for the link and the video. Col. Prouty was an extraordinary man.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. 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?

    Read More
    • Replies: @j2
    "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?"

    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.

    , @Anon
    Who or what was KBR?
    , @Skeptikal
    I think you are on the right track with LBJ and Bush.
    But Bush had more in the game than this.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Heros says:
    @Peripatetic commenter
    Certainly seems like a rogue state.

    I don't believe Iran has assassinated any US politicians ...

    “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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Good point about JP exercise of power in Iceland. Circumcision is more important to them than they let us believe.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. j2 says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    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.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZKjm9ezTXQ

    “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?”

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. j2 says:
    @The Alarmist
    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?

    “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?”

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Ivan says:
    @utu

    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.”

     

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu

    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.
     
    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.
    , @anon
    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?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. 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?

    Read More
    • Agree: Dillon Sweeny
    • Replies: @Whoriskey
    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
    , @Jeff Stryker
    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.
    , @fnn
    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.
    , @jinks
    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.
    , @utu

    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, ..
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @j2
    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.

    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

    Read More
    • Agree: Druid
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    "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?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. @j2
    "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?"

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Paul Jolliffe
    I agree.

    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".

    https://youtu.be/UxLe8MWdWe0
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Iris says:

    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”.

    Read More
    • Troll: utu
    • Replies: @Thirdeye
    Yet another instance of "looking for the lost money under the streetlight," just like with the Moorman photo.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Milton says:

    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).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  31. @JohnnyWalker123
    Dan Rather lied about the event to the public.

    Which was remarkable.

    Watch Rather lie here.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXFwbIx2mbc

    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.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Iris
    "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.)"

    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. JamesG says:

    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?)

    Read More
    • Replies: @David In TN
    "(Doesn't anyone else remember his weird mother?)"

    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carroll Price
    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
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Paw
    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. !!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. 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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  36. Jake says:

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  37. Whoriskey says:
    @Bardon Kaldian
    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?

    http://static3.uk.businessinsider.com/image/5759380b52bcd01d7b8c7b22-480/teen-girls-smartphones-mobile-cell-phones-shutterstock.jpg

    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?

    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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  39. fnn says:

    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/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  40. 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?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  41. @Bardon Kaldian
    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?

    http://static3.uk.businessinsider.com/image/5759380b52bcd01d7b8c7b22-480/teen-girls-smartphones-mobile-cell-phones-shutterstock.jpg

    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?

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @utu

    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.”

     

    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?

    Read More
    • Replies: @DCThrowback
    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
    , @utu
    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
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. 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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  44. 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.

    Read More
    • Agree: ians
    • Replies: @utu

    Now we’re going to get a thousand CIA bots doing minor variants of this,
     
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. 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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  46. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. 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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  48. @Buzz Mohawk
    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.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqk3sdfXFkc

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. @jilles dykstra
    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

    “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?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivan
    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.
    , @jilles dykstra
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. 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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  51. 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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  52. prusmc says: • Website
    @prusmc
    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?

    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?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. fnn says:
    @Bardon Kaldian
    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?

    http://static3.uk.businessinsider.com/image/5759380b52bcd01d7b8c7b22-480/teen-girls-smartphones-mobile-cell-phones-shutterstock.jpg

    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?

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. ” … 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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  55. 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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  56. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jdf
    Sorry for the error: Make that LBJ's mistress Madeline Brown, NOT Marion!
    , @Tono Bungay
    Anyone who can write that a "wink" "clinches it" without joking is beyond help.
    , @Anon
    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.
    , @James N. Kennett

    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dillon Sweeny

    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.
    , @Thorfinnsson
    Ron Unz is Jewish and grew up in a Yiddish speaking home.

    Nice try Jewish fanatic.
    , @Ivan
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. 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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  59. @TonyVodvarka
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ians
    ‘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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. jinks says:
    @Bardon Kaldian
    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?

    http://static3.uk.businessinsider.com/image/5759380b52bcd01d7b8c7b22-480/teen-girls-smartphones-mobile-cell-phones-shutterstock.jpg

    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?

