The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Laurent Guyénot Archive
Did Israel Kill the Kennedys?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
JFKRFKAssassination

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

Introduction

Just after midnight of June 6, 1968, Senator Robert Kennedy was assassinated in a backroom of the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles. He had just been celebrating his victory at the California primaries, which made him the most likely Democratic nominee for the presidential election. His popularity was so great that Richard Nixon, on the Republican side, stood little chance. At the age of 43, Robert would have become the youngest American president ever, after being the youngest Attorney General in his brother’s government. His death opened the way for Nixon, who could finally become president eight years after having been defeated by John F. Kennedy in 1960.

John had been assassinated four and a half years before Robert. Had he survived, he would certainly have been president until 1968. Instead, his vice-president Lyndon Johnson took over the White House in 1963, and became so unpopular that he retired in 1968. Interestingly, Johnson became president the very day of John’s death, and ended his term a few months after Robert’s death. He was in power at the time of both investigations.

And both investigations are widely regarded as cover-ups. In both cases, the official conclusion is rife with contradictions. We are going to sum them up here. But we will do more: we will show that the key to solving both cases resides in the link between them. And we will solve them beyond a reasonable doubt.

As Lance deHaven-Smith has remarked in Conspiracy Theory in America:

“It is seldom considered that the Kennedy assassinations might have been serial murders. In fact, in speaking about the murders, Americans rarely use the plural, ‘Kennedy assassinations’. […] Clearly, this quirk in the Kennedy assassination(s) lexicon reflects an unconscious effort by journalists, politicians, and millions of ordinary Americans to avoid thinking about the two assassinations together, despite the fact that the victims are connected in countless ways.” [1]Lance deHaven-Smith, Conspiracy Theory in America, University of Texas Press, 2013,kindle 284-292.

John and Robert were bound by an unshakable loyalty. Kennedy biographers have stressed the absolute dedication of Robert to his elder brother. Robert had successfully managed John’s campaign for the Senate in 1952, then his presidential campaign in 1960. John made him not only his Attorney General, but also his most trusted adviser, even on matters of Foreign or Military affairs. What John appreciated most in Robert was his sense of justice and the rectitude of his moral judgment. It is Robert, for example, who encouraged John to fully endorse the cause of the Blacks’ civil rights movement[2]John Lewis’ testimony is in the PBS documentary American Experience Robert F. Kennedy..

Given this exceptional bond between the Kennedy brothers, what is the probability that the two Kennedy assassinations were unrelated? Rather, we should start with the assumption that they are related. Basic common sense suggests that the Kennedy brothers have been killed by the same force, and for the same motives. It is, at least, a logical working hypothesis that Robert was eliminated from the presidential race because he had to be prevented from reaching a position where he could reopen the case of his brother’s death. Both his loyalty to his brother’s memory, and his obsession with justice, made it predictable that, if he reached the White House, he would do just that. But was there, in 1968, any clear indication that he would?

Did Bobby plan to reopen the investigation on his brother’s assassination?

The question has been positively answered by David Talbot in his book Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years, published in 2007 by Simon & Schuster. Robert had never believed in the Warren Report’s conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole assassin of his brother. Knowing too well what to expect from Johnson, he had refused to testify before the Warren Commission. When its report came out, he had no choice but to publicly endorse it, but “privately he was dismissive of it,” as his son Robert Kennedy, Jr. remembers[3]Associated Press, “RFK children speak about JFK assassination,” January 12, 2013, on www.usatoday.com. To close friends who wondered why he wouldn’t voice his doubt, he said: “there’s nothing I can do about it. Not now.”[4]David Talbot, Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years, Simon & Schuster, 2007, p. 278-280, 305.

From 22 November 1963, Robert was alienated and monitored by Johnson and Hoover. Although still Attorney General, he knew he was powerless against the forces that had killed his brother. Yet he lost no time beginning his own investigation; he first asked CIA director John McCone, a Kennedy friend, to find out if the Agency had anything to do with the plot, and came out convinced that it hadn’t. In March 1964, he had a face-to-face conversation with mobster Jimmy Hoffa, his sworn enemy, whom he had battled for ten years, and whom he suspected of having taken revenge on his brother. Robert also asked his friend Daniel Moynihan to search for any complicity in the Secret Service, responsible for the President’s security[5]David Talbot, Brothers, op. cit., 2007, p. 21-22.. And of course, Robert suspected Johnson, whom he had always mistrusted, as Jeff Shesol documents in Mutual Contempt: Lyndon Johnson, Robert Kennedy, and the Feud that Defined a Decade (1997).

In fact, a mere week after JFK’s death, November 29, 1963, Bill Walton, a friend of the Kennedys, travelled to Moscow and passed to Nikita Khrushchev, via a trusted agent who had already carried secret communications between Khrushchev and John Kennedy, a message from Robert and Jacqueline Kennedy; according to the memo found in the Soviet archives in the 90s by Alexandr Fursenko and Timothy Naftali (One Hell of a Gamble, 1998), Robert and Jackie wanted to inform the Soviet Premier that they believed John Kennedy had been “the victim of a right-wing conspiracy,” and that “the cooling that might occur in U.S.-Soviet relations because of Johnson would not last forever.”[6]David Talbot, Brothers, op. cit., p. 25-7.

ORDER IT NOW

Robert also contacted a former MI6 officer who had been a friend of his family when his father was Ambassador in London. This British retired officer in turn contacted some trusted friends in France, and arrangments were made for two French Intelligence operatives to conduct, over a three-year period, a quiet investigation that involved hundreds of interviews in the United States. Their report, replete with innuendo about Lyndon Johnson and right-wing Texas oil barons, was delivered to Bobby Kennedy only months before his own assassination in June of 1968. After Bobby’s death, the last surviving brother, Senator Ted Kennedy, showed no interest in the material. The investigators then hired a French writer by the name of Hervé Lamarr to fashion the material into a book, under the pseudonym of James Hepburn. The book was first published in French under the title L’Amérique brûle, and was translated under the title Farewell America: The Plot to Kill JFK. Its conclusion is worth quoting:

“President Kennedy’s assassination was the work of magicians. It was a stage trick, complete with accessories and fake mirrors, and when the curtain fell, the actors, and even the scenery disappeared. […] the plotters were correct when they guessed that their crime would be concealed by shadows and silences, that it would be blamed on a ‘madman’ and negligence.”[7]James Hepburn, Farewell America: The Plot to Kill JFK, Penmarin Books, 2002, p. 269.

Robert had planned to run for the American Presidency in 1972, but the escalation of the Vietnam War precipitated his decision to run in 1968. Another factor may have been the opening of the investigation by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison in 1967. Garrison was allowed to view Abraham Zapruder’s amateur film, confiscated by the FBI on the day of the assassination. This film, despite evident tampering, shows that the fatal shot came from the “grassy knoll” well in front of the President, not from the School Book Depository located behind him, where Oswald was supposed to be shooting from.

When talk of the investigation began, Kennedy asked one of his closest advisors, Frank Mankievitch, to follow its developments, “so if it gets to a point where I can do something about this, you can tell me what I need to know.” He confided to his friend William Attwood, then editor of Look magazine, that he, like Garrison, suspected a conspiracy, “but I can’t do anything until we get control of the White House.”[8]David Talbot, Brothers, op. cit., p. 312-314. He refrained from openly supporting Garrison, believing that since the outcome of the investigation was uncertain, it could jeopardize his plans to reopen the case later, and even weaken his chances of election by construing his motivation as a family feud.

In conclusion, there can be little doubt that, had he been elected president, Robert Kennedy would have done everything possible to reopen the case of his brother’s assassination, in one way or another. This fact certainly did not escape John’s murderers. They had no other option but to stop him. This first conclusion is a sufficient reason to conduct a comparative analysis of both Kennedy assassinations, in search of some converging clues that might lead us to the trail of a common mastermind.We begin with Robert’s assassination.

Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian motivated by hatred of Israel?

Just hours after Robert’s assassination, the press was able to inform the American people, not only of the identity of the assassin, but also of his motive, and even of his detailed biography.[9]Extract of TV news in the documentary film Evidence of Revision: Part 4: The RFK assassination as never seen before, 01:11:42 Twenty-four-year-old Sirhan Bishara Sirhan was born in Jordania, and had moved to the United States when his family was expelled from West Jerusalem in 1948. After the shooting, a newspaper clipping was found in Sirhan’s pocket, quoting favorable comments made by Robert regarding Israel and, in particular, what sounded like an electoral commitment: “The United States should without delay sell Israel the 50 Phantom jets she has so long been promised.” Handwritten notes by Sirhan found in a notebook at his home confirmed that his act had been premeditated and motivated by his hatred of Israel.

That became the story line of the mainstream media from day one. Jerry Cohen of the Los Angeles Times wrote a front page article, saying that Sirhan is “described by acquaintances as a ‘virulent’ anti-Israeli,” (Cohen changed that into “virulent anti-semite” in an article for the The Salt Lake Tribune), and that: “Investigation and disclosures from persons who knew him best revealed [him] as a young man with a supreme hatred for the state of Israel.” Cohen infers that “Senator Kennedy […] became a personification of that hatred because of his recent pro-Israeli statements.” Cohen further revealed that:

“About three weeks ago the young Jordanian refugee accused of shooting Sen. Robert Kennedy wrote a memo to himself, […] The memo said: ‘Kennedy must be assassinated before June 5, 1968’—the first anniversary of the six-day war in which Israel humiliated three Arab neighbors, Egypt, Syria and Jordan.”[10]Jerry Cohen, “Yorty Reveals That Suspect’s Memo Set Deadline for Death,” Los Angeles Times, June 6, 1968, pages 1 and 12, on latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedailymirror/2008/06/june-6-1968.html. Jerry Cohen, “Jerusalem-Born Suspect Called An Anti-Semite,” The Salt Lake Tribune, June 6, 1968, on www.newspapers.com. See also Harry Rosenthal, “Senator Kennedy’s support for Israel promoted decision declares Sirhan,” The Telegraph, March 5, 1969, on news.google.com

After September 11, 2001, the tragedy of Robert’s assassination was installed into the Neocon mythology of the Clash of Civilizations and the War on Terror the story. Sirhan became a precursor of Islamic terrorism on the American soil. In a book entitled The Forgotten Terrorist, Mel Ayton, who specializes in debunking conspiracy theories, claims to present “a wealth of evidence about [Sirhan’s] fanatical Palestinian nationalism,” and to demonstrate that “Sirhan was the lone assassin whose politically motivated act was a forerunner of present-day terrorism” (as written on the back cover).

In 2008, on the 40th anniversary of Robert’s death, Sasha Issenberg of the Boston Globe recalled that the death of Robert Kennedy was “a first taste of Mideast terror.” He quotes Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz (best known as Jonathan Pollard’s lawyer), as saying:

“I thought of it as an act of violence motivated by hatred of Israel and of anybody who supported Israel. […] It was in some ways the beginning of Islamic terrorism in America. It was the first shot. A lot of us didn’t recognize it at the time.”[11]Sasha Issenberg, “Slaying gave US a first taste of Mideast terror,”Boston Globe, June 5, 2008, on www.boston.com

The fact that Sirhan was from a Christian family was lost on Dershowitz. The Jewish Forward took care to mention it on the same occasion, only to add that Islamic fanaticism ran in his veins anyway:

“But what he shared with his Muslim cousins — the perpetrators of September 11 — was a visceral, irrational hatred of Israel. It drove him to murder a man whom some still believe might have been the greatest hope of an earlier generation.”

Robert Kennedy was the first American victim of modern Arab terrorism,” the Forward journalist hammered; “Sirhan hated Kennedy because he had supported Israel.”[12]Jeffrey Salkin, “Remember What Bobby Kennedy Died For,” Forward.com, June 5, 2008. Also Michael Fischbach, “First Shot in Terror War Killed RFK,” Los Angeles Times, June 02, 2003, on articles.latimes.com

This leitmotiv of the public discourse begs the question: Was Bobby really a supporter of Israel? But before we answer that question, there is on more pressing one: Did Sirhan really kill Bobby?

Did Sirhan Bishara Sirhan really kill Robert Kennedy?

ORDER IT NOW

If we trust official statements and mainstream news, the assassination of Robert Kennedy is an open-and-shut case. The identity of the killer suffers no discussion, since he was arrested on the spot, with the smoking gun in his hand. In reality, ballistic and forensic evidence show that none of Sirhan’s bullets hit Kennedy.

According to the autopsy report of Chief Medical Examiner-Coroner Thomas Noguchi, Robert Kennedy died of a gunshot wound to the brain, fired from behind the right ear at point blank range, following an upward angle. Nogushi restated his conclusion in his 1983 memoirs, Coroner. Yet the sworn testimony of twelve shooting witnesses established that Robert had never turned his back on Sirhan and that Sirhan was five to six feet away from his target when he fired.

Tallying all the bullet impacts in the pantry, and those that wounded five people around Kennedy, it has been estimated that at least twelve bullets were fired, while Sirhan’s gun carried only eight. On April 23, 2011, attorneys William Pepper and his associate, Laurie Dusek, gathered all this evidence and more in a 58-page file submitted to the Court of California, asking that Sirhan’s case be reopened. They documented major irregularities in the 1968 trial, including the fact that the bullet tested in laboratory to be compared to the the one extracted from Robert’s brain had not been shot by Sirhan’s revolver, but by another gun, with a different serial number; thus, instead of incriminating Sirhan, the ballistic test in fact proved him innocent. Pepper has also provided a computer analysis of audio recordings during the shooting, made by engineer Philip Van Praag in 2008, which confirms that two guns are heard.[13]Frank Morales, “The Assassination of RFK: A Time for Justice!” June 16, 2012, on www.globalresearch.ca; watch on YouTube, “RFK Assassination 40th Anniversary (2008) Paul Schrade on CNN.”

The presence of a second shooter was signaled by several witnesses and reported on the same day by a few news media. There are strong suspicions that the second shooter was Thane Eugene Cesar, a security guard hired for the evening, who was stuck behind Kennedy at the moment of the shooting, and seen with his pistol drawn by several witnesses. One of them, Don Schulman, positively saw him fire. Cesar was never investigated, even though he did not conceal his hatred for the Kennedys, who according to his recorded statement, had “sold the country down the road to the commies.”[14]Philip Melanson, The Robert F. Kennedy Assassination: New Revelations On the Conspiracy And Cover-Up, S.P.I. Books, 1994, p. 25. For a full overview, watch Shane O’Sullivan’s 2007 investigative documentary RFK Must Die: The Assassination of Bobby Kennedy. For more detail, read his book Who Killed Bobby? The Unsolved Murder of Robert F. Kennedy, Union Square Press, 2008. See also Don Schulman’s testimony in The Second Gun (1973), from 42 min 40.

Even if we assume that Sirhan did kill Robert Kennedy, a second aspect of the case raises question: according to several witnesses, Sirhan seemed to be in a state of trance during the shooting. More importantly, Sirhan has always claimed, and continues to claim, that he has never had any recollection of his act:

“I was told by my attorney that I shot and killed Senator Robert F. Kennedy and that to deny this would be completely futile, [but] I had and continue to have no memory of the shooting of Senator Kennedy.”

He also claims to have no memory of “many things and incidents which took place in the weeks leading up to the shooting.”[15]In a parole hearing in 2011, failing to convince the judges for the fourteenth time. Watch on YouTube, “Sirhan Sirhan Denied Parole”: www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsm1hKPI9EU Some repetitive lines written of a notebook found in Sirhan’s bedroom, which Sirhan recognizes as his own handwriting but does not remember writing, are reminiscent of automatic writing.[16]Shane O’Sullivan, Who Killed Bobby? The Unsolved Murder of Robert F. Kennedy, Union Square Press, 2008, p. 5, 44, 103.

Psychiatric expertise, including lie-detector tests, have confirmed that Sirhan’s amnesia is not faked. In 2008, Harvard University professor Daniel Brown, a noted expert in hypnosis and trauma memory loss, interviewed Sirhan for a total of 60 hours, and concluded that Sirhan, whom he classifies in the category of “high hypnotizables,” acted unvoluntarily under the effect of hypnotic suggestion: “His firing of the gun was neither under his voluntary control, nor done with conscious knowledge, but is likely a product of automatic hypnotic behavior and coercive control.”[17]Jacqui Goddard, “Sirhan Sirhan, assassin of Robert F.Kennedy, launches new campaign for freedom 42 years later,” The Telegraph, December 3, 2011, on www.telegraph.co.uk/search/

We know that in the 1960s, American military agencies were experimenting on mental control. Dr Sidney Gottlieb, son of Hungarian Jews, directed the infamous CIA MKUltra project, which, among other things, were to answer questions such as: “Can a person under hypnosis be forced to commit murder?” according to a declassified document dated May 1951.[18]Colin Ross, Bluebird: Deliberate Creation of Multiple Personality by Psychiatrists, Manitou Communications, 2000,summary on www.wanttoknow.info/bluebird10pg According to Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman, author of Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel’s Targeted Assassinations (Random House, 2018), in 1968, an Israeli military psychologist by the name of Benjamin Shalit had concocted a plan to take a Palestinian prisoner and “brainwash and hypnotize him into becoming a programmed killer” aimed at Yasser Arafat.[19]David B. Green, “Brainwashing and Cross-dressing: Israel’s Assassination Program Laid Bare in Shocking Detail,” Haaretz, February 5, 2018.

If Sirhan was hypnotically programmed, the question is: Who had some interest in having a visceral anti-Zionist Palestinian blamed for the killing of Robert Kennedy? Israel, of course. But then, we are faced with a dilemma, for why would Israel want to kill Robert Kennedy if Robert Kennedy was supportive of Israel, as the mainstream narrative goes?

Was Robert Kennedy really a friend of Israel?

The dilemma rests on a misleading assumption, which is part of the deception. In fact, Robert Kennedy was definitely not pro-Israel. He was simply campaigning in 1968. As everyone knows, a few good wishes and empty promises to Israel are an inescapable ritual in such circumstances. And Robert’s statement in an Oregon synagogue, mentioned in the May 27 Pasadena Independent Star-News article found in Sirhan’s pocket, didn’t exceed the minimal requirements. Its author David Lawrence had, in an earlier article entitled “Paradoxical Bob,” underlined how little credit should be given to such electoral promises: “Presidential candidates are out to get votes and some of them do not realize their own inconsistencies.”

All things considered, there is no ground for believing that Robert Kennedy would have been, as president of the US, particularly Israel-friendly. The Kennedy family, proudly Irish and Catholic, was known for its hostility to Jewish influence in politics, a classic theme of anti-Kennedy literature, best represented by the 1996 book by Ronald Kessler with the highly suggestive title, The Sins of the Father: Joseph P. Kennedy and the Dynasty He Founded.[20]Ronald Kessler, The Sins of the Father: Joseph P. Kennedy and the Dynasty He Founded, Hodder & Stoughton, 1996.

Robert had not been, in his brother’s government, a particularly pro-Israel Attorney General: He had infuriated Zionist leaders by supporting an investigation led by Senator William Fulbright of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations aimed at registering the American Zionist Council as a “foreign agent” subject to the obligations defined by the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, which would had considerably hindered its efficiency (after 1963, the AZD escaped this procedure by changing its status and renaming itself AIPAC)[21]The Israel Lobby Archive, www.irmep.org/ila/forrel/.

In conclusion, it is only with outstanding hypocrisy that The Jewish Daily Forward could write, on the 40th anniversary of Bobby’s death:

“In remembering Bobby Kennedy, let us remember not just what he lived for, but also what he died for—namely, the precious nature of the American-Israeli relationship.”[22]Jeffrey Salkin, “Remember What Bobby Kennedy Died For,op. cit..

Robert Kennedy’s death had not been a bad thing for the precious “American-Israeli relationship.” Rather, it was a great loss for the Arab world, where Bobby was mourned just as had his brother John before him.

Of course, the fact that the Zionist media lied when granting Robert Kennedy some posthumous certificate of good will toward Israel, and thereby provided Israel with a fake alibi, is not a sufficient reason for concluding that Israel murdered Robert. Even the fact that the masterminds of the plot chose as their programmed instrument an anti-Zionist Palestinian, and thereby stirred a strong anti-Palestinian feeling among Americans at the same time as getting rid of Robert, does not prove that Israel was involved. What is still lacking for a serious presumption is a plausible motive.

The motive of Robert’s assassination must be found, not in what Robert publicly declared in an Oregon synagogue during his presidential campaign, but rather in what he confided only to his most close friends: his intention to reopen the investigation on his brother’s death. Our next question, therefore, is: What would an unbiased investigation, conducted under the supervision of Robert in the White House, have revealed?

Did the CIA assassinate Kennedy?

It is obvious to anybody just vaguely informed that a genuine investigation would first establish that Oswald was a mere “patsy”, as he said himself, a scapegoat prepared in advance to be blamed for the crime and then be slaughtered without a trial. We will not here review the evidence that contradicts the official thesis of the lone gunman. It can be found in numerous books and documentary films.

Just as notorious is the theory that the plot to kill Kennedy originated from a secret network within the CIA, in collusion with extremist elements in the Pentagon. That conspiracy theory looms the largest in books, articles and films that have been produced since John Kennedy died.

That CIA-Pentagon theory, as I will call it (add the military-industrial complex if you wish) has a major flaw in the motive ascribed to the killers: besides getting rid of Kennedy, the theory goes, the aim was to create a pretext for invading Cuba, something the CIA had always pushed for and Kennedy had refused to do (the Bay of Pigs fiasco). With Oswald groomed as a pro-Castro communist, the Dallas shooting was staged as a false flag attack to be blamed on Cuba. But then, why did no invasion of Cuba followed Kennedy’s assassination? Why was the pro-Castro Oswald abandoned by the Warren Commission in favor of the lone nut Oswald? Those who address the question, like James Douglass in his JFK and the Unspeakable, credit Johnson with preventing the invasion. Johnson, we are led to understand, had nothing to do with the assassination plot, and thwarted the plotters’ ultimate aim to start World War III. This is to ignore the tremendous amount of evidence accumulated against Johnson for fifty years, and documented in such groundbreaking books as Phillip Nelson’s LBJ: The Mastermind of JFK’s Assassination (2010) or Roger Stone’s The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ (2013).

Another weakness in the CIA-Pentagon theory is the lack of agreement about the mastermind of the plot. In fact, one of the names that comes up most often is James Jesus Angleton, the head of Counter-Intelligence within the CIA, about whom Professor John Newman writes in Oswald and the CIA:

“In my view, whoever Oswald’s direct handler or handlers were, we must now seriously consider the possibility that Angleton was probably their general manager. No one else in the Agency had the access, the authority, and the diabolically ingenious mind to manage this sophisticated plot.”[23]Michael Collins Piper, False Flag, op. cit., p. 78.

But there is plenty of evidence that Angleton, who was also the head of the CIA “Israel Office,” was a Mossad mole. According to his biographer Tom Mangold, “Angleton’s closest professional friends overseas […] came from the Mossad and […] he was held in immense esteem by his Israeli colleagues and by the state of Israel, which was to award him profound honors after his death.”[24]Tom Mangold, Cold Warrior: James Jesus Angleton: the CIA’s Master Spy Hunter, Simon & Schuster, 1991, p. 318.No less that two monuments were dedicated to him at memorial services in Israel during ceremonies attended by chiefs of Israeli Intelligence and even a future Prime Minister.[25]Michael Howard Holzman, James Jesus Angleton, the CIA, and the Craft of COunterintelligence, University of Massachusetts Press, 2008, p. 153.

ORDER IT NOW

Another aspect must be taken into account: if the trail of the CIA is such a well-trodden path among Kennedy researchers, it is because it has been cut and marked by the mainstream media themselves, as well as by Hollywood. And that began even before the assassination, on October 3, 1963, with an article by the New York Times’ chief Washington correspondent Arthur Krock. The article denounced the CIA’s “unrestrained thirst for power” and quotidian unnamed “very high official” who claimed that the White House could not control the CIA, and that:

“If the United States ever experiences an attempt at a coup to overthrow the Government, it will come from the CIA and not the Pentagon. The agency represents a tremendous power and total unaccountability to anyone.”[26]“Assassination studies Kennedy knew a coup was coming,” on Youtube. Image of Arthur Krock’s article is shown on www.youtube.com/watch?v=snE161QnL1U at 1:36.

In such a way, The New York Times was planting a sign, a month and a half before the Dallas killing, pointing to the CIA as the most likely instigator of the upcoming coup. The sign said: “The President is going to fall victim of a coup, and it will come from the CIA.”

One month after Kennedy’s assassination, it was the turn of the Washington Post to use a very similar trick, by publishing an op-ed signed by Harry Truman, in which the former president said he was “disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original assignment.” “I never had any thought when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger operations,” at the point of becoming across the globe “a symbol of sinister and mysterious foreign intrigue […] there are now some searching questions that need to be answered.”[27]“Harry Truman Writes: Limit CIA Role to Intelligence,” Washington Post, December 22, 1963, quoted in Mark Lane, Last Word: My Indictment of the CIA in the Murder of JFK, Skyhorse Publishing, 2011, p. 246. Truman was hinting at the CIA’s role in toppling foreign governments and assassinating elected leaders abroad. But given the timing of his article, one month to the day after Dallas, it could only be understood by anyone with ears to hear, and at least subliminally by the rest, as an indictment of the CIA in the Kennedy assassination. This article, widely reprinted in the 1970s after the creation of the Church Committee and the House Select Committee on Assassinations, is regarded as Truman’s whistleblowing. Yet its mea culpa style is quite unlike Truman; that is because it was not written by Truman, but by his longtime assistant and ghostwriter, a Russian born Jew named David Noyes, whom Sidney Krasnoff calls “Truman’s alter ego” in his book, Truman and Noyes: Story of a President’s Alter Ego (1997). Truman probably never saw the article prior to its publication in the Washington Post morning edition, but he may be responsible for its deletion from the afternoon print runs.[28]Thomas Troy, “Truman on CIA,” September 22, 1993, on www.cia.gov ; Sidney Krasnoff, Truman and Noyes: Story of a President’s Alter Ego, Jonathan Stuart Press, 1997.

So the two most influential American newspapers, while ostensibly defending the official theory of the lone gunman, have planted directional signs pointing to the CIA. Most Kennedy truthers have followed the signs with enthusiasm.

In the 70s, the mainstream media and publishing industry played again a major role in steering conspiracy theorists toward the CIA, while avoiding any hint of Israeli involvement. One major contributor to that effort was A. J. Weberman, with his 1975 book Coup d’État in America: The CIA and the Assassination of John F. Kennedy, co-authored by Michael Canfield. According to the New York Jewish Daily Forward (December 28, 2012), Weberman had “immigrated to Israel in 1959 and has dual American-Israeli citizenship,” and is “a close associate of Jewish Defense Organization founder Mordechai Levy, whose fringe group is a spin-off of the late Rabbi Meir Kahane’s militant right-wing Jewish Defense League.” Weberman acknowledged Neocon Richard Perle’s assistance in his investigation.[29]Michael Collins Piper, False Flags: Template for Terror, American Free Press, 2013, p. 67. The Weberman-Canfield book contributed to the momentum that led the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) to reinvestigate in 1976 the murders of JFK and Dr. Martin Luther King.

It is also in this context that Newsweek journalist Edward Jay Epstein published an interview of George De Mohrenschildt, a Russian geologist and consultant for Texan oilmen who had befriended Oswald and his Russian wife in Dallas in 1962. In this interview, De Mohrenschildt admitted that Oswald had been introduced to him at the instigation of Dallas CIA agent J. Walton Moore.[30]James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, Touchstone, 2008, p. 46. That piece of information is dubious for several reasons: First, Moore was officially FBI rather than CIA. Second, De Mohrenschildt was in no position to confirm or deny the words that Epstein ascribed to him: he was found dead a few hours after giving the interview. In fact, De Mohrenschildt’s interview published by Epstein contradicts De Mohrenschildt’s own manuscript account of his relationship to Oswald, revealed after his death.[31]George de Mohrenschilldt, I am a Patsy! on jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo4/jfk12/hscapatsy.htm De Mohrenschildt’s death was ruled a suicide. The Sheriff’s report mentions that in his last months he complained that “the Jews” and “the Jewish mafia” were out to get him.[32]Read the Sheriff’s Office report on mcadams.posc.mu.edu/death2.txt Needless to say, Epstein didn’t mention anything about this. More suspicions arise from the fact that Epstein’s main source for his 1978 book, Legend: the Secret World of Lee Harvey Oswald, was James Jesus Angleton, who was actively spreading disinformation at the time of the HSCA, defending the theory that Oswald was a KGB agent with CIA connections.

That Israeli agents have been instrumental in spreading conspiracy theories targeting the CIA is also evidenced by Oliver Stone’s film JFK released in 1991, starring Kevin Costner in the role of New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison. This film, which shook public opinion to the point of motivating the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992, was produced by Arnon Milchan, described in a 2011 biography as being from his youth “one of the most important covert agents that Israeli intelligence has ever fielded,” involved in arms smuggling from the US to Israel.[33]Meir Doron, Confidential: The Life of Secret Agent Turned Hollywood Tycoon – Arnon Milchan, Gefen Books, 2011, p. xi. In 2013 Milchan publicly revealed his extended activity as a secret agent of Israel, working in particular to boost Israel’s nuclear program.[34]Stuart Winer, “Hollywood producer Arnon Milchan reveals past as secret agent,” The Times of Israel, November 25, 2013, on www.timesofisrael.com ; Meir Doron, Confidential: The Life of Secret Agent Turned Hollywood Tycoon – Arnon Milchan, Gefen Books, 2011, p. xi It is therefore no wonder that Stone’s film gives no hint of the Mossad connection that Garrison stumbled upon.

Who killed JFK?

By a strange paradox, the authors who stand for the consensual conspiracy theory of a CIA plot against Kennedy build their case on the biography of Oswald, while at the same time claiming that Oswald had almost nothing to do with the killing. If Oswald was “just a patsy,” as he publicly claimed, the quest for the real culprits must logically begin by investigating the man who silenced Oswald.

Oswald’s assassin is known as Jack Ruby, but few people know that his real name was Jacob Leon Rubenstein, and that he was the son of Jewish Polish immigrants. Ruby was a member of the Jewish underworld. He was a friend of Los Angeles gangster Mickey Cohen, whom he had known and admired since 1946. Cohen was the successor of the famed Benjamin Siegelbaum, aka Bugsy Siegel, one of the bosses of Murder Incorporated. Cohen was infatuated with the Zionist cause, as he explained in his memoirs: “Now I got so engrossed with Israel that I actually pushed aside a lot of my activities and done nothing but what was involved with this Irgun war”.[35]Mickey Cohen, In My Own Words, Prentice-Hall, 1975, p. 91-92. Mickey Cohen was in contact with Menachem Begin, the former Irgun chief, with whom he even “spent a lot of time,” according to Gary Wean, former detective sergeant for the Los Angeles Police Department. So there is a direct line connecting Jack Ruby, via Mickey Cohen, to the Israeli terrorist ring, and in particular to Menachem Begin, a specialist in false flag terror. We also know that Ruby phoned Al Gruber, a Mickey Cohen associate, just after Oswald’s arrest; no doubt he received then “an offer he couldn’t refuse,” as they say in the underworld.[36]Michael Collins Piper, Final Judgment: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy, American Free Press, 6th ed., ebook 2005, p. 133-155, 226. Ruby’s defense lawyer William Kunstler wrote in his memoirs that Ruby told him he had killed Oswald “for the Jews,” and Ruby’s rabbi Hillel Silverman received the same confession when visiting Ruby in jail.[37]William Kunstler, My Life as a Radical Lawyer, Carol Publishing, 1994, p. 158; Steve North, “Lee Harvey Oswald’s Killer ‘Jack Ruby’ Came From Strong Jewish Background,” The Forward, November 17, 2013, on forward.com

That is not all. At every levels of the conspiracy to kill Kennedy, we also find the fingerprints of the Israeli deep state. JFK’s trip to Dallas, being officially “non political,” was sponsored by a powerful business group known as the Dallas Citizens Council, dominated by Julius Schepps, “a wholesale liquor distributor, member of every synagogue in town, and de facto leader of the Jewish community,” as described by Bryan Edward Stone in The Chosen Folks: Jews on the Frontiers of Texas.[38]Bryan Edward Stone, The Chosen Folks: Jews on the Frontiers of Texas, University of Texas Press, 2010, p. 200. Kennedy was on his way to the reception organized in his honor when he was shot.

The “host committee” inviting Kennedy was chaired by another influential figure of the wealthy Jewish community in Dallas: advertising executive and PR man Sam Bloom. According to former British Intelligence Officer Colonel John Hughes-Wilson, it was Bloom who suggested to the Police “that they move the alleged assassin [Oswald] from the Dallas police station to the Dallas County Jail in order to give the newsmen a good story and pictures.”Oswald was shot by Ruby during this transfert. Hughes-Wilson adds that,“when the police later searched Ruby’s home, they found a slip of paper with Bloom’s name, address and telephone number on it.”[39]John Hughes-Wilson, JFK-An American Coup d’État: The Truth Behind the Kennedy Assassination, John Blake, 2014.

After the Dallas tragedy, Israel’s sayanim were also busy fabricating the official lie. Apart from its chairman Earl Warren, chosen for his figurative role as Chief Justice, all key people in the investigative Commission were either personal enemies of Kennedy—like Allen Dulles, the CIA director fired by Kennedy in 1961—or ardent Zionists. The man who played the key role in fabricating the government lie purveyed by the Warren Commission was Arlen Specter, the inventor of what came to be called the “magic bullet” theory: a single bullet supposed to have caused seven wounds to Kennedy and John Connally sitting before him in the limousine, and later found in pristine condition on a gurney in Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas. Specter, who with an ironic touch of chutzpah titled his autobiography Passion for Truth, was the son of Russian Jewish immigrants, and, at his death in 2012, was mourned by the Israeli government as “an unswerving defender of the Jewish State,” and by AIPAC, as “a leading architect of the congressional bond between our country and Israel.”[40]Natasha Mozgovaya, “Prominent Jewish-American politician Arlan Specter dies at 82,” Haaretz, October 14, 2012, on www.haaretz.com.

So, at all stages of the plot, we find a Zionist cabal including business men, politicians and Irgun-connected gangsters, not forgetting media executives, all devoted to Israel.

ORDER IT NOW

The most plausible motive for Israel to kill Kennedy has been revealed by two books: Seymour Hersh’s The Samson Option in 1991, then Avner Cohen’s Israel and the Bomb in 1998, and the lead has been followed up in 2007 by Michael Karpin in The Bomb in the Basement. What these investigators reveal is that Kennedy, informed by the CIA in 1960 of the military aim pursued at the Dimona complex in the Negev desert, was firmly determined to force Israel to renounce it. With that purpose in mind, he replaced CIA Director Allen Dulles by John McCone, who had, as Eisenhower’s chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), leaked to The New York Times the truth about Israel’s Dimona project; the story was printed on December 19, 1960, weeks before Kennedy was to take office. As Alan Hart writes, “there can be no doubt that Kennedy’s determination to stop Israel developing its own nuclear bomb was the prime factor in his decision to appoint McCone.”[41]Alan Hart,Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, vol. 2: David Becomes Goliath, Clarity Press, 2009, p. 273. Then Kennedy urged Ben-Gurion to allow regular inspections of Dimona, first verbally in New York in 1961, and later through more and more insistent letters. In the last one, cabled June 15, 1963 to the Israeli ambassador with instruction to hand it personally to Ben-Gurion, Kennedy demanded Ben-Gurion’s agreement for an immediate visit followed by regular visits every six months, otherwise “this Government’s commitment to and support of Israel could be seriously jeopardized.”[42]Warren Bass, Support any Friend: Kennedy’s Middle East and the Making of the U.S.-Israel Alliance, 2003, p. 219. The result was unexpected: Ben-Gurion avoided official reception of the letter by announcing his resignation on June 16. As soon as the new Prime Minister Levi Eshkol took office, Kennedy sent him a similar letter, dated July 5, 1963, to no avail. Did Ben-Gurion resign in order to deal with Kennedy from another level?

Five months later, Kennedy’s death relieved Israel of all pressure (diplomatic or otherwise) to stop its nuclear program. Faced with Johnson’s complete lack of interest in that issue, John McCone resigned from the CIA in 1965, declaring: “When I cannot get the President to read my reports, then it’s time to go.”

Kennedy’s determination to stop Israel’s Dimona project was only part of the “Kennedy problem”. During his first months in the White House, Kennedy committed himself by letters to Nasser and other Arab heads of State to support UN Resolution 194 for the right of return of Palestinian refugees. Ben-Gurion reacted with a letter to the Israeli ambassador in Washington, intended to be circulated among Jewish American leaders, in which he stated:

“Israel will regard this plan as a more serious danger to her existence than all the threats of the Arab dictators and Kings, than all the Arab armies, than all of Nasser’s missiles and his Soviet MIGs. […] Israel will fight against this implementation down to the last man.’”[43]Quoted in George and Douglas Ball, The Passionate Attachment: America’s Involvement With Israel, 1947 to the Present, W.W. Norton & Co., 1992, p. 51.

Kennedy behaved warmly toward Nasser, Israel’s worst enemy. Historian Philip Muehlenbeck writes:

“While the Eisenhower administration had sought to isolate Nasser and reduce his influence through building up Saudi Arabia’s King Saud as a conservative rival to the Egyptian president, the Kennedy administration pursued the exact opposite strategy.”[44]Philip Muehlenbeck, Betting on the Africans: John F. Kennedy’s Courting of African Nationalist Leaders, Oxford UP, 2012.

After Kennedy’s death, American foreign policy was reversed again, without the American public being aware of it. Johnson cut the economic aid to Egypt, and increased the military aid to Israel, which reached 92 million dollars in 1966, more than the total of all previous years combined.

For 50 years, the Israeli trail in the Kennedy assassination has been smothered, and anyone who mentioned it was immediately ostracized. American congressman Paul Findley nevertheless dared write in March 1992 in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs: “It is interesting to note that in all the words written and uttered about the Kennedy assassination, Israel’s intelligence agency, the Mossad, has never been mentioned.” One single author has seriously investigated that trail: Michael Collins Piper, in his 1995 book Final Judgment: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy. Piper was largely ignored by the mainstream of the Kennedy truth movement. But his work has made its way nevertheless. In 2013, Martin Sandler wrote about Piper’s work in his edition of letters by Kennedy, which included those addressed to Ben-Gurion about Dimona: “Of all the conspiracy theories, it remains one of the most intriguing.”It is, in fact, a theory widespread in Arab countries.[45]Listen to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi on the topic on www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV4kvhs8I8E

The case against Lyndon Johnson

Several investigators have identified Lyndon Johnson, Kennedy’s vice-president, as the mastermind of the Kennedy assassination. It is, at least, beyond doubt that the plotters acted with the foreknowledge that Johnson, who automatically stepped in as head of State after Kennedy’s death, would cover them. The context of national crisis enabled him to bully both Justice and the press while achieving his life’s ambition. Johnson not just benefitted from the plot; he participated in its elaboration. As a former senator from Texas, he could mobilize high-ranked accomplices in Dallas to prepare the ambush. Johnson also had his men in the Navy. In 1961, Texan senator John Connally had been appointed as Navy Secretary at the request of Johnson. When Connally resigned eleven months later to run for governor of Texas, Johnson convinced Kennedy to name another of his Texan friends, Fred Korth.

Johnson’s privileged control over the Navy is an important aspect of the case because the Navy was critical in the setting up and in the cover-up of the plot. First, contrary to a widespread but erroneous belief, Lee Harvey Oswald had been recruited by the Navy and not by the CIA. He was a Marine, and as a Marine he had worked for the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI). Secondly, it is at the Naval Hospital in Washington, under the control of Navy officers, that Kennedy’s autopsy was performed, after his body had been literally stolen at gunpoint from Parkland Hospital in Dallas. The report of this autopsy stated that the fatal bullet had entered the back of Kennedy’s skull, which contradicted the testimonies of twenty-one members of the Dallas hospital staff who saw two entry bullet-wounds on the front of Kennedy’s body. This was critical because Oswald was presumably shooting from behind Kennedy, and could not possibly have caused these bullet wounds.

It is noteworthy that Johnson had actually taken advantage of his connections in the Navy to participate in the greatest corruption case ever recorded at that time. His accomplice Fred Korth was forced to resign as Navy Secretary in November 1963, only weeks before the Dallas coup, after the Justice Department headed by Robert Kennedy had implicated him in a fraud involving a $7 billion contract for the construction of 1,700 TFX military aircraft by General Dynamics, a Texan company. Johnson’s personal secretary, Bobby Baker, was charged in the same case.

Because of this mounting scandal and other suspicions of corruption, Kennedy was determined to change Vice-President for his upcoming reelection campaign.[46]Phillip Nelson, LBJ: The Mastermind of JFK’s Assassination, XLibris, 2010, p. 372. While in Dallas the day before the President’s visit, Nixon publicized the rumor of Johnson’s removal, and the Dallas Morning News was reporting on November 22nd: “Nixon Predicts JFK May Drop Johnson.” Instead, Johnson became president that very day.

Many Americans immediately suspected Johnson’s involvement in the Dallas coup, especially after the publication in 1964 of a book by James Evetts Haley, A Texan Looks at Lyndon, which portrayed Johnson as deeply corrupt. According to his biographer Robert Caro, Johnson was a man thirsting “for power in its most naked form, for power not to improve the lives of others, but to manipulate and dominate them, to bend them to his will.”[47]Quoted in Phillip Nelson, LBJ: The Mastermind, op. cit., p. 17.

The evidence incriminating Johnson does not conflict with the evidence against Israel, quite the contrary. First, both trails converge in the person of Jack Ruby, whom Nixon identified a one of “Johnson’s boys,” according to former Nixon operative Roger Stone.[48]Patrick Howley, “Why Jack Ruby was probably part of the Kennedy conspiracy,” The Daily Caller, March 14, 2014, on dailycaller.com The hypothesis that Ruby acted on Johnson’s orders is a likely explanation for some of his odd statements to the Warren Commission:

“If you don’t take me back to Washington tonight to give me a chance to prove to the President that I am not guilty, then you will see the most tragic thing that will ever happen.” “There will be a certain tragic occurrence happening if you don’t take my testimony and somehow vindicate me so my people don’t suffer because of what I have done.”

He said that feared that his act would be used “to create some falsehood about some of the Jewish faith,” but added that “maybe something can be saved […], if our President, Lyndon Johnson, knew the truth from me.”[49]Read Ruby’s deposition on jfkmurdersolved.com/ruby.htm With such words, Ruby seems to be trying to send a message to Johnson through the Commission, or rather a warning that he might spill the beans about Israel’s involvement if Johnson did not intervene in his favor. We get the impression that Ruby expected Johnson to pardon him.

Yet Johnson did nothing to get Ruby out of jail. Ruby’s sense of betrayal would explain why in 1965, after having been sentenced to life imprisonment, Ruby implicitly accused Johnson of Kennedy’s murder in a press conference: “If [Adlai Stevenson] was Vice-President there would never have been an assassination of our beloved President Kennedy.”[50]See on YouTube, “Jack Ruby Talks.”

Ruby died from a mysterious disease in his prison in 1967.

A Crypto-Zionist president?

Ruby is not the only link between Johnson and Israel, far from it. In truth, Johnson had always been Israel’s man. His electoral campaigns had been funded since 1948 by Zionist financier Abraham Feinberg, who happened to be president of the Americans for Haganah Incorporated, which raised money for the Jewish militia. It is the same Feinberg who, after the Democratic primaries in 1960, made the following proposal to Kennedy, as Kennedy himself later reported to his friend Charles Bartlett: “We know your campaign is in trouble. We’re willing to pay your bills if you’ll let us have control of your Middle East policy.” Bartlett recalls that Kennedy was deeply upset and swore that, “if he ever did get to be President, he was going to do something about it.”[51]Seymour Hersh, The Samson Option: Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy, Random House, 1991, p. 94-97.

It is on record, thanks to Kennedy insider Arthur Schlesinger (A Thousand Days: John Kennedy in the White House, 1965), that the two men who convinced Kennedy to take Johnson as his running mate, were Philip Graham and Joseph Alsop, respectively publisher and columnist of the Washington Post, and strong supporters of Israel.[52]Arthur Schlesinger, A Thousand Days: John Kennedy in the White House (1965), Mariner Books, 2002, p. 56; Alan Hart, Zionism, vol. 2, op. cit., p. 257. Schlesinger doesn’t reveal Graham and Alsop’s arguments, and states that Kennedy’s final decision “defies historical reconstruction”—a curious statement for a historian so well informed on the topic. But Evelyn Lincoln, Kennedy’s personal secretary for twelve years, had her own idea about it. She believed that Kennedy was blackmailed with proofs of his many infidelities to his wife: “Jack knew that Hoover and LBJ would just fill the air with womanizing.” Whatever the details of the blackmail, Kennedy once confided to his assistant Hyman Raskin, as an apology for taking Johnson, “I was left with no choice […] those bastards were trying to frame me. They threatened me with problems and I don’t need more problems.”[53]Phillip Nelson, LBJ: The Mastermind, op; cit., p. 320.

In 2013, Associated Press reported about newly released tapes from Johnson’s White House office showing LBJ’s “personal and often emotional connection to Israel,” and pointed out that under Johnson, “the United States became Israel’s chief diplomatic ally and primary arms supplier.” An article from the 5 Towns Jewish Times “Our First Jewish President Lyndon Johnson?” recalls Johnson’s continuous support of Jews and Israel in the 1940s and 50s, and concludes: “President Johnson firmly pointed American policy in a pro-Israel direction.” The article also mentions that, “research into Johnson’s personal history indicates that he inherited his concern for the Jewish people from his family. His aunt Jessie Johnson Hatcher, a major influence on LBJ, was a member of the Zionist Organization of America.” And, in an additional note: “The line of Jewish mothers can be traced back three generations in Lyndon Johnson’s family tree. There is little doubt that he was Jewish.”[54]Morris Smith, “Our First Jewish President Lyndon Johnson? – an update!!,” 5 Towns Jewish Times, April 11, 2013, on 5tjt.com.

Whatever was the reason of Johnson’s loyalty to Israel, it is a fact that, thanks to Johnson, Israel could continue its military nuclear program undisturbed, and acquire its first atomic bomb around 1965. Historian Stephen Green writes: “Lyndon Johnson’s White House saw no Dimona, heard no Dimona, and spoke no Dimona when the reactor went critical in early 1964.”[55]Stephen Green, Taking Sides: America’s Secret Relations With a Militant Israel, William Morrow & Co., 1984, p. 166.

ORDER IT NOW

Thanks to JFK’s death, Israel was also able to carry out its plan to annex Palestinian territories beyond the boundaries imposed by the United Nations Partition plan. By leaning on Pentagon and CIA hawks, Johnson intensified the Cold War and created the climate of tension which Israel needed in order to demonize Egyptian president Nasser and reinforce its own stature as indispensable ally in the Middle East.

During the Six Day War of 1967, Israel managed to triple its territory, while creating the illusion of acting in legitimate defense. The lie could not deceive American Intelligence agencies, but Johnson had given a green light to Israel’s attack, and even authorized James Angleton of the CIA to give Israel the precise positions of the Egyptian air bases, which enabled Israel to destroy them in just a few hours.

Four days after the start of the Israeli attack, Nasser accepted the ceasefire request from the UN Security Council. It was too soon for Israel, which had not yet achieved all its territorial objectives. On June 8, 1967, the USS Liberty, a NSA spy ship stationed in international waters off Sinai, was bombed, strafed and torpedoed during 75 minutes by Israeli Mirage jets and three torpedo boats, with the obvious intention of sinking it without leaving any survivors. (Even the rescue channels were machine-gunned.) Meanwhile, Johnson, from the White House, intervened personally to prohibit the nearby Sixth Fleet from rescuing the USS Liberty after the crew, despite the initial destruction of its transmitters, had managed to send off an SOS.

The attack would have been blamed on Egypt if it had succeeded, that is, if the ship had sunk and its crew had all died. The operation would then have given Johnson a pretext for interveening on the side of Israel against Egypt.

But it failed. The USS Liberty affair was suppressed by a commission of inquiry headed by Admiral John Sidney McCain II, Commander-in-Chief of US Naval Forces in Europe (and Father of Arizona Senator John McCain III). Johnson accepted Israel’s spurious “targeting error” explanation. In January 1968 he invited the Israeli Prime Minister, Levi Eshkol, to Washington, and warmly welcomed him to his Texas ranch. What’s more, Johnson rewarded Israel by lifting the embargo on offensive military equipment: US-made tanks and aircraft immediately flowed to Tel Aviv.

This failed false flag attack is evidence of the secret complicity of Johnson and Israel, implying high treason on the part of Johnson.

Conclusion

Let’s now conclude our overview of the evidence: beside the fact that John and Robert were brothers, their assassinations have at least two things in common: Lyndon Johnson and Israel.

First, their deaths are precisely framed by Johnson’s presidency, which was also the context for other political assassinations, such as Martin-Luther King’s. Johnson was in control of the State during the two investigations on John and Robert’s murders.

Secondly, in both cases, we find the fingerprints of Israel’s deep state. In the case of Robert, it is the choice of the manipulated patsy, which was obviously meant to disguise Robert’s assassination as an act of hatred against Israel. In the case of John, it it is the identity of the man asked to kill the patsy, a Jewish gangster linked to the Irgun.

Johnson and Israel, the two common elements in the Kennedy assassinations, are themselves closely linked, since Johnson can be considered as a high-level sayan, a man secretly devoted to Israel, or owned by Israel, to the point of committing high treason against the nation he had been elected to lead and protect.

The causal link between the two assassinations then becomes clear: even if Robert had been pro-Israel, which he was not, Israel and Johnson would still have had a compelling reason to eliminate him before he got to the White House, where he could—and would—reopen the investigation on his brother’s death.

What should have been obvious from the start now appears brightly clear: in order to solve the mystery of the assassination of John Kennedy, one has simply to look into the two other assassinations which are connected to it: the assassination of Lee Harvey Oswald, the man whose trial could have exposed the hoax and possibly put the plotters into the light, and the assassination of Robert Kennedy, the man who would have reopened the case if he had lived. And both these assassinations bear the signature of Israel.

At his death in 1968, Robert Kennedy left eleven orphans, not counting John’s two children, whom he had somewhat adopted. John’s son, John F. Kennedy Jr., aka John John, who had turned three the day of his father’s funeral, embodied the Kennedy myth in the heart of all Americans. The route seemed traced for him to become president one day. He died on July 16, 1999, with his pregnant wife and his sister-in-law, when his private plane suddenly and mysteriously nose-dived into the ocean a few seconds after he had announced his landing on the Kennedy property in Massachusetts.

John John had long been portrayed as a superficial, spoiled and harmless young man. But that image was as misleading as young Halmet’s in Shakespeare’s play. John had serious interest in mind, and, at age 39, he was just entering politics. In 1995 he founded George magazine, which seemed harmless until it began to take an interest in political assassinations. In March 1997, George published a 13-page article by the mother of Yigal Amir, the convicted assassin of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. The article was supporting the thesis of a conspiracy by the Israeli far-right. So JFK Jr. was eliminated while following in the footsteps of his father, entering politics through the door of journalism and taking an interest in the crimes of the Israeli deep state. Canadian-Israeli journalist Barry Chamish believes John Kennedy Jr. was assassinated precisely for that.[56]Barry Chamish, “The Murder of JFK Jr – Ten Years Later,” www.barrychamish.com (also on: www.rense.com/general87/tenyrs.htm).

The nonsensical notion of a mysterious curse on the Kennedy family is an obvious smoke screen. The unsolved murders of JFK and his two legitimate heirs—his younger brother and his only son—require a more rational explanation. The sense that the official stories about their deaths amount to a huge cover-up is obsessing the American psyche, a bit like a repressed family secret affecting the whole personality from a subconscious level.

President John Kennedy and his brother are heroic, almost Christ-like figures, in the heart of a growing community of citizens who have become aware of the disastrous longtime effect of their assassinations. Only when the American public at large come to grips with the truth of their deaths and honor their legacy and sacrifice will America have a chance to be redeemed and be great again.

Laurent Guyénot is the author of JFK-9/11: 50 years of Deep State, Progressive Press, 2014, and From Yahweh to Zion: Jealous God, Chosen People, Promised Land … Clash of Civilizations, 2018. ($30 shipping included from Sifting and Winnowing, POB 221, Lone Rock, WI 53556).

Footnotes

[1] Lance deHaven-Smith, Conspiracy Theory in America, University of Texas Press, 2013,kindle 284-292.

[2] John Lewis’ testimony is in the PBS documentary American Experience Robert F. Kennedy.

[3] Associated Press, “RFK children speak about JFK assassination,” January 12, 2013, on www.usatoday.com

[4] David Talbot, Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years, Simon & Schuster, 2007, p. 278-280, 305.

[5] David Talbot, Brothers, op. cit., 2007, p. 21-22.

[6] David Talbot, Brothers, op. cit., p. 25-7.

[7] James Hepburn, Farewell America: The Plot to Kill JFK, Penmarin Books, 2002, p. 269.

[8] David Talbot, Brothers, op. cit., p. 312-314.

[9] Extract of TV news in the documentary film Evidence of Revision: Part 4: The RFK assassination as never seen before, 01:11:42

[10] Jerry Cohen, “Yorty Reveals That Suspect’s Memo Set Deadline for Death,” Los Angeles Times, June 6, 1968, pages 1 and 12, on latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedailymirror/2008/06/june-6-1968.html. Jerry Cohen, “Jerusalem-Born Suspect Called An Anti-Semite,” The Salt Lake Tribune, June 6, 1968, on www.newspapers.com. See also Harry Rosenthal, “Senator Kennedy’s support for Israel promoted decision declares Sirhan,” The Telegraph, March 5, 1969, on news.google.com

[11] Sasha Issenberg, “Slaying gave US a first taste of Mideast terror,”Boston Globe, June 5, 2008, on www.boston.com

[12] Jeffrey Salkin, “Remember What Bobby Kennedy Died For,” Forward.com, June 5, 2008. Also Michael Fischbach, “First Shot in Terror War Killed RFK,” Los Angeles Times, June 02, 2003, on articles.latimes.com

[13] Frank Morales, “The Assassination of RFK: A Time for Justice!” June 16, 2012, on www.globalresearch.ca; watch on YouTube, “RFK Assassination 40th Anniversary (2008) Paul Schrade on CNN.”

[14] Philip Melanson, The Robert F. Kennedy Assassination: New Revelations On the Conspiracy And Cover-Up, S.P.I. Books, 1994, p. 25. For a full overview, watch Shane O’Sullivan’s 2007 investigative documentary RFK Must Die: The Assassination of Bobby Kennedy. For more detail, read his book Who Killed Bobby? The Unsolved Murder of Robert F. Kennedy, Union Square Press, 2008. See also Don Schulman’s testimony in The Second Gun (1973), from 42 min 40.

[15] In a parole hearing in 2011, failing to convince the judges for the fourteenth time. Watch on YouTube, “Sirhan Sirhan Denied Parole”: www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsm1hKPI9EU

[16] Shane O’Sullivan, Who Killed Bobby? The Unsolved Murder of Robert F. Kennedy, Union Square Press, 2008, p. 5, 44, 103.

[17] Jacqui Goddard, “Sirhan Sirhan, assassin of Robert F.Kennedy, launches new campaign for freedom 42 years later,” The Telegraph, December 3, 2011, on www.telegraph.co.uk/search/

[18] Colin Ross, Bluebird: Deliberate Creation of Multiple Personality by Psychiatrists, Manitou Communications, 2000,summary on www.wanttoknow.info/bluebird10pg

[19] David B. Green, “Brainwashing and Cross-dressing: Israel’s Assassination Program Laid Bare in Shocking Detail,” Haaretz, February 5, 2018.

[20] Ronald Kessler, The Sins of the Father: Joseph P. Kennedy and the Dynasty He Founded, Hodder & Stoughton, 1996.