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dillon Sweeny

    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.
     
    "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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. @JamesG
    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?)

    “(Doesn’t anyone else remember his weird mother?)”

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. 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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  63. jdf says:
    @jdf
    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.

    Sorry for the error: Make that LBJ’s mistress Madeline Brown, NOT Marion!

    Read More
    • Replies: @jdf
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. Anon[360] • Disclaimer says:

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  65. 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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  66. @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, 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.

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. Ron Unz says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    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.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZKjm9ezTXQ

    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?…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carlton Meyer
    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.
    , @Anon
    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.
    , @David In TN
    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?
    , @Wizard of Oz
    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 ?)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. @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, 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.

    Ron Unz is Jewish and grew up in a Yiddish speaking home.

    Nice try Jewish fanatic.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @jinks
    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.

    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.

    “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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. utu says:
    @Ivan
    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.

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. utu says:
    @Heros

    "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.

    https://twitter.com/cursedsalad/status/1010594731154235392

    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.

    Good point about JP exercise of power in Iceland. Circumcision is more important to them than they let us believe.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Sound reasoning....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. 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/

    Read More
    • Replies: @tac
    http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/limo/bigaltgenshole.JPG

    https://farm9.static.flickr.com/8452/7930109244_3e53c7e56e_b.jpg

    http://www.jfksouthknollgunman.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/limo_trim.jpg

    https://imitatemodern.com/wp-content/gallery/r-young-diamond-dusting-screen-prints/29-jfk-bullet-hole-limousine.jpg

    http://www.jfksouthknollgunman.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/jfk140s5.jpg

    https://i.pinimg.com/736x/91/ed/a0/91eda03f5919bc7c25b681b35518ce02.jpg

    http://truedemocracyparty.net/wp-content/uploads/zapruder-337-16610.jpg

    https://www.babelio.com/users/liste_Lassassinat-de-John-F-Kennedy_2879.jpeg

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtFoPCKVp-8

    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/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. 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?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. utu says:
    @Bardon Kaldian
    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?

    http://static3.uk.businessinsider.com/image/5759380b52bcd01d7b8c7b22-480/teen-girls-smartphones-mobile-cell-phones-shutterstock.jpg

    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?

    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, ..

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

    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, ...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. ians says:
    @Buzz Mohawk
    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.

    ‘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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. utu says:
    @It was Kwame Nkrumah. He knew.
    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.

    Now we’re going to get a thousand CIA bots doing minor variants of this,

    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.

    Read More
    • Agree: Buzz Mohawk, renfro
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    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.

    , @ians
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. 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”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @ians
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @jdf
    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.

    Anyone who can write that a “wink” “clinches it” without joking is beyond help.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. 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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  81. @utu

    Now we’re going to get a thousand CIA bots doing minor variants of this,
     
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dillon Sweeny
    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",
    , @utu
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @utu

    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, ..
     

    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, …

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    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.
    Good luck....

    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....
     
    and

    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.
     
    , @Wizard of Oz
    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.

    , @Sam J.
    "...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.
    , @HallParvey
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. peterAUS says:

    Meeting place/honeypot (70/30).
    The former:obvious.
    The later: collection->analysis. Mostly as exercise and just as a slight precaution.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  84. utu says:

    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.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    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!

    , @Sean

    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?
    , @phil
    "All in all, Piper doesn’t sound like an anti-semite and I can spot one. I believe he is a sincere truthseeker.”

    Michael Collins Piper actually wrote a book called "Confessions of an Anti-Semite." He also was a sincere truthseeker. The truths he uncovered about Jews (Mossad activities, payoffs made to politicians, etc.) are what made him BECOME an anti-semite.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. anon[290] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ivan
    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.

    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?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. @Ron Unz

    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?...

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @redmudhooch
    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
    https://youtu.be/y8HTr-F-FVM
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. anon[290] • Disclaimer says:

    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?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  88. 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…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  89. Anon[257] • Disclaimer 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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  90. peterAUS says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    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, ...