[21] The Israel Lobby Archive, www.irmep.org/ila/forrel/

[22] Jeffrey Salkin, “Remember What Bobby Kennedy Died For,op. cit..

[23] Michael Collins Piper, False Flag, op. cit., p. 78.

[24] Tom Mangold, Cold Warrior: James Jesus Angleton: the CIA’s Master Spy Hunter, Simon & Schuster, 1991, p. 318.

[25] Michael Howard Holzman, James Jesus Angleton, the CIA, and the Craft of COunterintelligence, University of Massachusetts Press, 2008, p. 153.

[26] “Assassination studies Kennedy knew a coup was coming,” on Youtube. Image of Arthur Krock’s article is shown on www.youtube.com/watch?v=snE161QnL1U at 1:36.

[27] “Harry Truman Writes: Limit CIA Role to Intelligence,” Washington Post, December 22, 1963, quoted in Mark Lane, Last Word: My Indictment of the CIA in the Murder of JFK, Skyhorse Publishing, 2011, p. 246.

[28] Thomas Troy, “Truman on CIA,” September 22, 1993, on www.cia.gov ; Sidney Krasnoff, Truman and Noyes: Story of a President’s Alter Ego, Jonathan Stuart Press, 1997.

[29] Michael Collins Piper, False Flags: Template for Terror, American Free Press, 2013, p. 67.

[30] James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, Touchstone, 2008, p. 46.

[31] George de Mohrenschilldt, I am a Patsy! on jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo4/jfk12/hscapatsy.htm

[32] Read the Sheriff’s Office report on mcadams.posc.mu.edu/death2.txt

[33] Meir Doron, Confidential: The Life of Secret Agent Turned Hollywood Tycoon – Arnon Milchan, Gefen Books, 2011, p. xi.

[34] Stuart Winer, “Hollywood producer Arnon Milchan reveals past as secret agent,” The Times of Israel, November 25, 2013, on www.timesofisrael.com ; Meir Doron, Confidential: The Life of Secret Agent Turned Hollywood Tycoon – Arnon Milchan, Gefen Books, 2011, p. xi

[35] Mickey Cohen, In My Own Words, Prentice-Hall, 1975, p. 91-92.

[36] Michael Collins Piper, Final Judgment: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy, American Free Press, 6th ed., ebook 2005, p. 133-155, 226.

[37] William Kunstler, My Life as a Radical Lawyer, Carol Publishing, 1994, p. 158; Steve North, “Lee Harvey Oswald’s Killer ‘Jack Ruby’ Came From Strong Jewish Background,” The Forward, November 17, 2013, on forward.com

[38] Bryan Edward Stone, The Chosen Folks: Jews on the Frontiers of Texas, University of Texas Press, 2010, p. 200.

[39] John Hughes-Wilson, JFK-An American Coup d’État: The Truth Behind the Kennedy Assassination, John Blake, 2014.

[40] Natasha Mozgovaya, “Prominent Jewish-American politician Arlan Specter dies at 82,” Haaretz, October 14, 2012, on www.haaretz.com.

[41] Alan Hart,Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, vol. 2: David Becomes Goliath, Clarity Press, 2009, p. 273.

[42] Warren Bass, Support any Friend: Kennedy’s Middle East and the Making of the U.S.-Israel Alliance, 2003, p. 219.

[43] Quoted in George and Douglas Ball, The Passionate Attachment: America’s Involvement With Israel, 1947 to the Present, W.W. Norton & Co., 1992, p. 51.

[44] Philip Muehlenbeck, Betting on the Africans: John F. Kennedy’s Courting of African Nationalist Leaders, Oxford UP, 2012.

[45] Listen to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi on the topic on www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV4kvhs8I8E

[46] Phillip Nelson, LBJ: The Mastermind of JFK’s Assassination, XLibris, 2010, p. 372.

[47] Quoted in Phillip Nelson, LBJ: The Mastermind, op. cit., p. 17.

[48] Patrick Howley, “Why Jack Ruby was probably part of the Kennedy conspiracy,” The Daily Caller, March 14, 2014, on dailycaller.com

[49] Read Ruby’s deposition on jfkmurdersolved.com/ruby.htm

[50] See on YouTube, “Jack Ruby Talks.”

[51] Seymour Hersh, The Samson Option: Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy, Random House, 1991, p. 94-97.

[52] Arthur Schlesinger, A Thousand Days: John Kennedy in the White House (1965), Mariner Books, 2002, p. 56; Alan Hart, Zionism, vol. 2, op. cit., p. 257.

[53] Phillip Nelson, LBJ: The Mastermind, op; cit., p. 320.

[54] Morris Smith, “Our First Jewish President Lyndon Johnson? – an update!!,” 5 Towns Jewish Times, April 11, 2013, on 5tjt.com.

[55] Stephen Green, Taking Sides: America’s Secret Relations With a Militant Israel, William Morrow & Co., 1984, p. 166.

[56] Barry Chamish, “The Murder of JFK Jr – Ten Years Later,” www.barrychamish.com (also on: www.rense.com/general87/tenyrs.htm).

 
Hide 549 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Biff says:

    Truman was hinting at the CIA’s role in toppling foreign governments and assassinating elected leaders abroad.

    Motive and the means to get it done. I always thought the CIA was suspect, but obviously there are more angles to the story. Good article.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ChuckOrloski
    Biff wisely reflected: "I always thought the CIA was suspect, but obviously there are more angles to the story."

    Hi Biff,

    This article author, Laurent Guyenot, did an admirable job at attempting to distance CIA involvement from Israeli intelligence, and the killing of JFK, pursuant coup, overturning a US election.

    Not so with author Peter Janney who wrote the terrific book, "Mary's Mosaic." He focused upon CIA James Jesus Angleton's Israeli-cozy career & deadly pre/post assassination undertakings prior to November 23, 1963.

    F.y.i, Biff, perhaps you're aware about the Fall 1964 murder (unsolved!) of Mary Pinchot Meyer, CIA Cord Meyer Jr.' ex-wife and JFK flame?

    Unfortunately, Israeli interest & involvement in JFK's killing escaped Peter Janney's survey. Nonetheless, below is Mr. Janet's very sound description about CIA Counterintelligence Chief James Angleton's mad pursuit to locate & confiscate the diary of the dead, Mary Pinchot Meyer.

    Subsequently, I do not endorse a "Rush to Judgement" that exonerates the CIA from the treasonous Kennedy murders.

    Thanks a lot, Biff! Please refer to video below?

    https://youtu.be/PZjACabdnlE
    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 This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. My interest in this is as the reader of a good thriller which I can excuse myself spending time on because it is just possible that I shall learn something about the real world including important levels of government. So… no dog in any fight. But I am alerted to conventional journalistic slickness by such foolishness as the snide and inaccurate statement that Alan Dershowitz is best known as counsel for Jonathan Pollard. Also the slippery statement that a connection between the two brothers’ assassinations should be “assumed”. (Obviously it is worth asking a few questions such as “could there be common motives but that sort of intelligent lateral thinking is not what the author was talking about).

    Arthur J. Schlesinger is mentioned so why not his careful journal re ord of what RFK had to say about his brother’s assassination. A recent NYRB article suggests that, while he didn’t think much of the Warren Commission’s work, his suspicions only extended to Cuba and “gangsters”.

    A recent TV series (not mentioned herw) using recently declassified material does strongly suggest that Oswald was relying for support on a group if fiercely anti-Castro Cubans who had been infiltrated by a Castro man. Not difficult to see why in the end he might have thought he was a patsy. Also there is no mention here of the at least plausible theory that the fatal bullet was one accidentally fired by a Secret Serviceman in the car behind.

    The total rubbish about JFK Jr’s plane crash also serves to undermine credibility and support the view that this is written by someone suffering a severe case of confirmation bias.

    Read More
    • Replies: @j2
    "A recent NYRB article suggests that, while he didn’t think much of the Warren Commission’s work, his suspicions only extended to Cuba and “gangsters”."

    Cuba casinos and crime were run by Meyer Lansky. You immediately get the Israel connection as he was a great fried of Israel. Cuban gangsters are implied in the conspiracy to kill JFK, but that is a link to the theory of Piper. To find the high level perpetrators it is only enough to ask what important US politics changed when LBJ become the President. Towards Cuba or gangsters, no.

    , @prusmc
    Johnson, IMHO, worst President in US history. HE DID MORE LASTING DAMAGE than even Obama. But the Kennedy myth is overdrawn. If JFK had lived he would have been reelected but not by a Johnsonian o landslide. Consequently, Congress would have kept him in check. If HHH had been his VP, Kennedy would have got less out of Congress than with Johnson ( who knew where the bodies were buried).
    The real tragedy is not that Kennedy was so good; it was that Johnson was so bad. Had Bobby won in 1968, he would have torn the country apart worse than Johnson. There are so many loose ends in this feature it is hard to find where to start. But it is clear that this person believes that for a few years we Americans had Gods living amongst us.
    The curse of the whole Kennedy family was raised by Teddy while successfully avoiding blame and guilt for Mary Jo's unfortunate accident. However, the author brings the curse to life again while seeming to reject it concerning JFK, junior's plane crash disappearance. Could pilot error by lack of experience and failure to heed weather forecast advice have had any role in this family's continuing misadventures?
    Is there any explanation for anything negative happening to this clan that can not be blamed on Jews, right-wing extremists, Cosa Nostra, CIA, the Navy, military intelligence or talk radio?
    , @ians
    The nonsensical assertion that it was an accidental bullet from a Secret Service man was debunked long ago.
    , @Anon
    I agree about the plane crash inserted into the article. It was a combination of an unusually thick fog and an inexperienced pilot

    There was a thread recently in which John Jrs plane crash was discussed. A couple of pilots who flew the same Plane write that in that kind of fog with a pilot unskilled in flying by instruments it was not shot down but just happened.

    Another poster write that he was in the area that night and it was one of the worst fogs he’d ever seen.

    , @Amin Abdullah
    "A recent TV series (not mentioned herw) using recently declassified material does strongly suggest that..." You are dismissed, go back to your TV and pay taxes : you are a good citizen.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. j2 says:

    A very good article. With my limited studies on the JFK murder I came to the same conclusion: Piper was essentially correct, but you fill up the case of Robert Kennedy in a convincing way. Maybe Meyer Lansky could be mentioned, he probably had some role. But the issue was the bomb.

    Read More
    • Agree: Iris
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. Al Moenee says:

    The truth is that Robert Kennedy was much despised by Israel and its Jewish-American lobby of the time, the American Zionist Council (AZC) and was considered a major foe. After many months of back and forth, on Oct 11, 1963 the New York law firm representing the AZC received a formal written demand from Attorney General RFK’s office to immediately (72 hours) proceed to register as foreign agents under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938. Forms for said registration accompanied the letter. This would have upended the AZC’s operations and rendered it or any subsequent Israeli lobby (AIPAC) – near powerless.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Totally agree about the Jewish role in JFKs assassination. As for Oswald, he was an avowed communist and the American communist party and all the far left groups were very, very, Jewish at the time. It was impossible to be a goyishe leftist and not meet a lot of lefty Jews at the time.

    Oswald always told people he became interested in communism when he was living in NYC age 11 & 12. It was the time of the Rosenberg atomic spy trials.
    “Old Jewish ladies” in his Bronx neighborhood were always handing out pamphlets defending the Rosenbergs.
    , @Anonymous
    C'mon. Five years before his assassination he offends the future AIPAC. And you cite not a single inquiry by representatives of the Israel lobby about his current views in later years or whether he will make any policy commitments on the subject. And you maybe dumb enough not to ask what approaches might have been made in 1967-68 or whether indeed there were any deals attempted or done but perhaps you'll believe, once the obvious is pointed out, that those clever Jews are going to consider many possibilities before they get round to killing a presidential candidate in the nation that is indispensable to them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. We all know that Jack and Bobby were killed by lone nutcases three years apart and there can’t possibly be any connection between them. Stop messing about with the Official Narrative.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Alarmist

    "We all know that Jack and Bobby were killed by lone nutcases three years apart and there can’t possibly be any connection between them. Stop messing about with the Official Narrative."
     
    Maybe the Magic Bullet got Bobby too.

    In any case, the involvement of Israel would explain why the complete JFK assassination files will never see the light of day. Even the CIA doesn't have that kind of clout.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Plonee says:

    DEAD PRECEDENTS

    To leaders of the tribe deep with dread
    Two brothers once seriously said:
    “Shut your lobby this fall,
    and in Dimona show all”
    How serious were they? Dead.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. LondonBob says:

    The JFK assasination is a very interesting whodunnit and the couple of books I have read on it led to me to the very same conclusion as the author. A lot of credit must go to Piper. I think Gary Wean was correct, there was a plot to stage a fake assasination attempt on JFK within which the actual assasination was hidden, presumably overseen by Angleton. Too many who knew better were looking the other way, and their effective complicity made them very interested in a cover up.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. Israel was created by the British oligarchs as a bridgehead in the Middle East. Furthering Israel was/is furthering the interests of those oligarchs (who ran the British Empire which morphed to the Anglo-American Empire). JFK was critical of Israel. If someone killed him, it the Anglo-American deep state. Israel likely pulled the trigger. Let’s remember what the fake father of Modern Zionism who admired Cecil Rhodes, Theodor Herl said:

    “England will get ten million agents for her greatness and influence.”

    A parallel could also be established between the killing of JFK and the “Six-Day War” of 1967 …

    In 1954, Israeli teamed with the Muslim Brotherhood to plant explosives in American and British offices to start a civil war to prompt the presence of British troops. The failed terror plot was known as the “Lavon Affair”.

    In 1956, Israel (supported by Britain and France) invaded Egypt to retake the Suez Canal nationalized by Nasser. Deterring Nasser who had crushed the Muslim Brotherhood (a British machination aimed at keeping Muslim nations backwards culturally and economically (https://bit.ly/2J06YDO)) was also another primary objective. Einsenhower was the one who tenaciously worked on removing Israel from Egypt but it didn’t come easy:

    1956-1957: England and France removed their troops following Einsenhower’s advise but Israel did not. As a result, Eisenhower joined the 75 countries at the UN General Assembly (February 1957) to pass a resolution against Israel’s occupation of Egyptian territory. Despite that, Israel still refused to remove its troops. It made Einsenhower reach out to the Congress but it was heavily bought out by Zionists and the end-result was to no avail.. When that failed, Einsenhower met with congressional leaders to gather support but even they were in support of Israel. Einsenhower then went on TV to make the case public. After which he threatened Israel with sanctions (including the $40M of tax deductible donations and $60M of private bonds). Making the case public and threatening economically worked – Israel withdrew its troops.

    The failed invasion was a major blow to Britain (who’s PM resigned) France and Israel (who destroyed everything on its way out).

    In spite of the mendacious narrative regurgitated in the West about the war of 1967, it was Israel who planned and attacked its neighbors. The seizing of the Golan Heights, the West Bank and Gaza were objectives Israel couldn’t achieve in 1948 and deterring Nasser, an objective failed in 1956. The only problem Israel had was: would another US President intervene. Norman Finkelstein, who’s research on 1967 is to date unchallenged successfully, showed that Israel sent diplomats to Washington

    • The U.S. agreed with Israel that Nasser had no plans to attack.

    • The U.S. agreed that Israel would easily defeat Egypt on the battlefield, either alone or with any combination of other Arab nations.

    • And the U.S. tacitly gave Israel permission to start the war, or at least indicated there would be no repeat of Eisenhower’s repudiation after the 1956 Suez invasion.

    http://mondoweiss.net/2017/06/provoked-fighting-survival/

    “No repeat of Einsehower’s repudication”.

    We all know who followed JFK. None other than absolute bent-over to Israel, Lyndon Johnson.

    ———

    If I could make a parallel on the Palestinians: it’s “interesting” how they always found themselves in the spotlight of major plots, killings and terror acts after the creation of the British Zionist State known as Israel. One has to only remember the airplane hijackings, Munich, etc. Coincidentally, most of those Palestinians were all led by the infamous Abu Nidal – who was never apprehended while the rest of the Palestinians were either killed or arrested.

    The case of 9/11 wasn’t any different. The five dancing Israelis, who were “documenting the event” from New Jersey proclaimed – while being arrested:

    “We are Israelis. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are your problem.”

    Ari Ben-Menashe, in his book “Profits of War : Inside the Secret U.S.-Israeli Arms Network” spoke of the CIA and the Mossad covertly training Palestinians in Yugoslavia to have them attack Western targets. The ultimate goal was to draw negative attention and sentiment against their cause.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2

    If I could make a parallel on the Palestinians: it’s “interesting” how they always found themselves in the spotlight of major plots, killings and terror acts after the creation of the British Zionist State known as Israel.
     
    But not 9/11...that was perpetrated by inconveniently Saudi terrorists hosted thousands of miles away from Palestine in Nowheresville, Afghanistan.
    , @Anon
    I have the book “ Abu Nidal Gun For Hire “ that claims Nidal was anbIsraeki agent all along. No opinion on how. valid the claim is.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Most of the information was from the book Nemesis: The True Story of Aristotle Onassis, Jackie O, and the Love Triangle That Brought Down the Kennedys, by Peter Evans.

    In December 1971 Aristotle Onassis’s ex-wife Tina met with their daughter Christina to ask her to stop bad-mouthing her current husband Stavros Niarchos, a man long hated by Aristotle Onassis. Christina was Niarcho’s niece and step-daughter, since he had been married to Tina’s sister Eugenie and was now married to Tina herself. Among the accusations that Christina kept repeating about Niarchos was that he had murdered Eugenie. In order to give Christina a broader perspective, Tina informed Christina that her father Aristotle had financed the assassination of Robert Kennedy.

    The next day Christina passed this information on to her brother Alexander Onassis, who subsequently placed some related papers into a safe-deposit box. After that, Alexander told his lover Fiona Thyssen that these papers would prevent his father Aristotle from harming Fiona, a woman long hated by Aristotle Onassis. Since Fiona was 16 years older than Alexander, Aristotle considered her to be a gold-digger and wanted her out of Alexander’s life.

    Several months later Alexander showed some of his papers to Yannis Georgakis, a lawyer who was close to the entire Onassis family. The papers included photocopies of pages from the notebooks of Sirhan Sirhan, who had assassinated Robert Kennedy. During the weeks before the assassination, Sirhan would place himself into a hypnotic state and write stream-of-conscious thoughts into a notebook. On one page Sirhan had written at the center of a roundel, amid Arabic writing, the single name Fiona. On another page he had written 2 Narkos!. On a third page, between the lines One Hundred thousand Dollars and Dollars and One Hundreds, Sirhan had written in Arabic: they should be killed, next to which he had written the number three.

    It was obvious to Tina, Christina and Alexander that for some reason Sirhan had been hypnotized into a fixation on killing three people — Fiona Thyssen, Stavros Niarchos, and Robert Kennedy — who had long been fiercely hated by Aristotle Onassis.

    =====

    [MORE]

    In the fall of 1974 a 34-year-old photographer Helene Gaillet was stranded in Paris on her way to a job in Africa, because the job was canceled. A year earlier she had met Aristotle Onassis at a dinner party in New York, and he had told her to call him if she ever needed a place to stay in Paris. She called his number but was told he was away on his private island, Skorpios, in the Aegean Sea. Several minutes later, however, Onassis returned her call and invited her to join him in Skorpios. He would fly her there at his own expense. She accepted his invitation and subsequently spent several days with him there.

    During that time they had a short affair, which included a series of intimate conversations about their lives. By that time his health was failing (he died four months later), so he was in a confessional mood. During one of those conversations he told her, “You know, Helene, I put up the money for Bobby Kennedy’s murder.”

    =====

    In May 1968 the above-mentioned lawyer Yannis Georgakis was serving as the chief executive officer of Olympic Airways, which was owned by Aristotle Onassis. Georgakis was informed by a Mossad official serving in Israel’s embassy in Paris that Onassis was meeting regularly in Paris with a Palestinian terrorist named Mahmoud Hamshari. About a week later Onassis informed Georgakis that a Palestinian terrorist group had demanded $1.2 million in protection money from Olympic Airlines, threatening to blow up the company’s airliners if the money was not paid. Onassis said he had reached an agreement with Hamshari and now needed $200,000 from the company’s funds to pay the first installment of the protection money. Onassis assured Georgakis that the subsequent installment payments would be arranged “off the books” and channeled through Onassis’s Panama corporations.

    Reluctantly, Georgakis agreed to provide the $200,000. He asked to be included in any future negotiations between Onassis and Hamshari, but Onassis assured him that the entire agreement had already been settled and that no further negotiations should occur.

    Onassis flew to New York with the $200,000 in cash. He put all the money into a shopping bag and gave it to his long-time chauffeur, Roosevelt Zanders, who personally delivered the money to someone in an apartment at United Nations Plaza. As instructed by Onassis, Zanders did not ask for a receipt for the money.

    To be continued.
    Continued from my previous comment at 7:08 a.m.

    =====

    In January 1954 Aristotle Onassis signed a secret agreement with Saudi Arabia’s finance minister. The agreement basically said that Onassis would provide Saudi Arabia with its own fleet of oil tankers. Saudi Arabia expected that its ownership of such a fleet would help that country to become independent of Western petroleum companies, to earn a fuller share of profits, and eventually to nationalize the entire industry on its territory. Onassis expected to earn hundreds of millions of dollars for his role in the arrangement.

    Despite the secrecy, however, the US Government soon learned of the deal and during the following months employed a variety of methods to undermine it. The US Justice Department found fault with Onassis’s past purchases of oil tankers and subsequently seized his tankers and also money he had earned from those tankers. In February 1954 the Justice Department arrested Onassis himself and charged him with criminal conspiracy to buy the tankers illegally. The State Department pressured the Saudi government to disassociate itself from Onassis. Arrangements were made for Peru to seize nine of Onassis’s whaling ships. One of Onassis’s business associates was pressured to sue Onassis for swindling him out of $200,000 and to accuse Onassis of paying a $350,000 bribe to the Saudi finance minister. Eventually in October 1954 King Saud decided not to assign the agreement, which therefore became void. All these developments almost bankrupted Onassis.

    Most of Onassis’s anger about the collapse of the Saudi deal was misdirected toward Robert Kennedy, who in 1954 was a 29-year-old attorney working on the staff of a Senate subcommittee. One of Kennedy’s investigations for the subcommittee had raised accusations about shipping business that some Greek companies conducted with Red China, but this issue did not involve Onassis in particular. Kennedy did not play any apparent role in the seizure of Onassis’s assets or in his arrest. The business associate who sued Onassis hired as an expert witness an accountant who had worked for Robert’s father Joseph Kennedy for many years, but that accountant had no direct association with Robert Kennedy himself.

    In fact Robert Kennedy had nothing at all to do with the US Government’s discovery of Onassis’s Saudi deal. The CIA station in Athens had been informed about it by another Greek shipper, Stavros Niarchos, who was Onassis’s brother-in-law (the two men were married to two sisters). Niarchos had heard about the deal from Onassis’s wife Tina, who was involved in a love affair with Niarchos.

    In order to protect the real source of its information, the CIA cleverly encouraged Onassis’s initial reaction that the deal had been exposed during Kennedy’s investigation of the Greek shippers who did business with Red China. For example, the accountant of Robert Kennedy’s father was apparently moved into and out of the lawsuit in order to inflame Onassis’s suspicions about Kenned’s role in the matter. Niarchos himself certainly collaborated in the continuing effort to divert Onassis’s anger away from himself and onto Kennedy. And in the following years Kennedy himself publicly criticized Onassis on many occasions, which further enraged Onassis.

    =====

    In the early 1960s Onassis became closely involved in several business enterprises with a fellow Greek ex-patriot, Spyros Skouras, who had immigrated to the United States in 1912. Skouras became a movie producer and during that career, he clashed angrily several times with Joseph Kennedy, who was also a movie producer. In May 1962 Skouras’s movie studio was losing millions of dollars in the filming of Cleopatra and Something’s Got to Give. The latter movie starred Marilyn Monroe, who was extraordinarily capricious and absent during the filming. In conversations with Onassis, Skouras blamed Monroe’s misbehavior on Robert Kennedy, her secret lover. Skouras knew about this affair (and about Monroe’s earlier affair with John Kennedy) and informed Onassis.

    Exasperated by the problems and losses caused by these two films, Skouras decided to leave the movie business and to establish a shipping business. Onassis invested $10 million in Skouras’s shipping business, which intended to introduce new loading and unloading technology that would require far fewer longshoremen. Because of this manpower issue, Onassis became involved in negotiations with Jimmy Hoffa, the chief of the Teamsters labor union and also a hater of Robert Kennedy, who was then the US Attorney General.

    During this same time, Onassis began a love affair with Lee Radziwill, the younger sister of Jacqueline Kennedy. Lee and her husband Prince Stanislas Radziwill were each divorced from previous spouses when they married each other, so they married in a civil wedding instead of a Roman Catholic wedding. Since John Kennedy was now President of the United States, Robert Kennedy used the family’s prestige to try to convince the Catholic Church to annul the Radziwills’ previous marriages. This effort (and the Kennedy family’s reputation) was endangered by publicity about Lee’s affair with Onassis, and so Robert Kennedy phoned Onassis directly and asked him to stay away from Lee. Onassis responded with the words, “Bobby, you and Jack fuck your movie queen [Monroe] and I’ll fuck my princess [Radziwill].” Onassis thus revealed to Robert Kennedy that he knew about the Kennedy-Monroe affairs, which were still very secret.

    Also during this same time, Hoffa learned (perhaps from Onassis) about the Kennedy brothers’ affairs with Monroe and so he bugged Monroe’s home and telephones to record related conversations. Through these recordings, Hoffa learned that Monroe and Robert Kennedy had met in Monroe’s home on August 4, 1962, a few hours before she died of an overdose and that some of Kennedy’s associates had subsequently entered her house during the period between her death and the notification of the police. Hoffa apparently hinted to Onassis about the existence of these tape recordings, since Onassis asked Monroe’s publicist whether he knew anything about them, offering to pay big money to buy them.

    =====

    During the following months Robert Kennedy communicated subtle threats in order to pressure Onassis to stay away from Lee Radziwill. The main thrust of these threats was that Kennedy would exploit his position as US Attorney General to cause legal problems for Onassis and his businesses. This pressure backfired, as Onassis arranged for Radziwill to live blatantly with him on his yacht. The feud escalated dramatically in September 1963, when Jackie herself also moved onto the yacht for a few weeks in order to convalesce from a miscarriage. Robert Kennedy responded by continuing his subtle threats against Onassis, and Onassis responded by seducing Jacqueline on the yacht.

    Refreshed by her affair with Onassis, Jacqueline returned to the White House. A few weeks later, on November 22, 1963, John Kennedy was assassinated. At Jacqueline’s invitation, Onassis came and stayed in the White House during the funeral days. Robert Kennedy confronted Onassis in the White House, and they eventually engaged in a ridiculous argument that embarrassed Onassis in front of the other guests. Kennedy wrote up a written statement for Onassis to sign, promising to donate half of his wealth to the poor, and Onassis signed the paper with Greek words that nullified the promise.

    In the months following the assassination, Jacqueline wanted to quickly marry Onassis, but this desire was discouraged by Robert Kennedy, who now headed the Kennedy family. Robert Kennedy managed to prevent the marriage as long as he lived. He was assassinated on June 5, 1968. Onassis then married Jacqueline on October 20.

    =====

    To be continued.
    Continued from my previous comments.

    =====

    In January 1968 David Karr arranged for Mahmoud Hamshari, also known as Dr. Michel Hassner, to be introduced to Aristotle Onassis. Karr introduced Dr. Michel Hassner to Onassis’s circle as an expert in aviation finance who would propose a restructuring of the debt of Onassis’s Olympic Airline. Eventually, Hamshari (aka Hassner), using money provided by Onassis, arranged for Sirhan Sirhan to assassinate Robert Kennedy.

    David Karr had known Onassis since 1956. Karr worked in many varied jobs during his life, but at that time he managed a public relations company that specialized in helping companies that were involved in proxy fights in corporate takeovers. It might be more accurate to say that Karr was specialized in performing dirty tricks for his clients. He collected and distributed (or threatened to distribute) scandalous information about his clients’ opponents. By 1967 Onassis was using Karr for a variety of secret tasks; in that year, for example, he asked Karr to ask Soviet officials about possibly supplying crude oil for a refinery he considered building near Athens. Onassis’s closest associates wondered about that assignment, because Karr had no expertise related to the petroleum business or to the Soviet Union. Onasssis’s trust in Karr was a mystery.

    At some point in his own past, while working as a movie producer in Hollywood, Karr had become acquainted with William Joseph Bryan, Jr., a local hypnotist. Bryan’s American Institute of Hypnosis treated people in the film industry for alcohol and drug additions, and he had served as the technical adviser on the filming of the movie The Manchurian Candidate. Karr gave Bryan’s phone number to Hamshari and advised him to visit Bryan. Karr later said he referred Hamshari to Bryan because Hamshari complained that he suffered headaches whenever he visited Los Angeles, which he did frequently during 1967 and 1968.

    ==============

    In the summer of 1979 Karr contacted Leslie Linder, a former movie agent, whom Karr had known while he worked in the movie business. Karr wanted Linder to represent his proposed memoirs, which would include a revelation that Onassis had played a key role in the assassination of Robert Kennedy. Linder was interested and scheduled another discussion of the proposal again with the added participation of Oscar Beuselinck, a London lawyer.

    In the meantime, Karr departed for a business meeting in Moscow, where he planned to open a big hotel. He remarked that he had all the evidence of the Onassis story in Paris, and he promised to call Linder and Beuselinck as soon as he returned from Moscow.

    Karr was found dead in his Paris apartment on the morning of July 7, 1979. He had a fractured larynx, and blood was found on his pillow. A forensic examination concluded he had died of a heart attack, but his widow Evia Karr and his business partner Ronnie Driver insist that Karr was murdered by agents of the Palestine Liberation Organization.

    Continued from my previous comments

    =====

    Mahmoud Hamshari was born in a village near Jaffa in 1939 and eventually became an important official in the Palestinian Fatah. In June 1967, following the Six-Day War, he attended a Fatah meeting in Damascus to discuss further strategy. The meeting’s participants represented a broad scope of attitudes within Fatah, and Hamshari appeared to be among the most aggressive. When he spoke, he focused his anger on US support of Israel and proposed actions that would attack the US. In particular, he proposed the Fatah “kill a high-profile American on American soil” in order to make the US “think twice about backing the Jews.”

    This proposal seemed to earn little explicit support at the meeting, so Hamshari then proposed that the organization greatly increase its fund-raising activities in the US, in order to manipulate the US to support the Palestinians too. Fatah apparently adopted this proposal and assigned Hamshari himself to implement it, operating under the supervision of Fatah’s intelligence chief, Abu Iyad (Salah Khalef). In the following months, Hamshari began to travel to Europe and the United States, using several false names, including Dr. Michel Hassner. Late in 1967 a Fatah official gave Hamshari a list of Palestinian immigrants living in Los Angeles. The list had been acquired from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which had records on the Sirhan family, then living in Los Angeles.

    =====

    In some unknown circumstances, Dr. Hassner (Hamshari) began to associate frequently with David Karr, a mysterious associate of Aristotle Onassis. Karr did not introduce Hassner to Onassis directly, but instead introduced him indirectly into Onassis’s nner circle as an investment consultant for Arab Bank, specializing in the restructuring of airline debts. Such expertise was of interest because Onassis’s Olympic airline was struggling with debts. A meeting between Hassner and Onassis was scheduled for a day in January 1968 in Paris, but Onassis left for Athens unexpectedly right before the meeting. Therefore Hassner met instead with several members of Onassis’s inner circle. The airline’s chief executive officer, Yannis Georgakis, was not informed about the meeting by Onassis and so did not participate.

    At this meeting, Hassner revealed to the group that he had been approached by a Palestinian terror group who demanded that the airline pay $350,000 to the group so that they not blow up bombs on Olympic airliners. Hassner said he was acting only as an honest broker, a facilitator, and did not know the identities of the terrorists, who had contacted him through the Palestine National Fund.

    After Onassis returned to Paris, he began to meet frequently in Paris with Hassner, the two alone. Between meetings, Hassner sometimes traveled to Los Angeles and back. Karr says that during this period he gave Hassner the phone number of a Los Angeles hypnotist named William Joseph Bryan, Jr.

    Georgakis, the CEO of Olympic, heard about Hassner for the first time in May 1968. He heard about him not from Onassis, but from a Mossad official stationed at the Israeli embassy in Paris. Onassis himself informed Georgakis about a week later, saying that he had already decided to pay $1.2 million (no longer just $350,000) to Hassner and that Georgakis should provide the first $200,000 in cash from Olympic funds. Georgakis complied, and Onassis subsequently flew with the cash to New York, where his chauffeur delivered it to an apartment at United Nations Plaza.

    =====

    To be continued.

    Allow me to conclude with one more passage.

    =====

    On the evening of June 4, 1968, an itinerant Christian preacher named Jerry Owen (he himself said) parked a horse trailer outside the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles, where Robert Kennedy’s campaign organization had scheduled its anticipated victory following the California primary elections. Later that night, Sirhan assassinated Kennedy in the hotel. The next day, Owen reported to the Los Angeles police that he had picked up Sirhan and a young woman hitchhiking on June 3. During the course of that meeting, Owen said, Sirhan had agreed to buy a horse from Owen on the night of June 4 in the hotel parking lot. That deal, explained Owen, was why he himself had parked his horse trailer in the parking lot and why Sirhan had four one-hundred-dollar bills in his pocket when he was arrested. Owen further surmised that Sirhan intended to use the horse trailer as a get-away vehicle.

    The Police basically dismissed Owen’s report as a publicity stunt. (In 1970 this incident was examined in a lawsuit that Owen filed against a television station. During that trial, several witnessed testified that Owen had become acquainted with Sirhan at the Corona race track, where on one occasion a few weeks before the assassination Owen had given Sirhan a large wad of cash)

    Immediately after he was arrested, Sirhan declared that “I did it for my country.” Within a few minutes, though, he began avoiding any discussion of his motive. He instead wanted to talk with the investigating policemen about Albert DeSalvo, the so-called Boston Strangler. Later, Sirhan claimed that he had no memory of anything about the assassination, about his intention, about his notebooks, or about the act itself. During his trial he reluctantly allowed his lawyers to construct a legal defense of diminished responsibility due to mental illness.

    Sirhan was not hypnotized by himself or anyone else in order to manipulate him to assassinate Robert Kennedy. Even without the hypnosis, Sirhan was willing and eager to assassinate Kennedy because of the latter’s support for Israel. The initial purpose of Sirhan’s self-hypnosis was to focus his mind and bolster courage for this difficult mission. Eventually, though, the hypnosis served also as a legal excuse to try to avoid execution. The notebook served as evidence that he was often in deep trances and so plausibly had no memory of the assassination. Also, the hypnosis deflected political blame from the Palestinian cause as Sirhan’s main motivation.

    Sirhan hoped that if he could avoid execution, then eventually he would be freed in a prisoner swap forced by Palestinian terrorists. He was sentenced to death, but later that sentence was commuted when the Supreme Court declared the death penalty to be unconstitutional.

    Sirhan mentioned Albert DeSalvo repeatedly in his notebooks and at the police station immediately after his arrest. DeSalvo had been hypnotized by a Los Angeles hypnotist named William Joseph Bryan. After he died in 1977, a couple of prostitutes whom he frequently hired told investigators that he sometimes bragged that he had hypnotized Albert DeSalvo and Sirhan Sirhan.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    I’ve read the book Nemesis that claims Onassis paid for the murder of Robert Kennedy. It also claims Onassis and Jacqueline agreed to marry on a cruise she took on Onassis’ yacht a few months before JFK was killed.

    The plan was when he either lost the 64 election or was re elected and his Presidency ended in January 69, she would divorce JFK for his numerous adulteries and marry Onassis.

    Who knows? It’s all enjoyable reading anyway.

    My favorite genres are political, spy, detective, financial corruption and historical thrillers.

    So I enjoy all the Kennedy conspiracy books.
    , @Mike Sylwester
    [It's not good commenting policy to produce a continuing series of lengthy totally unsourced excerpts, spread over series of different comments, which makes it difficult for others to avoid them. They have now been consolidated, but you should stop this sort of bad behavior.]
    , @Skeptikal
    re "the theory goes, the aim was to create a pretext for invading Cuba, "

    No. the motive was or would have been that Kennedy had vowed to "smash the CIA into a thousand pieces"---that is, to destroy the entity that was actually intent on taking over the govt. of the USA.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. ‘…Given this exceptional bond between the Kennedy brothers, what is the probability that the two Kennedy assassinations were unrelated? ‘

    On the face of it, the probability would be about the same as it would be if they hadn’t been particularly close.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Curmudgeon

    On the face of it, the probability would be about the same as it would be if they hadn’t been particularly close.
     
    Not so, I believe. What I find interesting is Nixon's observations, or perhaps cryptic messages, on both assassinations. Nixon was no real "friend" of Israel either. Recall the tape of his conversation with Billy Graham. Mark Felt, a Hoover insider and Jewish, was passed over by Nixon for top dog at the FBI, which was complicit in the coverup of both assassinations. Felt became Deep Throat and kept the pot boiling on Watergate. Could Tricky Dicky have been suspicious about the official narratives of the assassinations? Was Watergate a diversionary tactic?
    Nixon became, like Trump is now, surrounded by Israel firsters. The never-ending side show became the presidency and the election platform disappeared.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Heros says:

    “Did the Rothschilds kill the Kennedies” FIFY.

    They most certainly did. They stole US enriched plutonium and triggers for Israel’s continuing illegal nuclear weapons programs. They also whipped up the entire cold war and the Vietnam war as a cover for the genocide and theft of Palestine. They passed nuclear weapons research through jews like the Rosenbergs and Pollard to their other puppet, the USSR, so that the US and the entire planet could be kept under their strategy of tension while they set up the capital of the planet in Jerusalem.

    But that is all merely frosting on the cake. This family and its satellites started the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the US war of northern aggression, the Spanish-American war, WWI, WWII, the Korean War and is directly responsible for the never ending wars for Eretz Israel. With their Havara agreement, this family set up all the jews that it deemed racially inferior to suffer through WWII in Europe while it forced the National Socialists to set up training centers to train young Zionist Übermenschen in all facets of German technology before shipping them, with their belongings, tools and equipment to Palestine. It is also amazing that immediately after the war they twisted Germany’s arm into resuming the shipments of technology, power stations, trains and ships.

    Israel clearly is not a legal state in any sense of the word. It is the capital of by far the worlds largest crime syndicate. It is a scourge to all humanity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    ...while they set up the capital of the planet in Jerusalem.
     
    And while blaming Germany for wanting to control the world, a preternaturally preposterous proposition, but believed by the gulled masses to this day.
    , @Aardvark
    I had long thought the shareholders of the Federal Reserve (FR) were behind the assasination. Kennedy had signed the executive order to forbid the FR from charging interest on its fraud money. He had also proposed the issuance of United States Notes backed by silver. This would have denied the FR a lot of future income.
    Later events by Johnson surely indicated he was at least a water boy for the FR. Johnson went on to sign the coin act that removed silver from dimes and quarters and reduced the amount of silver in fifty cent coins. He also removed the gold cover requirement for Federal Reserve notes.
    At the very least there were two reasons to get rid of Kennedy; stop the Dimona project and remove jeopardy to FR income.
    , @vinteuil

    ...This family and its satellites started the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the US war of northern aggression, the Spanish-American war, WWI, WWII, the Korean War...
     
    Hmmm - sounds like a family of winners. So how do I sign up with them?
    , @Patricus
    A Jewish conspiracy set up the American revolution, the Civil War and all following wars? Extraordinary! Did they control Alexander and Caeser and Ghengis Khan?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Greg Bacon says: • Website

    Jack Ruby’s real name was Jacob Rubenstein, a Chosen One who participated in the horrendous murder of a beloved US president.

    If you read those CIA docs released last Fall, there was one page that specifically mentioned that Jews were involved in JFK’s murder.

    “We now have plenty of money–our new backers are Jews–as soon as we or (they) take care of Kennedy.”

    Go to page 64 of this file:

    https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32241845.pdf

    JFK had also told an aide that Israel would have the ‘bomb’ over his dead body. Well, Israel has the bomb and control of the USA, thanks to their murders of the Kennedy’s and the masterminding of the 9/11 False Flag.

    But if you point this out, you’ll get hit with a barrage of anti-Semite slurs, accusing one of being a neo-Nazi or worse, all the while never discussing what you just wrote.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    Very interesting. Here some more background information on this source:

    Homer Echevarria - Taking Care of Kennedy

    On November 21, 1963, a government informant named Thomas Mosley was negotiating the sale of machine guns to a Cuban exile named Echevarria. In the course of the transaction, Echevarria said that "we now have plenty of money - our new backers are Jews" and would close the arms deal "as soon as we [or they] take care of Kennedy." The next day, Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas.

    Mosley, an ATF informant, reported his conversation to the Secret Service, and that agency quickly began investigating what it termed "a group in the Chicago area who may have a connection with the JFK assassination." Echevarria was a member of the 30th November group, associated with the DRE with whom Oswald had dealings the previous summer. Mosley said the arms deal was being financed through Paulino Sierra Martinez and his J.G.C.E.--Sierra interestingly was connected to Bobby Kennedy's effort to unite various exile groups, through Harry Ruiz Williams.
     

    - https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Homer_Echevarria_-_Taking_Care_of_Kennedy.html Archived link: http://archive.is/BWfHF

    I have my own theory who killed JFK, and potentially RFK, since both Diem brothers were killed by the CIA probably on orders of JFK and potentially RFK.


    Might it be possible and conceivable, that President Kennedy was assassinated [on] the orders of Cardinal Spellman and the Catholic lobby as “revenge” for Diem’s assassination?
     
    - https://www.unz.com/article/was-vietnam-a-holocaust-for-zion/#comment-2280179
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. j2 says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    My interest in this is as the reader of a good thriller which I can excuse myself spending time on because it is just possible that I shall learn something about the real world including important levels of government. So... no dog in any fight. But I am alerted to conventional journalistic slickness by such foolishness as the snide and inaccurate statement that Alan Dershowitz is best known as counsel for Jonathan Pollard. Also the slippery statement that a connection between the two brothers' assassinations should be "assumed". (Obviously it is worth asking a few questions such as "could there be common motives but that sort of intelligent lateral thinking is not what the author was talking about).

    Arthur J. Schlesinger is mentioned so why not his careful journal re ord of what RFK had to say about his brother's assassination. A recent NYRB article suggests that, while he didn't think much of the Warren Commission's work, his suspicions only extended to Cuba and "gangsters".

    A recent TV series (not mentioned herw) using recently declassified material does strongly suggest that Oswald was relying for support on a group if fiercely anti-Castro Cubans who had been infiltrated by a Castro man. Not difficult to see why in the end he might have thought he was a patsy. Also there is no mention here of the at least plausible theory that the fatal bullet was one accidentally fired by a Secret Serviceman in the car behind.

    The total rubbish about JFK Jr's plane crash also serves to undermine credibility and support the view that this is written by someone suffering a severe case of confirmation bias.

    “A recent NYRB article suggests that, while he didn’t think much of the Warren Commission’s work, his suspicions only extended to Cuba and “gangsters”.”

    Cuba casinos and crime were run by Meyer Lansky. You immediately get the Israel connection as he was a great fried of Israel. Cuban gangsters are implied in the conspiracy to kill JFK, but that is a link to the theory of Piper. To find the high level perpetrators it is only enough to ask what important US politics changed when LBJ become the President. Towards Cuba or gangsters, no.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    My comment was about the author's failure to take account of one of tbe best sources for what RFK thought and proposed. Obviously that suggests the question whether it was sloppy research or dishonest suppression.

    As to your Meyer Lansky point you do not indicate whether you have any serious claim to knowing anything useful about him and/or his connection to Israel but surely it is rubbish to talk of his interest in Cuban casinos being relevant. Really!? In 1963? And anyway you would only be making sense if you were asserting - with reason - that RFK felt constrained to use to his friend Schlesinger "Cubans or gangsters" as code for Israel.
    Or, conceivably you think RFK didn't know what you know about the involvement of Israel but wanted a further inquiry which might have produced an embarrassing truth about Israel. Really?
    , @Jon Baptist
    Lansky killed Kennedy for Israel and for mob interests within the U.S. Knock off one president and reap multiple benefits. Lansky was a fanatical Zionist as well as a crime boss. The JFK hit is all about Permindex and the Lansky-Marcello connection.

    The following is from 'Final Judgement' by Michael Collins Piper. "Tibor Rosenbaum was one of the godfathers of the state of Israel and the first director for finance and supply for Israel's intelligence agency, the Mossad. Rosenbaum was a prime financial angel behind the Permindex corporation. His Swiss banking concern, the Banque De Credit International, also served as the chief European money laundry or the global crime syndicate of Miami-based crime chief Meyer Lansky."

    Yaras, a friend of Jack Ruby, was the hitman. Oswald was heavily intertwined as well.

    Lyndon Johnson must have completely known that the hit would take place because he immediately dropped all operations JFK implemented regarding Israel.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Thank you for not resorting to clickbait headlines.

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

    Did Israel kill the Kennedys? It is entirely possible. In fact, any conspiracy theory that links the murders that does not see the Israelis and American Jews involved is almost certainly a waste of time.

    But here is what is essential: if Israel and/or American Jews ‘did it,’ you can bet your every penny and the lives of your children, spouse, and siblings that America’s WASP Deep State was behind it all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cold N. Holefield

    you can bet your every penny and the lives of your children, spouse, and siblings that America’s WASP Deep State was behind it all.
     
    Certainly complicit. The article does seem to give a pass to the CIA, but if the CIA is everything it's cracked up to be, it had to know about this and the author even indicates some of its more influential agents were cooperative with Mossad so in the least it was compromised and therefore complicit in High Treason. If it didn't know, the CIA should have been abolished then & there but it certainly should be abolished now.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. Florin 74 says:

    read “Final Judgment” by Michael Collins Piper.

    Johnson’s involvement in the USS Liberty incident (an effort to lie us into a war for Israel) should not be viewed in isolation.

    http://americanfreepress.net/PDF/Final_Judgment.pdf

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  18. n230099 says:

    And then there’s another old take on the subject …’who cares as long as someone did?’

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. @Heros
    "Did the Rothschilds kill the Kennedies" FIFY.

    They most certainly did. They stole US enriched plutonium and triggers for Israel's continuing illegal nuclear weapons programs. They also whipped up the entire cold war and the Vietnam war as a cover for the genocide and theft of Palestine. They passed nuclear weapons research through jews like the Rosenbergs and Pollard to their other puppet, the USSR, so that the US and the entire planet could be kept under their strategy of tension while they set up the capital of the planet in Jerusalem.

    But that is all merely frosting on the cake. This family and its satellites started the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the US war of northern aggression, the Spanish-American war, WWI, WWII, the Korean War and is directly responsible for the never ending wars for Eretz Israel. With their Havara agreement, this family set up all the jews that it deemed racially inferior to suffer through WWII in Europe while it forced the National Socialists to set up training centers to train young Zionist Übermenschen in all facets of German technology before shipping them, with their belongings, tools and equipment to Palestine. It is also amazing that immediately after the war they twisted Germany's arm into resuming the shipments of technology, power stations, trains and ships.

    Israel clearly is not a legal state in any sense of the word. It is the capital of by far the worlds largest crime syndicate. It is a scourge to all humanity.

    …while they set up the capital of the planet in Jerusalem.

    And while blaming Germany for wanting to control the world, a preternaturally preposterous proposition, but believed by the gulled masses to this day.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Once this guy writes, “Given this exceptional bond between the Kennedy brothers, what is the probability that the two Kennedy assassinations were unrelated? Rather, we should start with the assumption that they are related. Basic common sense suggests that the Kennedy brothers have been killed by the same force, and for the same motives,” there is really no point in reading further. If his reasoning is so weak and silly as this, what confidence can a reader have in anything else he might come up with? Two women tried to kill Gerald Ford in 1975; does “basic common sense suggest” that they represented “the same force”? Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King were both killed in 1968; does that suggest their murders were related? This guy belongs on Infowars.

    Read More
    • Replies: @j2
    “Given this exceptional bond between the Kennedy brothers, what is the probability that the two Kennedy assassinations were unrelated?...If his reasoning is so weak and silly as this, what confidence can a reader have in anything else he might come up with?"

    I do not find it silly at all. Assuming that the Kennedys were close (which is most probably true), then if JFK was worried about Israel's atom bomb program, Robert almost certainly knew about it and shared JFK's opinion. He may not have known who was behind the JFK assassination, but he would very probably have opened the case. If the case is honestly studied, it is immediately seen as a conspiracy. I confirmed it easily to myself by analyzing the Dictabelt data: more than one shooter. As the likely culprit is very probably to be found by checking what changed in the US policy (and what changed was the US attitude to the Israel bomb), the argument of the article becomes quite strong: the purpose of the second assassination was very possibly to cover the first assassination. I find it purely logical, not silly.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Aardvark says:
    @Heros
    "Did the Rothschilds kill the Kennedies" FIFY.

    They most certainly did. They stole US enriched plutonium and triggers for Israel's continuing illegal nuclear weapons programs. They also whipped up the entire cold war and the Vietnam war as a cover for the genocide and theft of Palestine. They passed nuclear weapons research through jews like the Rosenbergs and Pollard to their other puppet, the USSR, so that the US and the entire planet could be kept under their strategy of tension while they set up the capital of the planet in Jerusalem.

    But that is all merely frosting on the cake. This family and its satellites started the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the US war of northern aggression, the Spanish-American war, WWI, WWII, the Korean War and is directly responsible for the never ending wars for Eretz Israel. With their Havara agreement, this family set up all the jews that it deemed racially inferior to suffer through WWII in Europe while it forced the National Socialists to set up training centers to train young Zionist Übermenschen in all facets of German technology before shipping them, with their belongings, tools and equipment to Palestine. It is also amazing that immediately after the war they twisted Germany's arm into resuming the shipments of technology, power stations, trains and ships.

    Israel clearly is not a legal state in any sense of the word. It is the capital of by far the worlds largest crime syndicate. It is a scourge to all humanity.

    I had long thought the shareholders of the Federal Reserve (FR) were behind the assasination. Kennedy had signed the executive order to forbid the FR from charging interest on its fraud money. He had also proposed the issuance of United States Notes backed by silver. This would have denied the FR a lot of future income.
    Later events by Johnson surely indicated he was at least a water boy for the FR. Johnson went on to sign the coin act that removed silver from dimes and quarters and reduced the amount of silver in fifty cent coins. He also removed the gold cover requirement for Federal Reserve notes.
    At the very least there were two reasons to get rid of Kennedy; stop the Dimona project and remove jeopardy to FR income.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Aardvark
    I meant to say stop Kennedy from halting the Dimona project.
    , @Cold N. Holefield

    He had also proposed the issuance of United States Notes backed by silver. This would have denied the FR a lot of future income.
     
    No, he did not. Your statement is not factually incorrect. It's indefensible. It further muddies already muddied water.

    Debunking the Federal Reserve
    Conspiracy Theories (and other financial myths)


    To understand exactly what Kennedy's order was trying to do, we must understand the purpose of the legislation which gave the order its underlying authority. The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 (ch. 25, 48 Stat 51) to which Kennedy refers permits the President to issue silver certificates in various denominations (mostly $1, $2, $5, and $10) and in any total volume so long as the Treasury has enough silver on hand to redeem the certificates for a specific quantity and fineness of silver and that the total volume of such currency does not exceed $3 billion. The Silver Purchase Act of 1934 (ch. 674,48 Stat 1178) also grants this power to the Treasury Secretary subject to similar limitations. Nowhere in the text of the order is a quantity of money mentioned, so it is unclear how Marrs arrived at his $4.2 billion figure. Moreover, the President could not have authorized such a large issue because it would have exceeded the statutory limit.2
    As economic activity grew in the fifties and sixties, the public demand for low denomination currency grew, increasing the Treasury's need for silver to back additional certificate issues and to mint new coins (dimes, quarters, half-dollars). However, during the late fifties the price of silver began to rise and reached the point that the market value of the silver contained in the coins and backing the certificates was greater than the face value of the money itself.2

    To conserve the Treasury's silver needs, the Silver Purchase Act and related measures were repealed by Congress in 1963 with Public Law 88-36. Following the repeal, only the President could authorize new silver certificate issues, and no longer the Treasury Secretary. The law, signed by Kennedy himself, also permits the Federal Reserve to issue small denomination bills to replace the outgoing silver certificates (prior to the act, the Fed could only issue Federal Reserve Notes in larger denominations). The Treasury's shrinking silver stock could then be used to mint coins only and not have to back currency. The repeal left only the President with the authority to issue silver certificates, however it did permit him to delegate this authority. E.O. 11,110 does this by transferring the authority from the President to the Treasury
    Secretary.2

    E.O. 11,110 did not create authority to issue new silver certificates, it only affected who could give the order. The purpose of the order was to facilitate the reduction of certificates in circulation, not to increase them. In October 1964 the Treasury ceased issuing them entirely. The Coinage Act of 1965 (PL 89-81) ended the practice of using silver in most U.S. coins, and in 1968 Congress ended the redeemability of silver certificates (PL 90-29). E.O. 11,110 was never reversed by President Johnson and remained on the books until 1987 when there was a general cleaning-up of executive orders (E.O. 12,608, 9/9/87). However, by this time the remaining legislative authority behind E.O. 11,110 had been repealed by Congress with PL 97-258 in 1982.2

    In summary, E.O. 11,110 did not create new authority to issue additional silver certificates. In fact, its intention was to ease the process for their removal so that small denomination Federal Reserve Notes could replace them in accordance with a law Kennedy himself signed. If Kennedy had really sought to reduce Federal Reserve power, then why did he sign a bill that gave the Fed still more power?
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Aardvark says:
    @Aardvark
    I had long thought the shareholders of the Federal Reserve (FR) were behind the assasination. Kennedy had signed the executive order to forbid the FR from charging interest on its fraud money. He had also proposed the issuance of United States Notes backed by silver. This would have denied the FR a lot of future income.
    Later events by Johnson surely indicated he was at least a water boy for the FR. Johnson went on to sign the coin act that removed silver from dimes and quarters and reduced the amount of silver in fifty cent coins. He also removed the gold cover requirement for Federal Reserve notes.
    At the very least there were two reasons to get rid of Kennedy; stop the Dimona project and remove jeopardy to FR income.

    I meant to say stop Kennedy from halting the Dimona project.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Miro23 says:

    It is the same Feinberg who, after the Democratic primaries in 1960, made the following proposal to Kennedy, as Kennedy himself later reported to his friend Charles Bartlett: “We know your campaign is in trouble. We’re willing to pay your bills if you’ll let us have control of your Middle East policy.”

    Whatever the details of the blackmail, Kennedy once confided to his assistant Hyman Raskin, as an apology for taking Johnson, “I was left with no choice […] those bastards were trying to frame me. They threatened me with problems and I don’t need more problems.”

    I wonder if Trump is confiding in anyone? If he is, it would be interesting to hear what he’s saying.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  24. @quasi_verbatim
    We all know that Jack and Bobby were killed by lone nutcases three years apart and there can't possibly be any connection between them. Stop messing about with the Official Narrative.

    “We all know that Jack and Bobby were killed by lone nutcases three years apart and there can’t possibly be any connection between them. Stop messing about with the Official Narrative.”

    Maybe the Magic Bullet got Bobby too.

    In any case, the involvement of Israel would explain why the complete JFK assassination files will never see the light of day. Even the CIA doesn’t have that kind of clout.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. @j2
    "A recent NYRB article suggests that, while he didn’t think much of the Warren Commission’s work, his suspicions only extended to Cuba and “gangsters”."