    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.
    Good luck….

    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….

    and

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  92. utu says:

    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?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    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.
    , @redmudhooch

    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

     

    This is the original article:
    https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/284979-ajt.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. @Buzz Mohawk
    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.

    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”,

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @jilles dykstra
    " 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.

    The information about the Liberty sending signals in intervals between jamming was in the book Attack on the USS Liberty.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    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?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. nickels says:

    Epic!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  97. 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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  98. utu says:
    @Buzz Mohawk
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. nickels says:

    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:

    Read More
    • Replies: @prusmc
    I thought JFK was President when Diem was killed?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @jdf
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    What’s ARRB?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. Heros says:
    @Buzz Mohawk
    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.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqk3sdfXFkc

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Unz

    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?...

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    ...I agree with you completely. Great minds think alike....
     
    Oh.

    I mean.........

    Beautiful. Just beautiful.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. 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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  105. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Si1ver1ock
    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?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzOs-jTOo-Q

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Tono Bungay
    Anyone who can write that a "wink" "clinches it" without joking is beyond help.

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. 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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  108. Sean says:

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean Sean Sean
    "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.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Useful thinking expressed with appropriate respect for detail if I may say so.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bragadocious
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. peterAUS says:
    @Anon
    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.

    …I agree with you completely. Great minds think alike….

    Oh.

    I mean………

    Beautiful. Just beautiful.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. I am extremely impressed by Ron Unz. I wish he would run for president.

    Read More
    • Agree: Dan Hayes
    • Replies: @Haxo Angmark
    Ron Unz

    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @redmudhooch
    Unfortunately they also swear an oath to protect Israel. Sorry.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. Anon[416] • Disclaimer says:
    @utu
    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?

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. @Ron Unz

    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?...

    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?

    Read More
    • Replies: @lysias
    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.
    , @Ron Unz

    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?
     
    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.

    , @MacNucc11
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. Iris says:
    @Buzz Mohawk
    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.)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0d6LG27hQM

    “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.)”

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    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.
    , @Spud Boy
    The fact the Kennedy's head moved forward quickly before moving backward more slowly proves to me that the head shot came from the back. The forward movement was not caused by braking of the car, as Jackie's head does not move along with JFK's, plus the movement takes place in one frame of the Zapruder film, which only takes 55ms. The only thing that could have pushed his head forward in 55 ms. is a bullet. The giant plume of blood and tissue at the front of his head is also indicative of the bullet exiting the front of the head.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. 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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  117. utu says:

    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.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  118. 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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  119. lysias says:
    @David In TN
    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?

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @David In TN
    LOL. Nearly every Democratic party presidential candidate ever since has been "imitating JFK."
    , @James N. Kennett

    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.
     
    The message to those who counted was not very clear, because even today we are wondering which of JFK's policies prompted his assassination!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @The Alarmist
    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?

    Who or what was KBR?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sandy Berger's Socks
    Kellogg, Brown & Root, a Texas based defense contractor that made an enormous amount of money in Viet Nam.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @TonyVodvarka
    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 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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @TonyVodvarka
    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.
    , @Paw
    Tony, get noticed that unusual "Dallas policeman", who guided them !! Too. Not apprehended them .
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. 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!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  123. DCThrowback says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz
    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?

    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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. Ron Unz says:

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    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.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. @Si1ver1ock

    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.

    Unfortunately they also swear an oath to protect Israel. Sorry.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. 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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  127. @Sean
    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 .

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7Mvs5Ic8us

    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.

    “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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @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.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. lysias says:

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  129. utu says:

    Here is a commenter at Mondoweiss who brings up many assassinations linked to Israel.

    http://mondoweiss.net/2015/07/president-inspections-facility/
    July 28, 2015, 3:40 am

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  130. @Anon
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Lansdale was not one of the 3 tramps.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. @utu
    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?

    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

    This is the original article:

    https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/284979-ajt.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu

    https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/284979-ajt.html
     
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:

    Stolypin

    Tsar Nicholas

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Bogrov

    Bogrov, like Oswald, played all sides.

    Kennedy killed by same kind of people?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  133. @A Libertarian
    I am extremely impressed by Ron Unz. I wish he would run for president.

    Ron Unz

    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.

    Read More
    • LOL: Rurik
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. @Carlton Meyer
    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.

    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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. prusmc says: • Website
    @nickels
    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:
    https://stevenhager420.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/wantedfortreason.jpg

    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:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeNv_62v6WQ

    I thought JFK was President when Diem was killed?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    He was president when JFK was killed
    , @Hu Mi Yu

    I thought JFK was President when Diem was killed?

     

    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.
    , @James Kabala
    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.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. @utu
    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."
     

    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!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. @Ivan2
    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.

    I agree.

    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”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dube
    [Paul Jolliffe]: "The autopsy was the start of the cover-up, and the autopsy was controlled by the U.S. Military."

    Well noted.
    , @Carroll Price
    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
    , @tac
    Here is a video about the autopsy and the skull fragments (***Warning: GRAPHIC***):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYaoBB1rwkc&feature=youtube_gdata_player

    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]):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eGupSng-Po

    , @Anon
    But why would Curtis Lemay obey orders of the CIA killers?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. Ivan says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    "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?

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. @Anon
    Who or what was KBR?

    Kellogg, Brown & Root, a Texas based defense contractor that made an enormous amount of money in Viet Nam.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. renfro says:

    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. .
    pl

    ”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
    ———————————————
    “Dear Jim

    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.

    Regards

    W. Patrick Lang
    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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  141. Ron Unz says:

    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:

    http://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:

    http://www.unz.com/book/michael_collins_piper__final-judgment/?search=angleton+and+mossad

    Read More
    • Replies: @Iris
    "..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.
    , @renfro

    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/

    , @The Alarmist
    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.
    , @Diamond's Insurance files
    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.]
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. Ivan says:
    @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, 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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Paw
    The Kosher Mafia Rubinstein involvement deed, speaks loud and clear , indeed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. Iris says:
    @Ron Unz
    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:

    http://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:

    http://www.unz.com/book/michael_collins_piper__final-judgment/?search=angleton+and+mossad

    “..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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. @Ivan
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivan
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. Sam J. says:
    @j2
    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.

    “…Then, who can make a cover-up in media?…”

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. Achilles says:

    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?

    [MORE]

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Wow! I haven't begun to formulate a scenario in which Mossad and Cuba might have combined forces. I wonder if anyone else has.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. Ivan says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Iris
    "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.)"

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @prusmc
    I thought JFK was President when Diem was killed?

    He was president when JFK was killed

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. @Anon
    The information about the Liberty sending signals in intervals between jamming was in the book Attack on the USS Liberty.

    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?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. Dube says:
    @Paul Jolliffe
    I agree.

    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".

    https://youtu.be/UxLe8MWdWe0

    [Paul Jolliffe]: “The autopsy was the start of the cover-up, and the autopsy was controlled by the U.S. Military.”

    Well noted.

    Read More
    • Replies: @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. 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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. Kiza says:
    @Ron Unz
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. Ron Unz says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    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?

    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.

    Read More
    • Agree: Wizard of Oz
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. @Kiza
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    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.

    , @MacNucc11
    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.
    , @Skeptikal
    "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?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. Paw says:
    @Ivan
    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.

    The Kosher Mafia Rubinstein involvement deed, speaks loud and clear , indeed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ivan
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. 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

    Read More
    • Agree: ians
    • Replies: @tac
    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"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PshsWrUFKLc

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u08P2R2l5T8

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. Paw says:
    @Anon
    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.

    Tony, get noticed that unusual “Dallas policeman”, who guided them !! Too. Not apprehended them .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. Paw says:
    @DESERT FOX
    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.

    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. !!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. @Bardon Kaldian

    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, ...

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dillon Sweeny

    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. @gsjackson
    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.

    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

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    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.