    Cuba casinos and crime were run by Meyer Lansky. You immediately get the Israel connection as he was a great fried of Israel. Cuban gangsters are implied in the conspiracy to kill JFK, but that is a link to the theory of Piper. To find the high level perpetrators it is only enough to ask what important US politics changed when LBJ become the President. Towards Cuba or gangsters, no.

    My comment was about the author’s failure to take account of one of tbe best sources for what RFK thought and proposed. Obviously that suggests the question whether it was sloppy research or dishonest suppression.

    As to your Meyer Lansky point you do not indicate whether you have any serious claim to knowing anything useful about him and/or his connection to Israel but surely it is rubbish to talk of his interest in Cuban casinos being relevant. Really!? In 1963? And anyway you would only be making sense if you were asserting – with reason – that RFK felt constrained to use to his friend Schlesinger “Cubans or gangsters” as code for Israel.
    Or, conceivably you think RFK didn’t know what you know about the involvement of Israel but wanted a further inquiry which might have produced an embarrassing truth about Israel. Really?

    Read More
    • Replies: @j2
    "As to your Meyer Lansky point you do not indicate whether you have any serious claim to knowing anything useful about him and/or his connection to Israel but surely it is rubbish to talk of his interest in Cuban casinos being relevant. Really!? In 1963? And anyway you would only be making sense if you were asserting – with reason – that RFK felt constrained to use to his friend Schlesinger “Cubans or gangsters” as code for Israel.
    Or, conceivably you think RFK didn’t know what you know about the involvement of Israel but wanted a further inquiry which might have produced an embarrassing truth about Israel. Really?"

    I recently bought a book about Lansky's Havana operations from Cuba. Before the revolution by Castro Lansky run the crime empire there. It is also written of his connections to Israel, which you can check even from Wikipedia. We all get our information from books and documents. This book was rather OK concerning facts. Lansky lost a lot when Castro came to power. In 1963 Lansky had a very good reason to want the USA to attack Cuba to gain his empire. Besides, he run the USA organized crime at that time and had reasons not to like Kennedys actions against organized crime.
    There is no reason for "Cubans and gangsters" to be a code word for Israel as Cubans and gangsters were almost certainly involved in the JFK assassination.

    I think Robert Kennedy did know of the Israel atom bomb project and he did not like it, same as JFK. Robert Kennedy probably did not know if Israel was involved in the JFK assassination but was going to investigate who was. It might have lead to Israel. There was this danger.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Not only did Israel kill JFK and RFK but they also killed JFKjr. with a bomb on his plane and the Israelis did 911 and by the way the Israeli attack on the USS LIBERTY where 34 dead and 174 were wounded in brutal attack on an American ship and every one of these diabolical act proved over and over again that Israel and the Zionists control America lock stock and gun barrel.

    America is an Israeli slavery colony and the America military is a proxy arm of the IDF to fight Israels wars .

    Read More
    • Troll: Wizard of Oz
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  27. This whole article on Israeli angle is simply preposterous.

    If the Dimona project was so crucial, there were numerous other options for Israel to try to persuade JFK to let them proceed with their project. To try to latch JFK’s supposedly adamant decision onto one or two documents is absurd: politicians frequently change their opinions & actions and there is no proof that JFK considered Dimona to be such a big deal, make-or-break of anything.

    Then, Israelis would, even if this were true, be more prone too blackmail JFK- mostly about his sexual escapades, or try to, say, eliminate him in a clandestine manner (poisoning or something similar).

    No, the JFK assassination was a public execution, a coup by the deep state (in modern parlance) in front of the whole world, the message being: we can do whatever we want & you can’t do anything about it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mike P
    Considering that you belong to the resident Hasbara brigade, your position fits well with the hypothesis of this piece - the "limited hang-out" of the U.S. "deep state" to cover up the Israeli connection.

    Dimona was clearly a major point of contention - and it is very unlikely that JFK would have aided and abetted the shenanigans surrounding the war of 1967. Israel had plenty of reason to do away with him.
    , @Laurent Guyénot
    Yes, the JFK assassination was a public execution, but why would that incriminate the deep state rather than Israel? I would rather think the opposite. I think you also miss a point that you could perhaps get by reading James Douglass: JFK considered it his most important task to abolish nuclear weapons. It was possible then. So it makes sense to believe that his determination to stop Dimona was very, very strong.
    , @renfro

    a coup by the deep state
     
    And who do you think the deep state is.
    , @Beefcake the Mighty
    The Tribe has spoken.
    , @annamaria
    "This whole article on Israeli angle is simply preposterous."
    -- It is not. People also remember the ziocons' thirst for the ongoing slaughter in the Middle East (on the US dime, of course). People have been observing the Lobby's bacchanalia of pernicious influence and the zionization of the US government and military. And people have been getting fed up with the holocaust biz (in the context of the ziocons' collaboration with neo-Nazis in eastern Europe and with ISIS in the Middle East). Your artificial state of Israel is a moral corpse.
    The slow, paralyzing death of Zionism: http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2018/06/razan-al-najjar-f-b-ali.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. vinteuil says:
    @Heros
    "Did the Rothschilds kill the Kennedies" FIFY.

    They most certainly did. They stole US enriched plutonium and triggers for Israel's continuing illegal nuclear weapons programs. They also whipped up the entire cold war and the Vietnam war as a cover for the genocide and theft of Palestine. They passed nuclear weapons research through jews like the Rosenbergs and Pollard to their other puppet, the USSR, so that the US and the entire planet could be kept under their strategy of tension while they set up the capital of the planet in Jerusalem.

    But that is all merely frosting on the cake. This family and its satellites started the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the US war of northern aggression, the Spanish-American war, WWI, WWII, the Korean War and is directly responsible for the never ending wars for Eretz Israel. With their Havara agreement, this family set up all the jews that it deemed racially inferior to suffer through WWII in Europe while it forced the National Socialists to set up training centers to train young Zionist Übermenschen in all facets of German technology before shipping them, with their belongings, tools and equipment to Palestine. It is also amazing that immediately after the war they twisted Germany's arm into resuming the shipments of technology, power stations, trains and ships.

    Israel clearly is not a legal state in any sense of the word. It is the capital of by far the worlds largest crime syndicate. It is a scourge to all humanity.

    …This family and its satellites started the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the US war of northern aggression, the Spanish-American war, WWI, WWII, the Korean War…

    Hmmm – sounds like a family of winners. So how do I sign up with them?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Heros
    Its actually quite easy. Promise your first born and swear complete and total obeisance, and you are in the club. But remember, never refuse to partake in the ceremonies and sacrifices. And don't ever even think about backing out of your oath to give up your first born, otherwise expect the same as what happened to Heath Ledger or Kurt Kobain.
    , @sarz

    Hmmm – sounds like a family of winners [-- the Rothschilds]. So how do I sign up with them?
     
    You might try posting on YouTube a clip of yourself torturing and then eating a blond haired child. Wearing a kippah and tefilim would be a plus.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. @j2
    "A recent NYRB article suggests that, while he didn’t think much of the Warren Commission’s work, his suspicions only extended to Cuba and “gangsters”."

    Cuba casinos and crime were run by Meyer Lansky. You immediately get the Israel connection as he was a great fried of Israel. Cuban gangsters are implied in the conspiracy to kill JFK, but that is a link to the theory of Piper. To find the high level perpetrators it is only enough to ask what important US politics changed when LBJ become the President. Towards Cuba or gangsters, no.

    Lansky killed Kennedy for Israel and for mob interests within the U.S. Knock off one president and reap multiple benefits. Lansky was a fanatical Zionist as well as a crime boss. The JFK hit is all about Permindex and the Lansky-Marcello connection.

    The following is from ‘Final Judgement’ by Michael Collins Piper. “Tibor Rosenbaum was one of the godfathers of the state of Israel and the first director for finance and supply for Israel’s intelligence agency, the Mossad. Rosenbaum was a prime financial angel behind the Permindex corporation. His Swiss banking concern, the Banque De Credit International, also served as the chief European money laundry or the global crime syndicate of Miami-based crime chief Meyer Lansky.”

    Yaras, a friend of Jack Ruby, was the hitman. Oswald was heavily intertwined as well.

    Lyndon Johnson must have completely known that the hit would take place because he immediately dropped all operations JFK implemented regarding Israel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @renfro

    Lansky killed Kennedy for Israel and for mob interests within the U.S
     
    Most likely
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. j2 says:
    @Tono Bungay
    Once this guy writes, "Given this exceptional bond between the Kennedy brothers, what is the probability that the two Kennedy assassinations were unrelated? Rather, we should start with the assumption that they are related. Basic common sense suggests that the Kennedy brothers have been killed by the same force, and for the same motives," there is really no point in reading further. If his reasoning is so weak and silly as this, what confidence can a reader have in anything else he might come up with? Two women tried to kill Gerald Ford in 1975; does "basic common sense suggest" that they represented "the same force"? Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King were both killed in 1968; does that suggest their murders were related? This guy belongs on Infowars.

    “Given this exceptional bond between the Kennedy brothers, what is the probability that the two Kennedy assassinations were unrelated?…If his reasoning is so weak and silly as this, what confidence can a reader have in anything else he might come up with?”

    I do not find it silly at all. Assuming that the Kennedys were close (which is most probably true), then if JFK was worried about Israel’s atom bomb program, Robert almost certainly knew about it and shared JFK’s opinion. He may not have known who was behind the JFK assassination, but he would very probably have opened the case. If the case is honestly studied, it is immediately seen as a conspiracy. I confirmed it easily to myself by analyzing the Dictabelt data: more than one shooter. As the likely culprit is very probably to be found by checking what changed in the US policy (and what changed was the US attitude to the Israel bomb), the argument of the article becomes quite strong: the purpose of the second assassination was very possibly to cover the first assassination. I find it purely logical, not silly.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Sympathy for the Zionists? ;-)

    “I shouted out, Who killed the Kennedys? When after all, it was you and me!”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cold N. Holefield
    Yeah, Mick, I killed JFK from my Mother's womb because, afterall, I am the Anti-Christ and the Anti-Christ doesn't let a little thing like a womb get in the way of what needs to be done.
    , @MacNucc11
    I always found that song interesting. But I always heard it as "I shouted out who killed the Kennedys." No question mark. He also says in the same song "I was there in St. Petersburg...I killed the Czar and his ministers, Anastasia screamed in vain. " I guess that would mean at least Mick Jagger and the Stones know who also killed the Kennedys since the singer of the song is the same killer of the Kennedys as the killer of the Czar and his ministers and family.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. @Biff

    Truman was hinting at the CIA’s role in toppling foreign governments and assassinating elected leaders abroad.
     
    Motive and the means to get it done. I always thought the CIA was suspect, but obviously there are more angles to the story. Good article.

    Biff wisely reflected: “I always thought the CIA was suspect, but obviously there are more angles to the story.”

    Hi Biff,

    This article author, Laurent Guyenot, did an admirable job at attempting to distance CIA involvement from Israeli intelligence, and the killing of JFK, pursuant coup, overturning a US election.

    Not so with author Peter Janney who wrote the terrific book, “Mary’s Mosaic.” He focused upon CIA James Jesus Angleton’s Israeli-cozy career & deadly pre/post assassination undertakings prior to November 23, 1963.

    F.y.i, Biff, perhaps you’re aware about the Fall 1964 murder (unsolved!) of Mary Pinchot Meyer, CIA Cord Meyer Jr.’ ex-wife and JFK flame?

    Unfortunately, Israeli interest & involvement in JFK’s killing escaped Peter Janney’s survey. Nonetheless, below is Mr. Janet’s very sound description about CIA Counterintelligence Chief James Angleton’s mad pursuit to locate & confiscate the diary of the dead, Mary Pinchot Meyer.

    Subsequently, I do not endorse a “Rush to Judgement” that exonerates the CIA from the treasonous Kennedy murders.

    Thanks a lot, Biff! Please refer to video below?

    Read More
    • Replies: @gsjackson
    I've often wondered to what extent the CIA is Zionized and acting in concert with Israel, and how long it has been that way. Anecdotally: I had two students at the University of Wisconsin who interviewed with the CIA. Both were NY Jews who ardently supported Israel, and I do mean ardently.

    This piece was an eye opener for me. I read all about Angleton in The Devil's Chessboard, but nothing about his connection with Israel. And LBJ a Jew??
    , @Laurent Guyénot
    I did not mean to exonerate the CIA. I tried to be as brief as I could, so I didn't get into the detail of CIA involvement. CIA had to be involved to some extent in order to be blackmailed into powerlessness. My point is that CIA was not the mastermind and I wanted to point out that the mainstream media were pointing to the CIA, which is in itself very significant: it is like when the mainstream media say "the CIA controls the media". I am actually inclined to agree with Gary Wean's thesis (as Piper seemed to do) that the CIA had planned a faked failed assassination coup to force JFK into acting against Castro, but was double-crossed. This fits the scenario which I also believe for 9/11. http://rockthetruth.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-911-triple-cross.html
    And I liked Janney's book.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. They threatened to assassinate 0bama if he got out of line:

    Atlanta Jewish Times featured a column by its owner-publisher suggesting that U.S.-based Israeli Mossad agents might someday need to “order a hit” on the president of the United States.

    http://original.antiwar.com/alison-weir/2012/01/24/israeli-assassinations-and-american-presidents/

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

    On Jan. 13 the Atlanta Jewish Times featured a column by its owner-publisher suggesting that Israel might someday need to “order a hit” on the president of the United States.
    In the column, publisher Andrew Adler describes a scenario in which Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu would need to “give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel.”
    The purpose? So that the vice president could then take office and dictate U.S. policies that would help the Jewish state “obliterate its enemies.”
    Adler wrote that it is highly likely that the idea “has been discussed in Israel’s most inner circles.”

    He threatened the fake Jews narrative on Hitler too:

    http://time.com/4711687/john-f-kennedy-diary-hitler/

    From JFK diary. The diary reveals that during his time in Berlin, Kennedy wrote about visiting Hitler’s bunker only months after Germany surrendered in the Second World War.
    “You can easily understand how that within a few years Hitler will emerge from the hatred that surrounds him now as one of the most significant figures who ever lived,” Kennedy wrote in his diary in 1945.
    “He had boundless ambition for his country which rendered him a menace to the peace of the world, but he had a mystery about him in the way he lived and in the manner of his death that will live and grow after him,” he added. “He had in him the stuff of which legends are made.”
    “The room where Hitler is supposed to have met his death showed scorched walls and traces of fire,” he wrote. “There is no complete evidence, however, that the body that was found was Hitler’s body.”
    “The Russians doubt that he is dead,” Kennedy added. JFK was visiting Europe after a stint in the Navy.

    Screwed up world we live in when these frauds are our #1 ally, according to the traitors in DC.
    We shoulda destroyed them after USS Liberty incident, 9/11 and the mass murder that followed would have been prevented.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  34. @Aardvark
    I had long thought the shareholders of the Federal Reserve (FR) were behind the assasination. Kennedy had signed the executive order to forbid the FR from charging interest on its fraud money. He had also proposed the issuance of United States Notes backed by silver. This would have denied the FR a lot of future income.
    Later events by Johnson surely indicated he was at least a water boy for the FR. Johnson went on to sign the coin act that removed silver from dimes and quarters and reduced the amount of silver in fifty cent coins. He also removed the gold cover requirement for Federal Reserve notes.
    At the very least there were two reasons to get rid of Kennedy; stop the Dimona project and remove jeopardy to FR income.

    He had also proposed the issuance of United States Notes backed by silver. This would have denied the FR a lot of future income.

    No, he did not. Your statement is not factually incorrect. It’s indefensible. It further muddies already muddied water.

    Debunking the Federal Reserve
    Conspiracy Theories (and other financial myths)

    [MORE]

    To understand exactly what Kennedy’s order was trying to do, we must understand the purpose of the legislation which gave the order its underlying authority. The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 (ch. 25, 48 Stat 51) to which Kennedy refers permits the President to issue silver certificates in various denominations (mostly $1, $2, $5, and $10) and in any total volume so long as the Treasury has enough silver on hand to redeem the certificates for a specific quantity and fineness of silver and that the total volume of such currency does not exceed $3 billion. The Silver Purchase Act of 1934 (ch. 674,48 Stat 1178) also grants this power to the Treasury Secretary subject to similar limitations. Nowhere in the text of the order is a quantity of money mentioned, so it is unclear how Marrs arrived at his $4.2 billion figure. Moreover, the President could not have authorized such a large issue because it would have exceeded the statutory limit.2
    As economic activity grew in the fifties and sixties, the public demand for low denomination currency grew, increasing the Treasury’s need for silver to back additional certificate issues and to mint new coins (dimes, quarters, half-dollars). However, during the late fifties the price of silver began to rise and reached the point that the market value of the silver contained in the coins and backing the certificates was greater than the face value of the money itself.2

    To conserve the Treasury’s silver needs, the Silver Purchase Act and related measures were repealed by Congress in 1963 with Public Law 88-36. Following the repeal, only the President could authorize new silver certificate issues, and no longer the Treasury Secretary. The law, signed by Kennedy himself, also permits the Federal Reserve to issue small denomination bills to replace the outgoing silver certificates (prior to the act, the Fed could only issue Federal Reserve Notes in larger denominations). The Treasury’s shrinking silver stock could then be used to mint coins only and not have to back currency. The repeal left only the President with the authority to issue silver certificates, however it did permit him to delegate this authority. E.O. 11,110 does this by transferring the authority from the President to the Treasury
    Secretary.2

    E.O. 11,110 did not create authority to issue new silver certificates, it only affected who could give the order. The purpose of the order was to facilitate the reduction of certificates in circulation, not to increase them. In October 1964 the Treasury ceased issuing them entirely. The Coinage Act of 1965 (PL 89-81) ended the practice of using silver in most U.S. coins, and in 1968 Congress ended the redeemability of silver certificates (PL 90-29). E.O. 11,110 was never reversed by President Johnson and remained on the books until 1987 when there was a general cleaning-up of executive orders (E.O. 12,608, 9/9/87). However, by this time the remaining legislative authority behind E.O. 11,110 had been repealed by Congress with PL 97-258 in 1982.2

    In summary, E.O. 11,110 did not create new authority to issue additional silver certificates. In fact, its intention was to ease the process for their removal so that small denomination Federal Reserve Notes could replace them in accordance with a law Kennedy himself signed. If Kennedy had really sought to reduce Federal Reserve power, then why did he sign a bill that gave the Fed still more power?

    Read More
    • Agree: Gordo
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Tyrion 2 says:
    @Hiram of Tyre
    Israel was created by the British oligarchs as a bridgehead in the Middle East. Furthering Israel was/is furthering the interests of those oligarchs (who ran the British Empire which morphed to the Anglo-American Empire). JFK was critical of Israel. If someone killed him, it the Anglo-American deep state. Israel likely pulled the trigger. Let’s remember what the fake father of Modern Zionism who admired Cecil Rhodes, Theodor Herl said:

    “England will get ten million agents for her greatness and influence."

    A parallel could also be established between the killing of JFK and the “Six-Day War” of 1967 ...

    In 1954, Israeli teamed with the Muslim Brotherhood to plant explosives in American and British offices to start a civil war to prompt the presence of British troops. The failed terror plot was known as the “Lavon Affair”.

    In 1956, Israel (supported by Britain and France) invaded Egypt to retake the Suez Canal nationalized by Nasser. Deterring Nasser who had crushed the Muslim Brotherhood (a British machination aimed at keeping Muslim nations backwards culturally and economically (https://bit.ly/2J06YDO)) was also another primary objective. Einsenhower was the one who tenaciously worked on removing Israel from Egypt but it didn’t come easy:

    1956-1957: England and France removed their troops following Einsenhower’s advise but Israel did not. As a result, Eisenhower joined the 75 countries at the UN General Assembly (February 1957) to pass a resolution against Israel’s occupation of Egyptian territory. Despite that, Israel still refused to remove its troops. It made Einsenhower reach out to the Congress but it was heavily bought out by Zionists and the end-result was to no avail.. When that failed, Einsenhower met with congressional leaders to gather support but even they were in support of Israel. Einsenhower then went on TV to make the case public. After which he threatened Israel with sanctions (including the $40M of tax deductible donations and $60M of private bonds). Making the case public and threatening economically worked - Israel withdrew its troops.

    The failed invasion was a major blow to Britain (who’s PM resigned) France and Israel (who destroyed everything on its way out).

    In spite of the mendacious narrative regurgitated in the West about the war of 1967, it was Israel who planned and attacked its neighbors. The seizing of the Golan Heights, the West Bank and Gaza were objectives Israel couldn’t achieve in 1948 and deterring Nasser, an objective failed in 1956. The only problem Israel had was: would another US President intervene. Norman Finkelstein, who’s research on 1967 is to date unchallenged successfully, showed that Israel sent diplomats to Washington

    • The U.S. agreed with Israel that Nasser had no plans to attack.

    • The U.S. agreed that Israel would easily defeat Egypt on the battlefield, either alone or with any combination of other Arab nations.

    • And the U.S. tacitly gave Israel permission to start the war, or at least indicated there would be no repeat of Eisenhower’s repudiation after the 1956 Suez invasion.

    http://mondoweiss.net/2017/06/provoked-fighting-survival/

    “No repeat of Einsehower’s repudication”.

    We all know who followed JFK. None other than absolute bent-over to Israel, Lyndon Johnson.


    ———


    If I could make a parallel on the Palestinians: it’s “interesting” how they always found themselves in the spotlight of major plots, killings and terror acts after the creation of the British Zionist State known as Israel. One has to only remember the airplane hijackings, Munich, etc. Coincidentally, most of those Palestinians were all led by the infamous Abu Nidal - who was never apprehended while the rest of the Palestinians were either killed or arrested.

    The case of 9/11 wasn’t any different. The five dancing Israelis, who were “documenting the event” from New Jersey proclaimed - while being arrested:

    “We are Israelis. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are your problem.”

    Ari Ben-Menashe, in his book “Profits of War : Inside the Secret U.S.-Israeli Arms Network” spoke of the CIA and the Mossad covertly training Palestinians in Yugoslavia to have them attack Western targets. The ultimate goal was to draw negative attention and sentiment against their cause.

    If I could make a parallel on the Palestinians: it’s “interesting” how they always found themselves in the spotlight of major plots, killings and terror acts after the creation of the British Zionist State known as Israel.

    But not 9/11…that was perpetrated by inconveniently Saudi terrorists hosted thousands of miles away from Palestine in Nowheresville, Afghanistan.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    A great place to run such an operation, no?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Great article. Well-researched and well-presented. It’s a convincing case. It reveals the CIA was compromised in favor of Israel. That was then and this is now.No doubt the Israeli termites have completely consumed the structure. I would have to imagine at this point the CIA is a dupe division of Mossad and it’s so inundated with Israeli Moles to rid the undemocratic organization of the infestation would be tantamount to playing whack-a-mole. The only option is to burn it to the ground. Destroy it, end it, and jail the majority of its members, past and present, for High Treason.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Them Guys
    I agree. And have come to the conclusion that, once one gets very jewized up and comprehends just how involved international jewry and its current political offspring of Zionists are, in so many events. That they really do represent also a true misfortune for the entire world of non jewish goyim.


    And furthermore, I have concluded that due to so many bad, wrong, evil ongoing events that are headed by or consist of an huge number of jews involved within them. That at this late date point in time, it would almost be better when discussing various past and current and even likely future events, as far as jewish involvments, to instead ask the question of...


    What Is there that history has proven as evil or wrong within such events, that jews have Not been involved in or with eh?


    Because the deeper you go into such events and infos, and ergo the longer back in past times one delves into such issues...The more one learns of a constant jewish involvement throughout history going back at least 3,500 yrs ago!.....35-Centuries so far, with most times each century getting worse and more evil due to their insidious craving of remaining stiff necked and stubborn, and always unwilling to repent or change period.


    And yes yes...I know there are a few so called good jews...But imho those good types number very very few when compared to jewry as a whole. For I consider their huge silent bunch of tribe members as willing accomplices, and based upon the ever ongoing group silence we see no matter which jews do wrongs and no matter how bad those wrongs are. No other logic nor sane conclusion can be had.


    And for immediate proof examples of how their majority tribe members always cover for, deny wrongs, toss out straw men, or simply revert to the time tested method of...Fully ignore all presented facts, and begin to use vile slanderous name calls of "Nazis" and "Antisemite" etc. One only need read any of the many articles here on This forum, as well as all other website forums that have become infested with Zionist jews and hasbara agents.


    And for these reasons one must also conclude is the main reason that every time jews get booted from another host nation, the entire bunch bar none get booted out. Yes that means those few good jews also get booted out, which some can argue is unfair...But after 109 host nations and around a total of 300+ boot outs since about 1800 yrs ago...Well one can also understand why a host nation, having no good method to determine accurately which are the few good ones, always ends up giving the big boot out to them all eh.


    And also one can conclude that most everything jews have complained about for that entire 3,500 years and still do today, has been caused by jews themselves by their own disgusting ways and traits and evil criminalities etc.....There simply would be zero so called antisemitism if there were zero jews within a nation period. But good luck in attempting to convince any jews of such truths.


    One of the very best and most accurate descriptions yet I have read or heard of regarding jewry and why they have been so despised by so many distinctly different groups of gentiles, and in so many different locations and in so many eras of time has to be what the new testament verses about them states...(Paraphraseing here) "For they are the adversaries of God and of All of Mankind"!


    That single short verse speaks volumes of past and present truths.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Thermonuclear Blackmail.

    One other purpose of Israeli nuclear weapons, not often stated, but obvious, is their “use” on the United States.

    THE THIRD TEMPLE’S HOLY OF HOLIES:
    ISRAEL’S NUCLEAR WEAPONS
    Warner D. Farr, LTC, U.S. Army
    The Counterproliferation Papers
    Future Warfare Series No. 2
    USAF Counterproliferation Center
    Air War College
    Air University
    Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama
    September 1999

    http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cpc-pubs/farr.htm

    Hansel and Gretel, open that oven door again, before the hook-nose witch eats any more of our children.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  38. @Seamus Padraig
    Sympathy for the Zionists? ;-)

    "I shouted out, Who killed the Kennedys? When after all, it was you and me!"
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzGFViwiUaA

    Yeah, Mick, I killed JFK from my Mother’s womb because, afterall, I am the Anti-Christ and the Anti-Christ doesn’t let a little thing like a womb get in the way of what needs to be done.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. prusmc says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz
    My interest in this is as the reader of a good thriller which I can excuse myself spending time on because it is just possible that I shall learn something about the real world including important levels of government. So... no dog in any fight. But I am alerted to conventional journalistic slickness by such foolishness as the snide and inaccurate statement that Alan Dershowitz is best known as counsel for Jonathan Pollard. Also the slippery statement that a connection between the two brothers' assassinations should be "assumed". (Obviously it is worth asking a few questions such as "could there be common motives but that sort of intelligent lateral thinking is not what the author was talking about).

    Arthur J. Schlesinger is mentioned so why not his careful journal re ord of what RFK had to say about his brother's assassination. A recent NYRB article suggests that, while he didn't think much of the Warren Commission's work, his suspicions only extended to Cuba and "gangsters".

    A recent TV series (not mentioned herw) using recently declassified material does strongly suggest that Oswald was relying for support on a group if fiercely anti-Castro Cubans who had been infiltrated by a Castro man. Not difficult to see why in the end he might have thought he was a patsy. Also there is no mention here of the at least plausible theory that the fatal bullet was one accidentally fired by a Secret Serviceman in the car behind.

    The total rubbish about JFK Jr's plane crash also serves to undermine credibility and support the view that this is written by someone suffering a severe case of confirmation bias.

    Johnson, IMHO, worst President in US history. HE DID MORE LASTING DAMAGE than even Obama. But the Kennedy myth is overdrawn. If JFK had lived he would have been reelected but not by a Johnsonian o landslide. Consequently, Congress would have kept him in check. If HHH had been his VP, Kennedy would have got less out of Congress than with Johnson ( who knew where the bodies were buried).
    The real tragedy is not that Kennedy was so good; it was that Johnson was so bad. Had Bobby won in 1968, he would have torn the country apart worse than Johnson. There are so many loose ends in this feature it is hard to find where to start. But it is clear that this person believes that for a few years we Americans had Gods living amongst us.
    The curse of the whole Kennedy family was raised by Teddy while successfully avoiding blame and guilt for Mary Jo’s unfortunate accident. However, the author brings the curse to life again while seeming to reject it concerning JFK, junior’s plane crash disappearance. Could pilot error by lack of experience and failure to heed weather forecast advice have had any role in this family’s continuing misadventures?
    Is there any explanation for anything negative happening to this clan that can not be blamed on Jews, right-wing extremists, Cosa Nostra, CIA, the Navy, military intelligence or talk radio?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. @Jake
    Did Israel kill the Kennedys? It is entirely possible. In fact, any conspiracy theory that links the murders that does not see the Israelis and American Jews involved is almost certainly a waste of time.

    But here is what is essential: if Israel and/or American Jews 'did it,' you can bet your every penny and the lives of your children, spouse, and siblings that America's WASP Deep State was behind it all.

    you can bet your every penny and the lives of your children, spouse, and siblings that America’s WASP Deep State was behind it all.

    Certainly complicit. The article does seem to give a pass to the CIA, but if the CIA is everything it’s cracked up to be, it had to know about this and the author even indicates some of its more influential agents were cooperative with Mossad so in the least it was compromised and therefore complicit in High Treason. If it didn’t know, the CIA should have been abolished then & there but it certainly should be abolished now.

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

    Who hasn’t been mentioned so far is the very beautiful and brilliant Mathilde Krim. Krim was LBJ’s mistress in the 1960s. She also just happened to be a fanatical supporter of the interests of Israel. In the late 1940s, she had been an active promoter of the Israeli terror group The Irgun. Mathilde was also most likely a Mossad agent with long-time contacts to the highest levels of the Israeli government.

    I would have loved to hear the “pillow talk” between these two total opposites: the incredibly crude, totally uncultured and flabby LBJ and the cultured, slim, sleek and highly educated Krim. You can bet that she was able to supply Israel with a constant supply of all sorts of top secret information that she was able to extract out of her bedmate. Maybe she also gave advice to LBJ about who exactly to assassinate or what transgressions by Israel for LBJ to ignore (like the USS Liberty attack).

    Mathilde Krim’s husband was the very wealthy Arthur Krim, one of the most powerful and active supporters of Israel in the USA. Mathilde Krim’s relationship with LBJ was most likely known about by her husband but was “overlooked” by him because of its huge value to Israel as both as a source of information as well as for its potential use as blackmail. (You can bet that somewhere in Israel is a vault full of movies taken of their bedroom activities.)

    The heads of MSM at the time apparently knew all about the relationship between Krim and LBJ but “wisely” chose to ignore it just as they had done for JFK and his affairs.

    You can also bet that Krim dropped her boyfriend LBJ like a hot potato once he left office and was no longer of use to her friends.

    Here is a highly sanitized Wikipedia entry about her: No mention is made of her “friendship” with LBJ.

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Laurent Guyénot
    Some sort of Queen Esther, then.
    , @chicken salad
    I should have mentioned that Jeff Gates goes into the LBJ/Krim relationship, NUMEC, McCain father and son, the USS Liberty, with a measure of Jeff Flake in his book. It bears rereading, now if only I can find it.
    , @Iris
    Thanks for highlighting this: same old methods.

    A less sanitized page about the Zionist Mata-Hari:
    http://michaelsantomauro.blogspot.com/2011/09/servicing-commander-in-chief.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. gsjackson says:
    @ChuckOrloski
    Biff wisely reflected: "I always thought the CIA was suspect, but obviously there are more angles to the story."

    Hi Biff,

    This article author, Laurent Guyenot, did an admirable job at attempting to distance CIA involvement from Israeli intelligence, and the killing of JFK, pursuant coup, overturning a US election.

    Not so with author Peter Janney who wrote the terrific book, "Mary's Mosaic." He focused upon CIA James Jesus Angleton's Israeli-cozy career & deadly pre/post assassination undertakings prior to November 23, 1963.

    F.y.i, Biff, perhaps you're aware about the Fall 1964 murder (unsolved!) of Mary Pinchot Meyer, CIA Cord Meyer Jr.' ex-wife and JFK flame?

    Unfortunately, Israeli interest & involvement in JFK's killing escaped Peter Janney's survey. Nonetheless, below is Mr. Janet's very sound description about CIA Counterintelligence Chief James Angleton's mad pursuit to locate & confiscate the diary of the dead, Mary Pinchot Meyer.

    Subsequently, I do not endorse a "Rush to Judgement" that exonerates the CIA from the treasonous Kennedy murders.

    Thanks a lot, Biff! Please refer to video below?

    https://youtu.be/PZjACabdnlE

    I’ve often wondered to what extent the CIA is Zionized and acting in concert with Israel, and how long it has been that way. Anecdotally: I had two students at the University of Wisconsin who interviewed with the CIA. Both were NY Jews who ardently supported Israel, and I do mean ardently.

    This piece was an eye opener for me. I read all about Angleton in The Devil’s Chessboard, but nothing about his connection with Israel. And LBJ a Jew??

    Read More
    • Agree: Mike P
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Anon[219] • Disclaimer says:

    This article is simply bizarre. If the CIA didn’t do it why is it still sanitizing the files 55 years later? Surely this article (which contains numerous basic errors (for example, there were never two entry wounds seen on the front of JFK’s body, only a neck wound) is either written by an ignorant hack or more likely a CIA hack’s imaginative narrative designed to confuse the idiots. For a start try the Kennedy and King website hosted by Jim D’Eugenio and spend a few years getting the facts before taking this rubbish seriously.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Slightmist
    From p.137 of DiEugenio's latest book:

    ...Tom Robinson of Gawler's Funeral Home, who helped pick up Kennedy's body from the autopsy room, says he saw a hole in Kennedy's right temple.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V73-unR1Rq4
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Heros says:
    @vinteuil

    ...This family and its satellites started the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the US war of northern aggression, the Spanish-American war, WWI, WWII, the Korean War...
     
    Hmmm - sounds like a family of winners. So how do I sign up with them?

    Its actually quite easy. Promise your first born and swear complete and total obeisance, and you are in the club. But remember, never refuse to partake in the ceremonies and sacrifices. And don’t ever even think about backing out of your oath to give up your first born, otherwise expect the same as what happened to Heath Ledger or Kurt Kobain.

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

    When Langley wants to take that CIA smell off their official line, they use a foreign source. Guyenot’s act is boilerplate disinfo, reinterpreting the obvious with double-reverse psychology.

    Like, Truman’s editorial, assiduously suppressed by Dulles himself, was a diabolical head-fake. And But but but no invasion of Cuba followed Kennedy’s assassination!! CIA framed Cuba not to justify an immediate attack on Cuba, but to force Warren to bend over for the official story. LBJ’s negotiation with Warren is a matter of historical record. He told Warren that if he didn’t stick with the official bullshit story, Cuba’s responsibility would lead to war entailing nuclear war with Russia.

    And more standard CIA argumentum ad ignorantiam: you don’t know who the CIA mastermind was, so it was Israel. You don’t know who the mastermind was because CIA flouts the JFK Assassination Records Collection Act.

    Guyenot applies Occam’s sledghammer to prove that it wasn’t the guys who had military, commercial, and criminal cutouts nationwide, extensive illegal domestic operations including blanket surveillance, arbitrary classification authority, and impunity in municipal law. It was Israel, who cleverly put one over on the dumb ol’ CIA, nyuk nyuk nyuk. And CIA couldn’t do nuthin’ about it. This is how stupid they think you are.

    JFK blah blah blah. CIA’s your CHEKA. They’ve ruled your country since inception. They kill and torture whoever they want. What are you gonna do about it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @MacNucc11
    Nice try but I am familiar with the false dichotomy or false dilemma. It has to be either Israel or the CIA. But of course it is both.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Sean says:

    Did Lee Harvey Oswald kill JFK? LHO was a devotee of Casto and when he visited the Cuban Consulate in Mexico and was denied permission to travel to Cuba Oswald stormed out. The Kennedys were trying to kill Castro, and Oswald,, who had narrowly missed killing Edwin Walker months before, and found himself in a job that provided a shot on the JFK parade route, killed JFK for his anti communism. Kennedy had almost taken the world to WW3 in the Cuba crisis, which was Nikita Khrushchev’s response to JFK’s insane revival of Eisenhower’s plan to give Germany a say in Nukes (to save the US taxpayer money basically). Perhaps it is just as well that Marine-trained rifleman Oswald put an end to Kennedy when he did.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ians
    Garbage. Oswald was impersonated in Mexico. He didn’t try to kill Walker.
    , @annamaria
    Please, stay on point. The US had had its certified Jewish Prez - the treacherous Truman - and the consequences have been disastrous for the US.
    , @MacNucc11
    Doesn't it seem odd that we actually know what happened when Oswald, a nobody, stopped by the consulate in Mexico and stormed out? How would this even be memorable to anyone? Just like filming him handing out fairness for Cuba pamphlets in New Orleans. Who would be filming this non event and why? This all was an attempt to make him a better patsy. Make everyone think something ridiculous. So what if he was a communist, which I do not believe, but so what? Does that mean every communist in this country had a motive to kill JFK? It is not like JFK would be the first target of a communist. That is almost as weak as the motive of anti-Castro Cubans. So JFK was not sufficiently anti Castro you have to kill him? It has to be the most laughable thing out there. Our government spooks could not kill Castro, but anti-Castro Cubans waltz in here and kill our president using a supposed Castro devotee. Or is it the anti-Castro Cubans were the ones so sophisticated that they set up the pro Castro Oswald? The various acceptable theories tend to rule each other out and are poor motive. I really don't think anyone had sufficient motive to target Kennedy based on his opinions on Castro.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. John, Robert and Ted Kennedy were all extremely friendly to Israel and extremely supportive of the interests of diaspora Jews.

    They led the Democratic Party away from the old-left emphasis on economic justice and peace, towards the new-left emphasis on issues of race and sex.

    They weakened the labor unions with their campaign against the Teamsters, they supported tax cuts for the very wealthy, their support for increased immigration was hostile to the economic interests of the American working class, and they supported an intensification of the cold war against the Soviet Union. They even knowingly lied about an imaginary “missile gap”, in order to present the Democratic Party as more hawkish than Eisenhower’s Republicans.

    The Kennedy brothers adopted this platform after the crucially important events of 1956-1957:

    In response to the Suez Crisis, Khrushchev’s Soviet Union definitively became the patron of Israel’s Arab enemies. Simultaneously, Khrushchev was overseeing a Thermidorian reaction against the excesses of early Bolshevism in eastern Europe. Stalin was denounced, Matyas Rakosi was exiled, Kaganovich was purged from the Politburo, Solzhenitsyn was released from the gulags, and the Hungarian counter-revolutionaries were treated less harshly than they would have been in the days of Lenin and Trotsky. A new Bukharinite, almost semi-nationalist, form of communism developed in eastern Europe – far less deadly, and with jobs and patronage more fairly distributed among the various ethnicities.

    In other words, Soviet communism was no longer “good for the Jews”. No longer were millions of counter-revolutionary “antisemites” being murdered. No longer were Jews massively over-represented in positions of power and prestige. And no longer was the Soviet Union a supporter of Zionism and Israel.

    Similarly, the rise of American Jews from the working class into the upper middle and wealthy classes, meant that domestically the American old-left economic policies such as progressive taxation and support for rogue unions such as the Teamsters, were no longer “good for the Jews”.

    In these circumstances, Eisenhower’s moves towards detente with the Soviet Union, insistence on Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai, support for immigration restriction (which prevented the migration into America of the Jewish former ruling class of communist eastern Europe – Kaganovich, Rakosi and hordes of lesser-known radical Bolsheviks, commissars and secret police agents), and even his continuation of FDR-era progressive taxation and public works projects, were seen as “bad for the Jews”, just as Kennedy’s exact opposite platform was seen as “good for the Jews”.

    Perhaps more significantly, the Eisenhower-Nixon cultural conservatism (praising Robert E. Lee as the greatest American who ever lived, expressing regret for having appointed Earl Warren to the Supreme Court, and living a chaste life of faithfulness to their wives) contrasted with the cultural radicalism of the Kennedy brothers (full support for the most radical elements of the civil rights movement, libertine personal lives filled with not-so-secret love affairs).

    Compared to what came before, JFK represented an assault on the ethnic self-respect of old-stock Americans and the cultural norms of traditional Christianity – to the delight of the Jewish movements examined in Kevin MacDonald’s Culture of Critique.

    Whatever personal animosity may have existed, in political terms LBJ was indistinguishable from the Kennedy brothers. He too was hostile towards the Soviet bloc, a friend of Israel, and supportive of the cultural left.

    Given this macro-historical background, I think the simplest explanations of the assassinations are correct, and the various convoluted conspiracy theories are incorrect.

    Lee Harvey Oswald was an old-left Marxist who saw JFK as an enemy, a traitor against the “true” left.

    Jack Ruby was a hyper-ethnocentric Jewish gangster who murdered Oswald to avenge the death of the Jewish people’s best friend.

    Sirhan Sirhan was a Palestinian nationalist.

    Conspiracy theorist are typically Kennedy sycophants who don’t like being reminded that their heroes were enemies of socialism, enemies of the long-suffering Palestinian people, and heroes to the likes of Jack Ruby.

    They’d prefer to believe that JFK and RFK were martyrs murdered by reactionary WASPs – but that is pure fantasy.

    Read More
    • Agree: David In TN
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    From one with no barrow to push: this is refreshingly sane.
    , @Anon
    I totally agree with you. That’s my take. Oswald the pro Castro life long communist worked right on the Kennedy parade route.

    Sirhan’s bother was killed by an Israeli bombing of a crowded intersection. His father was fired from a 25 year job with the City of Jerusalem with no pension. Family rental property was confiscated with no compensation

    When Sirhan was 4 armed Israeli soldiers invaded the family home and gave the family 1 hour to leave. No compensation of course. Family moved from a nice 10 room house to a pilgrims hostel run by the Greek Orthodox Church to which they belonged.

    Family ended up in Pasadena Ca. Summer of 1967 the papers were full of RFK’s promises to Israel. Sirhan believed those articles. So he shot that supreme scum bag RFK.

    RFK was absolutely into the Democrat party War on Whites. He was marching with Cesear Chavez and worshipped MLK. He persecuted, not prosecuted the White male Teamsters Union. Had he been elected he would have enforced affirmative action and pro Hispanic & pro black activism as eagerly as 2 other anti White Presidents, Johnson and Nixon did. RFK was pro black from the day his brother became president

    Personally, I don’t give a rats ass about who killed the pro Hispanic pro black enemy of Whites, RFK.

    , @chicken salad
    Well, I agree with Wiz and Anon, that your post is sane. What is obvious, however, is that you either haven't done your homework or are a sophisticated troll. James Douglas' JFK and the Unspeakable, which sums up decades of research is a good place to start. Peter Dale Scott's Deep Politics and the Death of JFK is also essential to get a sense of some of the moving parts and the need for humility, in approaching the matter.
    , @Beefcake the Mighty
    Although this is actually an insightful comment, you overlook the fact that Organized Jewry has no problem turning on former acolytes (even fellow Jews) who are not completely lockstep with the party line.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. I’m really beginning to wonder what Ron Unz is doing with his website. Last week we got that moronic article by 9/11 doucher David Lorimer, and now we are treated to a 10,000 word disquisition about how Israel assassinated the Kennedys—both of which articles are rather baseless canards but are deeply emotionally appealing to a certain coterie of contrarians and which are sure to attract (and have attracted) the most odious collection of commenters who are both uninterested in and oblivious to the the truth about any of it. Not only is it a frustrating exercise in futility to try to discuss anything with such people (their minds are closed not only with respect to the lunacy that they themselves believe but also with respect to what they assume you believe—they’ve already assigned you to a camp and will never allow you to depart from it), but also the subjects themselves have grown tiresome and tedious and are only anymore of interest to the very same propounders of revisionist idiocy who keep them alive with their siege mentality.

    What purpose can there be in publishing such articles other than to fuel the febrile files of this phantasist fringe? There is nothing here in the interests of truth; this is demagoguery and obscurantism of the worst sort. Articles like this are the intellectual equivalent of a plague bacillus, winding its way through human minds, putrefying and perverting all in its course. Such foul air requires a constant nosegay of truth to ward it off, and these flowers are in very short supply around here.

    I have no desire to defend the Jews, or Judaism, or Zionism, or the State of Israel, but the charges that they were involved with the Kennedy assassinations are completely without merit and ought to be repugnant to decent people. The fact that they were directly responsible for the attack on the USS Liberty is more than enough reason to despise the Israelis; they do not need to be beaten with every club or charged with every crime. To do so is vindictive and paranoid and shameful, and I cannot be sanguine about the motives of those who would whip themselves and others into such a frenzy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Laurent Guyénot
    Do you mean you believe that Oswald killed Kennedy?
    Or do you mean the question is irrelevant?
    I'm interested to know.
    , @SunBakedSuburb
    I agree with your assessment of the author's claim of Israeli involvement in the JFK/RFK assassinations. But ...

    "... the subjects themselves have grown tiresome and tedious ..."

    If political assassinations and shadowy conspiracies don't capture your imagination, your website must be "tiresome" and "tedious".
    , @James N. Kennett

    I’m really beginning to wonder what Ron Unz is doing with his website. Last week we got that moronic article by 9/11 doucher David Lorimer, and now we are treated to a 10,000 word disquisition about how Israel assassinated the Kennedys—both of which articles are rather baseless canards but are deeply emotionally appealing to a certain coterie of contrarians and which are sure to attract (and have attracted) the most odious collection of commenters who are both uninterested in and oblivious to the the truth about any of it.
     
    I would be disappointed if all the articles on unz.com were like this one; but it is better to have some articles that we might consider moronic, than to expect Ron Unz to personally arbitrate between fact and fiction on readers' behalf - as the NYT and WP do.

    There will always be boundaries on what can be published, and IMHO in most media the boundaries are far too narrow. It is better if the boundaries are over-broad than over-narrow. A possible downside with over-broad boundaries is that bad stories might "taint" good ones, by association; on the other hand, a narrow scope might be taken to imply that the publisher endorses each article.

    The same with commenters: IMHO it is better to have some that are odious, than to give moderators the job of removing any comments that could reasonably be considered offensive. It is not difficult to scan the comments and skip past the ones that are not informative.

    On the article itself, it did make us think about the headline question for half an hour - even if most of us agree that Betteridge's Law Of Headlines applies in this case. I looked up the JFK Jr case again, remembering the official story that his plane crashed into the sea during very heavy rain - only to find that this is not the official story at all (JFK Jr was supposedly disoriented by conditions that were merely hazy). So who spread the "heavy rain" story and why? And if the Israelis killed JFK Jr, should we remove his name from the "Clinton body count"?

    Nowadays we accept that Israel, India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons. It is worth remembering that in the sixties the Israeli nuclear weapons program was a shocking secret, and it remained so until 1986 when Mordechai Vananu told the story. JFK's opposition to Dimona, and the possible Israeli reaction to it, must be seen in this context.

    , @tac
    Why is it that when one reads your impetuously framed arguments, one comes to the almost universal consensus in which you are revealed as a sayanim agent? No matter whay you or your enclave of cohorts espouse it stands in stark contrast to the evidence at hand.

    Your BS strawmen arguments are an execrcise in futility...iow: most intelligent people recognize you and your poorly disguised Hasbara propaganda efforts as a clear fraud against plain common sense.

    IOW: your days are numbered .... and you should conern your efforts as to the best possible places to hide against what is coming for you .... hint: there will be NO place to hide! Keep at it thought, you've managed to solidify world public opinion against you .... we'll see how that works out for you in the end.
    , @vinteuil
    Since I'm out of the country, now, I don't seem to be able to avail myself of the "agree" button.

    So: agree (mostly).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Here’s Mathilde Krim with a soirée of Fine Folks to include LBJ & Lady Bird. She certainly made the rounds. Definitely an Intelligence Operative considering her prodigious network of contacts. A Cancer to Humanity. It reminds me of a scene from Rosemary’s Baby.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    "Definitely [sic] an intelligence operative considering her prodigious network of contacts". BS and blather and blithering nonsense. How about "Definitely a charity fund raising queen considering her prodigious network of contacts"? Or maybe "Definitely a political operator .... " or maybe just plain old busybody Eleanor Roosevelt?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Mike P says:
    @Bardon Kaldian
    This whole article on Israeli angle is simply preposterous.

    If the Dimona project was so crucial, there were numerous other options for Israel to try to persuade JFK to let them proceed with their project. To try to latch JFK's supposedly adamant decision onto one or two documents is absurd: politicians frequently change their opinions & actions and there is no proof that JFK considered Dimona to be such a big deal, make-or-break of anything.

    Then, Israelis would, even if this were true, be more prone too blackmail JFK- mostly about his sexual escapades, or try to, say, eliminate him in a clandestine manner (poisoning or something similar).

    No, the JFK assassination was a public execution, a coup by the deep state (in modern parlance) in front of the whole world, the message being: we can do whatever we want & you can't do anything about it.

    Considering that you belong to the resident Hasbara brigade, your position fits well with the hypothesis of this piece – the “limited hang-out” of the U.S. “deep state” to cover up the Israeli connection.

    Dimona was clearly a major point of contention – and it is very unlikely that JFK would have aided and abetted the shenanigans surrounding the war of 1967. Israel had plenty of reason to do away with him.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. “the bullet tested in laboratory to be compared to the the one extracted from Robert’s brain had not been shot by Sirhan’s revolver, but by another gun, with a different serial number; ”

    The author seems blankly ignorant of guns, apparently believing that a serial number can be determined from a bullet. He sounds as though he has some vague recollection that marking left by lands and grooves on bullets are unique to the gun firing them, and somehow confuses this with serial numbers. Amateurish research does not breed confidence in conclusions. Does he give a link to which labortory and its report?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Laurent Guyénot
    No, I am not that ignorant. Either I expressed myself poorly (English being not my native language), or you misunderstood. The serial number of the gun from which the test bullet was shot (as indicated on official report) is different from the serial number of Sirhan's gun (as indicated on another official report.
    , @Cold N. Holefield
    That's a good point but it still doesn't explain how Sirhan Squared fired the fateful shot from behind Kennedy when he was always in front of Kennedy.

    Fyi, I have always felt horrible for Sirhan Squared. So much so, I named my dog after him and it's a female dog. You should see the reaction when I take her to the vet and they ask her name and I say it's Sirhan Sirhan. The look is priceless. My next dog's name will be Jesus. I'm sure it will go over equally as well with the hoi polloi.

    Does anyone really believe that if a POTUS decided to eradicate Israel's nuclear weapons program and cut off all funding to Israel that said POTUS wouldn't be assassinated before he/she could make it happen? Trump has been egregiously disrespectful to the Intelligence Community and yet he's still alive, but what if Trump was egregiously disrespectful to Israel instead of kissing Israel's ass as the first Jewish POTUS that he is? What if Trump ended all American aid to Israel and went to the United Nations and put forth a resolution for Israel to eliminate its nukes because if Iran and North Korea and Ted Nugent can't have them, neither can Israel. If Trump got elected on such a platform, which he never would have by the way, he would have been assassinated before he or any POTUS could implement such a plan. Israel has made it clear many times over, it will do ANYTHING & EVERYTHING it has to do to protect itself existentially and I'm sure that includes assassinating the POTUS if need be and all else fails.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. @schrub
    Who hasn't been mentioned so far is the very beautiful and brilliant Mathilde Krim. Krim was LBJ's mistress in the 1960s. She also just happened to be a fanatical supporter of the interests of Israel. In the late 1940s, she had been an active promoter of the Israeli terror group The Irgun. Mathilde was also most likely a Mossad agent with long-time contacts to the highest levels of the Israeli government.

    I would have loved to hear the "pillow talk" between these two total opposites: the incredibly crude, totally uncultured and flabby LBJ and the cultured, slim, sleek and highly educated Krim. You can bet that she was able to supply Israel with a constant supply of all sorts of top secret information that she was able to extract out of her bedmate. Maybe she also gave advice to LBJ about who exactly to assassinate or what transgressions by Israel for LBJ to ignore (like the USS Liberty attack).

    Mathilde Krim's husband was the very wealthy Arthur Krim, one of the most powerful and active supporters of Israel in the USA. Mathilde Krim's relationship with LBJ was most likely known about by her husband but was "overlooked" by him because of its huge value to Israel as both as a source of information as well as for its potential use as blackmail. (You can bet that somewhere in Israel is a vault full of movies taken of their bedroom activities.)

    The heads of MSM at the time apparently knew all about the relationship between Krim and LBJ but "wisely" chose to ignore it just as they had done for JFK and his affairs.

    You can also bet that Krim dropped her boyfriend LBJ like a hot potato once he left office and was no longer of use to her friends.

    Here is a highly sanitized Wikipedia entry about her: No mention is made of her "friendship" with LBJ.

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

    Some sort of Queen Esther, then.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Gordo
    I belive the term used by those in the know is 'hadass' although that meaning of the word has been efficiently scrubbed from the internet
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. @Intelligent Dasein
    I'm really beginning to wonder what Ron Unz is doing with his website. Last week we got that moronic article by 9/11 doucher David Lorimer, and now we are treated to a 10,000 word disquisition about how Israel assassinated the Kennedys---both of which articles are rather baseless canards but are deeply emotionally appealing to a certain coterie of contrarians and which are sure to attract (and have attracted) the most odious collection of commenters who are both uninterested in and oblivious to the the truth about any of it. Not only is it a frustrating exercise in futility to try to discuss anything with such people (their minds are closed not only with respect to the lunacy that they themselves believe but also with respect to what they assume you believe---they've already assigned you to a camp and will never allow you to depart from it), but also the subjects themselves have grown tiresome and tedious and are only anymore of interest to the very same propounders of revisionist idiocy who keep them alive with their siege mentality.

    What purpose can there be in publishing such articles other than to fuel the febrile files of this phantasist fringe? There is nothing here in the interests of truth; this is demagoguery and obscurantism of the worst sort. Articles like this are the intellectual equivalent of a plague bacillus, winding its way through human minds, putrefying and perverting all in its course. Such foul air requires a constant nosegay of truth to ward it off, and these flowers are in very short supply around here.

    I have no desire to defend the Jews, or Judaism, or Zionism, or the State of Israel, but the charges that they were involved with the Kennedy assassinations are completely without merit and ought to be repugnant to decent people. The fact that they were directly responsible for the attack on the USS Liberty is more than enough reason to despise the Israelis; they do not need to be beaten with every club or charged with every crime. To do so is vindictive and paranoid and shameful, and I cannot be sanguine about the motives of those who would whip themselves and others into such a frenzy.

    Do you mean you believe that Oswald killed Kennedy?
    Or do you mean the question is irrelevant?
    I’m interested to know.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    Yes, I believe that Oswald killed Kennedy. I have no reasonable doubt that Oswald alone fired the fatal shot.

    I also believe that the question, while certainly not irrelevant, is little thought of by most people today and would not affect their lives one way or the other. This is not to say that truth should not be investigated and justice done whenever possible. Falsehoods of any sort should be brought to light and expunged from the historical record, for there is no telling what damage an error may do even long after the fact. However, in the first place, I do not think that the historical record has enshrined any major errors in the case of the Kennedys; and in the second place, the fervency with which the contrarians (and they alone) continue to revive this long-buried topic does not savor of an honest pursuit of truth. I gather they would not be satisfied even if all the world were converted to their opinion.

    They have some sort of an agenda. What it is varies from case to case and is not something I'm willing to speculate upon. But this sort of crusading over the meaning of an historical event is never anything but a quest for political power in the present moment, and is usually driven not by any coherent ideology but by the sheer passion for revenge. The willingness of so many revisionists to make saints out of the Kennedys---which on any objective reading they clearly were not---is by itself sufficient to discover the all-too-human wellsprings of their motivation. You have a beef with Israel, with the CIA, with Lyndon Johnson, with the whole American Deep State. I get that; I'm no fan of these people, either. But I'm not going to pervert my entire view of history so as to cast them in the role of the eternal villain. Self-deception is not only bad for your psychological health, it's also very politically inexpedient. You will never accomplish anything by this method. Just imagine the dismay that will come upon you if, peradventure, you happen to have a real shot at gaining some actual power and then you realize that your only friends and compatriots are the unreliable fruit loops who've been yup-yupping your articles these past years. A lot of help they're going to be.

    The assertion that Israel had anything to do with assassinating either Kennedy brother is just not true. It is falsehood and lies and intellectual pollution. The reverence for such a belief belongs as a sub-genre of postmodern urban mysticism and religious occultism, along with the belief that the CIA planted explosives in the World Trade Center.
    , @Mulegino1
    Of course he does. He is part of that dwindling demographic which believes whatever they are told by the kosher mainstream media, i.e., CBS, Time Magazine, CNN, MSNBC, Newsweek, Fox, the History Channel, NBC, ABC, etc. There may be variations, but the narrative remains within the acceptable kosher parameters.

    An individual who believes in the official version of 9/11 will have no trouble at all believing in the "lone nut" theory of Oswald or Sirhan. For want of a better term, I would call it "Mainstream Delusionism." It affects all of those who choose to accept the bogus liberal/conservative bifurcation of mainstream politics here in the US.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. Well researched and written article! Additional and further research is needed in the following possibilities raised by the people living outside of the US in 1960’s:
    1. JFK’s opposition to the planning of Israelis initiating a war against the Arab states in 1967
    2. Killing 2 birds with one shot by falsely accusing an Arab for killing RK before he reopens the assassination case of his brother
    3. Destruction of the world media from the 1967 war to the assassination of RK
    4. Involvement of LBJ in both assassinations since he is a Zionist from his mother side

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    You lose all credibility for anything sensible you might say when you spout such tendentious rubbish as "he is[sic] a Zionist from his mother [sic] side". You presumably are confusing the Orthodox criterion for someone to be a Jew with the choice a person makes to be a Zionist (for which you don't even have to be a Jew come to think of it). It's even sillier than people saying Rupert Murdoch is a Jew because a great or great great grandmother may have been Jewish.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. @Bardon Kaldian
    This whole article on Israeli angle is simply preposterous.

    If the Dimona project was so crucial, there were numerous other options for Israel to try to persuade JFK to let them proceed with their project. To try to latch JFK's supposedly adamant decision onto one or two documents is absurd: politicians frequently change their opinions & actions and there is no proof that JFK considered Dimona to be such a big deal, make-or-break of anything.

    Then, Israelis would, even if this were true, be more prone too blackmail JFK- mostly about his sexual escapades, or try to, say, eliminate him in a clandestine manner (poisoning or something similar).

    No, the JFK assassination was a public execution, a coup by the deep state (in modern parlance) in front of the whole world, the message being: we can do whatever we want & you can't do anything about it.

    Yes, the JFK assassination was a public execution, but why would that incriminate the deep state rather than Israel? I would rather think the opposite. I think you also miss a point that you could perhaps get by reading James Douglass: JFK considered it his most important task to abolish nuclear weapons. It was possible then. So it makes sense to believe that his determination to stop Dimona was very, very strong.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    Because local Jews & pro-Israel bunch are not equivalent to "deep state". It is true that Zionist Jews are now more influential than ever, but they do not "own" US nor direct most currents of US policy. Being 2% of US population, Jews are perhaps 20-25% among American elites (which, evidently, is not the majority), and most of them are liberals who are not involved in shaping of American middle east politics. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld.... were/are American imperialists, and not some Jewish puppets.

    As regards Kennedy, it is true that he had strong positions re nuclear weapons, but, having in mind huge arsenals of US & Soviet Union, and smaller ones of Britain, China..- Israel's nuclear program was not considered to be something spectacularly important, especially at that stage. It is bizarre to consider that Israelis would even think of, let alone try to execute US president, just because he gave them slap on the wrist at some point.

    And, in 1963, Zionist Jews (and all US Jews) were much less influential then today, after 5 decades that have, beginning with counter-cultural 60s, multiculturalism & Vietnam war, transformed US beyond recognition. Back in 50s/early 60s they had just wanted to assimilate into society as quickly as possible & minimize traces of their ethnic identity, while Israel was a schnorrer, beggar economy trying to survive & keep a low profile.

    That Golda Meir or Ben Gurion would even contemplate anything similar is simply weird: https://www.haaretz.com/.premium-golda-meir-had-doubts-on-kennedy-death-1.5292291
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. @Frederick V. Reed
    "the bullet tested in laboratory to be compared to the the one extracted from Robert’s brain had not been shot by Sirhan’s revolver, but by another gun, with a different serial number; "

    The author seems blankly ignorant of guns, apparently believing that a serial number can be determined from a bullet. He sounds as though he has some vague recollection that marking left by lands and grooves on bullets are unique to the gun firing them, and somehow confuses this with serial numbers. Amateurish research does not breed confidence in conclusions. Does he give a link to which labortory and its report?

    No, I am not that ignorant. Either I expressed myself poorly (English being not my native language), or you misunderstood. The serial number of the gun from which the test bullet was shot (as indicated on official report) is different from the serial number of Sirhan’s gun (as indicated on another official report.

    Read More
    • Replies: @gsjackson
    Thanks for a very interesting, thought-provoking piece. On the English language thing, editing alert: Check the headline. For proper name plurals you don't change y to ie.
    , @Biff
    I might be mistaken but I heard that the bullet to the head of Robert Kennedy was a 38 caliber(.357), and I’m almost positive the gun that the assassin used was 22 caliber.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. Thank you Laurent Guyénot. This is a long(ish) article, and obviously complex.

    So, in breaking down this theory, one must first admit, in light of what is known of the Kennedy assassinations, consideration of the Torah-Pharisees-Talmud international collective as a potential prime operative, is reasonable, based on the prime-facia motives.
    Specifically:
    1. the intention of registering the American Zionist Council (AZC subsequently AIPAC) as a “foreign agent” subject to the obligations defined by the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938
    2. the Kennedy’s determination to stop Israel [secretly, like many things] developing its own nuclear bomb
    3. Kennedy committed … … to support UN Resolution 194 for the right of return of Palestinian refugees

    Anybody familiar with the trends of the last 200 years of the activities and well-[self]-published political motivations of Torah-Pharisees-Talmud international collective, notably pro-zionists and their leading spokes people, would be aware that each one of the listed intentions, if validated, would be considered ample justification for another political assassination, from such an extremist ideological perspective.

    The thornier, but potentially more revealing issue is capability.
    But one must ask oneself, who in the world, could have the capability to kill a sitting U.S. president and a leading presidential nominee?

    In consideration of this question, one can greatly reduce the number of potential suspects, since the range is extremely small, and I would suggest, probably included the collaboration of several of the very few limited candidates.

    For example, does anyone think that the Soviet Union could possibly have managed this alone, or even more ridiculously, Fidel Castro?!

    I personally think it at least on the verge of absurd.

    Capability continued…

    Frequently, I find myself drawn back to Gilad Atzmons excerpt from testimony, as expert witness on Jewish Identity politics, at ‘hate crime” trial of Arthur Topham 20151108-20151109
    Sourced originally at: http://blog.balder.org/?p=1673

    “When we criticise Jewish politics (Israel, Zionism, the Lobby etc’) some Jews are “racially offended” in spite of the fact that race, biology, blood or ethnicity was never mentioned. When we criticise Jewish racism some Jews hide behind the argument that we are criticizing their religion. When we occasionally criticise the religion or some obscene Jewish religious teaching we are quick to learn that Jews are hardly religious anymore (which is true by the way). The meaning of it is simple, yet devastating. The Jewish triangle makes it very difficult, or even impossible to criticise Jewish politics, ideology and racism because the Identity is set as a field with a tri-polar gravity centre. The identity morphs endlessly. The contemporary 3rd category (political) Jew is everywhere and nowhere simultaneously, this is the quantum mechanics that is set to suppress any possible criticism.”

    But most particularly, “…Jew is everywhere and nowhere simultaneously, this is the quantum mechanics that is set to suppress… .””

    I am also reminded of Noam Chompsky’s model (explanation), as described in Manufacturing Consent for what he describes as a passive media skewing mechanism (my words), along the lines of, systemically, many slight slanted/nudged editorial decisions, which aggregated, may well completely distort an accurate picture of events.

    By not being able to identify one clear, discrete actor/provocateur, the system, the way it operates, will be incapable of actually making a determination and assignment of cause.

    Now, if one followed a operational model of negative sum gain gaming of systems to always gain advantage, one might have identified this weakness in the system, and employed a quantum-mechanics like distribution of a fifth column in the system to effect the political change one desired.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    This is also the Japanese system btw.

    It's a pre-Enlightenment system that does not believe in the primacy of logic.

    This way of thinking is not only truer but an immense advantage over people's who believe in the artificial distinctions of logic which really falsify and simplify reality.
    , @renfro

    like distribution of a fifth column in the system to effect the political change one desired.
     
    Excellent comment.....and the distribution of a fifth column in the system is the 'deep state'......all the other "special interest" are quite open and on display.
    The Jewish/Israeli special interest/deep state is also visible to those who look ...but is denied, protected by congress and tries to punish any one who points it out.

    If congress and the Jews/Israelis efforts to criminalize and fine private businesses for boycotting Israel ......a direct violation of constitutional rights...didnt wake people up ...then nothing will.

    I predicted years ago that their next step would be to try to breech our constitution and now they have.....I wrongly thought people would rise up against this when it happened.....but too many people either asleep at the wheel or too stupid to understand its ramifications.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. @Frederick V. Reed
    "the bullet tested in laboratory to be compared to the the one extracted from Robert’s brain had not been shot by Sirhan’s revolver, but by another gun, with a different serial number; "

    The author seems blankly ignorant of guns, apparently believing that a serial number can be determined from a bullet. He sounds as though he has some vague recollection that marking left by lands and grooves on bullets are unique to the gun firing them, and somehow confuses this with serial numbers. Amateurish research does not breed confidence in conclusions. Does he give a link to which labortory and its report?

    That’s a good point but it still doesn’t explain how Sirhan Squared fired the fateful shot from behind Kennedy when he was always in front of Kennedy.

    Fyi, I have always felt horrible for Sirhan Squared. So much so, I named my dog after him and it’s a female dog. You should see the reaction when I take her to the vet and they ask her name and I say it’s Sirhan Sirhan. The look is priceless. My next dog’s name will be Jesus. I’m sure it will go over equally as well with the hoi polloi.

    Does anyone really believe that if a POTUS decided to eradicate Israel’s nuclear weapons program and cut off all funding to Israel that said POTUS wouldn’t be assassinated before he/she could make it happen? Trump has been egregiously disrespectful to the Intelligence Community and yet he’s still alive, but what if Trump was egregiously disrespectful to Israel instead of kissing Israel’s ass as the first Jewish POTUS that he is? What if Trump ended all American aid to Israel and went to the United Nations and put forth a resolution for Israel to eliminate its nukes because if Iran and North Korea and Ted Nugent can’t have them, neither can Israel. If Trump got elected on such a platform, which he never would have by the way, he would have been assassinated before he or any POTUS could implement such a plan. Israel has made it clear many times over, it will do ANYTHING & EVERYTHING it has to do to protect itself existentially and I’m sure that includes assassinating the POTUS if need be and all else fails.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    ... the first Jewish POTUS that he is?
     
    PTI, but just wanted to make a quick observation. Is it just me or have others noticed that there have been quite a number of Presidents upon whom this honorary title has been bestowed, including:

    LBJ
    Ronald Reagan
    Barack Obama
    Donald Trump

    (Bill Clinton and George W Bush should receive honorary mention).

    Now, back to regularly scheduled programming.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Arnieus says:

    Not Israel exactly but the banker clans that created Israel with US wealth and still own monopolies in banking, media, and drugs legal and illegal. Kennedy was put in office because they thought he was just a skirt chasing son of a bootlegger that would not interfere with the Globalist agenda. Kind of like Bill Clinton. Then he starts talking about “secret societies” and backing off the constant war agenda. And he fostered a trusting relationship with Russia, trying to really be president. He is the last one to try that.

    Read More
    • Troll: Wizard of Oz
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  60. Great article. Just wanted to mention that Jeff Gates’ Guilt by Association corroborates the author’s thesis.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Laurent Guyénot
    I'll check that book. Thanks.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. @John Gruskos
    John, Robert and Ted Kennedy were all extremely friendly to Israel and extremely supportive of the interests of diaspora Jews.

    They led the Democratic Party away from the old-left emphasis on economic justice and peace, towards the new-left emphasis on issues of race and sex.

    They weakened the labor unions with their campaign against the Teamsters, they supported tax cuts for the very wealthy, their support for increased immigration was hostile to the economic interests of the American working class, and they supported an intensification of the cold war against the Soviet Union. They even knowingly lied about an imaginary "missile gap", in order to present the Democratic Party as more hawkish than Eisenhower's Republicans.

    The Kennedy brothers adopted this platform after the crucially important events of 1956-1957:

    In response to the Suez Crisis, Khrushchev's Soviet Union definitively became the patron of Israel's Arab enemies. Simultaneously, Khrushchev was overseeing a Thermidorian reaction against the excesses of early Bolshevism in eastern Europe. Stalin was denounced, Matyas Rakosi was exiled, Kaganovich was purged from the Politburo, Solzhenitsyn was released from the gulags, and the Hungarian counter-revolutionaries were treated less harshly than they would have been in the days of Lenin and Trotsky. A new Bukharinite, almost semi-nationalist, form of communism developed in eastern Europe - far less deadly, and with jobs and patronage more fairly distributed among the various ethnicities.

    In other words, Soviet communism was no longer "good for the Jews". No longer were millions of counter-revolutionary "antisemites" being murdered. No longer were Jews massively over-represented in positions of power and prestige. And no longer was the Soviet Union a supporter of Zionism and Israel.

    Similarly, the rise of American Jews from the working class into the upper middle and wealthy classes, meant that domestically the American old-left economic policies such as progressive taxation and support for rogue unions such as the Teamsters, were no longer "good for the Jews".

    In these circumstances, Eisenhower's moves towards detente with the Soviet Union, insistence on Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai, support for immigration restriction (which prevented the migration into America of the Jewish former ruling class of communist eastern Europe - Kaganovich, Rakosi and hordes of lesser-known radical Bolsheviks, commissars and secret police agents), and even his continuation of FDR-era progressive taxation and public works projects, were seen as "bad for the Jews", just as Kennedy's exact opposite platform was seen as "good for the Jews".

    Perhaps more significantly, the Eisenhower-Nixon cultural conservatism (praising Robert E. Lee as the greatest American who ever lived, expressing regret for having appointed Earl Warren to the Supreme Court, and living a chaste life of faithfulness to their wives) contrasted with the cultural radicalism of the Kennedy brothers (full support for the most radical elements of the civil rights movement, libertine personal lives filled with not-so-secret love affairs).

    Compared to what came before, JFK represented an assault on the ethnic self-respect of old-stock Americans and the cultural norms of traditional Christianity - to the delight of the Jewish movements examined in Kevin MacDonald's Culture of Critique.

    Whatever personal animosity may have existed, in political terms LBJ was indistinguishable from the Kennedy brothers. He too was hostile towards the Soviet bloc, a friend of Israel, and supportive of the cultural left.

    Given this macro-historical background, I think the simplest explanations of the assassinations are correct, and the various convoluted conspiracy theories are incorrect.

    Lee Harvey Oswald was an old-left Marxist who saw JFK as an enemy, a traitor against the "true" left.

    Jack Ruby was a hyper-ethnocentric Jewish gangster who murdered Oswald to avenge the death of the Jewish people's best friend.

    Sirhan Sirhan was a Palestinian nationalist.

    Conspiracy theorist are typically Kennedy sycophants who don't like being reminded that their heroes were enemies of socialism, enemies of the long-suffering Palestinian people, and heroes to the likes of Jack Ruby.

    They'd prefer to believe that JFK and RFK were martyrs murdered by reactionary WASPs - but that is pure fantasy.

    From one with no barrow to push: this is refreshingly sane.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cloak And Dagger

    From one with no barrow to push
     
    LOL! Why would anyone not believe you to be a dispassionate observer without Israeli loyalties?
    , @anon

    From one with no barrow to push......
     
    the more you say that the less i believe you
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. j2 says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    My comment was about the author's failure to take account of one of tbe best sources for what RFK thought and proposed. Obviously that suggests the question whether it was sloppy research or dishonest suppression.

    As to your Meyer Lansky point you do not indicate whether you have any serious claim to knowing anything useful about him and/or his connection to Israel but surely it is rubbish to talk of his interest in Cuban casinos being relevant. Really!? In 1963? And anyway you would only be making sense if you were asserting - with reason - that RFK felt constrained to use to his friend Schlesinger "Cubans or gangsters" as code for Israel.
    Or, conceivably you think RFK didn't know what you know about the involvement of Israel but wanted a further inquiry which might have produced an embarrassing truth about Israel. Really?

    “As to your Meyer Lansky point you do not indicate whether you have any serious claim to knowing anything useful about him and/or his connection to Israel but surely it is rubbish to talk of his interest in Cuban casinos being relevant. Really!? In 1963? And anyway you would only be making sense if you were asserting – with reason – that RFK felt constrained to use to his friend Schlesinger “Cubans or gangsters” as code for Israel.
    Or, conceivably you think RFK didn’t know what you know about the involvement of Israel but wanted a further inquiry which might have produced an embarrassing truth about Israel. Really?”

    I recently bought a book about Lansky’s Havana operations from Cuba. Before the revolution by Castro Lansky run the crime empire there. It is also written of his connections to Israel, which you can check even from Wikipedia. We all get our information from books and documents. This book was rather OK concerning facts. Lansky lost a lot when Castro came to power. In 1963 Lansky had a very good reason to want the USA to attack Cuba to gain his empire. Besides, he run the USA organized crime at that time and had reasons not to like Kennedys actions against organized crime.
    There is no reason for “Cubans and gangsters” to be a code word for Israel as Cubans and gangsters were almost certainly involved in the JFK assassination.

    I think Robert Kennedy did know of the Israel atom bomb project and he did not like it, same as JFK. Robert Kennedy probably did not know if Israel was involved in the JFK assassination but was going to investigate who was. It might have lead to Israel. There was this danger.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Well you have just proved what a hopeless amateur you are as conspiracy theorist and as analyst.

    What you have now shown is all you dredged up about Meyer Lansky is a million miles from proving that he had sufficient reason to murder Kennedy. To make any sense of your bizarre notion of cause and effect and of motive you would have to suppose that a US President could be expected to look after the Cuban interests of a known criminal even going to the extent of using US armed forces to do it. Specifically your barmy idea entails that Lansky had a communications conduit to LBJ and thought he had obtained assurance from Johnson that the US would go to war to overthrow Castro and restore an American criminal's casino. Pathetic.

    There is indeed no need for "Cubans or gangsters" to be code for "Israel" but again you have shot yourself in the foot by your missing the point completely. My obvious point, which you managed to get confused about, was that Bobby Kennedy had no reason not to mention Israel to his confidant Schlesinger so his use of the words "Cubans" and "gangsters" meant that he didn't have Israel in mind...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. @Monty Ahwazi
    Well researched and written article! Additional and further research is needed in the following possibilities raised by the people living outside of the US in 1960’s:
    1. JFK’s opposition to the planning of Israelis initiating a war against the Arab states in 1967
    2. Killing 2 birds with one shot by falsely accusing an Arab for killing RK before he reopens the assassination case of his brother
    3. Destruction of the world media from the 1967 war to the assassination of RK
    4. Involvement of LBJ in both assassinations since he is a Zionist from his mother side

    You lose all credibility for anything sensible you might say when you spout such tendentious rubbish as “he is[sic] a Zionist from his mother [sic] side”. You presumably are confusing the Orthodox criterion for someone to be a Jew with the choice a person makes to be a Zionist (for which you don’t even have to be a Jew come to think of it). It’s even sillier than people saying Rupert Murdoch is a Jew because a great or great great grandmother may have been Jewish.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Murdoch’s maternal grandfather was a Rabbi. That makes him and his mother Jewish. And I doubt a rabbi’s daughter would raise her children completely no Jewish whether religuous or tribal ethnic Jewish.
    , @Monty Ahwazi
    Wiz of Oz,
    Are you a troll or a Zionist sympathizer? Giving birth by a Zionist the child is a Zionist or Zionist sympathizer even if he or she doesn’t acknowledge it! This can go back as far as 7 generations if you really like to know!
    Your comments are worthless indicating you have nothing to say or to add to the subject matter! Bye!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. renfro says:
    @Bardon Kaldian
    This whole article on Israeli angle is simply preposterous.

    If the Dimona project was so crucial, there were numerous other options for Israel to try to persuade JFK to let them proceed with their project. To try to latch JFK's supposedly adamant decision onto one or two documents is absurd: politicians frequently change their opinions & actions and there is no proof that JFK considered Dimona to be such a big deal, make-or-break of anything.

    Then, Israelis would, even if this were true, be more prone too blackmail JFK- mostly about his sexual escapades, or try to, say, eliminate him in a clandestine manner (poisoning or something similar).

    No, the JFK assassination was a public execution, a coup by the deep state (in modern parlance) in front of the whole world, the message being: we can do whatever we want & you can't do anything about it.

    a coup by the deep state

    And who do you think the deep state is.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Interesting and well-researched article, but ultimately, as commenter Wizard of Oz notes, it serves the author’s “confirmation bias.”

    Behind the JFK and RFK assassinations is the Allen Dulles gang: Richard Helms, David Atlee Phillips, and James Jesus Angleton. It is true, as the author notes, that Angleton had deep ties with Mossad. It is also true that since the end of the second world war, Israeli skullduggery in the US and Europe has been massive. But these two political murders were planned and executed by the above Dulles cabal.

    Oswald was a CIA asset since his time as Marine serving at the US Atsugi base in Japan. Researcher HP Albarelli connects Oswald to right-wing Agency operative and pedophile David Ferrie as far back as the early 1950s. Oswald was also part of Angleton’s false defector program, which inserted him into the USSR in the late 1950s.

    The grooming and handling of Sirhan Sirhan in California in the mid 1960s speaks of a well-entrenched domestic network of CIA assets. He was picked for patsydom for a number reasons, and Angleton, again, a prince of an ally for Mossad, liked Sirhan’s Palestinian background, which amped up the Arab threat, in the eyes of the US audience, to his Israeli friends. The author is correct that Thane Caesar was the real assassin of RFK. Previous to the RFK hit, Caesar work for the Hughes corporation in Burbank. The sprawling Howard Hughes business empire had served as a CIA cover since the 1950s.

    Why would the Dulles gang want to murder the Kennedy brothers? JFK: revenge for the Bay of Pigs betrayal and the subsequent firing of Dulles. RFK: a man who worked closely with the Agency in the early 1960s on the Castro project. David Talbot’s book Brothers, referenced by the author, makes clear that RFK had an absolutely clear conception of who killed his brother. There was no way he was going to reach the White House.

    Both brothers also sought to wind down the profitable war in Vietnam. RFK was especially vocal about his goal of ending the war on the’68 campaign trail. And then there’s Richard Nixon: a national security state favorite since his time as congressman during the so-called Red Scare of the early 195os, Nixon was their favored candidate in the ’68 election. RFK’s death sealed the deal for Nixon. Nixon would go on to incur the wrath of his former national security state allies with his secret negotiations with China and the USSR while president. Because of his previous good works for them, a political death was arranged rather than a violent physical one.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Red Scare?? If you can’t read any of the numerous books written about the Verona Papers and Soviet KGB archives opened after 1990, at least ask Mr. Google about them.

    Both archives reveal that the HUAC and McCarthy & FBI investigations show that there were many, many more Soviet spies entrenched in the federal government during and after the FDR administration that the HUAC & McCarthy investigations ever revealed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. renfro says:
    @Jon Baptist
    Lansky killed Kennedy for Israel and for mob interests within the U.S. Knock off one president and reap multiple benefits. Lansky was a fanatical Zionist as well as a crime boss. The JFK hit is all about Permindex and the Lansky-Marcello connection.

    The following is from 'Final Judgement' by Michael Collins Piper. "Tibor Rosenbaum was one of the godfathers of the state of Israel and the first director for finance and supply for Israel's intelligence agency, the Mossad. Rosenbaum was a prime financial angel behind the Permindex corporation. His Swiss banking concern, the Banque De Credit International, also served as the chief European money laundry or the global crime syndicate of Miami-based crime chief Meyer Lansky."

    Yaras, a friend of Jack Ruby, was the hitman. Oswald was heavily intertwined as well.

    Lyndon Johnson must have completely known that the hit would take place because he immediately dropped all operations JFK implemented regarding Israel.

    Lansky killed Kennedy for Israel and for mob interests within the U.S

    Most likely

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. @Laurent Guyénot
    Do you mean you believe that Oswald killed Kennedy?
    Or do you mean the question is irrelevant?
    I'm interested to know.

    Yes, I believe that Oswald killed Kennedy. I have no reasonable doubt that Oswald alone fired the fatal shot.

    I also believe that the question, while certainly not irrelevant, is little thought of by most people today and would not affect their lives one way or the other. This is not to say that truth should not be investigated and justice done whenever possible. Falsehoods of any sort should be brought to light and expunged from the historical record, for there is no telling what damage an error may do even long after the fact. However, in the first place, I do not think that the historical record has enshrined any major errors in the case of the Kennedys; and in the second place, the fervency with which the contrarians (and they alone) continue to revive this long-buried topic does not savor of an honest pursuit of truth. I gather they would not be satisfied even if all the world were converted to their opinion.

    They have some sort of an agenda. What it is varies from case to case and is not something I’m willing to speculate upon. But this sort of crusading over the meaning of an historical event is never anything but a quest for political power in the present moment, and is usually driven not by any coherent ideology but by the sheer passion for revenge. The willingness of so many revisionists to make saints out of the Kennedys—which on any objective reading they clearly were not—is by itself sufficient to discover the all-too-human wellsprings of their motivation. You have a beef with Israel, with the CIA, with Lyndon Johnson, with the whole American Deep State. I get that; I’m no fan of these people, either. But I’m not going to pervert my entire view of history so as to cast them in the role of the eternal villain. Self-deception is not only bad for your psychological health, it’s also very politically inexpedient. You will never accomplish anything by this method. Just imagine the dismay that will come upon you if, peradventure, you happen to have a real shot at gaining some actual power and then you realize that your only friends and compatriots are the unreliable fruit loops who’ve been yup-yupping your articles these past years. A lot of help they’re going to be.

    The assertion that Israel had anything to do with assassinating either Kennedy brother is just not true. It is falsehood and lies and intellectual pollution. The reverence for such a belief belongs as a sub-genre of postmodern urban mysticism and religious occultism, along with the belief that the CIA planted explosives in the World Trade Center.

    Read More
    • Troll: tac
    • Replies: @Laurent Guyénot
    The assertion that Oswald alone killed Kennedy is just not true. It is falsehood and lies and intellectual pollution.
    , @renfro

    The assertion that Israel had anything to do with assassinating either Kennedy brother is just not true. It is falsehood and lies and intellectual pollution
     
    No one but a Jew and/or Israel supporter would make that statement.
    , @Bardon Kaldian

    Yes, I believe that Oswald killed Kennedy. I have no reasonable doubt that Oswald alone fired the fatal shot.
     
    Very, very unlikely. It is doubtful that he fired any shot.
    , @Anon
    Does your post have anything to do with your disbelief in Darwin and evolution and the Bible history that goes back to God’s creation of the world 6,000 years ago?
    , @Beefcake the Mighty
    “Yes, I believe that Oswald killed Kennedy. I have no reasonable doubt that Oswald alone fired the fatal shot.”

    You mean the magic bullet?
    , @tac
    Isn't it just sooo convenient that you along with your host of sayanim obfuscating agents show up in droves attempting to derail the discussion of the COMMON DENOMINATOR in most of these cases: the Zionist Jew assasins!

    In similar fashion you and your Hasbara crew came out in the most recent 9/11 article featured on UR with your faux theories--in an attempt to direct the blame AWAY from Israel. Your methods are transparent by now for those who see them clearly and have lost any traction as a consequence, akin to the antisemitic and holohaux$$ card. It is simply a matter of time before the tables turn .... the worlwide blowback you terroists have created will be interesting to watch as it will galvanize much of the world against you in the end .... I would not want to be in your shoes at the present time.

    Falsehoods of any sort should be brought to light and expunged from the historical record
     
    ....except when they originate from the terrorist state of Israel??!! What a hypocrite you are...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. ians says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    My interest in this is as the reader of a good thriller which I can excuse myself spending time on because it is just possible that I shall learn something about the real world including important levels of government. So... no dog in any fight. But I am alerted to conventional journalistic slickness by such foolishness as the snide and inaccurate statement that Alan Dershowitz is best known as counsel for Jonathan Pollard. Also the slippery statement that a connection between the two brothers' assassinations should be "assumed". (Obviously it is worth asking a few questions such as "could there be common motives but that sort of intelligent lateral thinking is not what the author was talking about).

    Arthur J. Schlesinger is mentioned so why not his careful journal re ord of what RFK had to say about his brother's assassination. A recent NYRB article suggests that, while he didn't think much of the Warren Commission's work, his suspicions only extended to Cuba and "gangsters".

    A recent TV series (not mentioned herw) using recently declassified material does strongly suggest that Oswald was relying for support on a group if fiercely anti-Castro Cubans who had been infiltrated by a Castro man. Not difficult to see why in the end he might have thought he was a patsy. Also there is no mention here of the at least plausible theory that the fatal bullet was one accidentally fired by a Secret Serviceman in the car behind.

    The total rubbish about JFK Jr's plane crash also serves to undermine credibility and support the view that this is written by someone suffering a severe case of confirmation bias.

    The nonsensical assertion that it was an accidental bullet from a Secret Service man was debunked long ago.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Debunked? Where? How? By whom? I ask because I'm interested to know. It didn't seem nonsensical as presented by the former Australian policeman Colin McLaren (from memory) and it made sense of a lot of the mishandling of evidence. Mind you one would have thought that RFK might have mentioned it as a possibility if it hadn't been effectively obscured by the Secret Service.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Gordo says:
    @Laurent Guyénot
    Some sort of Queen Esther, then.

    I belive the term used by those in the know is ‘hadass’ although that meaning of the word has been efficiently scrubbed from the internet

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. geokat62 says:
    @Cold N. Holefield
    That's a good point but it still doesn't explain how Sirhan Squared fired the fateful shot from behind Kennedy when he was always in front of Kennedy.

    Fyi, I have always felt horrible for Sirhan Squared. So much so, I named my dog after him and it's a female dog. You should see the reaction when I take her to the vet and they ask her name and I say it's Sirhan Sirhan. The look is priceless. My next dog's name will be Jesus. I'm sure it will go over equally as well with the hoi polloi.

    Does anyone really believe that if a POTUS decided to eradicate Israel's nuclear weapons program and cut off all funding to Israel that said POTUS wouldn't be assassinated before he/she could make it happen? Trump has been egregiously disrespectful to the Intelligence Community and yet he's still alive, but what if Trump was egregiously disrespectful to Israel instead of kissing Israel's ass as the first Jewish POTUS that he is? What if Trump ended all American aid to Israel and went to the United Nations and put forth a resolution for Israel to eliminate its nukes because if Iran and North Korea and Ted Nugent can't have them, neither can Israel. If Trump got elected on such a platform, which he never would have by the way, he would have been assassinated before he or any POTUS could implement such a plan. Israel has made it clear many times over, it will do ANYTHING & EVERYTHING it has to do to protect itself existentially and I'm sure that includes assassinating the POTUS if need be and all else fails.

    … the first Jewish POTUS that he is?

    PTI, but just wanted to make a quick observation. Is it just me or have others noticed that there have been quite a number of Presidents upon whom this honorary title has been bestowed, including:

    LBJ
    Ronald Reagan
    Barack Obama
    Donald Trump

    (Bill Clinton and George W Bush should receive honorary mention).

    Now, back to regularly scheduled programming.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. gsjackson says:
    @Laurent Guyénot
    No, I am not that ignorant. Either I expressed myself poorly (English being not my native language), or you misunderstood. The serial number of the gun from which the test bullet was shot (as indicated on official report) is different from the serial number of Sirhan's gun (as indicated on another official report.

    Thanks for a very interesting, thought-provoking piece. On the English language thing, editing alert: Check the headline. For proper name plurals you don’t change y to ie.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. @schrub
    Who hasn't been mentioned so far is the very beautiful and brilliant Mathilde Krim. Krim was LBJ's mistress in the 1960s. She also just happened to be a fanatical supporter of the interests of Israel. In the late 1940s, she had been an active promoter of the Israeli terror group The Irgun. Mathilde was also most likely a Mossad agent with long-time contacts to the highest levels of the Israeli government.

    I would have loved to hear the "pillow talk" between these two total opposites: the incredibly crude, totally uncultured and flabby LBJ and the cultured, slim, sleek and highly educated Krim. You can bet that she was able to supply Israel with a constant supply of all sorts of top secret information that she was able to extract out of her bedmate. Maybe she also gave advice to LBJ about who exactly to assassinate or what transgressions by Israel for LBJ to ignore (like the USS Liberty attack).

    Mathilde Krim's husband was the very wealthy Arthur Krim, one of the most powerful and active supporters of Israel in the USA. Mathilde Krim's relationship with LBJ was most likely known about by her husband but was "overlooked" by him because of its huge value to Israel as both as a source of information as well as for its potential use as blackmail. (You can bet that somewhere in Israel is a vault full of movies taken of their bedroom activities.)

    The heads of MSM at the time apparently knew all about the relationship between Krim and LBJ but "wisely" chose to ignore it just as they had done for JFK and his affairs.

    You can also bet that Krim dropped her boyfriend LBJ like a hot potato once he left office and was no longer of use to her friends.

    Here is a highly sanitized Wikipedia entry about her: No mention is made of her "friendship" with LBJ.

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

    I should have mentioned that Jeff Gates goes into the LBJ/Krim relationship, NUMEC, McCain father and son, the USS Liberty, with a measure of Jeff Flake in his book. It bears rereading, now if only I can find it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. @j2
    "As to your Meyer Lansky point you do not indicate whether you have any serious claim to knowing anything useful about him and/or his connection to Israel but surely it is rubbish to talk of his interest in Cuban casinos being relevant. Really!? In 1963? And anyway you would only be making sense if you were asserting – with reason – that RFK felt constrained to use to his friend Schlesinger “Cubans or gangsters” as code for Israel.
    Or, conceivably you think RFK didn’t know what you know about the involvement of Israel but wanted a further inquiry which might have produced an embarrassing truth about Israel. Really?"

    I recently bought a book about Lansky's Havana operations from Cuba. Before the revolution by Castro Lansky run the crime empire there. It is also written of his connections to Israel, which you can check even from Wikipedia. We all get our information from books and documents. This book was rather OK concerning facts. Lansky lost a lot when Castro came to power. In 1963 Lansky had a very good reason to want the USA to attack Cuba to gain his empire. Besides, he run the USA organized crime at that time and had reasons not to like Kennedys actions against organized crime.
    There is no reason for "Cubans and gangsters" to be a code word for Israel as Cubans and gangsters were almost certainly involved in the JFK assassination.

    I think Robert Kennedy did know of the Israel atom bomb project and he did not like it, same as JFK. Robert Kennedy probably did not know if Israel was involved in the JFK assassination but was going to investigate who was. It might have lead to Israel. There was this danger.

    Well you have just proved what a hopeless amateur you are as conspiracy theorist and as analyst.

    What you have now shown is all you dredged up about Meyer Lansky is a million miles from proving that he had sufficient reason to murder Kennedy. To make any sense of your bizarre notion of cause and effect and of motive you would have to suppose that a US President could be expected to look after the Cuban interests of a known criminal even going to the extent of using US armed forces to do it. Specifically your barmy idea entails that Lansky had a communications conduit to LBJ and thought he had obtained assurance from Johnson that the US would go to war to overthrow Castro and restore an American criminal’s casino. Pathetic.

    There is indeed no need for “Cubans or gangsters” to be code for “Israel” but again you have shot yourself in the foot by your missing the point completely. My obvious point, which you managed to get confused about, was that Bobby Kennedy had no reason not to mention Israel to his confidant Schlesinger so his use of the words “Cubans” and “gangsters” meant that he didn’t have Israel in mind…

    Read More
    • Replies: @j2
    "What you have now shown is all you dredged up about Meyer Lansky is a million miles from proving that he had sufficient reason to murder Kennedy. To make any sense of your bizarre notion of cause and effect and of motive you would have to suppose that a US President could be expected to look after the Cuban interests of a known criminal even going to the extent of using US armed forces to do it. Specifically your barmy idea entails that Lansky had a communications conduit to LBJ and thought he had obtained assurance from Johnson that the US would go to war to overthrow Castro and restore an American criminal’s casino. Pathetic."

    1) The assassination of JFK was a conspiracy because there were more than one shooter. This is shown by analyzing the Audiograph and the Dictabelt, and the Zapruder film shows that one shot came from the front. You have two pdf files by me in this link
    http://www.pienisalaliittotutkimus.com/2017/12/07/was-the-j-f-kennedy-assassination-a-conspiracy/

    2) Next we have to look what changed in the US policy after the successful assassination, since it had to have some goal. The USA did not attack Cuba, so that was not the goal. The USA forgot Israel's nuclear bomb project, so that was the goal. (Go through the other alternatives and discard.)

    3) Finally make a scenario who could have done the assassination. As the Audiograph was manipulated in 1970ies, there was someone with access, like CIA (or FBI? etc). There was Ruby, so there was a link to Jewish gangsters leading to Lansky, who was the high boss of organized crime. Much points to LBJ. So, I got this scenario:
    http://www.pienisalaliittotutkimus.com/2018/04/05/jfk-lbj-lansky-dulles-and-zionists/

    It is similar to Piper's argument, I read his book:
    http://www.pienisalaliittotutkimus.com/2018/04/11/comments-on-michael-collins-pipers-book-the-final-judgment/

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. ians says:
    @Sean
    Did Lee Harvey Oswald kill JFK? LHO was a devotee of Casto and when he visited the Cuban Consulate in Mexico and was denied permission to travel to Cuba Oswald stormed out. The Kennedys were trying to kill Castro, and Oswald,, who had narrowly missed killing Edwin Walker months before, and found himself in a job that provided a shot on the JFK parade route, killed JFK for his anti communism. Kennedy had almost taken the world to WW3 in the Cuba crisis, which was Nikita Khrushchev's response to JFK's insane revival of Eisenhower's plan to give Germany a say in Nukes (to save the US taxpayer money basically). Perhaps it is just as well that Marine-trained rifleman Oswald put an end to Kennedy when he did.

    Garbage. Oswald was impersonated in Mexico. He didn’t try to kill Walker.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    Thew real Oswald was a Communist that lived and worked in the Soviet Union before returning to the US with his Russian wife (who said he admitted shooting segregationist former Airborne division commander Walker) and becoming enamored of Cuban socialism. A Texan familiar with firearm fro his childhood, Oswald qualified as a rifleman in the Marines (where he was also disciplined for pouring a beer over a sergeant's head, and possession of an illegal pistol).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:

    Five towns Jewish times April 11 2013

    Article claims LBJ was a Jew who smuggled German Jews into the port of Galveston during the 1930s.

    I’m sure this thread will be enjoyable as people post their pet theories and others jump in to debunk the theories.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  76. Gary says:

    The most likely scenario is of course that the assassinations met the needs of not only Israel/Mossad, but of the U.S. oligarchs/Wall Street, European oligarchs, and the U.S. deep state forces of the CIA/Pentagon. It isn’t an “either/or” with the Mossad vs the CIA as to who is the culprit, but rather that everyone benefited by these assassinations. From the U.S. Joint Chiefs who wanted to end JFK’s efforts to stop the Cold War, to Mossad who wanted carte blanche Israeli power in the Middle East AND the bomb, to the CIA which most definitely did not want to be “splintered into a thousand pieces and scattered to the winds” – you have a set of powerful interests that converge and all benefit by these deaths.

    The whole debate of whether Israel is the tail wagging the dog misses the point that the very creation of Israel was all about helping the Western colonial powers maintain neo-colonial power in the Middle East as their former colonies were being liberated post-WWII. The oligarchic power blocs in Europe, the U.S., the U.K. and Israel have all benefited from the assassinations of the Kennedy brothers and the policy shifts that were then possible by their permanent removal from political office. Chasing the – “was it the Mossad, or was it the CIA”- train, leaves us grasping at phantoms like “the girl in the polka dot dress,” or “the second Oswald,” and simply distract from the obvious reality that all these parties not only benefited, but also knew each other’s secrets and operated in coordination to make these events happen, and to sew intrigue and endless questions in their wake.

    Read More
    • Replies: @renfro

    The whole debate of whether Israel is the tail wagging the dog misses the point that the very creation of Israel was all about helping the Western colonial powers maintain neo-colonial power in the Middle East as their former colonies were being liberated post-WWII.
     
    Only Jewish Zionist and Israelis make that very stupid claim.
    The US had no use for colonies ....it did have a interest in keeping the ME 'stable' for oil needs.
    Israel disrupted that 'off shore balancing' which had been the US policy before Israel.
    Israel caused other ME states like Egypt to lean toward Russia.
    Saudi didnt embargo oil to the US in ' 73 because Israel was a US 'colony'.....Saudi did it to punish the US for what Israel was doing for Israel and the US supplying Israel with weapons.
    And the US did that solely because the Jewish lobby in the US.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. @Intelligent Dasein
    I'm really beginning to wonder what Ron Unz is doing with his website. Last week we got that moronic article by 9/11 doucher David Lorimer, and now we are treated to a 10,000 word disquisition about how Israel assassinated the Kennedys---both of which articles are rather baseless canards but are deeply emotionally appealing to a certain coterie of contrarians and which are sure to attract (and have attracted) the most odious collection of commenters who are both uninterested in and oblivious to the the truth about any of it. Not only is it a frustrating exercise in futility to try to discuss anything with such people (their minds are closed not only with respect to the lunacy that they themselves believe but also with respect to what they assume you believe---they've already assigned you to a camp and will never allow you to depart from it), but also the subjects themselves have grown tiresome and tedious and are only anymore of interest to the very same propounders of revisionist idiocy who keep them alive with their siege mentality.

    What purpose can there be in publishing such articles other than to fuel the febrile files of this phantasist fringe? There is nothing here in the interests of truth; this is demagoguery and obscurantism of the worst sort. Articles like this are the intellectual equivalent of a plague bacillus, winding its way through human minds, putrefying and perverting all in its course. Such foul air requires a constant nosegay of truth to ward it off, and these flowers are in very short supply around here.

    I have no desire to defend the Jews, or Judaism, or Zionism, or the State of Israel, but the charges that they were involved with the Kennedy assassinations are completely without merit and ought to be repugnant to decent people. The fact that they were directly responsible for the attack on the USS Liberty is more than enough reason to despise the Israelis; they do not need to be beaten with every club or charged with every crime. To do so is vindictive and paranoid and shameful, and I cannot be sanguine about the motives of those who would whip themselves and others into such a frenzy.

    I agree with your assessment of the author’s claim of Israeli involvement in the JFK/RFK assassinations. But …

    “… the subjects themselves have grown tiresome and tedious …”

    If political assassinations and shadowy conspiracies don’t capture your imagination, your website must be “tiresome” and “tedious”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. Anon[436] • Disclaimer says:
    @Cold N. Holefield
    Here's Mathilde Krim with a soirée of Fine Folks to include LBJ & Lady Bird. She certainly made the rounds. Definitely an Intelligence Operative considering her prodigious network of contacts. A Cancer to Humanity. It reminds me of a scene from Rosemary's Baby.

    https://s33.postimg.cc/efp5hgr7j/d2931-20a_med-e1516922263722-580x501.jpg

    https://s33.postimg.cc/q632z1773/vlcsnap-2012-04-17-21h18m28s187.png

    “Definitely [sic] an intelligence operative considering her prodigious network of contacts”. BS and blather and blithering nonsense. How about “Definitely a charity fund raising queen considering her prodigious network of contacts”? Or maybe “Definitely a political operator …. ” or maybe just plain old busybody Eleanor Roosevelt?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @chicken salad
    Great article. Just wanted to mention that Jeff Gates' Guilt by Association corroborates the author's thesis.

    I’ll check that book. Thanks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @ChuckOrloski
    Biff wisely reflected: "I always thought the CIA was suspect, but obviously there are more angles to the story."

    Hi Biff,

    This article author, Laurent Guyenot, did an admirable job at attempting to distance CIA involvement from Israeli intelligence, and the killing of JFK, pursuant coup, overturning a US election.

    Not so with author Peter Janney who wrote the terrific book, "Mary's Mosaic." He focused upon CIA James Jesus Angleton's Israeli-cozy career & deadly pre/post assassination undertakings prior to November 23, 1963.

    F.y.i, Biff, perhaps you're aware about the Fall 1964 murder (unsolved!) of Mary Pinchot Meyer, CIA Cord Meyer Jr.' ex-wife and JFK flame?

    Unfortunately, Israeli interest & involvement in JFK's killing escaped Peter Janney's survey. Nonetheless, below is Mr. Janet's very sound description about CIA Counterintelligence Chief James Angleton's mad pursuit to locate & confiscate the diary of the dead, Mary Pinchot Meyer.

    Subsequently, I do not endorse a "Rush to Judgement" that exonerates the CIA from the treasonous Kennedy murders.

    Thanks a lot, Biff! Please refer to video below?

    https://youtu.be/PZjACabdnlE

    I did not mean to exonerate the CIA. I tried to be as brief as I could, so I didn’t get into the detail of CIA involvement. CIA had to be involved to some extent in order to be blackmailed into powerlessness. My point is that CIA was not the mastermind and I wanted to point out that the mainstream media were pointing to the CIA, which is in itself very significant: it is like when the mainstream media say “the CIA controls the media”. I am actually inclined to agree with Gary Wean’s thesis (as Piper seemed to do) that the CIA had planned a faked failed assassination coup to force JFK into acting against Castro, but was double-crossed. This fits the scenario which I also believe for 9/11. http://rockthetruth.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-911-triple-cross.html
    And I liked Janney’s book.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ChuckOrloski
    Hi Laurent,

    Am very gratified when busy U.R. authors engage comments corresponding to their articles. Thank you!

    Comment # 80, you wrote: "I did not mean to exonerate the CIA."

    Above, I knew such was impossible since your mentioning having read James Douglass's classic, "JFK and the Unspeakable."

    Also you wrote:. My point is that CIA was not the mastermind..."

    Above, so it appears you believe that CIA depended upon the Israeli intelligence Lowerarchy as the JFK assassination planning / operational "mastermind?"

    Had he come squeaky clean, I intuit CIA Counterintelligence Chief James Jesus Angleton might support such a view as yours.

    Such smacks of how the ZUS military (Gitmo-based) tribunal deceptively presented Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) as the 9/11 terror attack "mastermind."

    To conclude, am very pleased to have read this sentence: "And I liked Janney’s book."

    F.y.i., just last month while attending a Delaware Valley High School varsity baseball game, while in the stands, I spoke with three (3) mother's who lived in nearby, Milford, Pa. One lady taught public school.

    Regrettably, no one had any knowledge about Mary Pinchot Meyer's JFK affair, brutal murder on the Georgetown canal-trail, and her Milford, Pa burial @ the Gifford Pinchot estate.

    Thanks very much, Laurent Guyenot!
    Continue to be honestly unflappable.
    , @renfro


    that the CIA had planned a faked failed assassination coup to force JFK into acting against Castro, but was double-crossed
     

     
    The CIA is an agency staffed by people........so which people in the CIA had any interest in Cuba strong enough to risk killing a president....name them. Who in the CIA was so afraid of Castro or the tiny island of Cuba going communist....or so afraid of Russia in Cuba ....after Kennedy has already stood Russia down in the missile crisis .....that killing Kennedy was the only solution?

    Otherwise this 'theory' that 'The CIA" as a whole agency conspired to kill Kennedy is ridiculous.
    Do you actually think a plan to murder a president could have been kept secret then or now with no one in that agency since then ever coming forward on their death bed or otherwise?

    Its bullshit.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. AaronB says:
    @Dissident X
    Thank you Laurent Guyénot. This is a long(ish) article, and obviously complex.

    So, in breaking down this theory, one must first admit, in light of what is known of the Kennedy assassinations, consideration of the Torah-Pharisees-Talmud international collective as a potential prime operative, is reasonable, based on the prime-facia motives.
    Specifically:
    1. the intention of registering the American Zionist Council (AZC subsequently AIPAC) as a “foreign agent” subject to the obligations defined by the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938
    2. the Kennedy’s determination to stop Israel [secretly, like many things] developing its own nuclear bomb
    3. Kennedy committed ... ... to support UN Resolution 194 for the right of return of Palestinian refugees

    Anybody familiar with the trends of the last 200 years of the activities and well-[self]-published political motivations of Torah-Pharisees-Talmud international collective, notably pro-zionists and their leading spokes people, would be aware that each one of the listed intentions, if validated, would be considered ample justification for another political assassination, from such an extremist ideological perspective.

    The thornier, but potentially more revealing issue is capability.
    But one must ask oneself, who in the world, could have the capability to kill a sitting U.S. president and a leading presidential nominee?

    In consideration of this question, one can greatly reduce the number of potential suspects, since the range is extremely small, and I would suggest, probably included the collaboration of several of the very few limited candidates.

    For example, does anyone think that the Soviet Union could possibly have managed this alone, or even more ridiculously, Fidel Castro?!

    I personally think it at least on the verge of absurd.

    Capability continued...

    Frequently, I find myself drawn back to Gilad Atzmons excerpt from testimony, as expert witness on Jewish Identity politics, at ‘hate crime” trial of Arthur Topham 20151108-20151109
    Sourced originally at: http://blog.balder.org/?p=1673


    “When we criticise Jewish politics (Israel, Zionism, the Lobby etc’) some Jews are “racially offended” in spite of the fact that race, biology, blood or ethnicity was never mentioned. When we criticise Jewish racism some Jews hide behind the argument that we are criticizing their religion. When we occasionally criticise the religion or some obscene Jewish religious teaching we are quick to learn that Jews are hardly religious anymore (which is true by the way). The meaning of it is simple, yet devastating. The Jewish triangle makes it very difficult, or even impossible to criticise Jewish politics, ideology and racism because the Identity is set as a field with a tri-polar gravity centre. The identity morphs endlessly. The contemporary 3rd category (political) Jew is everywhere and nowhere simultaneously, this is the quantum mechanics that is set to suppress any possible criticism.”
     
    But most particularly, "...Jew is everywhere and nowhere simultaneously, this is the quantum mechanics that is set to suppress... .”"

    I am also reminded of Noam Chompsky's model (explanation), as described in Manufacturing Consent for what he describes as a passive media skewing mechanism (my words), along the lines of, systemically, many slight slanted/nudged editorial decisions, which aggregated, may well completely distort an accurate picture of events.

    By not being able to identify one clear, discrete actor/provocateur, the system, the way it operates, will be incapable of actually making a determination and assignment of cause.

    Now, if one followed a operational model of negative sum gain gaming of systems to always gain advantage, one might have identified this weakness in the system, and employed a quantum-mechanics like distribution of a fifth column in the system to effect the political change one desired.

    This is also the Japanese system btw.

    It’s a pre-Enlightenment system that does not believe in the primacy of logic.

    This way of thinking is not only truer but an immense advantage over people’s who believe in the artificial distinctions of logic which really falsify and simplify reality.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. Sean says:
    @ians
    Garbage. Oswald was impersonated in Mexico. He didn’t try to kill Walker.

    Thew real Oswald was a Communist that lived and worked in the Soviet Union before returning to the US with his Russian wife (who said he admitted shooting segregationist former Airborne division commander Walker) and becoming enamored of Cuban socialism. A Texan familiar with firearm fro his childhood, Oswald qualified as a rifleman in the Marines (where he was also disciplined for pouring a beer over a sergeant’s head, and possession of an illegal pistol).

    Read More
    • Replies: @gsjackson
    Every Marine is considered a "rifleman," even those who fail to qualify with the rifle. At the end of his tour Oswald tested on the low end of 'marksman,' which is the lowest of three qualifying categories. Which means he wasn't a particularly good shot.
    , @ians
    Wrong on almost every count, yet again. Oswald was ONI and part of a fake defector scheme that sent several such agents in Russia in that period. Walker was not shot; he was shot at. Two men were observed at the scene, who departed in a car. Marina changed her story numerous times, was then coached and threatened with deportation if she didn’t comply with the official story.
    Oswald worked with Bannister, a notoriously right-wing anti-Communist. Oswald was a poor shot in the Marines.
    , @annamaria
    "The real Oswald was a Communist..."
    --- In case you missed the following section in the paper: "Johnson’s privileged control over the Navy is an important aspect of the case because the Navy was critical in the setting up and in the cover-up of the plot. ... Lee Harvey Oswald had been a Marine, and as a Marine he had worked for the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI).
    ... it is at the Naval Hospital in Washington, under the control of Navy officers... The report of this autopsy stated that the fatal bullet had entered the back of Kennedy’s skull, which contradicted the testimonies of twenty-one members of the Dallas hospital staff who saw two entry bullet-wounds on the front of Kennedy’s body. This was critical because Oswald was presumably shooting from behind Kennedy, and could not possibly have caused these bullet wounds."
    -- Either you have experienced a cognitive blindness while reading the section or you are engaged in littering this forum with the supposed "contradictions."
    As for the"Communist," please redirect your attention to a powerful nest of Trotskyists (ziocons) who have been promoting the belligerent (and disastrous) policies in the name of Eretz Israel.
    Another great case is the certain Bill Browder, from a prominent Jewish-American family of communists, who have been most instrumental in promoting the Magnitsky Act, a set of sanctions against Russian Federation. This Bill Brower: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryVavTF6hR0
    , @MacNucc11
    Wait, you mean Joe McCarthy was right? Our government was actually infiltrated by communists? Thank goodness, many people consider it a nutty conspiracy. But you have verified that Oswald was a communist while having the highest level of security clearance. Now let's get to work rooting out all those communists from our government. Hmmm, where should we start?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    My interest in this is as the reader of a good thriller which I can excuse myself spending time on because it is just possible that I shall learn something about the real world including important levels of government. So... no dog in any fight. But I am alerted to conventional journalistic slickness by such foolishness as the snide and inaccurate statement that Alan Dershowitz is best known as counsel for Jonathan Pollard. Also the slippery statement that a connection between the two brothers' assassinations should be "assumed". (Obviously it is worth asking a few questions such as "could there be common motives but that sort of intelligent lateral thinking is not what the author was talking about).

    Arthur J. Schlesinger is mentioned so why not his careful journal re ord of what RFK had to say about his brother's assassination. A recent NYRB article suggests that, while he didn't think much of the Warren Commission's work, his suspicions only extended to Cuba and "gangsters".

    A recent TV series (not mentioned herw) using recently declassified material does strongly suggest that Oswald was relying for support on a group if fiercely anti-Castro Cubans who had been infiltrated by a Castro man. Not difficult to see why in the end he might have thought he was a patsy. Also there is no mention here of the at least plausible theory that the fatal bullet was one accidentally fired by a Secret Serviceman in the car behind.

    The total rubbish about JFK Jr's plane crash also serves to undermine credibility and support the view that this is written by someone suffering a severe case of confirmation bias.

    I agree about the plane crash inserted into the article. It was a combination of an unusually thick fog and an inexperienced pilot

    There was a thread recently in which John Jrs plane crash was discussed. A couple of pilots who flew the same Plane write that in that kind of fog with a pilot unskilled in flying by instruments it was not shot down but just happened.

    Another poster write that he was in the area that night and it was one of the worst fogs he’d ever seen.