    , @Laurent Guyénot
    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).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. Sam J. says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    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, ...

    “…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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Who should count as Jews for your Nuremberg laws?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. @lysias
    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.

    LOL. Nearly every Democratic party presidential candidate ever since has been “imitating JFK.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @gsjackson
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. @Ron Unz

    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?...

    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 ?)

    Read More
    • Replies: @skrik

    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?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. @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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dillon Sweeny

    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. @Sean
    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 .

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7Mvs5Ic8us

    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.

    Useful thinking expressed with appropriate respect for detail if I may say so.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @TonyVodvarka
    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.

    Lansdale was not one of the 3 tramps.

    Read More
    • Replies: @TonyVodvarka
    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 www.prouty.org.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. renfro says:
    @Ron Unz
    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:

    http://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:

    http://www.unz.com/book/michael_collins_piper__final-judgment/?search=angleton+and+mossad

    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/

    Read More
    • Agree: Iris
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. @Sam J.
    "...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.

    Who should count as Jews for your Nuremberg laws?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. 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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  172. @Abe
    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.

    Sound reasoning….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. @Backwoods Bob
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. renfro says:

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @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

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. renfro says:
    @renfro
    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.

    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

    Read More
    • Replies: @James N. Kennett

    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.’
     

    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. 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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  177. ivan says:
    @Paw
    The Kosher Mafia Rubinstein involvement deed, speaks loud and clear , indeed.

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. skrik says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    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 ?)

    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?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. jdf says:
    @jdf
    Sorry for the error: Make that LBJ's mistress Madeline Brown, NOT Marion!

    True enough, , 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, , 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Perhaps Ruby merely had to be motivated by believing he was doing it for Israel.
    , @James N. Kennett

    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.
     
    Agreed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. 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.

    Or

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    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.
    , @peterAUS

    So much self-contradiction.
     
    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.

    Good luck.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. gsjackson says:
    @David In TN
    LOL. Nearly every Democratic party presidential candidate ever since has been "imitating JFK."

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @David In TN
    "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?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. Kiza says:
    @Jeff Stryker
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MacNucc11
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. @Ron Unz
    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:

    http://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:

    http://www.unz.com/book/michael_collins_piper__final-judgment/?search=angleton+and+mossad

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. 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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  185. jdf says:

    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!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    I knew the Israelis killed Forrestal but I didn’t know LBJ visited him the night before.
    , @jdf
    It is in his book-length article, "Who Killed James Forrestal." (http://dcdave.com/article4/021110.html)
    , @jdf
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. ians says:
    @utu

    Now we’re going to get a thousand CIA bots doing minor variants of this,
     
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. ians says:
    @donald j. tingle
    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”?

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. Anonymous[302] • Disclaimer says:

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    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.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. @skrik

    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?

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @skrik
    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
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. @Paul Jolliffe
    I agree.

    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".

    https://youtu.be/UxLe8MWdWe0

    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

    Read More
    • Replies: @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

    , @Sparkon
    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:

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-jfk-assassination-part-ii-who-did-it/#comment-2390207

    , @Anon
    No autopsy was done at Parkland hospital. The Parkland DRs wrote ordinary medical records with the same kind of pictures they’d make for any patient with a head wound.

    Autopsies aren’t done in hospitals. They are done at the county coroner facility.

    The Dallas county coroner tried to do a normal autopsy and went to the hospital to transfer the body to the morgue.

    The secret service pulled guns in him and forcibly removed the body to the plane. That was a violation of the laws requiring autopsies of murder victims and all unexplained deaths.

    The law was one thing. The opinion of the secret service that they needed to get the new president, the body and the entourage back to Washington was another.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. @Carroll Price
    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

    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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. “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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  193. @Ron Unz
    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:

    http://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:

    http://www.unz.com/book/michael_collins_piper__final-judgment/?search=angleton+and+mossad

    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.]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. skrik says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    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.

    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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. @gsjackson
    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.

    “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?

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Brown
    "And why didn’t they have the media expose JFK on a sex scandal and set HIM up as a clown?"