    Read More
    • Replies: @republic
    There seem to be a lot of small plane crashes which involve controversial politicians
    such as, JFK,Jr, Ron Brown, Wellstone, John Towers, Michael Connell, (Bush campaign it expert) to name but a few.
    There use to be detailed analysis of the Martha’s Vineyard crash on the web, but these seem
    To have been scrubbed lately and only official MSM versions are easily available.
    An exception to that rule is the book, Ron Brown’s body: how one man’s death saved
    The Clinton Presidency.
    , @Robjil
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vehk03v23y4 This documentary goes into great detail about the many strange things going on the day of the JFK Jr's crash.
    The missing seat, flying instructor's seat - taken out of the plane ? How long it took to find the plane? JFK jr was another Kennedy assassination.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. Mulegino1 says:
    @Laurent Guyénot
    Do you mean you believe that Oswald killed Kennedy?
    Or do you mean the question is irrelevant?
    I'm interested to know.

    Of course he does. He is part of that dwindling demographic which believes whatever they are told by the kosher mainstream media, i.e., CBS, Time Magazine, CNN, MSNBC, Newsweek, Fox, the History Channel, NBC, ABC, etc. There may be variations, but the narrative remains within the acceptable kosher parameters.

    An individual who believes in the official version of 9/11 will have no trouble at all believing in the “lone nut” theory of Oswald or Sirhan. For want of a better term, I would call it “Mainstream Delusionism.” It affects all of those who choose to accept the bogus liberal/conservative bifurcation of mainstream politics here in the US.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. j2 says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Well you have just proved what a hopeless amateur you are as conspiracy theorist and as analyst.

    What you have now shown is all you dredged up about Meyer Lansky is a million miles from proving that he had sufficient reason to murder Kennedy. To make any sense of your bizarre notion of cause and effect and of motive you would have to suppose that a US President could be expected to look after the Cuban interests of a known criminal even going to the extent of using US armed forces to do it. Specifically your barmy idea entails that Lansky had a communications conduit to LBJ and thought he had obtained assurance from Johnson that the US would go to war to overthrow Castro and restore an American criminal's casino. Pathetic.

    There is indeed no need for "Cubans or gangsters" to be code for "Israel" but again you have shot yourself in the foot by your missing the point completely. My obvious point, which you managed to get confused about, was that Bobby Kennedy had no reason not to mention Israel to his confidant Schlesinger so his use of the words "Cubans" and "gangsters" meant that he didn't have Israel in mind...

    “What you have now shown is all you dredged up about Meyer Lansky is a million miles from proving that he had sufficient reason to murder Kennedy. To make any sense of your bizarre notion of cause and effect and of motive you would have to suppose that a US President could be expected to look after the Cuban interests of a known criminal even going to the extent of using US armed forces to do it. Specifically your barmy idea entails that Lansky had a communications conduit to LBJ and thought he had obtained assurance from Johnson that the US would go to war to overthrow Castro and restore an American criminal’s casino. Pathetic.”

    1) The assassination of JFK was a conspiracy because there were more than one shooter. This is shown by analyzing the Audiograph and the Dictabelt, and the Zapruder film shows that one shot came from the front. You have two pdf files by me in this link

    http://www.pienisalaliittotutkimus.com/2017/12/07/was-the-j-f-kennedy-assassination-a-conspiracy/

    2) Next we have to look what changed in the US policy after the successful assassination, since it had to have some goal. The USA did not attack Cuba, so that was not the goal. The USA forgot Israel’s nuclear bomb project, so that was the goal. (Go through the other alternatives and discard.)

    3) Finally make a scenario who could have done the assassination. As the Audiograph was manipulated in 1970ies, there was someone with access, like CIA (or FBI? etc). There was Ruby, so there was a link to Jewish gangsters leading to Lansky, who was the high boss of organized crime. Much points to LBJ. So, I got this scenario:

    http://www.pienisalaliittotutkimus.com/2018/04/05/jfk-lbj-lansky-dulles-and-zionists/

    It is similar to Piper’s argument, I read his book:

    http://www.pienisalaliittotutkimus.com/2018/04/11/comments-on-michael-collins-pipers-book-the-final-judgment/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    The UK also developed nuclear weapons, as did France. The incredibility of America blowing its own brains out by getting into a nuclear exchange to defend Britain, France or Israel meant that those countries having their own nuclear deterrent suited America.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. @Intelligent Dasein
    Yes, I believe that Oswald killed Kennedy. I have no reasonable doubt that Oswald alone fired the fatal shot.

    I also believe that the question, while certainly not irrelevant, is little thought of by most people today and would not affect their lives one way or the other. This is not to say that truth should not be investigated and justice done whenever possible. Falsehoods of any sort should be brought to light and expunged from the historical record, for there is no telling what damage an error may do even long after the fact. However, in the first place, I do not think that the historical record has enshrined any major errors in the case of the Kennedys; and in the second place, the fervency with which the contrarians (and they alone) continue to revive this long-buried topic does not savor of an honest pursuit of truth. I gather they would not be satisfied even if all the world were converted to their opinion.

    They have some sort of an agenda. What it is varies from case to case and is not something I'm willing to speculate upon. But this sort of crusading over the meaning of an historical event is never anything but a quest for political power in the present moment, and is usually driven not by any coherent ideology but by the sheer passion for revenge. The willingness of so many revisionists to make saints out of the Kennedys---which on any objective reading they clearly were not---is by itself sufficient to discover the all-too-human wellsprings of their motivation. You have a beef with Israel, with the CIA, with Lyndon Johnson, with the whole American Deep State. I get that; I'm no fan of these people, either. But I'm not going to pervert my entire view of history so as to cast them in the role of the eternal villain. Self-deception is not only bad for your psychological health, it's also very politically inexpedient. You will never accomplish anything by this method. Just imagine the dismay that will come upon you if, peradventure, you happen to have a real shot at gaining some actual power and then you realize that your only friends and compatriots are the unreliable fruit loops who've been yup-yupping your articles these past years. A lot of help they're going to be.

    The assertion that Israel had anything to do with assassinating either Kennedy brother is just not true. It is falsehood and lies and intellectual pollution. The reverence for such a belief belongs as a sub-genre of postmodern urban mysticism and religious occultism, along with the belief that the CIA planted explosives in the World Trade Center.

    The assertion that Oswald alone killed Kennedy is just not true. It is falsehood and lies and intellectual pollution.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bjondo
    Lying, falsehood, intellectual pollution, time wasting are what these Israeli commenters are about.

    Many times one hasbaraRat will comment with one, two, three other ratbros replying in support.

    They earn many shekels.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Al Moenee
    The truth is that Robert Kennedy was much despised by Israel and its Jewish-American lobby of the time, the American Zionist Council (AZC) and was considered a major foe. After many months of back and forth, on Oct 11, 1963 the New York law firm representing the AZC received a formal written demand from Attorney General RFK’s office to immediately (72 hours) proceed to register as foreign agents under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938. Forms for said registration accompanied the letter. This would have upended the AZC’s operations and rendered it or any subsequent Israeli lobby (AIPAC) – near powerless.

    Totally agree about the Jewish role in JFKs assassination. As for Oswald, he was an avowed communist and the American communist party and all the far left groups were very, very, Jewish at the time. It was impossible to be a goyishe leftist and not meet a lot of lefty Jews at the time.

    Oswald always told people he became interested in communism when he was living in NYC age 11 & 12. It was the time of the Rosenberg atomic spy trials.
    “Old Jewish ladies” in his Bronx neighborhood were always handing out pamphlets defending the Rosenbergs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @(((They))) Live
    I doubt Oswald was a genuine Communist, he knew David Ferrie (who was hated Communism) in the 1950s, it may have been Ferrie who got him involved in the CIA, and I suspect it was the CIA that sent Oswald to the USSR

    Once he returned from the USSR and got involved with pro Castro groups in the US he was the perfect fall goy in the plot to murder Kennedy

    An interesting fact, when his car made the turn past the book depository LBJ ducked down to tie his shoe laces just as the shooting started, strangely he also wanted Connolly to travel in his car not with JFK

    There was at least one other plot to assassinate Kennedy, in the Chicago plot the patsy was to be another former Marine called Thomas Vallee

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. Perhaps I missed it in the article but the “manufacturer” of the single bullet theory was Jewish Senator Arlen Specter of the Warren Commission. Another point about the Kennedy’s hatred of Israel….it was much greater than anyone thought especially from the old man Joe. It evidently may have had something do with business dealings both legitimate and illegitimate.

    Lyndon Johnson’s great-grandparents, on the maternal side, were Jewish and Johnson helped smuggle Jews legally and illegally into Texas (http://www.5tjt.com/our-first-jewish-president-lyndon-johnson-an-update/ ). It always sounds antisemitic but rule one that is accurate about 97% of the time is that most of the political, economic or social upheaval in the world always has something to do with Jews.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Is it not probable that Lyndon Johnson was genuinely sympathetic with the underdog based in part from his early life experience. His helping Jewish refugees would fit pretty well with the human sympathies a notable number of politicians are capable of. And if one were to do a bit of burrowing and find some rich Jewish donors to his election campaigns whom he appealed to by helping refugees then .... so what? He gets to feel good AND gets the money.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. Mr. Anon says:

    The Kennedy worship on display by Mr. Guyenot, like that of Oliver Stone, is remarkable. I’m not singling him out – a lot of people share in it. But the notion that the Kennedys were some kind of unique family of righteous, justice-seeking heroes is ludicrous. They were a clan of reckless, smarmy, cynical politicians. John was probably the best of them, and he seemed to have had a few good instincts, but he was massively compromised by his libido, which opened him up to blackmail.

    And the notion that John-John was killed by some kind of conspiracy is ridiculous. He was a light-weight and a dilletante. I don’t imagine anyone feared his political or literary ambitions. His was another case of DWK – driving while Kennedy. Nobody in that family could be trusted behind the controls of any kind of vehicle. I wouldn’t knowingly step in front of stroked-out old Joe in his wheelchair.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Iris
    "They were a clan of reckless, smarmy, cynical politicians"

    Their eldest, Joe Kennedy, died for his country in secret WW2 mission.
    https://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK/The-Kennedy-Family/Joseph-P-Kennedy-Jr.aspx

    There is nothing cynical about such ultimate patriotic sacrifice; the pompous Zionist posting on this thread could not even start to comprehend the adjective "patriotic".
    , @Laurent Guyénot
    I do not consider the Kennedys blameless and purely heroic. Nobody is entirely and inherently black or white. Whiteness and blackness are relative to the dialectical historical context (no Marxism here, just Hegelianism). The Kennedy story has some mythic significance, it is History with a very big H. They have some Christ-like dimension, if the real "imitation of Christ" is to be murdered on the order of Israel (Jesus didn't crucify himself, did he?). Anybody with a sense of History can see that the Kennedys represented, at this point in history, the Good side. That's all. Yes, they had an intense thirst for power. But then, only people with a deep thirst for power deserve to rule. Those with a deep thirst for obedience deserve to obey. Unlike their ennemies, the Kennedys wanted to govern in the light, not in the shadow. So I strongly disapprove of cynically denigrating the Kennedys on the ground that they had their dark side. Of course they had. But they found themselves with a destiny which could have changed history for the better, and they fully endorsed their destiny. Both JFK and RFK knew and accepted the fate that went with it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. Sean says:

    Clearly LBJ did not run for a second term and keep control of the investigative agencies because he could be implicated in the assassination of the Kennedy brothers. Or maybe people who think that way are spending too much time smoking hash in their mommy’s basement.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  91. Anon[194] • Disclaimer says:
    @Hiram of Tyre
    Israel was created by the British oligarchs as a bridgehead in the Middle East. Furthering Israel was/is furthering the interests of those oligarchs (who ran the British Empire which morphed to the Anglo-American Empire). JFK was critical of Israel. If someone killed him, it the Anglo-American deep state. Israel likely pulled the trigger. Let’s remember what the fake father of Modern Zionism who admired Cecil Rhodes, Theodor Herl said:

    “England will get ten million agents for her greatness and influence."

    A parallel could also be established between the killing of JFK and the “Six-Day War” of 1967 ...

    In 1954, Israeli teamed with the Muslim Brotherhood to plant explosives in American and British offices to start a civil war to prompt the presence of British troops. The failed terror plot was known as the “Lavon Affair”.

    In 1956, Israel (supported by Britain and France) invaded Egypt to retake the Suez Canal nationalized by Nasser. Deterring Nasser who had crushed the Muslim Brotherhood (a British machination aimed at keeping Muslim nations backwards culturally and economically (https://bit.ly/2J06YDO)) was also another primary objective. Einsenhower was the one who tenaciously worked on removing Israel from Egypt but it didn’t come easy:

    1956-1957: England and France removed their troops following Einsenhower’s advise but Israel did not. As a result, Eisenhower joined the 75 countries at the UN General Assembly (February 1957) to pass a resolution against Israel’s occupation of Egyptian territory. Despite that, Israel still refused to remove its troops. It made Einsenhower reach out to the Congress but it was heavily bought out by Zionists and the end-result was to no avail.. When that failed, Einsenhower met with congressional leaders to gather support but even they were in support of Israel. Einsenhower then went on TV to make the case public. After which he threatened Israel with sanctions (including the $40M of tax deductible donations and $60M of private bonds). Making the case public and threatening economically worked - Israel withdrew its troops.

    The failed invasion was a major blow to Britain (who’s PM resigned) France and Israel (who destroyed everything on its way out).

    In spite of the mendacious narrative regurgitated in the West about the war of 1967, it was Israel who planned and attacked its neighbors. The seizing of the Golan Heights, the West Bank and Gaza were objectives Israel couldn’t achieve in 1948 and deterring Nasser, an objective failed in 1956. The only problem Israel had was: would another US President intervene. Norman Finkelstein, who’s research on 1967 is to date unchallenged successfully, showed that Israel sent diplomats to Washington

    • The U.S. agreed with Israel that Nasser had no plans to attack.

    • The U.S. agreed that Israel would easily defeat Egypt on the battlefield, either alone or with any combination of other Arab nations.

    • And the U.S. tacitly gave Israel permission to start the war, or at least indicated there would be no repeat of Eisenhower’s repudiation after the 1956 Suez invasion.

    http://mondoweiss.net/2017/06/provoked-fighting-survival/

    “No repeat of Einsehower’s repudication”.

    We all know who followed JFK. None other than absolute bent-over to Israel, Lyndon Johnson.


    ———


    If I could make a parallel on the Palestinians: it’s “interesting” how they always found themselves in the spotlight of major plots, killings and terror acts after the creation of the British Zionist State known as Israel. One has to only remember the airplane hijackings, Munich, etc. Coincidentally, most of those Palestinians were all led by the infamous Abu Nidal - who was never apprehended while the rest of the Palestinians were either killed or arrested.

    The case of 9/11 wasn’t any different. The five dancing Israelis, who were “documenting the event” from New Jersey proclaimed - while being arrested:

    “We are Israelis. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are your problem.”

    Ari Ben-Menashe, in his book “Profits of War : Inside the Secret U.S.-Israeli Arms Network” spoke of the CIA and the Mossad covertly training Palestinians in Yugoslavia to have them attack Western targets. The ultimate goal was to draw negative attention and sentiment against their cause.

    I have the book “ Abu Nidal Gun For Hire “ that claims Nidal was anbIsraeki agent all along. No opinion on how. valid the claim is.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hiram of Tyre
    He most definitely was. Never apprehended, never hurt, injured or killed.

    Many in the fields of intelligence and politics believed the same.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. Sean says:
    @j2
    "What you have now shown is all you dredged up about Meyer Lansky is a million miles from proving that he had sufficient reason to murder Kennedy. To make any sense of your bizarre notion of cause and effect and of motive you would have to suppose that a US President could be expected to look after the Cuban interests of a known criminal even going to the extent of using US armed forces to do it. Specifically your barmy idea entails that Lansky had a communications conduit to LBJ and thought he had obtained assurance from Johnson that the US would go to war to overthrow Castro and restore an American criminal’s casino. Pathetic."

    1) The assassination of JFK was a conspiracy because there were more than one shooter. This is shown by analyzing the Audiograph and the Dictabelt, and the Zapruder film shows that one shot came from the front. You have two pdf files by me in this link
    http://www.pienisalaliittotutkimus.com/2017/12/07/was-the-j-f-kennedy-assassination-a-conspiracy/

    2) Next we have to look what changed in the US policy after the successful assassination, since it had to have some goal. The USA did not attack Cuba, so that was not the goal. The USA forgot Israel's nuclear bomb project, so that was the goal. (Go through the other alternatives and discard.)

    3) Finally make a scenario who could have done the assassination. As the Audiograph was manipulated in 1970ies, there was someone with access, like CIA (or FBI? etc). There was Ruby, so there was a link to Jewish gangsters leading to Lansky, who was the high boss of organized crime. Much points to LBJ. So, I got this scenario:
    http://www.pienisalaliittotutkimus.com/2018/04/05/jfk-lbj-lansky-dulles-and-zionists/

    It is similar to Piper's argument, I read his book:
    http://www.pienisalaliittotutkimus.com/2018/04/11/comments-on-michael-collins-pipers-book-the-final-judgment/

    The UK also developed nuclear weapons, as did France. The incredibility of America blowing its own brains out by getting into a nuclear exchange to defend Britain, France or Israel meant that those countries having their own nuclear deterrent suited America.

    Read More
    • Replies: @j2
    "The UK also developed nuclear weapons, as did France. The incredibility of America blowing its own brains out by getting into a nuclear exchange to defend Britain, France or Israel meant that those countries having their own nuclear deterrent suited America."

    As the article we are commenting mentions, JFK wanted inspections on Israel nuclear weapon program, which unlike those of UK and France, was secret and denied. Israel was not yet the best friend of the USA. JFK had to ponder what should be the US-Arab relations. Trump is now against North Korean and Iranian nuclear weapons, yet he is not opposing British and French nuclear weapons. So, we know JFK was trying to stop the Israel nuclear weapon program and probably would have offered US protection instead.

    JFK was killed by somebody. This somebody had power to modify Audiograph data in 1970ies. This data was available to CIA, FBI and the Warren Commission members, maybe also to others. CIA had dealings with mafia concerning assassination of Castro. The mafia that had been in Havana was Lansky's mafia. Thus, CIA had dealings with Lansky's gangsters. Dulles, LBJ and Angleton did not like JFK's policies, especially towards Israel. Israel was weak at that time, but had friends in the US, like Lansky, Angleton, LBJ, Dulles. Together these might have pulled the assassination, but even together they could not make the coverup by media. There had to be media and the US media has a tendency to silence one topic only. No President can control the media, the CIA can influence, but not control, mafia cannot control media. Only one power can do it and does it.

    We do not need to know if the reason for the assassination was the Israel atomic bomb program (though it is likely and a sufficient reason). We only need to know who could coverup the issue and especially cover it up in media.

    I looked at this JFK stuff after accidentally watching a video by Donald B. Thomas, where he explained his echo analysis of the Dictabelt. His paper was refuted by former members of the Warren Commission. I checked, did not fully agree with Thomas but got more or less similar conclusions, I think I did it more correctly being much closer to the field than Thomas. The response by these Warren Commission members was false, in my opinion intentionally, so I checked what might be their backgrounds. This showed that echo analysis must always be done.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. @Wizard of Oz
    From one with no barrow to push: this is refreshingly sane.

    From one with no barrow to push

    LOL! Why would anyone not believe you to be a dispassionate observer without Israeli loyalties?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Because they were not suffering from Attention Deficit Disorder.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. Anon[194] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mike Sylwester
    Most of the information was from the book Nemesis: The True Story of Aristotle Onassis, Jackie O, and the Love Triangle That Brought Down the Kennedys, by Peter Evans.

    In December 1971 Aristotle Onassis's ex-wife Tina met with their daughter Christina to ask her to stop bad-mouthing her current husband Stavros Niarchos, a man long hated by Aristotle Onassis. Christina was Niarcho's niece and step-daughter, since he had been married to Tina's sister Eugenie and was now married to Tina herself. Among the accusations that Christina kept repeating about Niarchos was that he had murdered Eugenie. In order to give Christina a broader perspective, Tina informed Christina that her father Aristotle had financed the assassination of Robert Kennedy.

    The next day Christina passed this information on to her brother Alexander Onassis, who subsequently placed some related papers into a safe-deposit box. After that, Alexander told his lover Fiona Thyssen that these papers would prevent his father Aristotle from harming Fiona, a woman long hated by Aristotle Onassis. Since Fiona was 16 years older than Alexander, Aristotle considered her to be a gold-digger and wanted her out of Alexander's life.

    Several months later Alexander showed some of his papers to Yannis Georgakis, a lawyer who was close to the entire Onassis family. The papers included photocopies of pages from the notebooks of Sirhan Sirhan, who had assassinated Robert Kennedy. During the weeks before the assassination, Sirhan would place himself into a hypnotic state and write stream-of-conscious thoughts into a notebook. On one page Sirhan had written at the center of a roundel, amid Arabic writing, the single name Fiona. On another page he had written 2 Narkos!. On a third page, between the lines One Hundred thousand Dollars and Dollars and One Hundreds, Sirhan had written in Arabic: they should be killed, next to which he had written the number three.

    It was obvious to Tina, Christina and Alexander that for some reason Sirhan had been hypnotized into a fixation on killing three people -- Fiona Thyssen, Stavros Niarchos, and Robert Kennedy -- who had long been fiercely hated by Aristotle Onassis.

    =====

    In the fall of 1974 a 34-year-old photographer Helene Gaillet was stranded in Paris on her way to a job in Africa, because the job was canceled. A year earlier she had met Aristotle Onassis at a dinner party in New York, and he had told her to call him if she ever needed a place to stay in Paris. She called his number but was told he was away on his private island, Skorpios, in the Aegean Sea. Several minutes later, however, Onassis returned her call and invited her to join him in Skorpios. He would fly her there at his own expense. She accepted his invitation and subsequently spent several days with him there.

    During that time they had a short affair, which included a series of intimate conversations about their lives. By that time his health was failing (he died four months later), so he was in a confessional mood. During one of those conversations he told her, "You know, Helene, I put up the money for Bobby Kennedy's murder."

    =====

    In May 1968 the above-mentioned lawyer Yannis Georgakis was serving as the chief executive officer of Olympic Airways, which was owned by Aristotle Onassis. Georgakis was informed by a Mossad official serving in Israel's embassy in Paris that Onassis was meeting regularly in Paris with a Palestinian terrorist named Mahmoud Hamshari. About a week later Onassis informed Georgakis that a Palestinian terrorist group had demanded $1.2 million in protection money from Olympic Airlines, threatening to blow up the company's airliners if the money was not paid. Onassis said he had reached an agreement with Hamshari and now needed $200,000 from the company's funds to pay the first installment of the protection money. Onassis assured Georgakis that the subsequent installment payments would be arranged "off the books" and channeled through Onassis's Panama corporations.

    Reluctantly, Georgakis agreed to provide the $200,000. He asked to be included in any future negotiations between Onassis and Hamshari, but Onassis assured him that the entire agreement had already been settled and that no further negotiations should occur.

    Onassis flew to New York with the $200,000 in cash. He put all the money into a shopping bag and gave it to his long-time chauffeur, Roosevelt Zanders, who personally delivered the money to someone in an apartment at United Nations Plaza. As instructed by Onassis, Zanders did not ask for a receipt for the money.

    To be continued.
    Continued from my previous comment at 7:08 a.m.

    =====

    In January 1954 Aristotle Onassis signed a secret agreement with Saudi Arabia's finance minister. The agreement basically said that Onassis would provide Saudi Arabia with its own fleet of oil tankers. Saudi Arabia expected that its ownership of such a fleet would help that country to become independent of Western petroleum companies, to earn a fuller share of profits, and eventually to nationalize the entire industry on its territory. Onassis expected to earn hundreds of millions of dollars for his role in the arrangement.

    Despite the secrecy, however, the US Government soon learned of the deal and during the following months employed a variety of methods to undermine it. The US Justice Department found fault with Onassis's past purchases of oil tankers and subsequently seized his tankers and also money he had earned from those tankers. In February 1954 the Justice Department arrested Onassis himself and charged him with criminal conspiracy to buy the tankers illegally. The State Department pressured the Saudi government to disassociate itself from Onassis. Arrangements were made for Peru to seize nine of Onassis's whaling ships. One of Onassis's business associates was pressured to sue Onassis for swindling him out of $200,000 and to accuse Onassis of paying a $350,000 bribe to the Saudi finance minister. Eventually in October 1954 King Saud decided not to assign the agreement, which therefore became void. All these developments almost bankrupted Onassis.

    Most of Onassis's anger about the collapse of the Saudi deal was misdirected toward Robert Kennedy, who in 1954 was a 29-year-old attorney working on the staff of a Senate subcommittee. One of Kennedy's investigations for the subcommittee had raised accusations about shipping business that some Greek companies conducted with Red China, but this issue did not involve Onassis in particular. Kennedy did not play any apparent role in the seizure of Onassis's assets or in his arrest. The business associate who sued Onassis hired as an expert witness an accountant who had worked for Robert's father Joseph Kennedy for many years, but that accountant had no direct association with Robert Kennedy himself.

    In fact Robert Kennedy had nothing at all to do with the US Government's discovery of Onassis's Saudi deal. The CIA station in Athens had been informed about it by another Greek shipper, Stavros Niarchos, who was Onassis's brother-in-law (the two men were married to two sisters). Niarchos had heard about the deal from Onassis's wife Tina, who was involved in a love affair with Niarchos.

    In order to protect the real source of its information, the CIA cleverly encouraged Onassis's initial reaction that the deal had been exposed during Kennedy's investigation of the Greek shippers who did business with Red China. For example, the accountant of Robert Kennedy's father was apparently moved into and out of the lawsuit in order to inflame Onassis's suspicions about Kenned's role in the matter. Niarchos himself certainly collaborated in the continuing effort to divert Onassis's anger away from himself and onto Kennedy. And in the following years Kennedy himself publicly criticized Onassis on many occasions, which further enraged Onassis.

    =====

    In the early 1960s Onassis became closely involved in several business enterprises with a fellow Greek ex-patriot, Spyros Skouras, who had immigrated to the United States in 1912. Skouras became a movie producer and during that career, he clashed angrily several times with Joseph Kennedy, who was also a movie producer. In May 1962 Skouras's movie studio was losing millions of dollars in the filming of Cleopatra and Something's Got to Give. The latter movie starred Marilyn Monroe, who was extraordinarily capricious and absent during the filming. In conversations with Onassis, Skouras blamed Monroe's misbehavior on Robert Kennedy, her secret lover. Skouras knew about this affair (and about Monroe's earlier affair with John Kennedy) and informed Onassis.

    Exasperated by the problems and losses caused by these two films, Skouras decided to leave the movie business and to establish a shipping business. Onassis invested $10 million in Skouras's shipping business, which intended to introduce new loading and unloading technology that would require far fewer longshoremen. Because of this manpower issue, Onassis became involved in negotiations with Jimmy Hoffa, the chief of the Teamsters labor union and also a hater of Robert Kennedy, who was then the US Attorney General.

    During this same time, Onassis began a love affair with Lee Radziwill, the younger sister of Jacqueline Kennedy. Lee and her husband Prince Stanislas Radziwill were each divorced from previous spouses when they married each other, so they married in a civil wedding instead of a Roman Catholic wedding. Since John Kennedy was now President of the United States, Robert Kennedy used the family's prestige to try to convince the Catholic Church to annul the Radziwills' previous marriages. This effort (and the Kennedy family's reputation) was endangered by publicity about Lee's affair with Onassis, and so Robert Kennedy phoned Onassis directly and asked him to stay away from Lee. Onassis responded with the words, "Bobby, you and Jack fuck your movie queen [Monroe] and I'll fuck my princess [Radziwill]." Onassis thus revealed to Robert Kennedy that he knew about the Kennedy-Monroe affairs, which were still very secret.

    Also during this same time, Hoffa learned (perhaps from Onassis) about the Kennedy brothers' affairs with Monroe and so he bugged Monroe's home and telephones to record related conversations. Through these recordings, Hoffa learned that Monroe and Robert Kennedy had met in Monroe's home on August 4, 1962, a few hours before she died of an overdose and that some of Kennedy's associates had subsequently entered her house during the period between her death and the notification of the police. Hoffa apparently hinted to Onassis about the existence of these tape recordings, since Onassis asked Monroe's publicist whether he knew anything about them, offering to pay big money to buy them.

    =====

    During the following months Robert Kennedy communicated subtle threats in order to pressure Onassis to stay away from Lee Radziwill. The main thrust of these threats was that Kennedy would exploit his position as US Attorney General to cause legal problems for Onassis and his businesses. This pressure backfired, as Onassis arranged for Radziwill to live blatantly with him on his yacht. The feud escalated dramatically in September 1963, when Jackie herself also moved onto the yacht for a few weeks in order to convalesce from a miscarriage. Robert Kennedy responded by continuing his subtle threats against Onassis, and Onassis responded by seducing Jacqueline on the yacht.

    Refreshed by her affair with Onassis, Jacqueline returned to the White House. A few weeks later, on November 22, 1963, John Kennedy was assassinated. At Jacqueline's invitation, Onassis came and stayed in the White House during the funeral days. Robert Kennedy confronted Onassis in the White House, and they eventually engaged in a ridiculous argument that embarrassed Onassis in front of the other guests. Kennedy wrote up a written statement for Onassis to sign, promising to donate half of his wealth to the poor, and Onassis signed the paper with Greek words that nullified the promise.

    In the months following the assassination, Jacqueline wanted to quickly marry Onassis, but this desire was discouraged by Robert Kennedy, who now headed the Kennedy family. Robert Kennedy managed to prevent the marriage as long as he lived. He was assassinated on June 5, 1968. Onassis then married Jacqueline on October 20.

    =====

    To be continued.
    Continued from my previous comments.

    =====

    In January 1968 David Karr arranged for Mahmoud Hamshari, also known as Dr. Michel Hassner, to be introduced to Aristotle Onassis. Karr introduced Dr. Michel Hassner to Onassis's circle as an expert in aviation finance who would propose a restructuring of the debt of Onassis's Olympic Airline. Eventually, Hamshari (aka Hassner), using money provided by Onassis, arranged for Sirhan Sirhan to assassinate Robert Kennedy.

    David Karr had known Onassis since 1956. Karr worked in many varied jobs during his life, but at that time he managed a public relations company that specialized in helping companies that were involved in proxy fights in corporate takeovers. It might be more accurate to say that Karr was specialized in performing dirty tricks for his clients. He collected and distributed (or threatened to distribute) scandalous information about his clients' opponents. By 1967 Onassis was using Karr for a variety of secret tasks; in that year, for example, he asked Karr to ask Soviet officials about possibly supplying crude oil for a refinery he considered building near Athens. Onassis's closest associates wondered about that assignment, because Karr had no expertise related to the petroleum business or to the Soviet Union. Onasssis's trust in Karr was a mystery.

    At some point in his own past, while working as a movie producer in Hollywood, Karr had become acquainted with William Joseph Bryan, Jr., a local hypnotist. Bryan's American Institute of Hypnosis treated people in the film industry for alcohol and drug additions, and he had served as the technical adviser on the filming of the movie The Manchurian Candidate. Karr gave Bryan's phone number to Hamshari and advised him to visit Bryan. Karr later said he referred Hamshari to Bryan because Hamshari complained that he suffered headaches whenever he visited Los Angeles, which he did frequently during 1967 and 1968.

    ==============

    In the summer of 1979 Karr contacted Leslie Linder, a former movie agent, whom Karr had known while he worked in the movie business. Karr wanted Linder to represent his proposed memoirs, which would include a revelation that Onassis had played a key role in the assassination of Robert Kennedy. Linder was interested and scheduled another discussion of the proposal again with the added participation of Oscar Beuselinck, a London lawyer.

    In the meantime, Karr departed for a business meeting in Moscow, where he planned to open a big hotel. He remarked that he had all the evidence of the Onassis story in Paris, and he promised to call Linder and Beuselinck as soon as he returned from Moscow.

    Karr was found dead in his Paris apartment on the morning of July 7, 1979. He had a fractured larynx, and blood was found on his pillow. A forensic examination concluded he had died of a heart attack, but his widow Evia Karr and his business partner Ronnie Driver insist that Karr was murdered by agents of the Palestine Liberation Organization.


    Continued from my previous comments

    =====

    Mahmoud Hamshari was born in a village near Jaffa in 1939 and eventually became an important official in the Palestinian Fatah. In June 1967, following the Six-Day War, he attended a Fatah meeting in Damascus to discuss further strategy. The meeting's participants represented a broad scope of attitudes within Fatah, and Hamshari appeared to be among the most aggressive. When he spoke, he focused his anger on US support of Israel and proposed actions that would attack the US. In particular, he proposed the Fatah "kill a high-profile American on American soil" in order to make the US "think twice about backing the Jews."

    This proposal seemed to earn little explicit support at the meeting, so Hamshari then proposed that the organization greatly increase its fund-raising activities in the US, in order to manipulate the US to support the Palestinians too. Fatah apparently adopted this proposal and assigned Hamshari himself to implement it, operating under the supervision of Fatah's intelligence chief, Abu Iyad (Salah Khalef). In the following months, Hamshari began to travel to Europe and the United States, using several false names, including Dr. Michel Hassner. Late in 1967 a Fatah official gave Hamshari a list of Palestinian immigrants living in Los Angeles. The list had been acquired from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which had records on the Sirhan family, then living in Los Angeles.

    =====

    In some unknown circumstances, Dr. Hassner (Hamshari) began to associate frequently with David Karr, a mysterious associate of Aristotle Onassis. Karr did not introduce Hassner to Onassis directly, but instead introduced him indirectly into Onassis's nner circle as an investment consultant for Arab Bank, specializing in the restructuring of airline debts. Such expertise was of interest because Onassis's Olympic airline was struggling with debts. A meeting between Hassner and Onassis was scheduled for a day in January 1968 in Paris, but Onassis left for Athens unexpectedly right before the meeting. Therefore Hassner met instead with several members of Onassis's inner circle. The airline's chief executive officer, Yannis Georgakis, was not informed about the meeting by Onassis and so did not participate.

    At this meeting, Hassner revealed to the group that he had been approached by a Palestinian terror group who demanded that the airline pay $350,000 to the group so that they not blow up bombs on Olympic airliners. Hassner said he was acting only as an honest broker, a facilitator, and did not know the identities of the terrorists, who had contacted him through the Palestine National Fund.

    After Onassis returned to Paris, he began to meet frequently in Paris with Hassner, the two alone. Between meetings, Hassner sometimes traveled to Los Angeles and back. Karr says that during this period he gave Hassner the phone number of a Los Angeles hypnotist named William Joseph Bryan, Jr.

    Georgakis, the CEO of Olympic, heard about Hassner for the first time in May 1968. He heard about him not from Onassis, but from a Mossad official stationed at the Israeli embassy in Paris. Onassis himself informed Georgakis about a week later, saying that he had already decided to pay $1.2 million (no longer just $350,000) to Hassner and that Georgakis should provide the first $200,000 in cash from Olympic funds. Georgakis complied, and Onassis subsequently flew with the cash to New York, where his chauffeur delivered it to an apartment at United Nations Plaza.

    =====

    To be continued.

    Allow me to conclude with one more passage.

    =====

    On the evening of June 4, 1968, an itinerant Christian preacher named Jerry Owen (he himself said) parked a horse trailer outside the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles, where Robert Kennedy's campaign organization had scheduled its anticipated victory following the California primary elections. Later that night, Sirhan assassinated Kennedy in the hotel. The next day, Owen reported to the Los Angeles police that he had picked up Sirhan and a young woman hitchhiking on June 3. During the course of that meeting, Owen said, Sirhan had agreed to buy a horse from Owen on the night of June 4 in the hotel parking lot. That deal, explained Owen, was why he himself had parked his horse trailer in the parking lot and why Sirhan had four one-hundred-dollar bills in his pocket when he was arrested. Owen further surmised that Sirhan intended to use the horse trailer as a get-away vehicle.

    The Police basically dismissed Owen's report as a publicity stunt. (In 1970 this incident was examined in a lawsuit that Owen filed against a television station. During that trial, several witnessed testified that Owen had become acquainted with Sirhan at the Corona race track, where on one occasion a few weeks before the assassination Owen had given Sirhan a large wad of cash)

    Immediately after he was arrested, Sirhan declared that "I did it for my country." Within a few minutes, though, he began avoiding any discussion of his motive. He instead wanted to talk with the investigating policemen about Albert DeSalvo, the so-called Boston Strangler. Later, Sirhan claimed that he had no memory of anything about the assassination, about his intention, about his notebooks, or about the act itself. During his trial he reluctantly allowed his lawyers to construct a legal defense of diminished responsibility due to mental illness.

    Sirhan was not hypnotized by himself or anyone else in order to manipulate him to assassinate Robert Kennedy. Even without the hypnosis, Sirhan was willing and eager to assassinate Kennedy because of the latter's support for Israel. The initial purpose of Sirhan's self-hypnosis was to focus his mind and bolster courage for this difficult mission. Eventually, though, the hypnosis served also as a legal excuse to try to avoid execution. The notebook served as evidence that he was often in deep trances and so plausibly had no memory of the assassination. Also, the hypnosis deflected political blame from the Palestinian cause as Sirhan's main motivation.

    Sirhan hoped that if he could avoid execution, then eventually he would be freed in a prisoner swap forced by Palestinian terrorists. He was sentenced to death, but later that sentence was commuted when the Supreme Court declared the death penalty to be unconstitutional.

    Sirhan mentioned Albert DeSalvo repeatedly in his notebooks and at the police station immediately after his arrest. DeSalvo had been hypnotized by a Los Angeles hypnotist named William Joseph Bryan. After he died in 1977, a couple of prostitutes whom he frequently hired told investigators that he sometimes bragged that he had hypnotized Albert DeSalvo and Sirhan Sirhan.

    I’ve read the book Nemesis that claims Onassis paid for the murder of Robert Kennedy. It also claims Onassis and Jacqueline agreed to marry on a cruise she took on Onassis’ yacht a few months before JFK was killed.

    The plan was when he either lost the 64 election or was re elected and his Presidency ended in January 69, she would divorce JFK for his numerous adulteries and marry Onassis.

    Who knows? It’s all enjoyable reading anyway.

    My favorite genres are political, spy, detective, financial corruption and historical thrillers.

    So I enjoy all the Kennedy conspiracy books.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Skeptikal
    Re Nemesis:
    Verrry interesting.
    I read that book years ago.
    I didn't htink anyone else had read it!

    I found it pretty thought-provoking.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. gsjackson says:
    @Sean
    Thew real Oswald was a Communist that lived and worked in the Soviet Union before returning to the US with his Russian wife (who said he admitted shooting segregationist former Airborne division commander Walker) and becoming enamored of Cuban socialism. A Texan familiar with firearm fro his childhood, Oswald qualified as a rifleman in the Marines (where he was also disciplined for pouring a beer over a sergeant's head, and possession of an illegal pistol).

    Every Marine is considered a “rifleman,” even those who fail to qualify with the rifle. At the end of his tour Oswald tested on the low end of ‘marksman,’ which is the lowest of three qualifying categories. Which means he wasn’t a particularly good shot.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    He was a Texan (like Audie Murphy) and familiar with rifles from an early age. He was a trained rifleman who though not an expert shot scored 49 hits and one miss at a target 200 yards away. LHO was seen practicing at a rifle range before Dallas, and at a range of under 100 yards his performance in getting one fatal shot on Kennedy was good, not exceptional, even for a rusty and mediocre shot (which he was not).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5IWK9sRYTs

    Charles Wittman was a Texan too, as was Chris Kyle.

    , @David In TN
    A friend of mine visited the Book Depository and was struck by how close Oswald was. It was an easy shot.

    The question the conspiracy idiots don't consider is: If the "deep state" wanted to get rid of him, why not expose JFK in a sex scandal forcing his resignation?

    It would be (a lot) safer than a "conspiracy" composed of the entire government. A forced resignation from a sex scandal would make Kennedy a laughing stock and totally disgrace him. The assassination made him a martyr, causing the passage of every measure he had favored.

    The fallout concerning the East German woman from Bobby Baker's stable whom JFK had consorted with was still bubbling on November 22, 1963.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. Iris says:

    Thanks for this intelligent, insightful and courageous article.
    It is exceptionally interesting and well-researched, and simply outstanding, considering the intellectual decadence and cowardice of thoughts we have been dragged into.

    Thanks also for the sensitivity of your conclusion: John and Robert Kennedy’s memory is cherished throughout the world. They died because they wanted to make the world a better place for humankind. They will never be forgotten.

    Read More
    • Agree: renfro, Cloak And Dagger
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  97. @Laurent Guyénot
    Yes, the JFK assassination was a public execution, but why would that incriminate the deep state rather than Israel? I would rather think the opposite. I think you also miss a point that you could perhaps get by reading James Douglass: JFK considered it his most important task to abolish nuclear weapons. It was possible then. So it makes sense to believe that his determination to stop Dimona was very, very strong.

    Because local Jews & pro-Israel bunch are not equivalent to “deep state”. It is true that Zionist Jews are now more influential than ever, but they do not “own” US nor direct most currents of US policy. Being 2% of US population, Jews are perhaps 20-25% among American elites (which, evidently, is not the majority), and most of them are liberals who are not involved in shaping of American middle east politics. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld…. were/are American imperialists, and not some Jewish puppets.

    As regards Kennedy, it is true that he had strong positions re nuclear weapons, but, having in mind huge arsenals of US & Soviet Union, and smaller ones of Britain, China..- Israel’s nuclear program was not considered to be something spectacularly important, especially at that stage. It is bizarre to consider that Israelis would even think of, let alone try to execute US president, just because he gave them slap on the wrist at some point.

    And, in 1963, Zionist Jews (and all US Jews) were much less influential then today, after 5 decades that have, beginning with counter-cultural 60s, multiculturalism & Vietnam war, transformed US beyond recognition. Back in 50s/early 60s they had just wanted to assimilate into society as quickly as possible & minimize traces of their ethnic identity, while Israel was a schnorrer, beggar economy trying to survive & keep a low profile.

    That Golda Meir or Ben Gurion would even contemplate anything similar is simply weird: https://www.haaretz.com/.premium-golda-meir-had-doubts-on-kennedy-death-1.5292291

    Read More
    • Replies: @renfro
    Pro-Israel jews are the “deep state” and their headquarters is the US congress.
    , @Laurent Guyénot
    Again, I think you are missing two points:
    1. We are not talking here about Jews influential in US politics , but of a network of Irgun sayanim, Mickey Cohen type, directly under the Israeli State (and Ben Gurion in particular, who happened to go underground in nov 1963).
    2. For Ben Gurion and his paranoid gang, going nuclear was a matter of life and death. It was non negociable. Whoever stood in the way had to be eliminated. Period. For Kennedy, having one more nuclear power was out of the question, and inspecting Dimona was non negotiable. Period.
    , @Skeptikal
    Sounds like Hasbara to me.
    Of course the Isrealis always have had grandiose plans for their shitty little state.
    And, one of JFK's hugest concerns was nuclear disarmament, remember?????
    Not letting a shitty little state destabilize the world with its oversize ego and armaments.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. renfro says:
    @Intelligent Dasein
    Yes, I believe that Oswald killed Kennedy. I have no reasonable doubt that Oswald alone fired the fatal shot.

    I also believe that the question, while certainly not irrelevant, is little thought of by most people today and would not affect their lives one way or the other. This is not to say that truth should not be investigated and justice done whenever possible. Falsehoods of any sort should be brought to light and expunged from the historical record, for there is no telling what damage an error may do even long after the fact. However, in the first place, I do not think that the historical record has enshrined any major errors in the case of the Kennedys; and in the second place, the fervency with which the contrarians (and they alone) continue to revive this long-buried topic does not savor of an honest pursuit of truth. I gather they would not be satisfied even if all the world were converted to their opinion.

    They have some sort of an agenda. What it is varies from case to case and is not something I'm willing to speculate upon. But this sort of crusading over the meaning of an historical event is never anything but a quest for political power in the present moment, and is usually driven not by any coherent ideology but by the sheer passion for revenge. The willingness of so many revisionists to make saints out of the Kennedys---which on any objective reading they clearly were not---is by itself sufficient to discover the all-too-human wellsprings of their motivation. You have a beef with Israel, with the CIA, with Lyndon Johnson, with the whole American Deep State. I get that; I'm no fan of these people, either. But I'm not going to pervert my entire view of history so as to cast them in the role of the eternal villain. Self-deception is not only bad for your psychological health, it's also very politically inexpedient. You will never accomplish anything by this method. Just imagine the dismay that will come upon you if, peradventure, you happen to have a real shot at gaining some actual power and then you realize that your only friends and compatriots are the unreliable fruit loops who've been yup-yupping your articles these past years. A lot of help they're going to be.

    The assertion that Israel had anything to do with assassinating either Kennedy brother is just not true. It is falsehood and lies and intellectual pollution. The reverence for such a belief belongs as a sub-genre of postmodern urban mysticism and religious occultism, along with the belief that the CIA planted explosives in the World Trade Center.

    The assertion that Israel had anything to do with assassinating either Kennedy brother is just not true. It is falsehood and lies and intellectual pollution

    No one but a Jew and/or Israel supporter would make that statement.

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

    Only Israel had anything to gain from Kennedy’s murder and they used some Jewish organized crime members to set it up. Only our Israeli occupied congress, not the CIA, could have ”controlled’ the investigation to ensure it produced the conclusion it fed to the public.

    In his book, The Passionate Attachment, former Undersecretary of State George Ball summarized the results of Johnson’s Middle East policies:

    First, the Johnson administration put America in the position of being Israel’s principal arms supplier and sole unqualified backer.

    “Second, by assuring the Israelis that the United States would always provide them with a military edge over the Arabs, Johnson guaranteed the ‘escalation of an arms race…

    Third, by refusing to follow the advice of his aides that America make its delivery of nuclear-capable F-4 Phantoms conditional on Israel’s signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Johnson gave the Israelis the impression that America had no fundamental objection to Israel’s nuclear program.

    “Fourth, by permitting a cover-up of Israel’s attack on the Liberty, President Johnson told the Israelis in effect that nothing they did would induce American politicians to refuse their bidding.

    From that time forth, the Israelis began to act as if they had an inalienable right to American aid and backing.”
    As Stephen Green concluded in his discussion of the incredible changes in U.S. policy toward Israel that took place during the Johnson era in ‘Taking Sides: America’s Secret Relations With A Militant Israel’:
    “By June of 1967, for a variety of reasons that prominently included ‘domestic political considerations,’ Lyndon Johnson and his team of foreign-policy advisors had completely revised U.S.-Israeli relations. To all intents and purposes, Israel had become the 51st state.”
    This was the exact opposite of what Kennedy’s attitude toward Israel was and had he lived we would probably have a different relationship with Israel today.’

    Former high-ranking U.S. diplomat Richard H. Curtiss, writing in ‘A Changing Image: American Perceptions of the Arab-Israeli Dispute’, elaborated on Kennedy’s attitude toward the Middle East controversy. In a chapter appropriately titled: “President Kennedy and Good Intentions Deferred Too Long,” Curtiss comments:
    “It is surprising to realize, with the benefit of hindsight, that from the time Kennedy entered office as the narrowly-elected candidate of a party heavily dependent upon Jewish support, he was planning to take a whole new look at U.S. Mideast policy.
    “He obviously could not turn the clock back and undo the work of President Truman, his Democratic predecessor, in making the establishment of Israel possible. Nor, perhaps, would he have wanted to.
    “Kennedy was determined, however, to develop good new personal relationships with individual Arab leaders, including those with whom the previous administration’s relations had deteriorated.
    Soon after Kennedy assumed office, Israel and its American lobby began to understand the import of Kennedy’s positioning in regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Israel was not happy – to say the very least – and began putting heat on the White House through its supporters in Congress, many of whom relied upon support from the Israeli lobby for campaign contributions and political leverage.
    By mid-1963 Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion hated Kennedy with a passion. In fact, he considered JFK a threat to the very survival of the Jewish State.

    Kennedy according to Curtiss cited four areas causing a strain in U.S.-Israel relations: 1) Israel’s diversion-from the Arab States-of the Jordan River waters; 2) Israel’s retaliatory raids against Arab forces in border areas; 3) Israel’s pivotal role in the Palestinian refugee problem; and 4) Israel’s insistence that the United States sell advanced Hawk missiles to Israel.

    “The President outlined to Mrs. Meir what has come to be called the Kennedy Doctrine. Kennedy told Meir that U.S. interests and Israel’s interests were not always the same.
    The Talbot memorandum described Kennedy’s forthright stance:
    “We know,”that Israel faces enormous security problems, but we do too. We came almost to a direct confrontation with the Soviet Union last spring and again recently in Cuba… Because we have taken on wide security responsibilities we always have the potential of becoming involved in a major crisis not of our own making.
    “Our security problems are, therefore, just as great as Israel’s. We have to concern ourself with the whole Middle East. We would like Israeli recognition that this partnership which we have with it produces strains for the United States in the Middle East… when Israel takes such action as it did last spring when Israel launched a raid into Syria, resulting in a condemnation by the UN Security Council. Whether right or wrong, those actions involve not just Israel but also the United States.”
    According to Seymour Hersh: “Israel’s bomb, and what to do about it, became a White House fixation – part of the secret presidential agenda that would remain hidden for the next thirty years.”

    In March, 1963, Sherman Kent, the Chairman of the Board of National Estimates at the CIA, wrote an extended memorandum to the CIA’s Director on the highly controversial subject entitled “Consequences of Israeli Acquisition of Nuclear Capability.”
    According to Stephen Green, for the purposes of this internal memorandum, Kent defined “acquisition” by Israel as either (a) a detonation of a nuclear device with or without the possession of actual nuclear weapons, or (b) an announcement by Israel that it possessed nuclear weapons, even without testing. Kent’s primary conclusion was that an Israeli bomb would cause ‘substantial damage to the U.S. and Western position in the Arab world.

    According to Green, “The memorandum was very strong and decidedly negative in its conclusions” which were as follows:
    “Even though Israel already enjoys a clear military superiority over its Arab adversaries, singly or combined, acquisition of a nuclear capability would greatly enhance Israel’s sense of security. In this circumstance, some Israelis might be inclined to adopt a moderate and conciliatory posture…
    “We believe it much more likely, however, that Israel’s policy toward its neighbors would become more rather than less tough. Israel would seek to exploit the psychological advantages of its nuclear capability to intimidate the Arabs and to prevent them from making trouble on the frontiers.”
    In dealing with the United States, the CIA analyst estimated, a nuclear Israel would “make the most of the almost inevitable Arab tendency to look to the Soviet Bloc for assistance against the added Israel threat, arguing that in terms of both strength and reliability Israel was clearly the only worthwhile friend of the U.S. in the area.
    “Israel,” in Kent’s analysis, “would use all the means at its command to persuade the U.S. to acquiesce in, and even to support, its possession of nuclear capability.”
    In short, Israel would use its immense political power – especially through its lobby in Washington – to force the United States to accede to Israel’s nuclear intentions.

    Stephen Green believes that Kennedy’s position vis-a-vis Israel was an important stand: “It was a remarkable exchange, and the last time in many, many years in which an American president precisely distinguished for the government of Israel the differences between U.S. and Israeli national security interests.”
    Thus it was that John F. Kennedy informed Israel, in no uncertain terms, that he intended – first and foremost – to place America’s interests – not Israel’s interests – at the center of U.S. Middle East policy.
    Kennedy’s friendly overtures to the Arab states were only a public aspect of what ultimately developed into an all-out ‘secret war’ between Kennedy and Israel.
    Another part of the all secret war between Kennedy and Israel according to Hersh was Ben-Gurion’s hated Kennedy because he consider his father an anti semite and Hitler supporter. Hersh wrote, “The Israeli prime minister, in subsequent private communications to the White House, began to refer to the President as ‘young man.’ Kennedy made clear to associates that he found the letters to be offensive.”
    Kennedy himself told his close friend, Charles Bartlett, that he was getting fed up with the fact that the Israeli “sons of bitches lie to me constantly about their nuclear capability.”
    Obviously, to say the very least, there was no love lost between the two leaders. The U.S.-Israeli relationship was at an ever-growing and disastrous impasse, although virtually nothing was known about this to the American public at the time.”…….Green

    Read More
    • Agree: Iris
    • Replies: @Cloak And Dagger
    Great stuff, renfro! Thank you!
    , @ChuckOrloski
    renfro insightfully wrote:
    "By mid-1963 Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion hated Kennedy with a passion. In fact, he considered JFK a threat to the very survival of the Jewish State."

    Hi renfro,

    In contrast, & as you may might know, Ben-Gurion loved GOP, Richard M. Nixon, who became the 1st sitting-USrael president to visit Israel!

    F.y.i., On comeback trail, RMN wrote an interesting book titled "Leaders" in which David Ben-Gurion is deified.

    Thanks for such thoughtful posts, renfro.

    P.S.:
    Below is a work of political-satire which was also posted by "The Smirking Chimp" web site, & afterward, the concerned editor badgered me for anti-semitism, & subsequently, I became the Smirking Chimp's U-peel Shrimp!

    https://www.uncommonthought.com/mtblog/archives/2017/02/17/prime-minister-netanyahus-crazy-negevist-bedroom-enterprise.php
    , @Dissident X
    Renfro:

    Despite my reservations about the statement, "Only Israel had anything to gain from Kennedy’s murder.", I find this comment be very well organized and persuasive.

    While I don't think intent to somehow disrupt the zionist occupier of Palestine lands acquiring nuclear weapons capability and actual armaments as the only potential disposition of JFK, which would have made him a target of the Torah-Pharisees-Talmud global collective, I agree that even by itself, it would have.

    [See my post: http://www.unz.com/article/did-israel-kill-the-kennedies/#comment-2357245 above, if you care to, and haven't already.]

    Thank you for your contribution; I appreciate it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. renfro says:
    @Bardon Kaldian
    Because local Jews & pro-Israel bunch are not equivalent to "deep state". It is true that Zionist Jews are now more influential than ever, but they do not "own" US nor direct most currents of US policy. Being 2% of US population, Jews are perhaps 20-25% among American elites (which, evidently, is not the majority), and most of them are liberals who are not involved in shaping of American middle east politics. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld.... were/are American imperialists, and not some Jewish puppets.

    As regards Kennedy, it is true that he had strong positions re nuclear weapons, but, having in mind huge arsenals of US & Soviet Union, and smaller ones of Britain, China..- Israel's nuclear program was not considered to be something spectacularly important, especially at that stage. It is bizarre to consider that Israelis would even think of, let alone try to execute US president, just because he gave them slap on the wrist at some point.

    And, in 1963, Zionist Jews (and all US Jews) were much less influential then today, after 5 decades that have, beginning with counter-cultural 60s, multiculturalism & Vietnam war, transformed US beyond recognition. Back in 50s/early 60s they had just wanted to assimilate into society as quickly as possible & minimize traces of their ethnic identity, while Israel was a schnorrer, beggar economy trying to survive & keep a low profile.

    That Golda Meir or Ben Gurion would even contemplate anything similar is simply weird: https://www.haaretz.com/.premium-golda-meir-had-doubts-on-kennedy-death-1.5292291

    Pro-Israel jews are the “deep state” and their headquarters is the US congress.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. @Intelligent Dasein
    Yes, I believe that Oswald killed Kennedy. I have no reasonable doubt that Oswald alone fired the fatal shot.

    I also believe that the question, while certainly not irrelevant, is little thought of by most people today and would not affect their lives one way or the other. This is not to say that truth should not be investigated and justice done whenever possible. Falsehoods of any sort should be brought to light and expunged from the historical record, for there is no telling what damage an error may do even long after the fact. However, in the first place, I do not think that the historical record has enshrined any major errors in the case of the Kennedys; and in the second place, the fervency with which the contrarians (and they alone) continue to revive this long-buried topic does not savor of an honest pursuit of truth. I gather they would not be satisfied even if all the world were converted to their opinion.

    They have some sort of an agenda. What it is varies from case to case and is not something I'm willing to speculate upon. But this sort of crusading over the meaning of an historical event is never anything but a quest for political power in the present moment, and is usually driven not by any coherent ideology but by the sheer passion for revenge. The willingness of so many revisionists to make saints out of the Kennedys---which on any objective reading they clearly were not---is by itself sufficient to discover the all-too-human wellsprings of their motivation. You have a beef with Israel, with the CIA, with Lyndon Johnson, with the whole American Deep State. I get that; I'm no fan of these people, either. But I'm not going to pervert my entire view of history so as to cast them in the role of the eternal villain. Self-deception is not only bad for your psychological health, it's also very politically inexpedient. You will never accomplish anything by this method. Just imagine the dismay that will come upon you if, peradventure, you happen to have a real shot at gaining some actual power and then you realize that your only friends and compatriots are the unreliable fruit loops who've been yup-yupping your articles these past years. A lot of help they're going to be.

    The assertion that Israel had anything to do with assassinating either Kennedy brother is just not true. It is falsehood and lies and intellectual pollution. The reverence for such a belief belongs as a sub-genre of postmodern urban mysticism and religious occultism, along with the belief that the CIA planted explosives in the World Trade Center.

    Yes, I believe that Oswald killed Kennedy. I have no reasonable doubt that Oswald alone fired the fatal shot.

    Very, very unlikely. It is doubtful that he fired any shot.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Then why did he shoot the police officer later?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. republic says:
    @Anon
    I agree about the plane crash inserted into the article. It was a combination of an unusually thick fog and an inexperienced pilot

    There was a thread recently in which John Jrs plane crash was discussed. A couple of pilots who flew the same Plane write that in that kind of fog with a pilot unskilled in flying by instruments it was not shot down but just happened.

    Another poster write that he was in the area that night and it was one of the worst fogs he’d ever seen.

    There seem to be a lot of small plane crashes which involve controversial politicians
    such as, JFK,Jr, Ron Brown, Wellstone, John Towers, Michael Connell, (Bush campaign it expert) to name but a few.
    There use to be detailed analysis of the Martha’s Vineyard crash on the web, but these seem
    To have been scrubbed lately and only official MSM versions are easily available.
    An exception to that rule is the book, Ron Brown’s body: how one man’s death saved
    The Clinton Presidency.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    You’re right. But there’s also a lot of small plane ceashes that involve entertainment people especially musicians on tour.

    Could it be that politicians musicians some businessmen and wealthier than average people use small planes more than the rest of us who just drive and use airlines when traveling?
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Get serious and see if you can see any problem with the Canadian Mayday aka Air Crash Investigation explanation about what happened. Kennedy hadn't been flying and was recovering from an injury, one of his passengers turned up very late so he ended up flying in the dark (and eventually in cloud) and he wasn't able to rely on instruments. Disorientation leading to stall and or spin.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. @Laurent Guyénot
    I did not mean to exonerate the CIA. I tried to be as brief as I could, so I didn't get into the detail of CIA involvement. CIA had to be involved to some extent in order to be blackmailed into powerlessness. My point is that CIA was not the mastermind and I wanted to point out that the mainstream media were pointing to the CIA, which is in itself very significant: it is like when the mainstream media say "the CIA controls the media". I am actually inclined to agree with Gary Wean's thesis (as Piper seemed to do) that the CIA had planned a faked failed assassination coup to force JFK into acting against Castro, but was double-crossed. This fits the scenario which I also believe for 9/11. http://rockthetruth.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-911-triple-cross.html
    And I liked Janney's book.

    Hi Laurent,

    Am very gratified when busy U.R. authors engage comments corresponding to their articles. Thank you!

    Comment # 80, you wrote: “I did not mean to exonerate the CIA.”

    Above, I knew such was impossible since your mentioning having read James Douglass’s classic, “JFK and the Unspeakable.”

    Also you wrote:. My point is that CIA was not the mastermind…”

    Above, so it appears you believe that CIA depended upon the Israeli intelligence Lowerarchy as the JFK assassination planning / operational “mastermind?”

    Had he come squeaky clean, I intuit CIA Counterintelligence Chief James Jesus Angleton might support such a view as yours.

    Such smacks of how the ZUS military (Gitmo-based) tribunal deceptively presented Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) as the 9/11 terror attack “mastermind.”

    To conclude, am very pleased to have read this sentence: “And I liked Janney’s book.”

    F.y.i., just last month while attending a Delaware Valley High School varsity baseball game, while in the stands, I spoke with three (3) mother’s who lived in nearby, Milford, Pa. One lady taught public school.

    Regrettably, no one had any knowledge about Mary Pinchot Meyer’s JFK affair, brutal murder on the Georgetown canal-trail, and her Milford, Pa burial @ the Gifford Pinchot estate.

    Thanks very much, Laurent Guyenot!
    Continue to be honestly unflappable.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. Iris says:
    @Mr. Anon
    The Kennedy worship on display by Mr. Guyenot, like that of Oliver Stone, is remarkable. I'm not singling him out - a lot of people share in it. But the notion that the Kennedys were some kind of unique family of righteous, justice-seeking heroes is ludicrous. They were a clan of reckless, smarmy, cynical politicians. John was probably the best of them, and he seemed to have had a few good instincts, but he was massively compromised by his libido, which opened him up to blackmail.

    And the notion that John-John was killed by some kind of conspiracy is ridiculous. He was a light-weight and a dilletante. I don't imagine anyone feared his political or literary ambitions. His was another case of DWK - driving while Kennedy. Nobody in that family could be trusted behind the controls of any kind of vehicle. I wouldn't knowingly step in front of stroked-out old Joe in his wheelchair.

    “They were a clan of reckless, smarmy, cynical politicians

    Their eldest, Joe Kennedy, died for his country in secret WW2 mission.

    https://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK/The-Kennedy-Family/Joseph-P-Kennedy-Jr.aspx

    There is nothing cynical about such ultimate patriotic sacrifice; the pompous Zionist posting on this thread could not even start to comprehend the adjective “patriotic”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    Their eldest, Joe Kennedy, died for his country in secret WW2 mission.
     
    He was flying a B-24 loaded with explosives on a one-way mission. I believe the idea was that the crew would fly the plane to the vicinity of the target (in this case, german submarine pens on the French coast), then bail out and the plane would be remote-controlled by radio from a nearby boat. From what I had heard (my Dad read a book on the topic and told me about it), Joe Jr.'s radio-man had told him that the radio equipment was faulty and could cause a premature detonation; he recommended scrubbing the mission. Joe Jr. ignored his advice, flew the mission, and got them all killed. i.e., he was reckless.

    There is nothing cynical about such ultimate patriotic sacrifice; the pompous Zionist posting on this thread could not even start to comprehend the adjective “patriotic”.
     
    I thought the whole war was supposed to be a zionist plot, in which case, wasn't anybody who volunteered for it a sucker?
    , @Anon
    402,000 American soldiers were killed in WW2.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. Sean says:
    @gsjackson
    Every Marine is considered a "rifleman," even those who fail to qualify with the rifle. At the end of his tour Oswald tested on the low end of 'marksman,' which is the lowest of three qualifying categories. Which means he wasn't a particularly good shot.

    He was a Texan (like Audie Murphy) and familiar with rifles from an early age. He was a trained rifleman who though not an expert shot scored 49 hits and one miss at a target 200 yards away. LHO was seen practicing at a rifle range before Dallas, and at a range of under 100 yards his performance in getting one fatal shot on Kennedy was good, not exceptional, even for a rusty and mediocre shot (which he was not).

    Charles Wittman was a Texan too, as was Chris Kyle.

    Read More
    • Replies: @prusmc
    Interesting. When Oswald was in boot camp he scored as sharp-shooter between 210 and 219 points out of 250. HE would fire 10 rounds slow fire from the off-hand (standing) position from 200 yards. Then later he would fire 10 rounds rapid fire in 60 seconds from the standing to sitting position. So this hitting 49 of 50 rounds from 200 yards is a cock and bull story.
    What is not a cock and bull story is a beer drinking session in spring 1959 with Sergeants Dean Nelson from Arkansas, Leroy Alsbury and another Sergeant Dorsey from Illinois at enlisted club MCAS El Toro, California. Topic turned to a Marine who was at a near by station called LTA. They knew him from Japan and said he was frequently in trouble and he was convinced that the US was corrupt for among other things "using germ warfare in Korea". They said he was called Ossie Rabbit.
    , @ians
    You’re certainly determined to prove your ignorance here. Oswald was not seen at a range practising. He was not in that area at the time. The rifle booked into evidence is of a different length to the one he supposedly ordered. Olympic riflemen were unable to replicate the shots supposedly fired. All the doctors at Parkland testified to the fatal shot having come from the front.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. renfro says:

    I just have to say this about the Jew hasbara who insist people believe that the CIA is the ‘deep state’……when in fact the CIA and the FBI are the ONLY gov arms that aggressively go after Israel and the Jew fifth column in the US…..and it is ONLY Congress and/or the WH that has stopped them and interfered in their investigation time after time. As for the other retards who promote this—-you’re are dangerously stupid….so stupid you dont even know who the real deep state is.

    Here’s just one example of the CIA trying to clean out the jewish Israeli agents at the CIA.

    https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/355/661/500422/

    On December 13, 1999, Ciralsky was terminated from his job as a lawyer for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). On July 19, 2000, Ciralsky filed suit against the CIA, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and nine of their employees and agents, alleging that he had been “interrogated, harassed, surveilled and terminated from his employment with the CIA solely because he is a Jew and practices the Jewish religion.”

    689 F. Supp. 2d 141 (2010)
    Adam CIRALSKY, Plaintiff,
    v.
    CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, et al., Defendants.
    Civil Action No. 00-1709-JDS.
    United States District Court, District of Columbia.
    February 26, 2010

    Shortly after he began working at the CIA, the Agency initiated a reinvestigation of Plaintiff’s security clearance, administering a series of polygraph examinations and interviews to evaluate his fitness. On August 19, 1997, Plaintiff failed a polygraph examination. In the month following this polygraph session, various CIA employees interviewed Plaintiff on four separate occasions. At one of these interviews on September 11, 1997, Plaintiff was given a laptop computer and told to use it to document and explain issues arising out of the failed polygraph session of August 19, 1997. Plaintiff returned this laptop to the CIA on September 29, 1997. The veracity of Plaintiff’s declarations in these interviews was tested through another polygraph examination on October 3, 1997.

    Following the reinvestigation, the CIA advanced the process of revoking Plaintiff’s security clearance. On October 20, 1997, the CIA placed Plaintiff on administrative leave and informed him that an employee review panel (“ERP”) would reconsider his access to classified information. After Plaintiff submitted a memorandum defending himself, the ERP met on or about November 21, 1997, and recommended that the CIA revoke Plaintiff’s security clearance and terminate his employment. After reviewing two additional memoranda submitted by Plaintiff in response to certain damaging information, the ERP maintained its initial recommendation when it reconsidered the matter on March 6, 1998. Records of both ERP meetings describe the panel’s concern to be Plaintiff’s failure to disclose information about and lack of candor regarding several contacts that were or may have been involved in the Israeli security establishment. See Pl.’s Mot. for Disc. Attach. 1 and 2 (official summaries of ERP meetings).

    There are more….peruse this very informative thread on an article for more examples of the CIA and FBI efforts……..http://mondoweiss.net/2013/03/convicted-suggests-israeli/

    Read More
    • Agree: Cloak And Dagger
    • Replies: @Patsy Klein
    Thanks, Renfro, for inadvertently highlighting the big difference between Israel and CIA: Israel is subject to law enforcement and counterintelligence scrutiny, while CIA has impunity, arbitrary classification authority, and an institutionalized disinformation network like this:

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-cia-and-the-media-50-facts-the-world-needs-to-know/5471956

    But we're supposed to believe Israel killed both Kennedys by outsmarting CIA staff who kill heads of state for a living. Yeah. Right.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. j2 says:
    @Sean
    The UK also developed nuclear weapons, as did France. The incredibility of America blowing its own brains out by getting into a nuclear exchange to defend Britain, France or Israel meant that those countries having their own nuclear deterrent suited America.

    “The UK also developed nuclear weapons, as did France. The incredibility of America blowing its own brains out by getting into a nuclear exchange to defend Britain, France or Israel meant that those countries having their own nuclear deterrent suited America.”

    As the article we are commenting mentions, JFK wanted inspections on Israel nuclear weapon program, which unlike those of UK and France, was secret and denied. Israel was not yet the best friend of the USA. JFK had to ponder what should be the US-Arab relations. Trump is now against North Korean and Iranian nuclear weapons, yet he is not opposing British and French nuclear weapons. So, we know JFK was trying to stop the Israel nuclear weapon program and probably would have offered US protection instead.

    JFK was killed by somebody. This somebody had power to modify Audiograph data in 1970ies. This data was available to CIA, FBI and the Warren Commission members, maybe also to others. CIA had dealings with mafia concerning assassination of Castro. The mafia that had been in Havana was Lansky’s mafia. Thus, CIA had dealings with Lansky’s gangsters. Dulles, LBJ and Angleton did not like JFK’s policies, especially towards Israel. Israel was weak at that time, but had friends in the US, like Lansky, Angleton, LBJ, Dulles. Together these might have pulled the assassination, but even together they could not make the coverup by media. There had to be media and the US media has a tendency to silence one topic only. No President can control the media, the CIA can influence, but not control, mafia cannot control media. Only one power can do it and does it.

    We do not need to know if the reason for the assassination was the Israel atomic bomb program (though it is likely and a sufficient reason). We only need to know who could coverup the issue and especially cover it up in media.

    I looked at this JFK stuff after accidentally watching a video by Donald B. Thomas, where he explained his echo analysis of the Dictabelt. His paper was refuted by former members of the Warren Commission. I checked, did not fully agree with Thomas but got more or less similar conclusions, I think I did it more correctly being much closer to the field than Thomas. The response by these Warren Commission members was false, in my opinion intentionally, so I checked what might be their backgrounds. This showed that echo analysis must always be done.

    Read More
    • Replies: @j2
    Sorry, they were not Warren Commission members, they were members of a scientific panel, which refuted the House Select Committee of Assassinations findings. Anyway, I checked their backgrounds as their paper was strangely wrong when there were Nobelists in the group.()
    , @Sean
    Israel was never threatened with having its nuclear weapons taken away and Kennedy could never have been reelected in he even hinted at that.France threatened to ally with the Soviet Union if its Indochinese empire was not given back to it, and did not ask permission of the US to develop nuclear weapons. In fact it was Eisenhower and then JFK's project of Giving Germany a say in Nato's use of nuclear weapons that led to France developing its own H bomb and leaving Nato.

    It is really quite preposterous that America was suddenly presented with a shock horror discovery of an Israeli fait accompli nuclear weapon. It is hard to believe that the US did not know that Israel was trying to develop nuclear weapons long before it actually did so and if America did not facilitated it so that Israel would have a credible deterrent, there was no meaningful attemt to stop the Israeli nuke.

    The US could have just told them to desist and cut off their access to nuclear materials, there is no evidence that the US ever did, therefore the US was not too bothered for Israel to get nukes because Israel using Nukes to defend itself was more credible that the US doing so to defend Israel, in the same way that the UK and France having nukes was bad for US, Israel having nukes was OK for the US. so America just turned a blind eye . The US never tried to stop Israel's nuke program at an early stage, but really did not want to admit to the rest of the world that they knew Israel had nukes, nuff said.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. @renfro
    Only Israel had anything to gain from Kennedy's murder and they used some Jewish organized crime members to set it up. Only our Israeli occupied congress, not the CIA, could have ''controlled' the investigation to ensure it produced the conclusion it fed to the public.


    In his book, The Passionate Attachment, former Undersecretary of State George Ball summarized the results of Johnson’s Middle East policies:

    First, the Johnson administration put America in the position of being Israel’s principal arms supplier and sole unqualified backer.

    “Second, by assuring the Israelis that the United States would always provide them with a military edge over the Arabs, Johnson guaranteed the ‘escalation of an arms race…

    Third, by refusing to follow the advice of his aides that America make its delivery of nuclear-capable F-4 Phantoms conditional on Israel’s signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Johnson gave the Israelis the impression that America had no fundamental objection to Israel’s nuclear program.

    “Fourth, by permitting a cover-up of Israel’s attack on the Liberty, President Johnson told the Israelis in effect that nothing they did would induce American politicians to refuse their bidding.

    From that time forth, the Israelis began to act as if they had an inalienable right to American aid and backing.”
    As Stephen Green concluded in his discussion of the incredible changes in U.S. policy toward Israel that took place during the Johnson era in ‘Taking Sides: America’s Secret Relations With A Militant Israel’:
    “By June of 1967, for a variety of reasons that prominently included ‘domestic political considerations,’ Lyndon Johnson and his team of foreign-policy advisors had completely revised U.S.-Israeli relations. To all intents and purposes, Israel had become the 51st state.”
    This was the exact opposite of what Kennedy’s attitude toward Israel was and had he lived we would probably have a different relationship with Israel today.'

    Former high-ranking U.S. diplomat Richard H. Curtiss, writing in ‘A Changing Image: American Perceptions of the Arab-Israeli Dispute’, elaborated on Kennedy’s attitude toward the Middle East controversy. In a chapter appropriately titled: “President Kennedy and Good Intentions Deferred Too Long,” Curtiss comments:
    “It is surprising to realize, with the benefit of hindsight, that from the time Kennedy entered office as the narrowly-elected candidate of a party heavily dependent upon Jewish support, he was planning to take a whole new look at U.S. Mideast policy.
    “He obviously could not turn the clock back and undo the work of President Truman, his Democratic predecessor, in making the establishment of Israel possible. Nor, perhaps, would he have wanted to.
    “Kennedy was determined, however, to develop good new personal relationships with individual Arab leaders, including those with whom the previous administration’s relations had deteriorated.
    Soon after Kennedy assumed office, Israel and its American lobby began to understand the import of Kennedy’s positioning in regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Israel was not happy – to say the very least – and began putting heat on the White House through its supporters in Congress, many of whom relied upon support from the Israeli lobby for campaign contributions and political leverage.
    By mid-1963 Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion hated Kennedy with a passion. In fact, he considered JFK a threat to the very survival of the Jewish State.

    Kennedy according to Curtiss cited four areas causing a strain in U.S.-Israel relations: 1) Israel’s diversion-from the Arab States-of the Jordan River waters; 2) Israel’s retaliatory raids against Arab forces in border areas; 3) Israel’s pivotal role in the Palestinian refugee problem; and 4) Israel’s insistence that the United States sell advanced Hawk missiles to Israel.

    “The President outlined to Mrs. Meir what has come to be called the Kennedy Doctrine. Kennedy told Meir that U.S. interests and Israel’s interests were not always the same.
    The Talbot memorandum described Kennedy’s forthright stance:
    “We know,”that Israel faces enormous security problems, but we do too. We came almost to a direct confrontation with the Soviet Union last spring and again recently in Cuba… Because we have taken on wide security responsibilities we always have the potential of becoming involved in a major crisis not of our own making.
    “Our security problems are, therefore, just as great as Israel’s. We have to concern ourself with the whole Middle East. We would like Israeli recognition that this partnership which we have with it produces strains for the United States in the Middle East… when Israel takes such action as it did last spring when Israel launched a raid into Syria, resulting in a condemnation by the UN Security Council. Whether right or wrong, those actions involve not just Israel but also the United States.”
    According to Seymour Hersh: “Israel’s bomb, and what to do about it, became a White House fixation – part of the secret presidential agenda that would remain hidden for the next thirty years.”

    In March, 1963, Sherman Kent, the Chairman of the Board of National Estimates at the CIA, wrote an extended memorandum to the CIA’s Director on the highly controversial subject entitled “Consequences of Israeli Acquisition of Nuclear Capability.”
    According to Stephen Green, for the purposes of this internal memorandum, Kent defined “acquisition” by Israel as either (a) a detonation of a nuclear device with or without the possession of actual nuclear weapons, or (b) an announcement by Israel that it possessed nuclear weapons, even without testing. Kent’s primary conclusion was that an Israeli bomb would cause ‘substantial damage to the U.S. and Western position in the Arab world.

    According to Green, “The memorandum was very strong and decidedly negative in its conclusions” which were as follows:
    “Even though Israel already enjoys a clear military superiority over its Arab adversaries, singly or combined, acquisition of a nuclear capability would greatly enhance Israel’s sense of security. In this circumstance, some Israelis might be inclined to adopt a moderate and conciliatory posture…
    “We believe it much more likely, however, that Israel’s policy toward its neighbors would become more rather than less tough. Israel would seek to exploit the psychological advantages of its nuclear capability to intimidate the Arabs and to prevent them from making trouble on the frontiers.”
    In dealing with the United States, the CIA analyst estimated, a nuclear Israel would “make the most of the almost inevitable Arab tendency to look to the Soviet Bloc for assistance against the added Israel threat, arguing that in terms of both strength and reliability Israel was clearly the only worthwhile friend of the U.S. in the area.
    “Israel,” in Kent’s analysis, “would use all the means at its command to persuade the U.S. to acquiesce in, and even to support, its possession of nuclear capability.”
    In short, Israel would use its immense political power – especially through its lobby in Washington – to force the United States to accede to Israel’s nuclear intentions.

    Stephen Green believes that Kennedy’s position vis-a-vis Israel was an important stand: “It was a remarkable exchange, and the last time in many, many years in which an American president precisely distinguished for the government of Israel the differences between U.S. and Israeli national security interests.”
    Thus it was that John F. Kennedy informed Israel, in no uncertain terms, that he intended – first and foremost – to place America’s interests – not Israel’s interests – at the center of U.S. Middle East policy.
    Kennedy’s friendly overtures to the Arab states were only a public aspect of what ultimately developed into an all-out ‘secret war’ between Kennedy and Israel.
    Another part of the all secret war between Kennedy and Israel according to Hersh was Ben-Gurion’s hated Kennedy because he consider his father an anti semite and Hitler supporter. Hersh wrote, “The Israeli prime minister, in subsequent private communications to the White House, began to refer to the President as ‘young man.’ Kennedy made clear to associates that he found the letters to be offensive.”
    Kennedy himself told his close friend, Charles Bartlett, that he was getting fed up with the fact that the Israeli “sons of bitches lie to me constantly about their nuclear capability.”
    Obviously, to say the very least, there was no love lost between the two leaders. The U.S.-Israeli relationship was at an ever-growing and disastrous impasse, although virtually nothing was known about this to the American public at the time.”…….Green

    Great stuff, renfro! Thank you!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. @Anon
    Totally agree about the Jewish role in JFKs assassination. As for Oswald, he was an avowed communist and the American communist party and all the far left groups were very, very, Jewish at the time. It was impossible to be a goyishe leftist and not meet a lot of lefty Jews at the time.

    Oswald always told people he became interested in communism when he was living in NYC age 11 & 12. It was the time of the Rosenberg atomic spy trials.
    “Old Jewish ladies” in his Bronx neighborhood were always handing out pamphlets defending the Rosenbergs.

    I doubt Oswald was a genuine Communist, he knew David Ferrie (who was hated Communism) in the 1950s, it may have been Ferrie who got him involved in the CIA, and I suspect it was the CIA that sent Oswald to the USSR

    Once he returned from the USSR and got involved with pro Castro groups in the US he was the perfect fall goy in the plot to murder Kennedy

    An interesting fact, when his car made the turn past the book depository LBJ ducked down to tie his shoe laces just as the shooting started, strangely he also wanted Connolly to travel in his car not with JFK

    There was at least one other plot to assassinate Kennedy, in the Chicago plot the patsy was to be another former Marine called Thomas Vallee

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    I doubt Oswald was a genuine Communist, he knew David Ferrie (who was hated Communism) in the 1950s, it may have been Ferrie who got him involved in the CIA, and I suspect it was the CIA that sent Oswald to the USSR. Once he returned from the USSR and got involved with pro Castro groups in the US he was the perfect fall goy in the plot to murder Kennedy.

    Oswald needed some kind of Ism to give meaning to his marginal life. Playing Marxist radical gave his life meaning. It was more about personality than ideology.

    He hung around anti-communist types because he saw himself as a brilliant agent-provocateur who would play all sides in a 5D chess. He was seriously deluded as a mover and shaker of history when he was a total non-entity. The fact is no one gave a damn about him. Even Russians found him useless and didn't want him. When he defected to Russia, he thought he would be accepted as a great hero. Russians just sent him to a factory to work. Back in the US, he wanted attention, but no one gave it to him. Radical and Marxist groups had no use for him. He was too low, too un-intellectual.
    So, he created his own Narrative as a man who would rub shoulders with all sides to make something happen. So, it was disingenuous for him to bitch that he was just a 'patsy'. He put himself in places to play the role of 'patsy' to all sides. It's what he relished as he wanted to be where the action is. But he was useless as a patsy.

    So, he finally decided to do something big and kill JFK. But he didn't even have the guts to say he did it. He ran like a chicken and killed a cop.

    I suspect Ruby was sent by the Mafia to kill Oswald. Why? Even though mafia didn't order the hit, it feared that Oswald would blab about the mafia because the idiot met some mafia types when he was dillydallying with anti-Castro factions.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. j2 says:
    @j2
    "The UK also developed nuclear weapons, as did France. The incredibility of America blowing its own brains out by getting into a nuclear exchange to defend Britain, France or Israel meant that those countries having their own nuclear deterrent suited America."

    As the article we are commenting mentions, JFK wanted inspections on Israel nuclear weapon program, which unlike those of UK and France, was secret and denied. Israel was not yet the best friend of the USA. JFK had to ponder what should be the US-Arab relations. Trump is now against North Korean and Iranian nuclear weapons, yet he is not opposing British and French nuclear weapons. So, we know JFK was trying to stop the Israel nuclear weapon program and probably would have offered US protection instead.

    JFK was killed by somebody. This somebody had power to modify Audiograph data in 1970ies. This data was available to CIA, FBI and the Warren Commission members, maybe also to others. CIA had dealings with mafia concerning assassination of Castro. The mafia that had been in Havana was Lansky's mafia. Thus, CIA had dealings with Lansky's gangsters. Dulles, LBJ and Angleton did not like JFK's policies, especially towards Israel. Israel was weak at that time, but had friends in the US, like Lansky, Angleton, LBJ, Dulles. Together these might have pulled the assassination, but even together they could not make the coverup by media. There had to be media and the US media has a tendency to silence one topic only. No President can control the media, the CIA can influence, but not control, mafia cannot control media. Only one power can do it and does it.

    We do not need to know if the reason for the assassination was the Israel atomic bomb program (though it is likely and a sufficient reason). We only need to know who could coverup the issue and especially cover it up in media.

    I looked at this JFK stuff after accidentally watching a video by Donald B. Thomas, where he explained his echo analysis of the Dictabelt. His paper was refuted by former members of the Warren Commission. I checked, did not fully agree with Thomas but got more or less similar conclusions, I think I did it more correctly being much closer to the field than Thomas. The response by these Warren Commission members was false, in my opinion intentionally, so I checked what might be their backgrounds. This showed that echo analysis must always be done.

    Sorry, they were not Warren Commission members, they were members of a scientific panel, which refuted the House Select Committee of Assassinations findings. Anyway, I checked their backgrounds as their paper was strangely wrong when there were Nobelists in the group.()

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. The author made the point to me that English is not his first language, though he certainly writes it well, and that his mention of serial numbers may have been misleading. It was, at least for me. In any event I retract my criticism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  112. Robjil says:
    @Anon
    I agree about the plane crash inserted into the article. It was a combination of an unusually thick fog and an inexperienced pilot

    There was a thread recently in which John Jrs plane crash was discussed. A couple of pilots who flew the same Plane write that in that kind of fog with a pilot unskilled in flying by instruments it was not shot down but just happened.

    Another poster write that he was in the area that night and it was one of the worst fogs he’d ever seen.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vehk03v23y4 This documentary goes into great detail about the many strange things going on the day of the JFK Jr’s crash.
    The missing seat, flying instructor’s seat – taken out of the plane ? How long it took to find the plane? JFK jr was another Kennedy assassination.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    I don’t watch YouTubes. If someone can’t get it together enough to write a coherent account of their theories it’s worthless.

    There’s a dozen YouTubes and internet articles about Kennedy’s lack of instrument certification and the unusual fog of the century that night.

    If anyone killed him it would be Hildabeast. You Kennedy worshipers do realize that Joe Kennedy created a massive Kennedy worshipful PR machines back in the 1920s and it’s more powerful now than ever or do you?

    joe Kennedy 3 is running for President. He is the one who nearly died of a heroin overdose on a plane trip. He is raising questions about his father s death as a means of getting publicity and sympathy for his campaign from all the old baby boomers who remember the Kennedy deaths
    , @republic
    The footnote (56) by the author regarding this plane crash does not appear to be working
    Barry Chamish, “The Murder of JFK Jr – Ten Years Later see:

    http://www.rense.com/general87/tenyrs.htm

    many strange anomalies to this story

    two angles to this story, JFK,jr was investigating the Rubin assassination, and of course the Clinton Senate race

    could have been a fake radio beacon like the one in Croatia which cause the Ron Brown plane crash,
    also a bomb could have been placed abroad, like in the Wellstone crash.

    some witnesses reported seeing a small boat near the landing strip that night acting in a suspicion manner

    early witnesses reported a bomb like flash in the area, but like TWA 801 reports were suppressed.

    bodies were cremated to avoid any evidence of any explosion.

    UPI reported at the time that the area had good visibility, this report is not surprisingly not available today!

    It is a very serious problem today that history is being deleted and only the official version is allowed to be seen
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @John Gruskos
    John, Robert and Ted Kennedy were all extremely friendly to Israel and extremely supportive of the interests of diaspora Jews.

    They led the Democratic Party away from the old-left emphasis on economic justice and peace, towards the new-left emphasis on issues of race and sex.

    They weakened the labor unions with their campaign against the Teamsters, they supported tax cuts for the very wealthy, their support for increased immigration was hostile to the economic interests of the American working class, and they supported an intensification of the cold war against the Soviet Union. They even knowingly lied about an imaginary "missile gap", in order to present the Democratic Party as more hawkish than Eisenhower's Republicans.

    The Kennedy brothers adopted this platform after the crucially important events of 1956-1957:

    In response to the Suez Crisis, Khrushchev's Soviet Union definitively became the patron of Israel's Arab enemies. Simultaneously, Khrushchev was overseeing a Thermidorian reaction against the excesses of early Bolshevism in eastern Europe. Stalin was denounced, Matyas Rakosi was exiled, Kaganovich was purged from the Politburo, Solzhenitsyn was released from the gulags, and the Hungarian counter-revolutionaries were treated less harshly than they would have been in the days of Lenin and Trotsky. A new Bukharinite, almost semi-nationalist, form of communism developed in eastern Europe - far less deadly, and with jobs and patronage more fairly distributed among the various ethnicities.

    In other words, Soviet communism was no longer "good for the Jews". No longer were millions of counter-revolutionary "antisemites" being murdered. No longer were Jews massively over-represented in positions of power and prestige. And no longer was the Soviet Union a supporter of Zionism and Israel.

    Similarly, the rise of American Jews from the working class into the upper middle and wealthy classes, meant that domestically the American old-left economic policies such as progressive taxation and support for rogue unions such as the Teamsters, were no longer "good for the Jews".

    In these circumstances, Eisenhower's moves towards detente with the Soviet Union, insistence on Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai, support for immigration restriction (which prevented the migration into America of the Jewish former ruling class of communist eastern Europe - Kaganovich, Rakosi and hordes of lesser-known radical Bolsheviks, commissars and secret police agents), and even his continuation of FDR-era progressive taxation and public works projects, were seen as "bad for the Jews", just as Kennedy's exact opposite platform was seen as "good for the Jews".

    Perhaps more significantly, the Eisenhower-Nixon cultural conservatism (praising Robert E. Lee as the greatest American who ever lived, expressing regret for having appointed Earl Warren to the Supreme Court, and living a chaste life of faithfulness to their wives) contrasted with the cultural radicalism of the Kennedy brothers (full support for the most radical elements of the civil rights movement, libertine personal lives filled with not-so-secret love affairs).

    Compared to what came before, JFK represented an assault on the ethnic self-respect of old-stock Americans and the cultural norms of traditional Christianity - to the delight of the Jewish movements examined in Kevin MacDonald's Culture of Critique.

    Whatever personal animosity may have existed, in political terms LBJ was indistinguishable from the Kennedy brothers. He too was hostile towards the Soviet bloc, a friend of Israel, and supportive of the cultural left.

    Given this macro-historical background, I think the simplest explanations of the assassinations are correct, and the various convoluted conspiracy theories are incorrect.

    Lee Harvey Oswald was an old-left Marxist who saw JFK as an enemy, a traitor against the "true" left.

    Jack Ruby was a hyper-ethnocentric Jewish gangster who murdered Oswald to avenge the death of the Jewish people's best friend.

    Sirhan Sirhan was a Palestinian nationalist.

    Conspiracy theorist are typically Kennedy sycophants who don't like being reminded that their heroes were enemies of socialism, enemies of the long-suffering Palestinian people, and heroes to the likes of Jack Ruby.

    They'd prefer to believe that JFK and RFK were martyrs murdered by reactionary WASPs - but that is pure fantasy.

    I totally agree with you. That’s my take. Oswald the pro Castro life long communist worked right on the Kennedy parade route.

    Sirhan’s bother was killed by an Israeli bombing of a crowded intersection. His father was fired from a 25 year job with the City of Jerusalem with no pension. Family rental property was confiscated with no compensation

    When Sirhan was 4 armed Israeli soldiers invaded the family home and gave the family 1 hour to leave. No compensation of course. Family moved from a nice 10 room house to a pilgrims hostel run by the Greek Orthodox Church to which they belonged.

    Family ended up in Pasadena Ca. Summer of 1967 the papers were full of RFK’s promises to Israel. Sirhan believed those articles. So he shot that supreme scum bag RFK.

    RFK was absolutely into the Democrat party War on Whites. He was marching with Cesear Chavez and worshipped MLK. He persecuted, not prosecuted the White male Teamsters Union. Had he been elected he would have enforced affirmative action and pro Hispanic & pro black activism as eagerly as 2 other anti White Presidents, Johnson and Nixon did. RFK was pro black from the day his brother became president

    Personally, I don’t give a rats ass about who killed the pro Hispanic pro black enemy of Whites, RFK.

    Read More
    • Replies: @David In TN
    RFK was NOT going to win the presidency in 1968. A few weeks before his death, he lost the Oregon primary to Eugene McCarthy. RFK couldn't get enough votes beyond his black base to win a general election. A poll in late May 1968 had him running 10 points behind Nixon. Robert Kennedy was about as out of touch with Middle America as George McGovern would be for years later.

    Hubert Humphrey was way ahead in delegates and in those days the "bosses" still had control. Humphrey was better liked than Bobby withing the party. The New York primary was going to give Bobby a poor result for his "home state."

    Although, RFK won the California primary, his 46-42 margin was 3-4 points lower than expected and was due to a heavy black and Mexican vote. Bobby still didn't do well enough with white voters.
    , @renfro

    Personally, I don’t give a rats ass about who killed the pro Hispanic pro black enemy of Whites, RFK.
     
    Well if you live in the US you should care.....the Jewish fifth column is much more dangerous to the US than blacks and Hispanics.
    People who let their dislike of certain race groups blind them to the core facts are like a guy who complains about a rash on his arm while ignoring the cancer causing the rash.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. Iris says:

    Just a side note: there is a surviving witness of the Robert Kennedy assassination , Paul Schrade.

    He attended Sirhan’s parole bid in 2016, and told the panel that he believed Sirhan shot him at the hotel, but that an unidentified second shooter killed Mr Kennedy.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/11/robert-f-kennedys-killer-loses-15th-parole-bid-as-witness-says-its-my-fault

    Interestingly, even hard core MSM report the inconsistencies within the official inquiry:
    But the autopsy showed the candidate was shot from behind, with evidence that indicated he was hit at close range. ”

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5796895/Robert-Kennedys-daughter-backs-brothers-call-new-investigation-fathers-death.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    RFK was not shot from behind. There was one shot right at his ear which is on the side, not back if the head. The rest were in the front
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    You lose all credibility for anything sensible you might say when you spout such tendentious rubbish as "he is[sic] a Zionist from his mother [sic] side". You presumably are confusing the Orthodox criterion for someone to be a Jew with the choice a person makes to be a Zionist (for which you don't even have to be a Jew come to think of it). It's even sillier than people saying Rupert Murdoch is a Jew because a great or great great grandmother may have been Jewish.

    Murdoch’s maternal grandfather was a Rabbi. That makes him and his mother Jewish. And I doubt a rabbi’s daughter would raise her children completely no Jewish whether religuous or tribal ethnic Jewish.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Oh dear you are so often sensible. (Alden I think????). But being so assertive about something where you are completely wrong is bad news for your general credibility. I knew Rupert's mother well as well as her nephews and nieces on her mother's side so can say without a doubt that this link is accurate

    https://www.geni.com/people/Rupert-Greene/6000000006580516381

    Have a look at the further link to her mother Marie too.

    So far from her father Rupert Greene being a Rabbi just take a look at what is said about him in this obituary of Elisabeth Murdoch by former newspaper editor John Monks

    https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/dame-of-the-people-champion-of-elite/story-e6frg6z6-1226530873024?sv=c9593bbc9aec0b225a829a43c31b828f

    It's a good read anyway. Rupert Murdoch obviously inherited his gambler's genes from grandfather Rupert Greene - who had been made the Victoria Racing Club's official (unpaid) starter partly to curb his gambling - rather than from his Presbyterian Moderator paternal grandfather.

    Really one has to wonder why some of Ron's readable commenters completely blow it as though some screw got lose in the neural networks.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @SunBakedSuburb
    Interesting and well-researched article, but ultimately, as commenter Wizard of Oz notes, it serves the author's "confirmation bias."

    Behind the JFK and RFK assassinations is the Allen Dulles gang: Richard Helms, David Atlee Phillips, and James Jesus Angleton. It is true, as the author notes, that Angleton had deep ties with Mossad. It is also true that since the end of the second world war, Israeli skullduggery in the US and Europe has been massive. But these two political murders were planned and executed by the above Dulles cabal.

    Oswald was a CIA asset since his time as Marine serving at the US Atsugi base in Japan. Researcher HP Albarelli connects Oswald to right-wing Agency operative and pedophile David Ferrie as far back as the early 1950s. Oswald was also part of Angleton's false defector program, which inserted him into the USSR in the late 1950s.

    The grooming and handling of Sirhan Sirhan in California in the mid 1960s speaks of a well-entrenched domestic network of CIA assets. He was picked for patsydom for a number reasons, and Angleton, again, a prince of an ally for Mossad, liked Sirhan's Palestinian background, which amped up the Arab threat, in the eyes of the US audience, to his Israeli friends. The author is correct that Thane Caesar was the real assassin of RFK. Previous to the RFK hit, Caesar work for the Hughes corporation in Burbank. The sprawling Howard Hughes business empire had served as a CIA cover since the 1950s.

    Why would the Dulles gang want to murder the Kennedy brothers? JFK: revenge for the Bay of Pigs betrayal and the subsequent firing of Dulles. RFK: a man who worked closely with the Agency in the early 1960s on the Castro project. David Talbot's book Brothers, referenced by the author, makes clear that RFK had an absolutely clear conception of who killed his brother. There was no way he was going to reach the White House.

    Both brothers also sought to wind down the profitable war in Vietnam. RFK was especially vocal about his goal of ending the war on the'68 campaign trail. And then there's Richard Nixon: a national security state favorite since his time as congressman during the so-called Red Scare of the early 195os, Nixon was their favored candidate in the '68 election. RFK's death sealed the deal for Nixon. Nixon would go on to incur the wrath of his former national security state allies with his secret negotiations with China and the USSR while president. Because of his previous good works for them, a political death was arranged rather than a violent physical one.

    Red Scare?? If you can’t read any of the numerous books written about the Verona Papers and Soviet KGB archives opened after 1990, at least ask Mr. Google about them.

    Both archives reveal that the HUAC and McCarthy & FBI investigations show that there were many, many more Soviet spies entrenched in the federal government during and after the FDR administration that the HUAC & McCarthy investigations ever revealed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Both archives reveal that the HUAC and McCarthy & FBI investigations show that there were many, many more Soviet spies entrenched in the federal government during and after the FDR administration that the HUAC & McCarthy investigations ever revealed.

    Yes, but McCarthy played it badly by going after too many people with tenuous connections with communists and radicals. Just because your side is right doesn't mean your side should give into hysteria.

    Also, by McCarthy came on the scene, most of the spies had been captured and Soviet intelligence had effectively been ended in the US. So, McCarthy just kept looking for more and more suspects, and it got a bit ridiculous.

    We saw the same problem after 9/11. Yes, the government had been lax in security and there needed to be more vigilance. But Bush II and Co. over-played their hand and even used 9/11 as hysteria for war with Iraq.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Intelligent Dasein
    Yes, I believe that Oswald killed Kennedy. I have no reasonable doubt that Oswald alone fired the fatal shot.

    I also believe that the question, while certainly not irrelevant, is little thought of by most people today and would not affect their lives one way or the other. This is not to say that truth should not be investigated and justice done whenever possible. Falsehoods of any sort should be brought to light and expunged from the historical record, for there is no telling what damage an error may do even long after the fact. However, in the first place, I do not think that the historical record has enshrined any major errors in the case of the Kennedys; and in the second place, the fervency with which the contrarians (and they alone) continue to revive this long-buried topic does not savor of an honest pursuit of truth. I gather they would not be satisfied even if all the world were converted to their opinion.

    They have some sort of an agenda. What it is varies from case to case and is not something I'm willing to speculate upon. But this sort of crusading over the meaning of an historical event is never anything but a quest for political power in the present moment, and is usually driven not by any coherent ideology but by the sheer passion for revenge. The willingness of so many revisionists to make saints out of the Kennedys---which on any objective reading they clearly were not---is by itself sufficient to discover the all-too-human wellsprings of their motivation. You have a beef with Israel, with the CIA, with Lyndon Johnson, with the whole American Deep State. I get that; I'm no fan of these people, either. But I'm not going to pervert my entire view of history so as to cast them in the role of the eternal villain. Self-deception is not only bad for your psychological health, it's also very politically inexpedient. You will never accomplish anything by this method. Just imagine the dismay that will come upon you if, peradventure, you happen to have a real shot at gaining some actual power and then you realize that your only friends and compatriots are the unreliable fruit loops who've been yup-yupping your articles these past years. A lot of help they're going to be.

    The assertion that Israel had anything to do with assassinating either Kennedy brother is just not true. It is falsehood and lies and intellectual pollution. The reverence for such a belief belongs as a sub-genre of postmodern urban mysticism and religious occultism, along with the belief that the CIA planted explosives in the World Trade Center.

    Does your post have anything to do with your disbelief in Darwin and evolution and the Bible history that goes back to God’s creation of the world 6,000 years ago?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein

    Does your post have anything to do with your disbelief in Darwin and evolution and the Bible history that goes back to God’s creation of the world 6,000 years ago?
     
    Does your post have anything to do with this thread whatsoever? Also, what in the blue blazes are you even talking about?

    I have no idea whose underwear you just crawled out of, you anonymous caitiff; but whoever that person is, he is fully justified in violently repudiating the very idea that something as loathsome as you could have come dripping out of his backside. Since you patently lack the intellectual breadth to understand anything about your inappositely introduced topic of Darwinism and only wrote this to be a moron, you deserve nothing but that invective which latterly the moderators, perhaps heeding the recommendations of those kind souls who have expressed concerns about my mental health, have judiciously declined to publish.

    To wit, I am not going to hold forth on you as I ought to. In honor of Ron Unz's exemplary patience, and with due deference to those commenters who have taken the time to care about me, I will only ask you some innocuous rhetorical questions instead. What did you hope to gain by speaking to me in such a manner? Did you imagine that the Unz commentariat is secretly golf-clapping behind their keyboards and saying, "Yeah, you really stuck it to I.D. with that one"? Do you not realize that being so totally off-topic and personally vituperative makes you look like an idiot? Have you any idea that "Young Earth Creationism" is a Protestant novelty, a heresy, and is not part of the deposit of Christian faith and has never been held by Traditional Catholics like myself? Or that no less authorities than St. Augustine and St. Thomas both dismissed it? Do y'all even philoff, braugh?

    No, you have no idea what you're talking about. You have no idea where I'm coming from or who I am. You have no idea what the salient features of this intellectual landscape are. You are not qualified to speak about this. You are a child who would do well to hush up and learn while the adults are having a conversation. Do you honestly think you could withstand me in a debate about Darwinism, or anything else for that matter? The result would be too gruesome to contemplate. And as I have no relish for such spectacles, I earnestly entreat you to just back off from this one now. If you don't it would have been far preferable for you to take the invective, for that's the best outcome you're going to get.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. Iris says:
    @schrub
    Who hasn't been mentioned so far is the very beautiful and brilliant Mathilde Krim. Krim was LBJ's mistress in the 1960s. She also just happened to be a fanatical supporter of the interests of Israel. In the late 1940s, she had been an active promoter of the Israeli terror group The Irgun. Mathilde was also most likely a Mossad agent with long-time contacts to the highest levels of the Israeli government.

    I would have loved to hear the "pillow talk" between these two total opposites: the incredibly crude, totally uncultured and flabby LBJ and the cultured, slim, sleek and highly educated Krim. You can bet that she was able to supply Israel with a constant supply of all sorts of top secret information that she was able to extract out of her bedmate. Maybe she also gave advice to LBJ about who exactly to assassinate or what transgressions by Israel for LBJ to ignore (like the USS Liberty attack).

    Mathilde Krim's husband was the very wealthy Arthur Krim, one of the most powerful and active supporters of Israel in the USA. Mathilde Krim's relationship with LBJ was most likely known about by her husband but was "overlooked" by him because of its huge value to Israel as both as a source of information as well as for its potential use as blackmail. (You can bet that somewhere in Israel is a vault full of movies taken of their bedroom activities.)

    The heads of MSM at the time apparently knew all about the relationship between Krim and LBJ but "wisely" chose to ignore it just as they had done for JFK and his affairs.

    You can also bet that Krim dropped her boyfriend LBJ like a hot potato once he left office and was no longer of use to her friends.

    Here is a highly sanitized Wikipedia entry about her: No mention is made of her "friendship" with LBJ.

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

    Thanks for highlighting this: same old methods.

    A less sanitized page about the Zionist Mata-Hari:

    http://michaelsantomauro.blogspot.com/2011/09/servicing-commander-in-chief.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. @Mike Sylwester
    Most of the information was from the book Nemesis: The True Story of Aristotle Onassis, Jackie O, and the Love Triangle That Brought Down the Kennedys, by Peter Evans.

    In December 1971 Aristotle Onassis's ex-wife Tina met with their daughter Christina to ask her to stop bad-mouthing her current husband Stavros Niarchos, a man long hated by Aristotle Onassis. Christina was Niarcho's niece and step-daughter, since he had been married to Tina's sister Eugenie and was now married to Tina herself. Among the accusations that Christina kept repeating about Niarchos was that he had murdered Eugenie. In order to give Christina a broader perspective, Tina informed Christina that her father Aristotle had financed the assassination of Robert Kennedy.

    The next day Christina passed this information on to her brother Alexander Onassis, who subsequently placed some related papers into a safe-deposit box. After that, Alexander told his lover Fiona Thyssen that these papers would prevent his father Aristotle from harming Fiona, a woman long hated by Aristotle Onassis. Since Fiona was 16 years older than Alexander, Aristotle considered her to be a gold-digger and wanted her out of Alexander's life.

    Several months later Alexander showed some of his papers to Yannis Georgakis, a lawyer who was close to the entire Onassis family. The papers included photocopies of pages from the notebooks of Sirhan Sirhan, who had assassinated Robert Kennedy. During the weeks before the assassination, Sirhan would place himself into a hypnotic state and write stream-of-conscious thoughts into a notebook. On one page Sirhan had written at the center of a roundel, amid Arabic writing, the single name Fiona. On another page he had written 2 Narkos!. On a third page, between the lines One Hundred thousand Dollars and Dollars and One Hundreds, Sirhan had written in Arabic: they should be killed, next to which he had written the number three.

    It was obvious to Tina, Christina and Alexander that for some reason Sirhan had been hypnotized into a fixation on killing three people -- Fiona Thyssen, Stavros Niarchos, and Robert Kennedy -- who had long been fiercely hated by Aristotle Onassis.

    =====

    In the fall of 1974 a 34-year-old photographer Helene Gaillet was stranded in Paris on her way to a job in Africa, because the job was canceled. A year earlier she had met Aristotle Onassis at a dinner party in New York, and he had told her to call him if she ever needed a place to stay in Paris. She called his number but was told he was away on his private island, Skorpios, in the Aegean Sea. Several minutes later, however, Onassis returned her call and invited her to join him in Skorpios. He would fly her there at his own expense. She accepted his invitation and subsequently spent several days with him there.

    During that time they had a short affair, which included a series of intimate conversations about their lives. By that time his health was failing (he died four months later), so he was in a confessional mood. During one of those conversations he told her, "You know, Helene, I put up the money for Bobby Kennedy's murder."

    =====

    In May 1968 the above-mentioned lawyer Yannis Georgakis was serving as the chief executive officer of Olympic Airways, which was owned by Aristotle Onassis. Georgakis was informed by a Mossad official serving in Israel's embassy in Paris that Onassis was meeting regularly in Paris with a Palestinian terrorist named Mahmoud Hamshari. About a week later Onassis informed Georgakis that a Palestinian terrorist group had demanded $1.2 million in protection money from Olympic Airlines, threatening to blow up the company's airliners if the money was not paid. Onassis said he had reached an agreement with Hamshari and now needed $200,000 from the company's funds to pay the first installment of the protection money. Onassis assured Georgakis that the subsequent installment payments would be arranged "off the books" and channeled through Onassis's Panama corporations.

    Reluctantly, Georgakis agreed to provide the $200,000. He asked to be included in any future negotiations between Onassis and Hamshari, but Onassis assured him that the entire agreement had already been settled and that no further negotiations should occur.

    Onassis flew to New York with the $200,000 in cash. He put all the money into a shopping bag and gave it to his long-time chauffeur, Roosevelt Zanders, who personally delivered the money to someone in an apartment at United Nations Plaza. As instructed by Onassis, Zanders did not ask for a receipt for the money.

    To be continued.
    Continued from my previous comment at 7:08 a.m.

    =====

    In January 1954 Aristotle Onassis signed a secret agreement with Saudi Arabia's finance minister. The agreement basically said that Onassis would provide Saudi Arabia with its own fleet of oil tankers. Saudi Arabia expected that its ownership of such a fleet would help that country to become independent of Western petroleum companies, to earn a fuller share of profits, and eventually to nationalize the entire industry on its territory. Onassis expected to earn hundreds of millions of dollars for his role in the arrangement.

    Despite the secrecy, however, the US Government soon learned of the deal and during the following months employed a variety of methods to undermine it. The US Justice Department found fault with Onassis's past purchases of oil tankers and subsequently seized his tankers and also money he had earned from those tankers. In February 1954 the Justice Department arrested Onassis himself and charged him with criminal conspiracy to buy the tankers illegally. The State Department pressured the Saudi government to disassociate itself from Onassis. Arrangements were made for Peru to seize nine of Onassis's whaling ships. One of Onassis's business associates was pressured to sue Onassis for swindling him out of $200,000 and to accuse Onassis of paying a $350,000 bribe to the Saudi finance minister. Eventually in October 1954 King Saud decided not to assign the agreement, which therefore became void. All these developments almost bankrupted Onassis.

    Most of Onassis's anger about the collapse of the Saudi deal was misdirected toward Robert Kennedy, who in 1954 was a 29-year-old attorney working on the staff of a Senate subcommittee. One of Kennedy's investigations for the subcommittee had raised accusations about shipping business that some Greek companies conducted with Red China, but this issue did not involve Onassis in particular. Kennedy did not play any apparent role in the seizure of Onassis's assets or in his arrest. The business associate who sued Onassis hired as an expert witness an accountant who had worked for Robert's father Joseph Kennedy for many years, but that accountant had no direct association with Robert Kennedy himself.

    In fact Robert Kennedy had nothing at all to do with the US Government's discovery of Onassis's Saudi deal. The CIA station in Athens had been informed about it by another Greek shipper, Stavros Niarchos, who was Onassis's brother-in-law (the two men were married to two sisters). Niarchos had heard about the deal from Onassis's wife Tina, who was involved in a love affair with Niarchos.

    In order to protect the real source of its information, the CIA cleverly encouraged Onassis's initial reaction that the deal had been exposed during Kennedy's investigation of the Greek shippers who did business with Red China. For example, the accountant of Robert Kennedy's father was apparently moved into and out of the lawsuit in order to inflame Onassis's suspicions about Kenned's role in the matter. Niarchos himself certainly collaborated in the continuing effort to divert Onassis's anger away from himself and onto Kennedy. And in the following years Kennedy himself publicly criticized Onassis on many occasions, which further enraged Onassis.

    =====

    In the early 1960s Onassis became closely involved in several business enterprises with a fellow Greek ex-patriot, Spyros Skouras, who had immigrated to the United States in 1912. Skouras became a movie producer and during that career, he clashed angrily several times with Joseph Kennedy, who was also a movie producer. In May 1962 Skouras's movie studio was losing millions of dollars in the filming of Cleopatra and Something's Got to Give. The latter movie starred Marilyn Monroe, who was extraordinarily capricious and absent during the filming. In conversations with Onassis, Skouras blamed Monroe's misbehavior on Robert Kennedy, her secret lover. Skouras knew about this affair (and about Monroe's earlier affair with John Kennedy) and informed Onassis.

    Exasperated by the problems and losses caused by these two films, Skouras decided to leave the movie business and to establish a shipping business. Onassis invested $10 million in Skouras's shipping business, which intended to introduce new loading and unloading technology that would require far fewer longshoremen. Because of this manpower issue, Onassis became involved in negotiations with Jimmy Hoffa, the chief of the Teamsters labor union and also a hater of Robert Kennedy, who was then the US Attorney General.

    During this same time, Onassis began a love affair with Lee Radziwill, the younger sister of Jacqueline Kennedy. Lee and her husband Prince Stanislas Radziwill were each divorced from previous spouses when they married each other, so they married in a civil wedding instead of a Roman Catholic wedding. Since John Kennedy was now President of the United States, Robert Kennedy used the family's prestige to try to convince the Catholic Church to annul the Radziwills' previous marriages. This effort (and the Kennedy family's reputation) was endangered by publicity about Lee's affair with Onassis, and so Robert Kennedy phoned Onassis directly and asked him to stay away from Lee. Onassis responded with the words, "Bobby, you and Jack fuck your movie queen [Monroe] and I'll fuck my princess [Radziwill]." Onassis thus revealed to Robert Kennedy that he knew about the Kennedy-Monroe affairs, which were still very secret.

    Also during this same time, Hoffa learned (perhaps from Onassis) about the Kennedy brothers' affairs with Monroe and so he bugged Monroe's home and telephones to record related conversations. Through these recordings, Hoffa learned that Monroe and Robert Kennedy had met in Monroe's home on August 4, 1962, a few hours before she died of an overdose and that some of Kennedy's associates had subsequently entered her house during the period between her death and the notification of the police. Hoffa apparently hinted to Onassis about the existence of these tape recordings, since Onassis asked Monroe's publicist whether he knew anything about them, offering to pay big money to buy them.

    =====

    During the following months Robert Kennedy communicated subtle threats in order to pressure Onassis to stay away from Lee Radziwill. The main thrust of these threats was that Kennedy would exploit his position as US Attorney General to cause legal problems for Onassis and his businesses. This pressure backfired, as Onassis arranged for Radziwill to live blatantly with him on his yacht. The feud escalated dramatically in September 1963, when Jackie herself also moved onto the yacht for a few weeks in order to convalesce from a miscarriage. Robert Kennedy responded by continuing his subtle threats against Onassis, and Onassis responded by seducing Jacqueline on the yacht.