    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.
    , @gsjackson
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. 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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  197. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @prusmc
    I thought JFK was President when Diem was killed?

    I thought JFK was President when Diem was killed?

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. Sean says:
    @Anonymous
    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.
     

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @HallParvey

    Might have found out about Oswald’s location and proclivities and used him as a patsy? Most certainly.
     
    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.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. @David In TN
    "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?

    “And why didn’t they have the media expose JFK on a sex scandal and set HIM up as a clown?”

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @David In TN
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. Sparkon says:
    @Carroll Price
    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

    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:

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-jfk-assassination-part-ii-who-did-it/#comment-2390207

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. @Tyrion 2
    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.

    Or

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    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.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. Old fogey says:
    @MrTruth
    See Col. L. Fletcher Prouty videos and books on the deep background for why the CIA hated JFK.

    http://www.prouty.org/

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJ0zLoy9FKM

    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.

    Many thanks for the link and the video. Col. Prouty was an extraordinary man.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. Tyrion 2 says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Good thinking. No need to suppose he wasn't a volatile sentimentalist just because he was a sleazebag with criminal associations.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Carroll Price
    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

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MacNucc11
    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.
    , @Anon
    The Watergate break in was 9 years after Kennedy was murdered. 9/11 was 38 years later.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. @jdf
    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.

    Perhaps Ruby merely had to be motivated by believing he was doing it for Israel.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. Sean says:
    @Sean Sean Sean
    "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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean Sean Sean
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. lysias says:

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tono Bungay
    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?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  208. @Sean
    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.

    Might have found out about Oswald’s location and proclivities and used him as a patsy? Most certainly.

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  209. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MacNucc11
    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.
    , @gsjackson
    "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?
    , @Anon
    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.
    , @F Batts
    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?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. MacNucc11 says:
    @CanSpeccy

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Trust me ...
     
    LOL. A sure give away that you don't have a scrap of relevant knowledge.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  211. MacNucc11 says:
    @Anonymouse
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  212. @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.

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  213. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Carlton Meyer
    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:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpyMuduBmtQ

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  214. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Who’s them?? Killing a president is not included in the definition of treason.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  215. @Wizard of Oz
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    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.
     
    Most of the time.
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  216. @Wizard of Oz
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  217. Anon[414] • Disclaimer says:
    @MacNucc11
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  218. gsjackson says:
    @David In TN
    "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?

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    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.
    , @Anon
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  219. gsjackson says:
    @Anonymouse
    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.

    “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?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    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.
    , @Anonymouse
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  220. @Wizard of Oz
    "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?

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  221. @Anon
    Lansdale was not one of the 3 tramps.

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  222. Anon[414] • Disclaimer says:
    @CanSpeccy

    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.

    The Watergate break in was 9 years after Kennedy was murdered. 9/11 was 38 years later.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  223. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @MacNucc11
    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.

    Trust me …

    LOL. A sure give away that you don’t have a scrap of relevant knowledge.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  224. Anon[414] • Disclaimer says:
    @Si1ver1ock
    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.

    Who’s them?? Killing a president is not included in the definition of treason.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Si1ver1ock

    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
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  225. Anon[414] • Disclaimer says:
    @gsjackson
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @gsjackson
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  226. Ron Unz says:
    @David In TN
    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?

    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?

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    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.
    , @David In TN
    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.
    , @Dube
    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.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    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?).
    , @Jon Baptist
    Ron, I just listened to your interview with Barrett. Graeme MacQueen's book is definitely a must read. https://www.amazon.com/2001-Anthrax-Deception-Domestic-Conspiracy-ebook/dp/B00OZ57TVE
    MacQueen is a retired prof. from McMaster University in Hamilton, ON Canada and still resides in that city. Below is a presentation he made a few years back at Harvard. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0Bu-0-eKJI
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  227. Anon[414] • Disclaimer says:
    @gsjackson
    "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?

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @gsjackson
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  228. Anon[414] • Disclaimer says:
    @gsjackson
    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 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    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 t