    Refreshed by her affair with Onassis, Jacqueline returned to the White House. A few weeks later, on November 22, 1963, John Kennedy was assassinated. At Jacqueline's invitation, Onassis came and stayed in the White House during the funeral days. Robert Kennedy confronted Onassis in the White House, and they eventually engaged in a ridiculous argument that embarrassed Onassis in front of the other guests. Kennedy wrote up a written statement for Onassis to sign, promising to donate half of his wealth to the poor, and Onassis signed the paper with Greek words that nullified the promise.

    In the months following the assassination, Jacqueline wanted to quickly marry Onassis, but this desire was discouraged by Robert Kennedy, who now headed the Kennedy family. Robert Kennedy managed to prevent the marriage as long as he lived. He was assassinated on June 5, 1968. Onassis then married Jacqueline on October 20.

    =====

    To be continued.
    Continued from my previous comments.

    =====

    In January 1968 David Karr arranged for Mahmoud Hamshari, also known as Dr. Michel Hassner, to be introduced to Aristotle Onassis. Karr introduced Dr. Michel Hassner to Onassis's circle as an expert in aviation finance who would propose a restructuring of the debt of Onassis's Olympic Airline. Eventually, Hamshari (aka Hassner), using money provided by Onassis, arranged for Sirhan Sirhan to assassinate Robert Kennedy.

    David Karr had known Onassis since 1956. Karr worked in many varied jobs during his life, but at that time he managed a public relations company that specialized in helping companies that were involved in proxy fights in corporate takeovers. It might be more accurate to say that Karr was specialized in performing dirty tricks for his clients. He collected and distributed (or threatened to distribute) scandalous information about his clients' opponents. By 1967 Onassis was using Karr for a variety of secret tasks; in that year, for example, he asked Karr to ask Soviet officials about possibly supplying crude oil for a refinery he considered building near Athens. Onassis's closest associates wondered about that assignment, because Karr had no expertise related to the petroleum business or to the Soviet Union. Onasssis's trust in Karr was a mystery.

    At some point in his own past, while working as a movie producer in Hollywood, Karr had become acquainted with William Joseph Bryan, Jr., a local hypnotist. Bryan's American Institute of Hypnosis treated people in the film industry for alcohol and drug additions, and he had served as the technical adviser on the filming of the movie The Manchurian Candidate. Karr gave Bryan's phone number to Hamshari and advised him to visit Bryan. Karr later said he referred Hamshari to Bryan because Hamshari complained that he suffered headaches whenever he visited Los Angeles, which he did frequently during 1967 and 1968.

    ==============

    In the summer of 1979 Karr contacted Leslie Linder, a former movie agent, whom Karr had known while he worked in the movie business. Karr wanted Linder to represent his proposed memoirs, which would include a revelation that Onassis had played a key role in the assassination of Robert Kennedy. Linder was interested and scheduled another discussion of the proposal again with the added participation of Oscar Beuselinck, a London lawyer.

    In the meantime, Karr departed for a business meeting in Moscow, where he planned to open a big hotel. He remarked that he had all the evidence of the Onassis story in Paris, and he promised to call Linder and Beuselinck as soon as he returned from Moscow.

    Karr was found dead in his Paris apartment on the morning of July 7, 1979. He had a fractured larynx, and blood was found on his pillow. A forensic examination concluded he had died of a heart attack, but his widow Evia Karr and his business partner Ronnie Driver insist that Karr was murdered by agents of the Palestine Liberation Organization.


    Continued from my previous comments

    =====

    Mahmoud Hamshari was born in a village near Jaffa in 1939 and eventually became an important official in the Palestinian Fatah. In June 1967, following the Six-Day War, he attended a Fatah meeting in Damascus to discuss further strategy. The meeting's participants represented a broad scope of attitudes within Fatah, and Hamshari appeared to be among the most aggressive. When he spoke, he focused his anger on US support of Israel and proposed actions that would attack the US. In particular, he proposed the Fatah "kill a high-profile American on American soil" in order to make the US "think twice about backing the Jews."

    This proposal seemed to earn little explicit support at the meeting, so Hamshari then proposed that the organization greatly increase its fund-raising activities in the US, in order to manipulate the US to support the Palestinians too. Fatah apparently adopted this proposal and assigned Hamshari himself to implement it, operating under the supervision of Fatah's intelligence chief, Abu Iyad (Salah Khalef). In the following months, Hamshari began to travel to Europe and the United States, using several false names, including Dr. Michel Hassner. Late in 1967 a Fatah official gave Hamshari a list of Palestinian immigrants living in Los Angeles. The list had been acquired from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which had records on the Sirhan family, then living in Los Angeles.

    =====

    In some unknown circumstances, Dr. Hassner (Hamshari) began to associate frequently with David Karr, a mysterious associate of Aristotle Onassis. Karr did not introduce Hassner to Onassis directly, but instead introduced him indirectly into Onassis's nner circle as an investment consultant for Arab Bank, specializing in the restructuring of airline debts. Such expertise was of interest because Onassis's Olympic airline was struggling with debts. A meeting between Hassner and Onassis was scheduled for a day in January 1968 in Paris, but Onassis left for Athens unexpectedly right before the meeting. Therefore Hassner met instead with several members of Onassis's inner circle. The airline's chief executive officer, Yannis Georgakis, was not informed about the meeting by Onassis and so did not participate.

    At this meeting, Hassner revealed to the group that he had been approached by a Palestinian terror group who demanded that the airline pay $350,000 to the group so that they not blow up bombs on Olympic airliners. Hassner said he was acting only as an honest broker, a facilitator, and did not know the identities of the terrorists, who had contacted him through the Palestine National Fund.

    After Onassis returned to Paris, he began to meet frequently in Paris with Hassner, the two alone. Between meetings, Hassner sometimes traveled to Los Angeles and back. Karr says that during this period he gave Hassner the phone number of a Los Angeles hypnotist named William Joseph Bryan, Jr.

    Georgakis, the CEO of Olympic, heard about Hassner for the first time in May 1968. He heard about him not from Onassis, but from a Mossad official stationed at the Israeli embassy in Paris. Onassis himself informed Georgakis about a week later, saying that he had already decided to pay $1.2 million (no longer just $350,000) to Hassner and that Georgakis should provide the first $200,000 in cash from Olympic funds. Georgakis complied, and Onassis subsequently flew with the cash to New York, where his chauffeur delivered it to an apartment at United Nations Plaza.

    =====

    To be continued.

    Allow me to conclude with one more passage.

    =====

    On the evening of June 4, 1968, an itinerant Christian preacher named Jerry Owen (he himself said) parked a horse trailer outside the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles, where Robert Kennedy's campaign organization had scheduled its anticipated victory following the California primary elections. Later that night, Sirhan assassinated Kennedy in the hotel. The next day, Owen reported to the Los Angeles police that he had picked up Sirhan and a young woman hitchhiking on June 3. During the course of that meeting, Owen said, Sirhan had agreed to buy a horse from Owen on the night of June 4 in the hotel parking lot. That deal, explained Owen, was why he himself had parked his horse trailer in the parking lot and why Sirhan had four one-hundred-dollar bills in his pocket when he was arrested. Owen further surmised that Sirhan intended to use the horse trailer as a get-away vehicle.

    The Police basically dismissed Owen's report as a publicity stunt. (In 1970 this incident was examined in a lawsuit that Owen filed against a television station. During that trial, several witnessed testified that Owen had become acquainted with Sirhan at the Corona race track, where on one occasion a few weeks before the assassination Owen had given Sirhan a large wad of cash)

    Immediately after he was arrested, Sirhan declared that "I did it for my country." Within a few minutes, though, he began avoiding any discussion of his motive. He instead wanted to talk with the investigating policemen about Albert DeSalvo, the so-called Boston Strangler. Later, Sirhan claimed that he had no memory of anything about the assassination, about his intention, about his notebooks, or about the act itself. During his trial he reluctantly allowed his lawyers to construct a legal defense of diminished responsibility due to mental illness.

    Sirhan was not hypnotized by himself or anyone else in order to manipulate him to assassinate Robert Kennedy. Even without the hypnosis, Sirhan was willing and eager to assassinate Kennedy because of the latter's support for Israel. The initial purpose of Sirhan's self-hypnosis was to focus his mind and bolster courage for this difficult mission. Eventually, though, the hypnosis served also as a legal excuse to try to avoid execution. The notebook served as evidence that he was often in deep trances and so plausibly had no memory of the assassination. Also, the hypnosis deflected political blame from the Palestinian cause as Sirhan's main motivation.

    Sirhan hoped that if he could avoid execution, then eventually he would be freed in a prisoner swap forced by Palestinian terrorists. He was sentenced to death, but later that sentence was commuted when the Supreme Court declared the death penalty to be unconstitutional.

    Sirhan mentioned Albert DeSalvo repeatedly in his notebooks and at the police station immediately after his arrest. DeSalvo had been hypnotized by a Los Angeles hypnotist named William Joseph Bryan. After he died in 1977, a couple of prostitutes whom he frequently hired told investigators that he sometimes bragged that he had hypnotized Albert DeSalvo and Sirhan Sirhan.

    [It's not good commenting policy to produce a continuing series of lengthy totally unsourced excerpts, spread over series of different comments, which makes it difficult for others to avoid them. They have now been consolidated, but you should stop this sort of bad behavior.]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @republic
    There seem to be a lot of small plane crashes which involve controversial politicians
    such as, JFK,Jr, Ron Brown, Wellstone, John Towers, Michael Connell, (Bush campaign it expert) to name but a few.
    There use to be detailed analysis of the Martha’s Vineyard crash on the web, but these seem
    To have been scrubbed lately and only official MSM versions are easily available.
    An exception to that rule is the book, Ron Brown’s body: how one man’s death saved
    The Clinton Presidency.

    You’re right. But there’s also a lot of small plane ceashes that involve entertainment people especially musicians on tour.

    Could it be that politicians musicians some businessmen and wealthier than average people use small planes more than the rest of us who just drive and use airlines when traveling?

    Read More
    • Replies: @LondonBob
    Yes but I read a mobster's autobiography, Chauncey Holt, and he said tinkering with a guy's plane was a great way to off someone. As you note plane crashes happen.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Robjil
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vehk03v23y4 This documentary goes into great detail about the many strange things going on the day of the JFK Jr's crash.
    The missing seat, flying instructor's seat - taken out of the plane ? How long it took to find the plane? JFK jr was another Kennedy assassination.

    I don’t watch YouTubes. If someone can’t get it together enough to write a coherent account of their theories it’s worthless.

    There’s a dozen YouTubes and internet articles about Kennedy’s lack of instrument certification and the unusual fog of the century that night.

    If anyone killed him it would be Hildabeast. You Kennedy worshipers do realize that Joe Kennedy created a massive Kennedy worshipful PR machines back in the 1920s and it’s more powerful now than ever or do you?

    joe Kennedy 3 is running for President. He is the one who nearly died of a heroin overdose on a plane trip. He is raising questions about his father s death as a means of getting publicity and sympathy for his campaign from all the old baby boomers who remember the Kennedy deaths

    Read More
    • Replies: @Robjil
    Michael Rivero has examined the many clues that JFK JR was assassinated. Here are some of clues that he found. We don't have a "free" press in our MSM. Investigating or questioning the narratives given to us by our "free controlled press" is considered "conspiracy theories".

    Having established that the government and the media have a prior (and quite deplorable) record of deliberate lies to the public, let us look at how the official story of the crash of John F. Kennedy Jr's plane evolved, and why it is suspect.
    As first reported by United Press International, John F. Kennedy Jr. on approach to Martha's Vineyard in 8 mile visibility, was in radio contact with the ground, calmly informing them of his intentions to drop off a passenger before proceeding to Hyannis airport. Then, according to ABC News, JFK Jr's plane went into a steep dive, and crashed.
    However, even before the wreckage was found, the story being put out in the media began to change. Gone was the previously reported radio conversation a calm JFK Jr. had with ground personnel just before the plane fell out of the sky, replaced by a declaration from the NTSB that JFK Jr. had not used his radio at all as he approached Martha's Vineyard. Gone also was the originally reported 8 mile visibility while the media began to hammer home the claim that Martha's Vineyard had been totally blanketed with a haze so heavy that pilots in the air would have been blind.
    No sooner were the various stories put out but they quickly fell apart.
    Here are some examples.
    PROPAGANDA: JFK Jr. was lost.
    FACT: When JFK Jr. radioed controllers on the Cape (as reported on Boston TV News) to announce his approach to Martha's Vineyard, radar showed him to be just where he stated he was and at the correct altitude for the approach.
    PROPAGANDA: JK Jr. was in "over his head".
    FACT: JFK Jr's conversational tone on the radio reveals that he was calm. He was not disoriented. He didn't ask for directions. He didn't indicate he had any problem at all. He clearly was confident he was going to find the airport and land.
    PROPAGANDA: JFK Jr. stalled the plane.
    FACT: The radar track shows that he was well above stall speed.
    PROPAGANDA: JFK Jr. went into a steep turn and lost his horizon.
    FACT: There is no reason for JFK Jr. to have been in any turn at all at that point on the flight path leading into the airport. He was already lined up with the main runway at Martha's Vineyard airport.
    PROPAGANDA: JFK Jr. didn't know his altitude and simply "flew into the ocean".
    FACT: The radar track shows him flying at the proper altitude, then (as ABC News put it) "falling out of the sky".
    PROPAGANDA: JFK Jr. lost his instruments, and that is why he could not handle the dark and hazy (?) conditions
    FACT: The fact that the radar was getting good data from his encoding altimeter proves his instruments were operating.
    PROPAGANDA: JFK Jr. would have lost his artificial horizon if the vacuum pump failed in the aircraft.
    FACT: MSNBC is the only media outlet to have tried to hype this one, using a self-proclaimed "aviation expert". His claim is also false, as there is a backup vacuum system in the pitot assembly of that aircraft.
    PROPAGANDA JFK Jr. was a reckless pilot.
    FACT: This claim was planted everywhere in the media, always attributed to an "unnamed source". One reporter, Cindy Adams at the New York Post, later had cause to suspect she had been lied to. So did Andrew Goldman at the New York Observer. Interviews with individuals directly familier with JFK Jr's flying ability shown on Inside Edition confirmed that he was a highly skilled and careful pilot.
    PROPAGANDA JFK Jr's wife was afraid to fly with him.
    FACT: Again a story attributed to "unnamed sources", and again debunked by the interviews shown on Inside Edition. JFK Jr's wife had no problem flying with JFK Jr. and flew with him often.
    PROPAGANDA JFK Jr. had only 40 hours experience.
    FACT: He had 40 hours in that one aircraft. His total experience was about 300 hours, more than enough to qualify him for a commercial pilot's license. According to FAA statistics, 300 hours made him a more careful and safer pilot than one with 1000 hours, who is more complacent.
    PROPAGANDA The weather was very hazy.
    FACT: The FAA issued VFR weather conditions that night, and the weather report (mentioned in the UPI story) called for 8 mile visibility. One witness on shore reported that there was very little haze and that standing on the shore, he could see airplanes out over the ocean on approach to the island, proof that airplanes on the approach could see the shore. This claim is backed up not only by the weather report of 8 mile visibility, but by a weather radar image taken at about the time of the crash. This radar image is showing haze and fog along New York and Long Island (if this radar image were of clouds, the FAA would not have declared VFR flying conditions that night) but none at all at Martha's Vineyard. On the morning after the crash, CNN reported that weather could be ruled out as a factor in the crash!
    PROPAGANDA: Martha's Vineyard is very dark and won't show through the haze.
    FACT: That may have been true only a few months ago. However, as evidenced by a Letter to the Editor of the Martha's Vineyard Times just days after the JFK Jr. crash, new lights installed on the island, lights that point up in the sky, are so bright they are drawing complaints from island residents.
    That the Kennedy family has been the target of political assassination is a part of the American political landscape. It's a given.
    That cover-ups surrounded the deaths of Kennedys is also a given.
    That our government lies to us, with the media's help, is a given.
    There is good cause to assume we are being lied to yet again.


    Read more: John F. Kennedy Jr.: Evidence Of A Cover up | WHAT REALLY HAPPENED http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/JFK_JR/jj.php#ixzz5HPd8Ta8x
    , @MacNucc11
    But killed by Hildabeast means to me Rahm Emmanuel. Crooked as they come and ties to Irgun.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:

    We can always connect the dots to match anything with anyone.

    But the only smoking gun on JFK is Oswald did it. And the only smoking gun on RFK is Sirhan did it.

    Remember Wallace got shot too. And there was a plot on Ford. And Reagan nearly got killed.

    Now, given Deep State behavior in recent times, I can believe there are scumbags who are capable of anything.

    Still, we need something more than connect-the-dots. And this article is mostly conjecture and speculation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  123. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Iris
    Just a side note: there is a surviving witness of the Robert Kennedy assassination , Paul Schrade.

    He attended Sirhan's parole bid in 2016, and told the panel that he believed Sirhan shot him at the hotel, but that an unidentified second shooter killed Mr Kennedy.
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/11/robert-f-kennedys-killer-loses-15th-parole-bid-as-witness-says-its-my-fault

    Interestingly, even hard core MSM report the inconsistencies within the official inquiry:
    " But the autopsy showed the candidate was shot from behind, with evidence that indicated he was hit at close range. "
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5796895/Robert-Kennedys-daughter-backs-brothers-call-new-investigation-fathers-death.html

    RFK was not shot from behind. There was one shot right at his ear which is on the side, not back if the head. The rest were in the front

    Read More
    • Replies: @ians
    Couldn’t be more wrong. Read the goddam autopsy report.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon
    Red Scare?? If you can’t read any of the numerous books written about the Verona Papers and Soviet KGB archives opened after 1990, at least ask Mr. Google about them.

    Both archives reveal that the HUAC and McCarthy & FBI investigations show that there were many, many more Soviet spies entrenched in the federal government during and after the FDR administration that the HUAC & McCarthy investigations ever revealed.

    Both archives reveal that the HUAC and McCarthy & FBI investigations show that there were many, many more Soviet spies entrenched in the federal government during and after the FDR administration that the HUAC & McCarthy investigations ever revealed.

    Yes, but McCarthy played it badly by going after too many people with tenuous connections with communists and radicals. Just because your side is right doesn’t mean your side should give into hysteria.

    Also, by McCarthy came on the scene, most of the spies had been captured and Soviet intelligence had effectively been ended in the US. So, McCarthy just kept looking for more and more suspects, and it got a bit ridiculous.

    We saw the same problem after 9/11. Yes, the government had been lax in security and there needed to be more vigilance. But Bush II and Co. over-played their hand and even used 9/11 as hysteria for war with Iraq.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    The tenuous connections were not all that tenuous. For instance Owen Latimore was indeed a soviet agent who influenced many state department operatives.

    The real reasons McCarthy was brought down was that the entire communist operation was so heavily Jewish. It’s really a wonder that the Rosenbergs were arrested and found guilty.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. Funny how RFK’s kid comes out and acknowledges the obvious, that CIA whacked his family, and all of a sudden this frog Guyenot shows up in multiple alt media with his Orientalism shtik saying, oh wait, it was the Zionazis.

    https://alethonews.com/2018/06/02/robert-f-kennedy-jr-is-roiling-the-assassination-waters/

    You see, CIA was just kidding about murdering Kennedy but those crafty Jews got away from them and really did it, Oops! Just like all those incompetent pilots got away from CIA on 9/11 and really did what CIA only pretended they could do so we could catch them red-handed. Oops!

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-blatant-conspiracy-behind-senator-robert-f-kennedys-assassination/5642125

    Cracks me up, CIA’s still trying to shit you even though they’re so utterly, hopelessly busted that they have to blame it on the Jewish State, the most despised shithole on earth. CIA’s running out of people who are more despicable and full of crap than them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Iris
    Laurent Guyenot is not trying to cover for the CIA.

    He is a highly-educated professional engineer, who never needed to get involved in political writing in the first place.
    http://www.voltairenet.org/auteur125605.html?lang=en

    He has been consistently debunking political manipulation over the last 10 years. He does so with objectivity and measure, and thanks to his hard work and erudition. He tries to avoid baiting into easy and stupid conspiracy theories, such as the ones promoted by Michael Moore and Alex Jones.

    Mr Guyenot has loyal and long-standing readers within the French-speaking world, where he is highly respected (and ignored by MSM, which is a badge of honour).
    He mostly publishes on a right-wing, populist website that attracts readers from all political shades, thanks to their more honest and overt positions.
    https://www.egaliteetreconciliation.fr/
    , @anon
    JKF's wife believed it was LBJ who killed her husband
    .. LBJ was in the pocket of the Jews.
    , @Anon
    I read that silly RFK the dead messiah would have cured the problems thing you posted. What a crock.

    JFK MLK RFK the holy trinity what a load.

    Robert Kennedy jr is running for president. He just wants to get his name in the papers and the internet and get votes from all the baby boomers who grow up when the media was so worshipful of the Kennedys and MLK.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. prusmc says: • Website
    @Sean
    He was a Texan (like Audie Murphy) and familiar with rifles from an early age. He was a trained rifleman who though not an expert shot scored 49 hits and one miss at a target 200 yards away. LHO was seen practicing at a rifle range before Dallas, and at a range of under 100 yards his performance in getting one fatal shot on Kennedy was good, not exceptional, even for a rusty and mediocre shot (which he was not).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5IWK9sRYTs

    Charles Wittman was a Texan too, as was Chris Kyle.

    Interesting. When Oswald was in boot camp he scored as sharp-shooter between 210 and 219 points out of 250. HE would fire 10 rounds slow fire from the off-hand (standing) position from 200 yards. Then later he would fire 10 rounds rapid fire in 60 seconds from the standing to sitting position. So this hitting 49 of 50 rounds from 200 yards is a cock and bull story.
    What is not a cock and bull story is a beer drinking session in spring 1959 with Sergeants Dean Nelson from Arkansas, Leroy Alsbury and another Sergeant Dorsey from Illinois at enlisted club MCAS El Toro, California. Topic turned to a Marine who was at a near by station called LTA. They knew him from Japan and said he was frequently in trouble and he was convinced that the US was corrupt for among other things “using germ warfare in Korea”. They said he was called Ossie Rabbit.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @(((They))) Live
    I doubt Oswald was a genuine Communist, he knew David Ferrie (who was hated Communism) in the 1950s, it may have been Ferrie who got him involved in the CIA, and I suspect it was the CIA that sent Oswald to the USSR

    Once he returned from the USSR and got involved with pro Castro groups in the US he was the perfect fall goy in the plot to murder Kennedy

    An interesting fact, when his car made the turn past the book depository LBJ ducked down to tie his shoe laces just as the shooting started, strangely he also wanted Connolly to travel in his car not with JFK

    There was at least one other plot to assassinate Kennedy, in the Chicago plot the patsy was to be another former Marine called Thomas Vallee

    I doubt Oswald was a genuine Communist, he knew David Ferrie (who was hated Communism) in the 1950s, it may have been Ferrie who got him involved in the CIA, and I suspect it was the CIA that sent Oswald to the USSR. Once he returned from the USSR and got involved with pro Castro groups in the US he was the perfect fall goy in the plot to murder Kennedy.

    Oswald needed some kind of Ism to give meaning to his marginal life. Playing Marxist radical gave his life meaning. It was more about personality than ideology.

    He hung around anti-communist types because he saw himself as a brilliant agent-provocateur who would play all sides in a 5D chess. He was seriously deluded as a mover and shaker of history when he was a total non-entity. The fact is no one gave a damn about him. Even Russians found him useless and didn’t want him. When he defected to Russia, he thought he would be accepted as a great hero. Russians just sent him to a factory to work. Back in the US, he wanted attention, but no one gave it to him. Radical and Marxist groups had no use for him. He was too low, too un-intellectual.
    So, he created his own Narrative as a man who would rub shoulders with all sides to make something happen. So, it was disingenuous for him to bitch that he was just a ‘patsy’. He put himself in places to play the role of ‘patsy’ to all sides. It’s what he relished as he wanted to be where the action is. But he was useless as a patsy.

    So, he finally decided to do something big and kill JFK. But he didn’t even have the guts to say he did it. He ran like a chicken and killed a cop.

    I suspect Ruby was sent by the Mafia to kill Oswald. Why? Even though mafia didn’t order the hit, it feared that Oswald would blab about the mafia because the idiot met some mafia types when he was dillydallying with anti-Castro factions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ANON
    Another coherent sensible voice. Bravo. That fits though I'm happy to entertain his having some getaway arrangement with Cubans who arguably let him down or just played him for a sucker.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. @renfro
    Only Israel had anything to gain from Kennedy's murder and they used some Jewish organized crime members to set it up. Only our Israeli occupied congress, not the CIA, could have ''controlled' the investigation to ensure it produced the conclusion it fed to the public.


    In his book, The Passionate Attachment, former Undersecretary of State George Ball summarized the results of Johnson’s Middle East policies:

    First, the Johnson administration put America in the position of being Israel’s principal arms supplier and sole unqualified backer.

    “Second, by assuring the Israelis that the United States would always provide them with a military edge over the Arabs, Johnson guaranteed the ‘escalation of an arms race…

    Third, by refusing to follow the advice of his aides that America make its delivery of nuclear-capable F-4 Phantoms conditional on Israel’s signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Johnson gave the Israelis the impression that America had no fundamental objection to Israel’s nuclear program.

    “Fourth, by permitting a cover-up of Israel’s attack on the Liberty, President Johnson told the Israelis in effect that nothing they did would induce American politicians to refuse their bidding.

    From that time forth, the Israelis began to act as if they had an inalienable right to American aid and backing.”
    As Stephen Green concluded in his discussion of the incredible changes in U.S. policy toward Israel that took place during the Johnson era in ‘Taking Sides: America’s Secret Relations With A Militant Israel’:
    “By June of 1967, for a variety of reasons that prominently included ‘domestic political considerations,’ Lyndon Johnson and his team of foreign-policy advisors had completely revised U.S.-Israeli relations. To all intents and purposes, Israel had become the 51st state.”
    This was the exact opposite of what Kennedy’s attitude toward Israel was and had he lived we would probably have a different relationship with Israel today.'

    Former high-ranking U.S. diplomat Richard H. Curtiss, writing in ‘A Changing Image: American Perceptions of the Arab-Israeli Dispute’, elaborated on Kennedy’s attitude toward the Middle East controversy. In a chapter appropriately titled: “President Kennedy and Good Intentions Deferred Too Long,” Curtiss comments:
    “It is surprising to realize, with the benefit of hindsight, that from the time Kennedy entered office as the narrowly-elected candidate of a party heavily dependent upon Jewish support, he was planning to take a whole new look at U.S. Mideast policy.
    “He obviously could not turn the clock back and undo the work of President Truman, his Democratic predecessor, in making the establishment of Israel possible. Nor, perhaps, would he have wanted to.
    “Kennedy was determined, however, to develop good new personal relationships with individual Arab leaders, including those with whom the previous administration’s relations had deteriorated.
    Soon after Kennedy assumed office, Israel and its American lobby began to understand the import of Kennedy’s positioning in regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Israel was not happy – to say the very least – and began putting heat on the White House through its supporters in Congress, many of whom relied upon support from the Israeli lobby for campaign contributions and political leverage.
    By mid-1963 Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion hated Kennedy with a passion. In fact, he considered JFK a threat to the very survival of the Jewish State.

    Kennedy according to Curtiss cited four areas causing a strain in U.S.-Israel relations: 1) Israel’s diversion-from the Arab States-of the Jordan River waters; 2) Israel’s retaliatory raids against Arab forces in border areas; 3) Israel’s pivotal role in the Palestinian refugee problem; and 4) Israel’s insistence that the United States sell advanced Hawk missiles to Israel.

    “The President outlined to Mrs. Meir what has come to be called the Kennedy Doctrine. Kennedy told Meir that U.S. interests and Israel’s interests were not always the same.
    The Talbot memorandum described Kennedy’s forthright stance:
    “We know,”that Israel faces enormous security problems, but we do too. We came almost to a direct confrontation with the Soviet Union last spring and again recently in Cuba… Because we have taken on wide security responsibilities we always have the potential of becoming involved in a major crisis not of our own making.
    “Our security problems are, therefore, just as great as Israel’s. We have to concern ourself with the whole Middle East. We would like Israeli recognition that this partnership which we have with it produces strains for the United States in the Middle East… when Israel takes such action as it did last spring when Israel launched a raid into Syria, resulting in a condemnation by the UN Security Council. Whether right or wrong, those actions involve not just Israel but also the United States.”
    According to Seymour Hersh: “Israel’s bomb, and what to do about it, became a White House fixation – part of the secret presidential agenda that would remain hidden for the next thirty years.”

    In March, 1963, Sherman Kent, the Chairman of the Board of National Estimates at the CIA, wrote an extended memorandum to the CIA’s Director on the highly controversial subject entitled “Consequences of Israeli Acquisition of Nuclear Capability.”
    According to Stephen Green, for the purposes of this internal memorandum, Kent defined “acquisition” by Israel as either (a) a detonation of a nuclear device with or without the possession of actual nuclear weapons, or (b) an announcement by Israel that it possessed nuclear weapons, even without testing. Kent’s primary conclusion was that an Israeli bomb would cause ‘substantial damage to the U.S. and Western position in the Arab world.

    According to Green, “The memorandum was very strong and decidedly negative in its conclusions” which were as follows:
    “Even though Israel already enjoys a clear military superiority over its Arab adversaries, singly or combined, acquisition of a nuclear capability would greatly enhance Israel’s sense of security. In this circumstance, some Israelis might be inclined to adopt a moderate and conciliatory posture…
    “We believe it much more likely, however, that Israel’s policy toward its neighbors would become more rather than less tough. Israel would seek to exploit the psychological advantages of its nuclear capability to intimidate the Arabs and to prevent them from making trouble on the frontiers.”
    In dealing with the United States, the CIA analyst estimated, a nuclear Israel would “make the most of the almost inevitable Arab tendency to look to the Soviet Bloc for assistance against the added Israel threat, arguing that in terms of both strength and reliability Israel was clearly the only worthwhile friend of the U.S. in the area.
    “Israel,” in Kent’s analysis, “would use all the means at its command to persuade the U.S. to acquiesce in, and even to support, its possession of nuclear capability.”
    In short, Israel would use its immense political power – especially through its lobby in Washington – to force the United States to accede to Israel’s nuclear intentions.

    Stephen Green believes that Kennedy’s position vis-a-vis Israel was an important stand: “It was a remarkable exchange, and the last time in many, many years in which an American president precisely distinguished for the government of Israel the differences between U.S. and Israeli national security interests.”
    Thus it was that John F. Kennedy informed Israel, in no uncertain terms, that he intended – first and foremost – to place America’s interests – not Israel’s interests – at the center of U.S. Middle East policy.
    Kennedy’s friendly overtures to the Arab states were only a public aspect of what ultimately developed into an all-out ‘secret war’ between Kennedy and Israel.
    Another part of the all secret war between Kennedy and Israel according to Hersh was Ben-Gurion’s hated Kennedy because he consider his father an anti semite and Hitler supporter. Hersh wrote, “The Israeli prime minister, in subsequent private communications to the White House, began to refer to the President as ‘young man.’ Kennedy made clear to associates that he found the letters to be offensive.”
    Kennedy himself told his close friend, Charles Bartlett, that he was getting fed up with the fact that the Israeli “sons of bitches lie to me constantly about their nuclear capability.”
    Obviously, to say the very least, there was no love lost between the two leaders. The U.S.-Israeli relationship was at an ever-growing and disastrous impasse, although virtually nothing was known about this to the American public at the time.”…….Green

    renfro insightfully wrote:
    “By mid-1963 Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion hated Kennedy with a passion. In fact, he considered JFK a threat to the very survival of the Jewish State.”

    Hi renfro,

    In contrast, & as you may might know, Ben-Gurion loved GOP, Richard M. Nixon, who became the 1st sitting-USrael president to visit Israel!

    F.y.i., On comeback trail, RMN wrote an interesting book titled “Leaders” in which David Ben-Gurion is deified.

    Thanks for such thoughtful posts, renfro.

    P.S.:
    Below is a work of political-satire which was also posted by “The Smirking Chimp” web site, & afterward, the concerned editor badgered me for anti-semitism, & subsequently, I became the Smirking Chimp’s U-peel Shrimp!

    https://www.uncommonthought.com/mtblog/archives/2017/02/17/prime-minister-netanyahus-crazy-negevist-bedroom-enterprise.php

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. LondonBob says:
    @Anon
    You’re right. But there’s also a lot of small plane ceashes that involve entertainment people especially musicians on tour.

    Could it be that politicians musicians some businessmen and wealthier than average people use small planes more than the rest of us who just drive and use airlines when traveling?

    Yes but I read a mobster’s autobiography, Chauncey Holt, and he said tinkering with a guy’s plane was a great way to off someone. As you note plane crashes happen.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. @renfro
    Only Israel had anything to gain from Kennedy's murder and they used some Jewish organized crime members to set it up. Only our Israeli occupied congress, not the CIA, could have ''controlled' the investigation to ensure it produced the conclusion it fed to the public.


    In his book, The Passionate Attachment, former Undersecretary of State George Ball summarized the results of Johnson’s Middle East policies:

    First, the Johnson administration put America in the position of being Israel’s principal arms supplier and sole unqualified backer.

    “Second, by assuring the Israelis that the United States would always provide them with a military edge over the Arabs, Johnson guaranteed the ‘escalation of an arms race…

    Third, by refusing to follow the advice of his aides that America make its delivery of nuclear-capable F-4 Phantoms conditional on Israel’s signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Johnson gave the Israelis the impression that America had no fundamental objection to Israel’s nuclear program.

    “Fourth, by permitting a cover-up of Israel’s attack on the Liberty, President Johnson told the Israelis in effect that nothing they did would induce American politicians to refuse their bidding.

    From that time forth, the Israelis began to act as if they had an inalienable right to American aid and backing.”
    As Stephen Green concluded in his discussion of the incredible changes in U.S. policy toward Israel that took place during the Johnson era in ‘Taking Sides: America’s Secret Relations With A Militant Israel’:
    “By June of 1967, for a variety of reasons that prominently included ‘domestic political considerations,’ Lyndon Johnson and his team of foreign-policy advisors had completely revised U.S.-Israeli relations. To all intents and purposes, Israel had become the 51st state.”
    This was the exact opposite of what Kennedy’s attitude toward Israel was and had he lived we would probably have a different relationship with Israel today.'

    Former high-ranking U.S. diplomat Richard H. Curtiss, writing in ‘A Changing Image: American Perceptions of the Arab-Israeli Dispute’, elaborated on Kennedy’s attitude toward the Middle East controversy. In a chapter appropriately titled: “President Kennedy and Good Intentions Deferred Too Long,” Curtiss comments:
    “It is surprising to realize, with the benefit of hindsight, that from the time Kennedy entered office as the narrowly-elected candidate of a party heavily dependent upon Jewish support, he was planning to take a whole new look at U.S. Mideast policy.
    “He obviously could not turn the clock back and undo the work of President Truman, his Democratic predecessor, in making the establishment of Israel possible. Nor, perhaps, would he have wanted to.
    “Kennedy was determined, however, to develop good new personal relationships with individual Arab leaders, including those with whom the previous administration’s relations had deteriorated.
    Soon after Kennedy assumed office, Israel and its American lobby began to understand the import of Kennedy’s positioning in regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Israel was not happy – to say the very least – and began putting heat on the White House through its supporters in Congress, many of whom relied upon support from the Israeli lobby for campaign contributions and political leverage.
    By mid-1963 Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion hated Kennedy with a passion. In fact, he considered JFK a threat to the very survival of the Jewish State.

    Kennedy according to Curtiss cited four areas causing a strain in U.S.-Israel relations: 1) Israel’s diversion-from the Arab States-of the Jordan River waters; 2) Israel’s retaliatory raids against Arab forces in border areas; 3) Israel’s pivotal role in the Palestinian refugee problem; and 4) Israel’s insistence that the United States sell advanced Hawk missiles to Israel.

    “The President outlined to Mrs. Meir what has come to be called the Kennedy Doctrine. Kennedy told Meir that U.S. interests and Israel’s interests were not always the same.
    The Talbot memorandum described Kennedy’s forthright stance:
    “We know,”that Israel faces enormous security problems, but we do too. We came almost to a direct confrontation with the Soviet Union last spring and again recently in Cuba… Because we have taken on wide security responsibilities we always have the potential of becoming involved in a major crisis not of our own making.
    “Our security problems are, therefore, just as great as Israel’s. We have to concern ourself with the whole Middle East. We would like Israeli recognition that this partnership which we have with it produces strains for the United States in the Middle East… when Israel takes such action as it did last spring when Israel launched a raid into Syria, resulting in a condemnation by the UN Security Council. Whether right or wrong, those actions involve not just Israel but also the United States.”
    According to Seymour Hersh: “Israel’s bomb, and what to do about it, became a White House fixation – part of the secret presidential agenda that would remain hidden for the next thirty years.”

    In March, 1963, Sherman Kent, the Chairman of the Board of National Estimates at the CIA, wrote an extended memorandum to the CIA’s Director on the highly controversial subject entitled “Consequences of Israeli Acquisition of Nuclear Capability.”
    According to Stephen Green, for the purposes of this internal memorandum, Kent defined “acquisition” by Israel as either (a) a detonation of a nuclear device with or without the possession of actual nuclear weapons, or (b) an announcement by Israel that it possessed nuclear weapons, even without testing. Kent’s primary conclusion was that an Israeli bomb would cause ‘substantial damage to the U.S. and Western position in the Arab world.

    According to Green, “The memorandum was very strong and decidedly negative in its conclusions” which were as follows:
    “Even though Israel already enjoys a clear military superiority over its Arab adversaries, singly or combined, acquisition of a nuclear capability would greatly enhance Israel’s sense of security. In this circumstance, some Israelis might be inclined to adopt a moderate and conciliatory posture…
    “We believe it much more likely, however, that Israel’s policy toward its neighbors would become more rather than less tough. Israel would seek to exploit the psychological advantages of its nuclear capability to intimidate the Arabs and to prevent them from making trouble on the frontiers.”
    In dealing with the United States, the CIA analyst estimated, a nuclear Israel would “make the most of the almost inevitable Arab tendency to look to the Soviet Bloc for assistance against the added Israel threat, arguing that in terms of both strength and reliability Israel was clearly the only worthwhile friend of the U.S. in the area.
    “Israel,” in Kent’s analysis, “would use all the means at its command to persuade the U.S. to acquiesce in, and even to support, its possession of nuclear capability.”
    In short, Israel would use its immense political power – especially through its lobby in Washington – to force the United States to accede to Israel’s nuclear intentions.

    Stephen Green believes that Kennedy’s position vis-a-vis Israel was an important stand: “It was a remarkable exchange, and the last time in many, many years in which an American president precisely distinguished for the government of Israel the differences between U.S. and Israeli national security interests.”
    Thus it was that John F. Kennedy informed Israel, in no uncertain terms, that he intended – first and foremost – to place America’s interests – not Israel’s interests – at the center of U.S. Middle East policy.
    Kennedy’s friendly overtures to the Arab states were only a public aspect of what ultimately developed into an all-out ‘secret war’ between Kennedy and Israel.
    Another part of the all secret war between Kennedy and Israel according to Hersh was Ben-Gurion’s hated Kennedy because he consider his father an anti semite and Hitler supporter. Hersh wrote, “The Israeli prime minister, in subsequent private communications to the White House, began to refer to the President as ‘young man.’ Kennedy made clear to associates that he found the letters to be offensive.”
    Kennedy himself told his close friend, Charles Bartlett, that he was getting fed up with the fact that the Israeli “sons of bitches lie to me constantly about their nuclear capability.”
    Obviously, to say the very least, there was no love lost between the two leaders. The U.S.-Israeli relationship was at an ever-growing and disastrous impasse, although virtually nothing was known about this to the American public at the time.”…….Green

    Renfro:

    Despite my reservations about the statement, “Only Israel had anything to gain from Kennedy’s murder.”, I find this comment be very well organized and persuasive.

    While I don’t think intent to somehow disrupt the zionist occupier of Palestine lands acquiring nuclear weapons capability and actual armaments as the only potential disposition of JFK, which would have made him a target of the Torah-Pharisees-Talmud global collective, I agree that even by itself, it would have.

    [See my post: http://www.unz.com/article/did-israel-kill-the-kennedies/#comment-2357245 above, if you care to, and haven't already.]

    Thank you for your contribution; I appreciate it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. @John Gruskos
    John, Robert and Ted Kennedy were all extremely friendly to Israel and extremely supportive of the interests of diaspora Jews.

    They led the Democratic Party away from the old-left emphasis on economic justice and peace, towards the new-left emphasis on issues of race and sex.

    They weakened the labor unions with their campaign against the Teamsters, they supported tax cuts for the very wealthy, their support for increased immigration was hostile to the economic interests of the American working class, and they supported an intensification of the cold war against the Soviet Union. They even knowingly lied about an imaginary "missile gap", in order to present the Democratic Party as more hawkish than Eisenhower's Republicans.

    The Kennedy brothers adopted this platform after the crucially important events of 1956-1957:

    In response to the Suez Crisis, Khrushchev's Soviet Union definitively became the patron of Israel's Arab enemies. Simultaneously, Khrushchev was overseeing a Thermidorian reaction against the excesses of early Bolshevism in eastern Europe. Stalin was denounced, Matyas Rakosi was exiled, Kaganovich was purged from the Politburo, Solzhenitsyn was released from the gulags, and the Hungarian counter-revolutionaries were treated less harshly than they would have been in the days of Lenin and Trotsky. A new Bukharinite, almost semi-nationalist, form of communism developed in eastern Europe - far less deadly, and with jobs and patronage more fairly distributed among the various ethnicities.

    In other words, Soviet communism was no longer "good for the Jews". No longer were millions of counter-revolutionary "antisemites" being murdered. No longer were Jews massively over-represented in positions of power and prestige. And no longer was the Soviet Union a supporter of Zionism and Israel.

    Similarly, the rise of American Jews from the working class into the upper middle and wealthy classes, meant that domestically the American old-left economic policies such as progressive taxation and support for rogue unions such as the Teamsters, were no longer "good for the Jews".

    In these circumstances, Eisenhower's moves towards detente with the Soviet Union, insistence on Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai, support for immigration restriction (which prevented the migration into America of the Jewish former ruling class of communist eastern Europe - Kaganovich, Rakosi and hordes of lesser-known radical Bolsheviks, commissars and secret police agents), and even his continuation of FDR-era progressive taxation and public works projects, were seen as "bad for the Jews", just as Kennedy's exact opposite platform was seen as "good for the Jews".

    Perhaps more significantly, the Eisenhower-Nixon cultural conservatism (praising Robert E. Lee as the greatest American who ever lived, expressing regret for having appointed Earl Warren to the Supreme Court, and living a chaste life of faithfulness to their wives) contrasted with the cultural radicalism of the Kennedy brothers (full support for the most radical elements of the civil rights movement, libertine personal lives filled with not-so-secret love affairs).

    Compared to what came before, JFK represented an assault on the ethnic self-respect of old-stock Americans and the cultural norms of traditional Christianity - to the delight of the Jewish movements examined in Kevin MacDonald's Culture of Critique.

    Whatever personal animosity may have existed, in political terms LBJ was indistinguishable from the Kennedy brothers. He too was hostile towards the Soviet bloc, a friend of Israel, and supportive of the cultural left.

    Given this macro-historical background, I think the simplest explanations of the assassinations are correct, and the various convoluted conspiracy theories are incorrect.

    Lee Harvey Oswald was an old-left Marxist who saw JFK as an enemy, a traitor against the "true" left.

    Jack Ruby was a hyper-ethnocentric Jewish gangster who murdered Oswald to avenge the death of the Jewish people's best friend.

    Sirhan Sirhan was a Palestinian nationalist.

    Conspiracy theorist are typically Kennedy sycophants who don't like being reminded that their heroes were enemies of socialism, enemies of the long-suffering Palestinian people, and heroes to the likes of Jack Ruby.

    They'd prefer to believe that JFK and RFK were martyrs murdered by reactionary WASPs - but that is pure fantasy.

    Well, I agree with Wiz and Anon, that your post is sane. What is obvious, however, is that you either haven’t done your homework or are a sophisticated troll. James Douglas’ JFK and the Unspeakable, which sums up decades of research is a good place to start. Peter Dale Scott’s Deep Politics and the Death of JFK is also essential to get a sense of some of the moving parts and the need for humility, in approaching the matter.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. Them Guys says:
    @Cold N. Holefield
    Great article. Well-researched and well-presented. It's a convincing case. It reveals the CIA was compromised in favor of Israel. That was then and this is now.No doubt the Israeli termites have completely consumed the structure. I would have to imagine at this point the CIA is a dupe division of Mossad and it's so inundated with Israeli Moles to rid the undemocratic organization of the infestation would be tantamount to playing whack-a-mole. The only option is to burn it to the ground. Destroy it, end it, and jail the majority of its members, past and present, for High Treason.

    I agree. And have come to the conclusion that, once one gets very jewized up and comprehends just how involved international jewry and its current political offspring of Zionists are, in so many events. That they really do represent also a true misfortune for the entire world of non jewish goyim.

    And furthermore, I have concluded that due to so many bad, wrong, evil ongoing events that are headed by or consist of an huge number of jews involved within them. That at this late date point in time, it would almost be better when discussing various past and current and even likely future events, as far as jewish involvments, to instead ask the question of…

    What Is there that history has proven as evil or wrong within such events, that jews have Not been involved in or with eh?

    Because the deeper you go into such events and infos, and ergo the longer back in past times one delves into such issues…The more one learns of a constant jewish involvement throughout history going back at least 3,500 yrs ago!…..35-Centuries so far, with most times each century getting worse and more evil due to their insidious craving of remaining stiff necked and stubborn, and always unwilling to repent or change period.

    And yes yes…I know there are a few so called good jews…But imho those good types number very very few when compared to jewry as a whole. For I consider their huge silent bunch of tribe members as willing accomplices, and based upon the ever ongoing group silence we see no matter which jews do wrongs and no matter how bad those wrongs are. No other logic nor sane conclusion can be had.

    And for immediate proof examples of how their majority tribe members always cover for, deny wrongs, toss out straw men, or simply revert to the time tested method of…Fully ignore all presented facts, and begin to use vile slanderous name calls of “Nazis” and “Antisemite” etc. One only need read any of the many articles here on This forum, as well as all other website forums that have become infested with Zionist jews and hasbara agents.

    And for these reasons one must also conclude is the main reason that every time jews get booted from another host nation, the entire bunch bar none get booted out. Yes that means those few good jews also get booted out, which some can argue is unfair…But after 109 host nations and around a total of 300+ boot outs since about 1800 yrs ago…Well one can also understand why a host nation, having no good method to determine accurately which are the few good ones, always ends up giving the big boot out to them all eh.

    And also one can conclude that most everything jews have complained about for that entire 3,500 years and still do today, has been caused by jews themselves by their own disgusting ways and traits and evil criminalities etc…..There simply would be zero so called antisemitism if there were zero jews within a nation period. But good luck in attempting to convince any jews of such truths.

    One of the very best and most accurate descriptions yet I have read or heard of regarding jewry and why they have been so despised by so many distinctly different groups of gentiles, and in so many different locations and in so many eras of time has to be what the new testament verses about them states…(Paraphraseing here) “For they are the adversaries of God and of All of Mankind”!

    That single short verse speaks volumes of past and present truths.

    Read More
    • Replies: @redmudhooch
    Fun article.... I wonder why these countries are "antisemetic" ???? Hmmmm.... what could it be?????

    ADL Poll of Over 100 Countries Finds More Than One-Quarter of Those Surveyed Infected With Anti-Semitic Attitudes

    https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/adl-global-100-poll

    The top countries/territories in the ADL 100 Global Index are:

    West Bank and Gaza – 93 percent of the adult population holds anti-Semitic views
    Iraq – 92 percent
    Yemen – 88 percent
    Algeria – 87 percent
    Libya – 87 percent
    Tunisia – 86 percent
    Kuwait – 82 percent
    Bahrain – 81 percent
    Jordan – 81 percent
    , @Dissident X
    Your comment is appreciated, Them Guys.

    I've been thinking about this issue of "the good jews".
    Which makes it necessary to try to figure out the very foggy and fuzzy notion of "what does 'jew' mean?

    While keeping in mind Gilad Atzmons excerpt, "When we criticise Jewish politics (Israel, Zionism, the Lobby etc’) ..." , you can read my comment above at: http://www.unz.com/article/did-israel-kill-the-kennedies/#comment-2357245 , whether referred to as a religion, culture or politique, these people, affiliated with the Torah-Pharisees-Talmud global collective, whether of orthodox adherence, or just a more or less nominal affiliation, accept, by definition, the value proposition proposed by the collective, a a fundamental basis:
    1. separate and distinct from everybody else
    2. chosen and divinely favoured to dominate everybody else
    3. operating secretly, systemically discriminating against everybody else
    4. operating systemically negative-sum-gain gaming systems to gain advantage (even though the entire system suffers a negative overall outcome)
    The value proposition:
    a. entitlement to the best social and material prospects, including facilitated promotion to the best-paying positions, particularly those of authority for policy and decision-making capacities
    b. required to promote the interests of the collective ahead of all other considerations, as indoctrinated, i.e. universal support for Israel or at the very least no comment, or when specifically called upon by the collective to enact, fully supported by the collective, acts, decisions, policies, as directed to by the collective.

    I equate self-identification with the acceptance of the value proposition.
    Now, obviously there is a spectrum of adherence, no intelligent observer would contradict this.
    However, by self-identifying as "a jew", one is accepting the value proposition and therefore inherently accepting systemic discrimination against all out-group peoples, and likely trained from an early age to selectively disable empathetic responses to out-group people to enable this systemic discrimination.

    If one is strictly opposed to discrimination, one is definitely NOT adherent.
    Otherwise, why would anyone identify with such a group?!

    Is it okay to systemically discriminate against all out-group people and systemically negative-sum-gain game the entire planetary system?
     
    I say "no"!
    The planet simply cannot sustain it now.
    , @skrik

    “For they are the adversaries of God and of All of Mankind”!
     
    This is the best comment I've found so far. Although I don't 'do' religion, the I/J/Z-plex certainly seems to a) have it in for the rest of mankind and b) claims some fantasy 'god' as their own, in a truly stupid attempt to 'justify' the tribe's execrable evil. But, I see a problem for the I/J/Z-plex, namely that they are *not* who they claim to be = descendants of some ancient Hebrew tribe, but the great majority = so-called 'European' Jews = Ashkenazim, are actually descended from Khazars, Turco Finn by race, origin the steppes somewhere north of the Caucasus. The proof of this is 'easy;' Q: Does this man look anyway "Semitic?"
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/4285292-3x2-340x227.jpg
    A: Haw.
    Thesis: That the I/J/Z-plex are impostors = lying swindlers, they own no 'god' and their 'illness' is only in their minds, not in any [Hebrew = Judaic] genes.

    As such, the I/J/Z-plex could reform themselves in an instant; just say "No!" to all further lying, cheating and murdering for Lebensraum = spoil. rgds
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. Iris says:
    @Modified limited variant hangout
    Funny how RFK's kid comes out and acknowledges the obvious, that CIA whacked his family, and all of a sudden this frog Guyenot shows up in multiple alt media with his Orientalism shtik saying, oh wait, it was the Zionazis.

    https://alethonews.com/2018/06/02/robert-f-kennedy-jr-is-roiling-the-assassination-waters/

    You see, CIA was just kidding about murdering Kennedy but those crafty Jews got away from them and really did it, Oops! Just like all those incompetent pilots got away from CIA on 9/11 and really did what CIA only pretended they could do so we could catch them red-handed. Oops!

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-blatant-conspiracy-behind-senator-robert-f-kennedys-assassination/5642125

    Cracks me up, CIA's still trying to shit you even though they're so utterly, hopelessly busted that they have to blame it on the Jewish State, the most despised shithole on earth. CIA's running out of people who are more despicable and full of crap than them.

    Laurent Guyenot is not trying to cover for the CIA.

    He is a highly-educated professional engineer, who never needed to get involved in political writing in the first place.

    http://www.voltairenet.org/auteur125605.html?lang=en

    He has been consistently debunking political manipulation over the last 10 years. He does so with objectivity and measure, and thanks to his hard work and erudition. He tries to avoid baiting into easy and stupid conspiracy theories, such as the ones promoted by Michael Moore and Alex Jones.

    Mr Guyenot has loyal and long-standing readers within the French-speaking world, where he is highly respected (and ignored by MSM, which is a badge of honour).
    He mostly publishes on a right-wing, populist website that attracts readers from all political shades, thanks to their more honest and overt positions.

    https://www.egaliteetreconciliation.fr/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Modified limited variant hangout
    Thanks for your perspective! I have read some of M. Guanot's work with interest.

    While it is quite plausible that the Zionist entity and the CIA regime have congruent criminal interests, this is not what Guyanot theorizes. He imagines a CIA that sets up all the preconditions for a coup, without actually meaning to go through with it, and a foreign devil that unexpectedly takes it all and runs with it. That's idiotic. It also happens to be CIA's boilerplate excuse for all their grave crimes. There's nothing new up there. What's worse, it's plagiarized from Langley fops and jarheads. It's not just stupid, but stupid in a telltale way.

    An engineer is highly trained, not highly educated. That might be why he applies bog standard old-fashioned Orientalism, which originally applied to Jews, then didn't, and now does again - and voila, we've got a suspect that isn't CIA! Guyanot's Orientalism is interesting because it highlights the Israeli state's exploitation of biblical myth as pretext for genocidal ideology. But he's over his head when trying to re-interpret the documented conduct of the US command structure. Perhaps that's how he falls into the CIA's propaganda line. Let's hope so.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. bj says:

    I just read from Yahweh to Zion: Jealous God, Chosen People, Promised Land…..and Clash Of Civilizations. The book is an excellent history of the nefarious role played by Jews in the cycle of civilizations for thousands of years up to the JFK assassination and 9/11 which feature Jews in supporting and initiating roles. These two mentioned events are arguably the endgame of the Anglo-Zionist Empire. The destroyers indeed!

    The JFK assassination and 9/11 featured Jews documenting the event for celebration and narrative control. The dancing Israelis and Abraham Zapruder were on site at the exact moment of the mortal event. What a coincidence the Jew Chorus shouts! I would like to know more about Abraham Zapruder, born in the Ukraine in 1905. Did he know the Zionist founders of the apartheid state?

    https://www.amazon.com/Yahweh-Zion-Jealous-Promised-Civilizations/dp/0996143041

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus

    The JFK assassination and 9/11 featured Jews documenting the event for celebration and narrative control.
     
    That's an interesting point, but it looks like documentation is surplus to requirement. Despite several years of countless opportunities, no Jew with a camera managed to record any of the Auschwitz gassings. Nevertheless, narrative control over the Holocaust was not only unaffected, I'd argue that it was enhanced.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. What I want to say that is that your macroscopic perspective and desire for the simple explanation does not obviate the facts of the case.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  136. @gsjackson
    Every Marine is considered a "rifleman," even those who fail to qualify with the rifle. At the end of his tour Oswald tested on the low end of 'marksman,' which is the lowest of three qualifying categories. Which means he wasn't a particularly good shot.

    A friend of mine visited the Book Depository and was struck by how close Oswald was. It was an easy shot.

    The question the conspiracy idiots don’t consider is: If the “deep state” wanted to get rid of him, why not expose JFK in a sex scandal forcing his resignation?

    It would be (a lot) safer than a “conspiracy” composed of the entire government. A forced resignation from a sex scandal would make Kennedy a laughing stock and totally disgrace him. The assassination made him a martyr, causing the passage of every measure he had favored.

    The fallout concerning the East German woman from Bobby Baker’s stable whom JFK had consorted with was still bubbling on November 22, 1963.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    A “friend”? Yeah, right. Fuck you.
    , @Wally
    And no doubt your 'friend' could have fired the "magic bullet" as well.

    "Sex scandal"? LOL

    That would have taken years to have had any impact, if at all.

    And since when do sex scandals force Presidents to retire.

    Given your logic, a sex scandal could have been used against Lincoln, therefore John Wilkes Booth is innocent.
    , @Anon
    I visited the Book depository when I was in Dallas for a week and noted that the distance was short, the window was way above the street and it would have been an easy shot. I doubt a Marine would have missed.

    What’s really silly is the way people who’ve never held any type of gun in their lives keep insisting that Oswald’s score on the Marine marksman test proves he was a bad shot. Just because he didn’t get the highest score doesn’t mean he wasn’t capable of firing the shot that killed Kennedy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. Art says:

    We see more and more articles about “the Jews killed the Kennedys.” True or not, this is not good for the Jews. This opens the floodgates to “the Jews did 9/11.”

    Defending 9/11 is problematic for the Jews. There are many many angles that are impossible to defend.

    Think Peace — Art

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    " This opens the floodgates to “the Jews did 9/11.” "

    PNAC of AEI did ask for ' a new Pearl Harbour'.
    However, as far as I know Cheney is not a jew.
    He accidentally was at NORAD to lead an excercise op Sept 11.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. @Wizard of Oz
    You lose all credibility for anything sensible you might say when you spout such tendentious rubbish as "he is[sic] a Zionist from his mother [sic] side". You presumably are confusing the Orthodox criterion for someone to be a Jew with the choice a person makes to be a Zionist (for which you don't even have to be a Jew come to think of it). It's even sillier than people saying Rupert Murdoch is a Jew because a great or great great grandmother may have been Jewish.

    Wiz of Oz,
    Are you a troll or a Zionist sympathizer? Giving birth by a Zionist the child is a Zionist or Zionist sympathizer even if he or she doesn’t acknowledge it! This can go back as far as 7 generations if you really like to know!
    Your comments are worthless indicating you have nothing to say or to add to the subject matter! Bye!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    He is indeed both a troll and a Zionist sympathizer, but he’s also a gigantic ass-hat whose capacity for long-winded bullshit is unsurpassed.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Beefcake the Mighty is a totally suitable reader to absorb the whole of your totally bizarre output. If you are capable of learning anything to modify your insane thinking about Murdoch and Zionism have a look at my reply to Anon [257] I think @ #61.

    And please stop using such mystical nonsense to bend your language incomprehensibly. I wonder if even the thick Beefcake can stand the idea - when something that passes the criterion for thought passes through his head - that one can have sympathies without knowing about/acknowledging it or that the (in this case imaginary) transmission of sympathies can be by genes from a remote ancestor.

    Come to think of it please don't offer to manage anyone's money as someone as innumerate as you would be dangerous. NB if there is a 50 per cent chance that you get a critical (Zionist sympathy!) gene from a parent - and that overstates even the hypothetical in general - the chances going back 7 generations are 25 per cent, 12.5, 6.25, 3.125, 1.5725, 0.78625 per cent chance. As your mother might have said please don't make an ass of yourself in public especially if it does others the discourtesy of wasting their time. But, of course, stupidity is usually hereditary and you may have got the full 100 per cent from a dominant maternal gene.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. @Anon
    I totally agree with you. That’s my take. Oswald the pro Castro life long communist worked right on the Kennedy parade route.

    Sirhan’s bother was killed by an Israeli bombing of a crowded intersection. His father was fired from a 25 year job with the City of Jerusalem with no pension. Family rental property was confiscated with no compensation

    When Sirhan was 4 armed Israeli soldiers invaded the family home and gave the family 1 hour to leave. No compensation of course. Family moved from a nice 10 room house to a pilgrims hostel run by the Greek Orthodox Church to which they belonged.

    Family ended up in Pasadena Ca. Summer of 1967 the papers were full of RFK’s promises to Israel. Sirhan believed those articles. So he shot that supreme scum bag RFK.

    RFK was absolutely into the Democrat party War on Whites. He was marching with Cesear Chavez and worshipped MLK. He persecuted, not prosecuted the White male Teamsters Union. Had he been elected he would have enforced affirmative action and pro Hispanic & pro black activism as eagerly as 2 other anti White Presidents, Johnson and Nixon did. RFK was pro black from the day his brother became president

    Personally, I don’t give a rats ass about who killed the pro Hispanic pro black enemy of Whites, RFK.

    RFK was NOT going to win the presidency in 1968. A few weeks before his death, he lost the Oregon primary to Eugene McCarthy. RFK couldn’t get enough votes beyond his black base to win a general election. A poll in late May 1968 had him running 10 points behind Nixon. Robert Kennedy was about as out of touch with Middle America as George McGovern would be for years later.

    Hubert Humphrey was way ahead in delegates and in those days the “bosses” still had control. Humphrey was better liked than Bobby withing the party. The New York primary was going to give Bobby a poor result for his “home state.”

    Although, RFK won the California primary, his 46-42 margin was 3-4 points lower than expected and was due to a heavy black and Mexican vote. Bobby still didn’t do well enough with white voters.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Thanks. Interesting information that makes it far more valuable than some of the approximately relevant argumentative stuff on the conspiracies.
    , @prusmc
    What an abject trio of losers: HHH see what Gonzo journalist Hunter S. THOMPSON says about him; clean Gene who only cheated, on his wife, and Bobby the Weasal. Even today with Bernie,Kamala, Rubio, and Jeb we have ònly approached the bottom of the barrel that encapsulated the life and times of LBJ's American Tragedy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. utu says:

    If we reject the official versions of JFK and RFK assassinations and assume they were results of conspiracies with Oswald and Sirhan as active players or patsies then we must go by the qui bono, cui prodest, cuius bonum legal principle which certainly will not prove who were the conspirators but will point to the most likely conspirators.

    In case of JFK it is pretty obvious that Israel was the greatest beneficiary of his death because of JFK determination to stop Israel’s nuclear program. Some correspondence of JFK with PM’s of Israel is available on line. Israel defense doctrine was formulate to be based on what later was called Samson Option. In 1963 Israel still cooperated with France on its secret nuclear program.

    JFK definitively was set on stopping Israel nuclear program which Israel was conducting in secret cooperation with France. After strong letter on May 18, 163 letter PM Ben Gurion preferred to resign than to answer the letter:

    https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/When-Ben-Gurion-said-no-to-JFK
    Finally, Kennedy had enough, and in a personal letter dated May 18, 1963, the president warned that unless American inspectors were allowed into Dimona (meaning the end of any military activities), Israel would find itself totally isolated. Rather than answering, Ben-Gurion abruptly resigned. Kennedy’s repeated emphasis on America’s “deep commitment to the security of Israel” was all well and good, but, as seen after Egypt’s sudden expulsion of UN peacekeepers in 1967, Israel could not depend on anyone – even the US.

    Ben-Gurion’s successor, Levi Eshkol received Kennedy’s next letter, which upped the pressure, warning that the American commitment and support of Israel “could be seriously jeopardized.”

    At the same time RFK as AG was considering forcing pro Israel lobbies to register as Foreign Agents. The last before JFK death communication from DOJ was on 10/11/1963: DOJ Demanded for AZC Registration “the Department expects a response from you within 72 hours with regard to this matter.” Six days later

    http://www.israellobby.org/azcdoj/
    “Judge Rifkind then made a plea for no registration, stating it was the opinion of most of the persons affiliated with the Council that such registration would be so publicized by the American Council on Judaism that it would eventually destroy the Zionist movement…he did not believe his clients would file any papers or sign any papers indicating that the organization was an agent of a foreign principal. I told him that any such information or material that is supplied on that basis would be made part of the Department’s public files available for inspection by the public…”

    In DOJ internal memo on 4/30/1964 before replacing RFK as AG with Nicholas Katzenbach the following was stated: “This is the most blatant stall we have encountered. Do you mind suggesting what we do next because all of us here would call their records before a grand jury.” RFK resigns as AG in September 1964. When Katzenbach became acting AG and then AG exchanges between Jewish lobby and DOJ continued but no action was taken by DOJ. Eventually on n 11/27/1967, four years and five days after JFK’s death AIPAC applies for a federal tax exemption. The lobby has won.

    As far as RFK is concerned the conspirators could not allow him to become president, period. His assassination is predicated on conspiracy of JFK assassination and subsequent cover up. If we assume that Sirhan was indeed hypnotized patsy conspirators seem to overdid the cover story and the created legend (though it worked for most people who bought the story) by trying to bring attention to Palestinians who were allegedly upset with RFK’s strong pro-Israel stance. The problem with the story is that RFK did not demonstrate that he had strong pro-Israeli position. Anyway, most people got a message that RFK got killed because he was pro-Israel, so certainly Israel was off the suspect list, right?

    Since the two assassinations dozens of theories were floated, including the most ridiculous ones, like that Onassis was behind it, which got public exposure often in MSM. The only theory that can’t get any traction in MSM is the one linking Israel.

    Read More
    • Agree: Iris, renfro
    • Replies: @renfro

    The only theory that can’t get any traction in MSM is the one linking Israel
     
    The Dog That Didn't Bark.

    The Sherlock story is often used as an example of the importance of expanding the search for clues beyond the obvious and visible.

    It never barks on Israel.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. @Bardon Kaldian
    This whole article on Israeli angle is simply preposterous.

    If the Dimona project was so crucial, there were numerous other options for Israel to try to persuade JFK to let them proceed with their project. To try to latch JFK's supposedly adamant decision onto one or two documents is absurd: politicians frequently change their opinions & actions and there is no proof that JFK considered Dimona to be such a big deal, make-or-break of anything.

    Then, Israelis would, even if this were true, be more prone too blackmail JFK- mostly about his sexual escapades, or try to, say, eliminate him in a clandestine manner (poisoning or something similar).

    No, the JFK assassination was a public execution, a coup by the deep state (in modern parlance) in front of the whole world, the message being: we can do whatever we want & you can't do anything about it.

    The Tribe has spoken.

    Read More
    • Agree: Iris
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. @Tyrion 2

    If I could make a parallel on the Palestinians: it’s “interesting” how they always found themselves in the spotlight of major plots, killings and terror acts after the creation of the British Zionist State known as Israel.
     
    But not 9/11...that was perpetrated by inconveniently Saudi terrorists hosted thousands of miles away from Palestine in Nowheresville, Afghanistan.

    A great place to run such an operation, no?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    No. I've been there. It isn't. It's the worst place for such a thing. Unless you're welcome.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. anon[228] • Disclaimer says:
    @Modified limited variant hangout
    Funny how RFK's kid comes out and acknowledges the obvious, that CIA whacked his family, and all of a sudden this frog Guyenot shows up in multiple alt media with his Orientalism shtik saying, oh wait, it was the Zionazis.

    https://alethonews.com/2018/06/02/robert-f-kennedy-jr-is-roiling-the-assassination-waters/

    You see, CIA was just kidding about murdering Kennedy but those crafty Jews got away from them and really did it, Oops! Just like all those incompetent pilots got away from CIA on 9/11 and really did what CIA only pretended they could do so we could catch them red-handed. Oops!

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-blatant-conspiracy-behind-senator-robert-f-kennedys-assassination/5642125

    Cracks me up, CIA's still trying to shit you even though they're so utterly, hopelessly busted that they have to blame it on the Jewish State, the most despised shithole on earth. CIA's running out of people who are more despicable and full of crap than them.

    JKF’s wife believed it was LBJ who killed her husband
    .. LBJ was in the pocket of the Jews.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. @Intelligent Dasein
    Yes, I believe that Oswald killed Kennedy. I have no reasonable doubt that Oswald alone fired the fatal shot.

    I also believe that the question, while certainly not irrelevant, is little thought of by most people today and would not affect their lives one way or the other. This is not to say that truth should not be investigated and justice done whenever possible. Falsehoods of any sort should be brought to light and expunged from the historical record, for there is no telling what damage an error may do even long after the fact. However, in the first place, I do not think that the historical record has enshrined any major errors in the case of the Kennedys; and in the second place, the fervency with which the contrarians (and they alone) continue to revive this long-buried topic does not savor of an honest pursuit of truth. I gather they would not be satisfied even if all the world were converted to their opinion.

    They have some sort of an agenda. What it is varies from case to case and is not something I'm willing to speculate upon. But this sort of crusading over the meaning of an historical event is never anything but a quest for political power in the present moment, and is usually driven not by any coherent ideology but by the sheer passion for revenge. The willingness of so many revisionists to make saints out of the Kennedys---which on any objective reading they clearly were not---is by itself sufficient to discover the all-too-human wellsprings of their motivation. You have a beef with Israel, with the CIA, with Lyndon Johnson, with the whole American Deep State. I get that; I'm no fan of these people, either. But I'm not going to pervert my entire view of history so as to cast them in the role of the eternal villain. Self-deception is not only bad for your psychological health, it's also very politically inexpedient. You will never accomplish anything by this method. Just imagine the dismay that will come upon you if, peradventure, you happen to have a real shot at gaining some actual power and then you realize that your only friends and compatriots are the unreliable fruit loops who've been yup-yupping your articles these past years. A lot of help they're going to be.

    The assertion that Israel had anything to do with assassinating either Kennedy brother is just not true. It is falsehood and lies and intellectual pollution. The reverence for such a belief belongs as a sub-genre of postmodern urban mysticism and religious occultism, along with the belief that the CIA planted explosives in the World Trade Center.

    “Yes, I believe that Oswald killed Kennedy. I have no reasonable doubt that Oswald alone fired the fatal shot.”

    You mean the magic bullet?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. @David In TN
    A friend of mine visited the Book Depository and was struck by how close Oswald was. It was an easy shot.

    The question the conspiracy idiots don't consider is: If the "deep state" wanted to get rid of him, why not expose JFK in a sex scandal forcing his resignation?

    It would be (a lot) safer than a "conspiracy" composed of the entire government. A forced resignation from a sex scandal would make Kennedy a laughing stock and totally disgrace him. The assassination made him a martyr, causing the passage of every measure he had favored.

    The fallout concerning the East German woman from Bobby Baker's stable whom JFK had consorted with was still bubbling on November 22, 1963.

    A “friend”? Yeah, right. Fuck you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @David In TN
    Thanks for admitting your stupidity and confirming the truth of my argument.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. @Monty Ahwazi
    Wiz of Oz,
    Are you a troll or a Zionist sympathizer? Giving birth by a Zionist the child is a Zionist or Zionist sympathizer even if he or she doesn’t acknowledge it! This can go back as far as 7 generations if you really like to know!
    Your comments are worthless indicating you have nothing to say or to add to the subject matter! Bye!

    He is indeed both a troll and a Zionist sympathizer, but he’s also a gigantic ass-hat whose capacity for long-winded bullshit is unsurpassed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. @John Gruskos
    John, Robert and Ted Kennedy were all extremely friendly to Israel and extremely supportive of the interests of diaspora Jews.

    They led the Democratic Party away from the old-left emphasis on economic justice and peace, towards the new-left emphasis on issues of race and sex.

    They weakened the labor unions with their campaign against the Teamsters, they supported tax cuts for the very wealthy, their support for increased immigration was hostile to the economic interests of the American working class, and they supported an intensification of the cold war against the Soviet Union. They even knowingly lied about an imaginary "missile gap", in order to present the Democratic Party as more hawkish than Eisenhower's Republicans.

    The Kennedy brothers adopted this platform after the crucially important events of 1956-1957:

    In response to the Suez Crisis, Khrushchev's Soviet Union definitively became the patron of Israel's Arab enemies. Simultaneously, Khrushchev was overseeing a Thermidorian reaction against the excesses of early Bolshevism in eastern Europe. Stalin was denounced, Matyas Rakosi was exiled, Kaganovich was purged from the Politburo, Solzhenitsyn was released from the gulags, and the Hungarian counter-revolutionaries were treated less harshly than they would have been in the days of Lenin and Trotsky. A new Bukharinite, almost semi-nationalist, form of communism developed in eastern Europe - far less deadly, and with jobs and patronage more fairly distributed among the various ethnicities.

    In other words, Soviet communism was no longer "good for the Jews". No longer were millions of counter-revolutionary "antisemites" being murdered. No longer were Jews massively over-represented in positions of power and prestige. And no longer was the Soviet Union a supporter of Zionism and Israel.

    Similarly, the rise of American Jews from the working class into the upper middle and wealthy classes, meant that domestically the American old-left economic policies such as progressive taxation and support for rogue unions such as the Teamsters, were no longer "good for the Jews".

    In these circumstances, Eisenhower's moves towards detente with the Soviet Union, insistence on Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai, support for immigration restriction (which prevented the migration into America of the Jewish former ruling class of communist eastern Europe - Kaganovich, Rakosi and hordes of lesser-known radical Bolsheviks, commissars and secret police agents), and even his continuation of FDR-era progressive taxation and public works projects, were seen as "bad for the Jews", just as Kennedy's exact opposite platform was seen as "good for the Jews".

    Perhaps more significantly, the Eisenhower-Nixon cultural conservatism (praising Robert E. Lee as the greatest American who ever lived, expressing regret for having appointed Earl Warren to the Supreme Court, and living a chaste life of faithfulness to their wives) contrasted with the cultural radicalism of the Kennedy brothers (full support for the most radical elements of the civil rights movement, libertine personal lives filled with not-so-secret love affairs).

    Compared to what came before, JFK represented an assault on the ethnic self-respect of old-stock Americans and the cultural norms of traditional Christianity - to the delight of the Jewish movements examined in Kevin MacDonald's Culture of Critique.

    Whatever personal animosity may have existed, in political terms LBJ was indistinguishable from the Kennedy brothers. He too was hostile towards the Soviet bloc, a friend of Israel, and supportive of the cultural left.

    Given this macro-historical background, I think the simplest explanations of the assassinations are correct, and the various convoluted conspiracy theories are incorrect.

    Lee Harvey Oswald was an old-left Marxist who saw JFK as an enemy, a traitor against the "true" left.

    Jack Ruby was a hyper-ethnocentric Jewish gangster who murdered Oswald to avenge the death of the Jewish people's best friend.

    Sirhan Sirhan was a Palestinian nationalist.

    Conspiracy theorist are typically Kennedy sycophants who don't like being reminded that their heroes were enemies of socialism, enemies of the long-suffering Palestinian people, and heroes to the likes of Jack Ruby.

    They'd prefer to believe that JFK and RFK were martyrs murdered by reactionary WASPs - but that is pure fantasy.

    Although this is actually an insightful comment, you overlook the fact that Organized Jewry has no problem turning on former acolytes (even fellow Jews) who are not completely lockstep with the party line.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon
    Both archives reveal that the HUAC and McCarthy & FBI investigations show that there were many, many more Soviet spies entrenched in the federal government during and after the FDR administration that the HUAC & McCarthy investigations ever revealed.

    Yes, but McCarthy played it badly by going after too many people with tenuous connections with communists and radicals. Just because your side is right doesn't mean your side should give into hysteria.

    Also, by McCarthy came on the scene, most of the spies had been captured and Soviet intelligence had effectively been ended in the US. So, McCarthy just kept looking for more and more suspects, and it got a bit ridiculous.

    We saw the same problem after 9/11. Yes, the government had been lax in security and there needed to be more vigilance. But Bush II and Co. over-played their hand and even used 9/11 as hysteria for war with Iraq.

    The tenuous connections were not all that tenuous. For instance Owen Latimore was indeed a soviet agent who influenced many state department operatives.

    The real reasons McCarthy was brought down was that the entire communist operation was so heavily Jewish. It’s really a wonder that the Rosenbergs were arrested and found guilty.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Modified limited variant hangout
    Funny how RFK's kid comes out and acknowledges the obvious, that CIA whacked his family, and all of a sudden this frog Guyenot shows up in multiple alt media with his Orientalism shtik saying, oh wait, it was the Zionazis.

    https://alethonews.com/2018/06/02/robert-f-kennedy-jr-is-roiling-the-assassination-waters/

    You see, CIA was just kidding about murdering Kennedy but those crafty Jews got away from them and really did it, Oops! Just like all those incompetent pilots got away from CIA on 9/11 and really did what CIA only pretended they could do so we could catch them red-handed. Oops!

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-blatant-conspiracy-behind-senator-robert-f-kennedys-assassination/5642125

    Cracks me up, CIA's still trying to shit you even though they're so utterly, hopelessly busted that they have to blame it on the Jewish State, the most despised shithole on earth. CIA's running out of people who are more despicable and full of crap than them.

    I read that silly RFK the dead messiah would have cured the problems thing you posted. What a crock.

    JFK MLK RFK the holy trinity what a load.

    Robert Kennedy jr is running for president. He just wants to get his name in the papers and the internet and get votes from all the baby boomers who grow up when the media was so worshipful of the Kennedys and MLK.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. @Intelligent Dasein
    I'm really beginning to wonder what Ron Unz is doing with his website. Last week we got that moronic article by 9/11 doucher David Lorimer, and now we are treated to a 10,000 word disquisition about how Israel assassinated the Kennedys---both of which articles are rather baseless canards but are deeply emotionally appealing to a certain coterie of contrarians and which are sure to attract (and have attracted) the most odious collection of commenters who are both uninterested in and oblivious to the the truth about any of it. Not only is it a frustrating exercise in futility to try to discuss anything with such people (their minds are closed not only with respect to the lunacy that they themselves believe but also with respect to what they assume you believe---they've already assigned you to a camp and will never allow you to depart from it), but also the subjects themselves have grown tiresome and tedious and are only anymore of interest to the very same propounders of revisionist idiocy who keep them alive with their siege mentality.

    What purpose can there be in publishing such articles other than to fuel the febrile files of this phantasist fringe? There is nothing here in the interests of truth; this is demagoguery and obscurantism of the worst sort. Articles like this are the intellectual equivalent of a plague bacillus, winding its way through human minds, putrefying and perverting all in its course. Such foul air requires a constant nosegay of truth to ward it off, and these flowers are in very short supply around here.

    I have no desire to defend the Jews, or Judaism, or Zionism, or the State of Israel, but the charges that they were involved with the Kennedy assassinations are completely without merit and ought to be repugnant to decent people. The fact that they were directly responsible for the attack on the USS Liberty is more than enough reason to despise the Israelis; they do not need to be beaten with every club or charged with every crime. To do so is vindictive and paranoid and shameful, and I cannot be sanguine about the motives of those who would whip themselves and others into such a frenzy.

    I’m really beginning to wonder what Ron Unz is doing with his website. Last week we got that moronic article by 9/11 doucher David Lorimer, and now we are treated to a 10,000 word disquisition about how Israel assassinated the Kennedys—both of which articles are rather baseless canards but are deeply emotionally appealing to a certain coterie of contrarians and which are sure to attract (and have attracted) the most odious collection of commenters who are both uninterested in and oblivious to the the truth about any of it.

    I would be disappointed if all the articles on unz.com were like this one; but it is better to have some articles that we might consider moronic, than to expect Ron Unz to personally arbitrate between fact and fiction on readers’ behalf – as the NYT and WP do.

    There will always be boundaries on what can be published, and IMHO in most media the boundaries are far too narrow. It is better if the boundaries are over-broad than over-narrow. A possible downside with over-broad boundaries is that bad stories might “taint” good ones, by association; on the other hand, a narrow scope might be taken to imply that the publisher endorses each article.

    The same with commenters: IMHO it is better to have some that are odious, than to give moderators the job of removing any comments that could reasonably be considered offensive. It is not difficult to scan the comments and skip past the ones that are not informative.

    On the article itself, it did make us think about the headline question for half an hour – even if most of us agree that Betteridge’s Law Of Headlines applies in this case. I looked up the JFK Jr case again, remembering the official story that his plane crashed into the sea during very heavy rain – only to find that this is not the official story at all (JFK Jr was supposedly disoriented by conditions that were merely hazy). So who spread the “heavy rain” story and why? And if the Israelis killed JFK Jr, should we remove his name from the “Clinton body count”?

    Nowadays we accept that Israel, India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons. It is worth remembering that in the sixties the Israeli nuclear weapons program was a shocking secret, and it remained so until 1986 when Mordechai Vananu told the story. JFK’s opposition to Dimona, and the possible Israeli reaction to it, must be seen in this context.

    Read More
    • Replies: @redmudhooch

    Nowadays we accept that Israel, India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons.
     
    Who is we? You may think its cool for a rouge genocidal criminal apartheid racist state such as Israel to have weapons capable of wiping humanity out. But I don't think you speak for many.
    I honestly don't approve of the American zio-puppet government having these weapons, they haven't exactly proven themselves to be trustworthy of such responsibility over the past few decades as far as I can tell.

    Talk about offensive comments.

    Israel’s Sephardic chief rabbi Yitzhak Yosef delivered a sermon to the faithful in which he argued that Jewish law (halacha) directs the State to expel all non-Jews [ie. Palestinians] from Israel. Of course, he adds some qualifiers: if they accept the Noahide Laws, they may remain (because they will be useful as servants to Jews). But otherwise, they may be driven from the land. Goyim may not live in the land of Israel.
    He also says:
    There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults.

    The previous chief rabbi, Ovadia Yosef (Yitzhak Yosef’s father), ruled that Palestinians were donkeys meant to serve Israeli Jews.

    You may accept monsters such as these having nukes, I certainly don't. See The Samson Option also... Kennedy was ahead of his time

    https://youtu.be/buKBX_zRKMQ
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. Robjil says:
    @Anon
    I don’t watch YouTubes. If someone can’t get it together enough to write a coherent account of their theories it’s worthless.

    There’s a dozen YouTubes and internet articles about Kennedy’s lack of instrument certification and the unusual fog of the century that night.

    If anyone killed him it would be Hildabeast. You Kennedy worshipers do realize that Joe Kennedy created a massive Kennedy worshipful PR machines back in the 1920s and it’s more powerful now than ever or do you?

    joe Kennedy 3 is running for President. He is the one who nearly died of a heroin overdose on a plane trip. He is raising questions about his father s death as a means of getting publicity and sympathy for his campaign from all the old baby boomers who remember the Kennedy deaths

    Michael Rivero has examined the many clues that JFK JR was assassinated. Here are some of clues that he found. We don’t have a “free” press in our MSM. Investigating or questioning the narratives given to us by our “free controlled press” is considered “conspiracy theories”.

    Having established that the government and the media have a prior (and quite deplorable) record of deliberate lies to the public, let us look at how the official story of the crash of John F. Kennedy Jr’s plane evolved, and why it is suspect.
    As first reported by United Press International, John F. Kennedy Jr. on approach to Martha’s Vineyard in 8 mile visibility, was in radio contact with the ground, calmly informing them of his intentions to drop off a passenger before proceeding to Hyannis airport. Then, according to ABC News, JFK Jr’s plane went into a steep dive, and crashed.
    However, even before the wreckage was found, the story being put out in the media began to change. Gone was the previously reported radio conversation a calm JFK Jr. had with ground personnel just before the plane fell out of the sky, replaced by a declaration from the NTSB that JFK Jr. had not used his radio at all as he approached Martha’s Vineyard. Gone also was the originally reported 8 mile visibility while the media began to hammer home the claim that Martha’s Vineyard had been totally blanketed with a haze so heavy that pilots in the air would have been blind.
    No sooner were the various stories put out but they quickly fell apart.
    Here are some examples.
    PROPAGANDA: JFK Jr. was lost.
    FACT: When JFK Jr. radioed controllers on the Cape (as reported on Boston TV News) to announce his approach to Martha’s Vineyard, radar showed him to be just where he stated he was and at the correct altitude for the approach.
    PROPAGANDA: JK Jr. was in “over his head”.
    FACT: JFK Jr’s conversational tone on the radio reveals that he was calm. He was not disoriented. He didn’t ask for directions. He didn’t indicate he had any problem at all. He clearly was confident he was going to find the airport and land.
    PROPAGANDA: JFK Jr. stalled the plane.
    FACT: The radar track shows that he was well above stall speed.
    PROPAGANDA: JFK Jr. went into a steep turn and lost his horizon.
    FACT: There is no reason for JFK Jr. to have been in any turn at all at that point on the flight path leading into the airport. He was already lined up with the main runway at Martha’s Vineyard airport.
    PROPAGANDA: JFK Jr. didn’t know his altitude and simply “flew into the ocean”.
    FACT: The radar track shows him flying at the proper altitude, then (as ABC News put it) “falling out of the sky”.
    PROPAGANDA: JFK Jr. lost his instruments, and that is why he could not handle the dark and hazy (?) conditions
    FACT: The fact that the radar was getting good data from his encoding altimeter proves his instruments were operating.
    PROPAGANDA: JFK Jr. would have lost his artificial horizon if the vacuum pump failed in the aircraft.
    FACT: MSNBC is the only media outlet to have tried to hype this one, using a self-proclaimed “aviation expert”. His claim is also false, as there is a backup vacuum system in the pitot assembly of that aircraft.
    PROPAGANDA JFK Jr. was a reckless pilot.
    FACT: This claim was planted everywhere in the media, always attributed to an “unnamed source”. One reporter, Cindy Adams at the New York Post, later had cause to suspect she had been lied to. So did Andrew Goldman at the New York Observer. Interviews with individuals directly familier with JFK Jr’s flying ability shown on Inside Edition confirmed that he was a highly skilled and careful pilot.
    PROPAGANDA JFK Jr’s wife was afraid to fly with him.
    FACT: Again a story attributed to “unnamed sources”, and again debunked by the interviews shown on Inside Edition. JFK Jr’s wife had no problem flying with JFK Jr. and flew with him often.
    PROPAGANDA JFK Jr. had only 40 hours experience.
    FACT: He had 40 hours in that one aircraft. His total experience was about 300 hours, more than enough to qualify him for a commercial pilot’s license. According to FAA statistics, 300 hours made him a more careful and safer pilot than one with 1000 hours, who is more complacent.
    PROPAGANDA The weather was very hazy.
    FACT: The FAA issued VFR weather conditions that night, and the weather report (mentioned in the UPI story) called for 8 mile visibility. One witness on shore reported that there was very little haze and that standing on the shore, he could see airplanes out over the ocean on approach to the island, proof that airplanes on the approach could see the shore. This claim is backed up not only by the weather report of 8 mile visibility, but by a weather radar image taken at about the time of the crash. This radar image is showing haze and fog along New York and Long Island (if this radar image were of clouds, the FAA would not have declared VFR flying conditions that night) but none at all at Martha’s Vineyard. On the morning after the crash, CNN reported that weather could be ruled out as a factor in the crash!
    PROPAGANDA: Martha’s Vineyard is very dark and won’t show through the haze.
    FACT: That may have been true only a few months ago. However, as evidenced by a Letter to the Editor of the Martha’s Vineyard Times just days after the JFK Jr. crash, new lights installed on the island, lights that point up in the sky, are so bright they are drawing complaints from island residents.
    That the Kennedy family has been the target of political assassination is a part of the American political landscape. It’s a given.
    That cover-ups surrounded the deaths of Kennedys is also a given.
    That our government lies to us, with the media’s help, is a given.
    There is good cause to assume we are being lied to yet again.

    Read more: John F. Kennedy Jr.: Evidence Of A Cover up | WHAT REALLY HAPPENED http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/JFK_JR/jj.php#ixzz5HPd8Ta8x

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    You seem to be the one who relies on the MSM for information, not me.

    So who killed him, his wife and her sister? What was the motivation? Only person with a motive I can see is Hildabeast because there was thought JFK jr would run for Senator and then president

    Too bad about the early deaths of the Kennedys. But they were no great loss, especially the anti White pro black and Hispanic RFK. JFK jr would have just been the typical anti White Democrat politician.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    See my reply to Anon [257]who put you right despite her (?) occasional eccentricities. I think it is #63 at the moment.
    , @Iris
    Many thanks for this very interesting post.

    I remember with certainty that just before his passing , Mr Kennedy had required access to classified information relating to his father's assassination. This fact has also conveniently disappeared from the media archives.
    , @Eagle Eye
    Thanks for an interesting summary. Don't give any mind to Gizzard of Ooze - at her age (ca. 105 - she knew Rupert Murdoch's mother) a person's has "seen it all," and her conversation may become a tad one-sided and condescending.

    Fixed-wing aircraft do NOT simply drop out of the sky even if the power fails.

    Moreover, it is quite possible to keep a plane flying level in conditions of zero visibility, and even with some instruments (e.g. artificial horizon) out of action.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. During that same 1962-63 period Senator William J. Fulbright of Arkansas, Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, convened hearings on the legal status of the American Zionist Council (AZC). The Committee uncovered evidence that the Jewish Agency, a predecessor to the state of Israel, operated a massive network of financial “conduits” which funnelled funds to U.S. Israel lobby groups. As a result, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy (RFK) ordered the AZC to openly register and disclose all of its foreign funded lobbying activity in the United States. The attempt was subsequently thwarted first by the Israel lobby itself and then by the death of President Kennedy which lead to growing concerns regarding the impact of the ever-growing Zionist influence on U.S. policy making decisions. On April 15, 1973, Fulbright — who lost his Senate seat the following year — had no qualms about boldly announcing on CBS Face the Nation that :

    “Israel controls the U.S. Senate. The Senate is subservient, much too much; we should be more concerned about U.S. interests rather than doing the bidding of Israel. The great majority of the Senate of the U.S. —somewhere around 80%— is completely in support of Israel; anything Israel wants; Israel gets. This has been demonstrated time and again, and this has made [foreign policy] difficult for our government.”

    AIPAC eludes US law, part of international lobby for Israel

    https://israelpalestinenews.org/aipac-eludes-us-law-part-international-lobby-israel/

    The most powerful and effective foreign-government lobby in Washington is so dominant that it has been able to avoid registering for the past 55 years. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) was last confronted by FARA when its predecessor organization the American Zionist Council was pressured by John F. Kennedy’s Justice Department in 1962 and 1963. Kennedy’s death stopped that effort—and ended White House attempts to hold Israel accountable for the development of its secret nuclear weapons program (which depended on nuclear material removed illegally from the United States with the connivance of a company located in Pennsylvania called NUMEC).

    A Jewish Defector Warns America:
    Benjamin H. Freedman Speaks on Zionism

    https://youtu.be/8geLlIYpvLA

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  153. Wally says:
    @David In TN
    A friend of mine visited the Book Depository and was struck by how close Oswald was. It was an easy shot.

    The question the conspiracy idiots don't consider is: If the "deep state" wanted to get rid of him, why not expose JFK in a sex scandal forcing his resignation?

    It would be (a lot) safer than a "conspiracy" composed of the entire government. A forced resignation from a sex scandal would make Kennedy a laughing stock and totally disgrace him. The assassination made him a martyr, causing the passage of every measure he had favored.

    The fallout concerning the East German woman from Bobby Baker's stable whom JFK had consorted with was still bubbling on November 22, 1963.

    And no doubt your ‘friend’ could have fired the “magic bullet” as well.

    “Sex scandal”? LOL

    That would have taken years to have had any impact, if at all.

    And since when do sex scandals force Presidents to retire.

    Given your logic, a sex scandal could have been used against Lincoln, therefore John Wilkes Booth is innocent.

    Read More
    • Replies: @David In TN
    No stupid. Oswald fired it. The reason Bobby Baker's girl didn't come out before JFK's death was the "Deep State" cooperated in covering it up.

    JFK and the "Deep State" were on the same side.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @David In TN
    A friend of mine visited the Book Depository and was struck by how close Oswald was. It was an easy shot.

    The question the conspiracy idiots don't consider is: If the "deep state" wanted to get rid of him, why not expose JFK in a sex scandal forcing his resignation?

    It would be (a lot) safer than a "conspiracy" composed of the entire government. A forced resignation from a sex scandal would make Kennedy a laughing stock and totally disgrace him. The assassination made him a martyr, causing the passage of every measure he had favored.

    The fallout concerning the East German woman from Bobby Baker's stable whom JFK had consorted with was still bubbling on November 22, 1963.

    I visited the Book depository when I was in Dallas for a week and noted that the distance was short, the window was way above the street and it would have been an easy shot. I doubt a Marine would have missed.

    What’s really silly is the way people who’ve never held any type of gun in their lives keep insisting that Oswald’s score on the Marine marksman test proves he was a bad shot. Just because he didn’t get the highest score doesn’t mean he wasn’t capable of firing the shot that killed Kennedy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ians
    Been there. Easiest shot from Depository is directly at limo as it slowly approaches, not as it speeds away. Easiest shot at Dealey Plaza is from the knoll, where fatal shot that blew out the back of his head was fired.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. @Them Guys
    I agree. And have come to the conclusion that, once one gets very jewized up and comprehends just how involved international jewry and its current political offspring of Zionists are, in so many events. That they really do represent also a true misfortune for the entire world of non jewish goyim.


    And furthermore, I have concluded that due to so many bad, wrong, evil ongoing events that are headed by or consist of an huge number of jews involved within them. That at this late date point in time, it would almost be better when discussing various past and current and even likely future events, as far as jewish involvments, to instead ask the question of...


    What Is there that history has proven as evil or wrong within such events, that jews have Not been involved in or with eh?


    Because the deeper you go into such events and infos, and ergo the longer back in past times one delves into such issues...The more one learns of a constant jewish involvement throughout history going back at least 3,500 yrs ago!.....35-Centuries so far, with most times each century getting worse and more evil due to their insidious craving of remaining stiff necked and stubborn, and always unwilling to repent or change period.


    And yes yes...I know there are a few so called good jews...But imho those good types number very very few when compared to jewry as a whole. For I consider their huge silent bunch of tribe members as willing accomplices, and based upon the ever ongoing group silence we see no matter which jews do wrongs and no matter how bad those wrongs are. No other logic nor sane conclusion can be had.


    And for immediate proof examples of how their majority tribe members always cover for, deny wrongs, toss out straw men, or simply revert to the time tested method of...Fully ignore all presented facts, and begin to use vile slanderous name calls of "Nazis" and "Antisemite" etc. One only need read any of the many articles here on This forum, as well as all other website forums that have become infested with Zionist jews and hasbara agents.


    And for these reasons one must also conclude is the main reason that every time jews get booted from another host nation, the entire bunch bar none get booted out. Yes that means those few good jews also get booted out, which some can argue is unfair...But after 109 host nations and around a total of 300+ boot outs since about 1800 yrs ago...Well one can also understand why a host nation, having no good method to determine accurately which are the few good ones, always ends up giving the big boot out to them all eh.


    And also one can conclude that most everything jews have complained about for that entire 3,500 years and still do today, has been caused by jews themselves by their own disgusting ways and traits and evil criminalities etc.....There simply would be zero so called antisemitism if there were zero jews within a nation period. But good luck in attempting to convince any jews of such truths.


    One of the very best and most accurate descriptions yet I have read or heard of regarding jewry and why they have been so despised by so many distinctly different groups of gentiles, and in so many different locations and in so many eras of time has to be what the new testament verses about them states...(Paraphraseing here) "For they are the adversaries of God and of All of Mankind"!


    That single short verse speaks volumes of past and present truths.

    Fun article…. I wonder why these countries are “antisemetic” ???? Hmmmm…. what could it be?????

    ADL Poll of Over 100 Countries Finds More Than One-Quarter of Those Surveyed Infected With Anti-Semitic Attitudes

    https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/adl-global-100-poll

    The top countries/territories in the ADL 100 Global Index are:

    West Bank and Gaza – 93 percent of the adult population holds anti-Semitic views
    Iraq – 92 percent
    Yemen – 88 percent
    Algeria – 87 percent
    Libya – 87 percent
    Tunisia – 86 percent
    Kuwait – 82 percent
    Bahrain – 81 percent
    Jordan – 81 percent

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. @Iris
    Laurent Guyenot is not trying to cover for the CIA.

    He is a highly-educated professional engineer, who never needed to get involved in political writing in the first place.
    http://www.voltairenet.org/auteur125605.html?lang=en

    He has been consistently debunking political manipulation over the last 10 years. He does so with objectivity and measure, and thanks to his hard work and erudition. He tries to avoid baiting into easy and stupid conspiracy theories, such as the ones promoted by Michael Moore and Alex Jones.

    Mr Guyenot has loyal and long-standing readers within the French-speaking world, where he is highly respected (and ignored by MSM, which is a badge of honour).
    He mostly publishes on a right-wing, populist website that attracts readers from all political shades, thanks to their more honest and overt positions.
    https://www.egaliteetreconciliation.fr/

    Thanks for your perspective! I have read some of M. Guanot’s work with interest.

    While it is quite plausible that the Zionist entity and the CIA regime have congruent criminal interests, this is not what Guyanot theorizes. He imagines a CIA that sets up all the preconditions for a coup, without actually meaning to go through with it, and a foreign devil that unexpectedly takes it all and runs with it. That’s idiotic. It also happens to be CIA’s boilerplate excuse for all their grave crimes. There’s nothing new up there. What’s worse, it’s plagiarized from Langley fops and jarheads. It’s not just stupid, but stupid in a telltale way.

    An engineer is highly trained, not highly educated. That might be why he applies bog standard old-fashioned Orientalism, which originally applied to Jews, then didn’t, and now does again – and voila, we’ve got a suspect that isn’t CIA! Guyanot’s Orientalism is interesting because it highlights the Israeli state’s exploitation of biblical myth as pretext for genocidal ideology. But he’s over his head when trying to re-interpret the documented conduct of the US command structure. Perhaps that’s how he falls into the CIA’s propaganda line. Let’s hope so.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. @James N. Kennett

    I’m really beginning to wonder what Ron Unz is doing with his website. Last week we got that moronic article by 9/11 doucher David Lorimer, and now we are treated to a 10,000 word disquisition about how Israel assassinated the Kennedys—both of which articles are rather baseless canards but are deeply emotionally appealing to a certain coterie of contrarians and which are sure to attract (and have attracted) the most odious collection of commenters who are both uninterested in and oblivious to the the truth about any of it.
     
    I would be disappointed if all the articles on unz.com were like this one; but it is better to have some articles that we might consider moronic, than to expect Ron Unz to personally arbitrate between fact and fiction on readers' behalf - as the NYT and WP do.

    There will always be boundaries on what can be published, and IMHO in most media the boundaries are far too narrow. It is better if the boundaries are over-broad than over-narrow. A possible downside with over-broad boundaries is that bad stories might "taint" good ones, by association; on the other hand, a narrow scope might be taken to imply that the publisher endorses each article.

    The same with commenters: IMHO it is better to have some that are odious, than to give moderators the job of removing any comments that could reasonably be considered offensive. It is not difficult to scan the comments and skip past the ones that are not informative.

    On the article itself, it did make us think about the headline question for half an hour - even if most of us agree that Betteridge's Law Of Headlines applies in this case. I looked up the JFK Jr case again, remembering the official story that his plane crashed into the sea during very heavy rain - only to find that this is not the official story at all (JFK Jr was supposedly disoriented by conditions that were merely hazy). So who spread the "heavy rain" story and why? And if the Israelis killed JFK Jr, should we remove his name from the "Clinton body count"?

    Nowadays we accept that Israel, India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons. It is worth remembering that in the sixties the Israeli nuclear weapons program was a shocking secret, and it remained so until 1986 when Mordechai Vananu told the story. JFK's opposition to Dimona, and the possible Israeli reaction to it, must be seen in this context.

    Nowadays we accept that Israel, India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons.

    Who is we? You may think its cool for a rouge genocidal criminal apartheid racist state such as Israel to have weapons capable of wiping humanity out. But I don’t think you speak for many.
    I honestly don’t approve of the American zio-puppet government having these weapons, they haven’t exactly proven themselves to be trustworthy of such responsibility over the past few decades as far as I can tell.

    Talk about offensive comments.

    Israel’s Sephardic chief rabbi Yitzhak Yosef delivered a sermon to the faithful in which he argued that Jewish law (halacha) directs the State to expel all non-Jews [ie. Palestinians] from Israel. Of course, he adds some qualifiers: if they accept the Noahide Laws, they may remain (because they will be useful as servants to Jews). But otherwise, they may be driven from the land. Goyim may not live in the land of Israel.
    He also says:
    There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults.

    The previous chief rabbi, Ovadia Yosef (Yitzhak Yosef’s father), ruled that Palestinians were donkeys meant to serve Israeli Jews.

    You may accept monsters such as these having nukes, I certainly don’t. See The Samson Option also… Kennedy was ahead of his time

    Read More
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    If a nuclear device is "lit off" in an American or European city, it will have Israel's fingerprints all over it. Israel is desperate to keep the American money spigot running, as well as sabotaging the Palestinian "peace process" that the world wants it to take seriously.

    In fact, if a nuclear device is "lit off" anywhere in the world, it will have come from Israel's secret nuclear "stockpile".

    The "power outage" in Atlanta was a convenient excuse for Israel to perform a logistical "sleight of hand", as an Israeli plane was allowed to land and take off during the "power outage" without receiving customs clearance or inspection. This is one of many Israeli companies that possesses a "special exemption" granted by the U S government that frees it from customs inspections. Just maybe another one of Israel's nukes was just being pre-positioned or nuclear triggers (tritium) were being renewed, getting ready for "the big one". As most Americans are tired of all of the foreign wars being fought for Israel's benefit, another "incident" on American soil would be enough to galvanize the American public, once again, (just like WTC 9-11) to support another war for Israel's benefit. Israel's "samson option" is a real threat to "light one off" in a European or American city, if Israel's interests are not taken seriously.

    Israel refuses to abide by IAEA guidelines concerning its nukes as they are already distributed around the world. Israel would not be able to produce all of them as most of them are not in Israel, proper. No delivery systems are needed as Israel’s nukes are already “in place”. Look for another “false flag” operation with the blame being put on Iran or Syria. You can bet that some Iranian or Syrian passports will be found in the rubble.

    Israel also threatens to detonate nuclear devices in several US cities. Talk about total INSANITY; the so-called “Samson Option” is it.

    As an aside, American “foreign aid” is prohibited from being given to any country that has not signed the “Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty” or refuses to abide by “International Atomic Energy Agency” (IAEA) guidelines regarding its nuclear devices. Guess what?? Israel does not abide by EITHER and still gets the majority of American “foreign aid”. This prohibition also applies to countries that do not register their “agents of a foreign government” with the U S State Department. Guess what?? Israel (again) with its “American Israel Political Action Committee” (AIPAC) still gets "foreign aid" in contravention of American law..

    There are forty or so congressmen, senators and thousands of high-level policy “wonks” infecting the U S government who hold “dual citizenship” with Israel. Such dual citizenship must be strictly prohibited. Those holding dual citizenship must be required to renounce said foreign citizenship. Refusal to do so should result in immediate deportation with loss of American citizenship. Present and former holders of dual citizenship should never be allowed to serve in any American governmental capacity.

    When Netanyahu addressed both houses of congress, it was sickening to see our politicians slobber all over themselves to PROVE that they were unconditional supporters of Israel…just who the hell do they work for? Certainly not for the interests of the American people and the United States…they should renounce their United States citizenship and be deported to Israel…
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Robjil
    Michael Rivero has examined the many clues that JFK JR was assassinated. Here are some of clues that he found. We don't have a "free" press in our MSM. Investigating or questioning the narratives given to us by our "free controlled press" is considered "conspiracy theories".

    Having established that the government and the media have a prior (and quite deplorable) record of deliberate lies to the public, let us look at how the official story of the crash of John F. Kennedy Jr's plane evolved, and why it is suspect.
    As first reported by United Press International, John F. Kennedy Jr. on approach to Martha's Vineyard in 8 mile visibility, was in radio contact with the ground, calmly informing them of his intentions to drop off a passenger before proceeding to Hyannis airport. Then, according to ABC News, JFK Jr's plane went into a steep dive, and crashed.
    However, even before the wreckage was found, the story being put out in the media began to change. Gone was the previously reported radio conversation a calm JFK Jr. had with ground personnel just before the plane fell out of the sky, replaced by a declaration from the NTSB that JFK Jr. had not used his radio at all as he approached Martha's Vineyard. Gone also was the originally reported 8 mile visibility while the media began to hammer home the claim that Martha's Vineyard had been totally blanketed with a haze so heavy that pilots in the air would have been blind.
    No sooner were the various stories put out but they quickly fell apart.
    Here are some examples.
    PROPAGANDA: JFK Jr. was lost.
    FACT: When JFK Jr. radioed controllers on the Cape (as reported on Boston TV News) to announce his approach to Martha's Vineyard, radar showed him to be just where he stated he was and at the correct altitude for the approach.
    PROPAGANDA: JK Jr. was in "over his head".
    FACT: JFK Jr's conversational tone on the radio reveals that he was calm. He was not disoriented. He didn't ask for directions. He didn't indicate he had any problem at all. He clearly was confident he was going to find the airport and land.
    PROPAGANDA: JFK Jr. stalled the plane.
    FACT: The radar track shows that he was well above stall speed.
    PROPAGANDA: JFK Jr. went into a steep turn and lost his horizon.
    FACT: There is no reason for JFK Jr. to have been in any turn at all at that point on the flight path leading into the airport. He was already lined up with the main runway at Martha's Vineyard airport.
    PROPAGANDA: JFK Jr. didn't know his altitude and simply "flew into the ocean".
    FACT: The radar track shows him flying at the proper altitude, then (as ABC News put it) "falling out of the sky".
    PROPAGANDA: JFK Jr. lost his instruments, and that is why he could not handle the dark and hazy (?) conditions
    FACT: The fact that the radar was getting good data from his encoding altimeter proves his instruments were operating.
    PROPAGANDA: JFK Jr. would have lost his artificial horizon if the vacuum pump failed in the aircraft.
    FACT: MSNBC is the only media outlet to have tried to hype this one, using a self-proclaimed "aviation expert". His claim is also false, as there is a backup vacuum system in the pitot assembly of that aircraft.
    PROPAGANDA JFK Jr. was a reckless pilot.
    FACT: This claim was planted everywhere in the media, always attributed to an "unnamed source". One reporter, Cindy Adams at the New York Post, later had cause to suspect she had been lied to. So did Andrew Goldman at the New York Observer. Interviews with individuals directly familier with JFK Jr's flying ability shown on Inside Edition confirmed that he was a highly skilled and careful pilot.
    PROPAGANDA JFK Jr's wife was afraid to fly with him.
    FACT: Again a story attributed to "unnamed sources", and again debunked by the interviews shown on Inside Edition. JFK Jr's wife had no problem flying with JFK Jr. and flew with him often.
    PROPAGANDA JFK Jr. had only 40 hours experience.
    FACT: He had 40 hours in that one aircraft. His total experience was about 300 hours, more than enough to qualify him for a commercial pilot's license. According to FAA statistics, 300 hours made him a more careful and safer pilot than one with 1000 hours, who is more complacent.
    PROPAGANDA The weather was very hazy.
    FACT: The FAA issued VFR weather conditions that night, and the weather report (mentioned in the UPI story) called for 8 mile visibility. One witness on shore reported that there was very little haze and that standing on the shore, he could see airplanes out over the ocean on approach to the island, proof that airplanes on the approach could see the shore. This claim is backed up not only by the weather report of 8 mile visibility, but by a weather radar image taken at about the time of the crash. This radar image is showing haze and fog along New York and Long Island (if this radar image were of clouds, the FAA would not have declared VFR flying conditions that night) but none at all at Martha's Vineyard. On the morning after the crash, CNN reported that weather could be ruled out as a factor in the crash!
    PROPAGANDA: Martha's Vineyard is very dark and won't show through the haze.
    FACT: That may have been true only a few months ago. However, as evidenced by a Letter to the Editor of the Martha's Vineyard Times just days after the JFK Jr. crash, new lights installed on the island, lights that point up in the sky, are so bright they are drawing complaints from island residents.
    That the Kennedy family has been the target of political assassination is a part of the American political landscape. It's a given.
    That cover-ups surrounded the deaths of Kennedys is also a given.
    That our government lies to us, with the media's help, is a given.
    There is good cause to assume we are being lied to yet again.


    Read more: John F. Kennedy Jr.: Evidence Of A Cover up | WHAT REALLY HAPPENED http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/JFK_JR/jj.php#ixzz5HPd8Ta8x

    You seem to be the one who relies on the MSM for information, not me.

    So who killed him, his wife and her sister? What was the motivation? Only person with a motive I can see is Hildabeast because there was thought JFK jr would run for Senator and then president

    Too bad about the early deaths of the Kennedys. But they were no great loss, especially the anti White pro black and Hispanic RFK. JFK jr would have just been the typical anti White Democrat politician.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    You are on track again! Any serious conspiracist like Robjil wouldn't have too much trouble getting in touch with one of Carolyn and Lauren's close relations and finding out that their views are remarkably objective and don't include any suspicion of foul play - and they would know, as well as being able to report on the well informed views of people like RFK Jr (in case he won't bother to answer silly conspiracists' inquiries).

    Robjil should inform himself by looking at Air Crash Investigation aka Mayday which, inconveniently for conspiracists, is a Canadian production [sorry, am I being naive? Does that show just how far the PTB go to cover their tracks - with all those old diversionary tricks to get you thinking of Mexican pilots with false credentials and Brazilians listening to the football match - LOL]. I forget the precise detail but recall that either Carolyn or Lauren turned up an hour late for the flight and, by the time the disaster occurred - after sunset - visibility was such that the obvious cause was spatial disorientation that could easily lead to a stall and plunge into the ocean.

    The hermits who believe the conspiracy theories Ron allows to be peddled on UR seem to be innocent of knowledge of human nature which would alert them to the malign or merely bizarre motives - rarely far from financial self interest - of those who publish conspiracy theories catering to pathetic outsiders - plus maybe a few who share the brain damage which undid the likes of the brilliant Howard Hughes. Here's hoping that Robjil looks at Mayday as an aid to getting him on the path to sanity.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. You might have mentioned another crooked jew who was instrumental in LBJ’s ascension to power, Abe Fortas, later appointed (by LBJ) an associate justice to the Supreme Court. Fortas pulled Lyndon’s chestnuts out of the fire after the infamous Ballot Box 13 whose register’s last 200 entries where written in the same handwriting AND WERE IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER. This was in the 1948 Dem. Senate primary in which “Landslide Lyndon” won by 87 votes. Fortas was able to stall LBJ’s opponent’s challenges until it was too late.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  160. Erebus says:
    @bj
    I just read from Yahweh to Zion: Jealous God, Chosen People, Promised Land.....and Clash Of Civilizations. The book is an excellent history of the nefarious role played by Jews in the cycle of civilizations for thousands of years up to the JFK assassination and 9/11 which feature Jews in supporting and initiating roles. These two mentioned events are arguably the endgame of the Anglo-Zionist Empire. The destroyers indeed!

    The JFK assassination and 9/11 featured Jews documenting the event for celebration and narrative control. The dancing Israelis and Abraham Zapruder were on site at the exact moment of the mortal event. What a coincidence the Jew Chorus shouts! I would like to know more about Abraham Zapruder, born in the Ukraine in 1905. Did he know the Zionist founders of the apartheid state?

    https://www.amazon.com/Yahweh-Zion-Jealous-Promised-Civilizations/dp/0996143041

    The JFK assassination and 9/11 featured Jews documenting the event for celebration and narrative control.

    That’s an interesting point, but it looks like documentation is surplus to requirement. Despite several years of countless opportunities, no Jew with a camera managed to record any of the Auschwitz gassings. Nevertheless, narrative control over the Holocaust was not only unaffected, I’d argue that it was enhanced.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Interesting remark, Wiesel describes how weapons were smuggled into Auschwitz camps.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. @Anon
    Murdoch’s maternal grandfather was a Rabbi. That makes him and his mother Jewish. And I doubt a rabbi’s daughter would raise her children completely no Jewish whether religuous or tribal ethnic Jewish.

    Oh dear you are so often sensible. (Alden I think????). But being so assertive about something where you are completely wrong is bad news for your general credibility. I knew Rupert’s mother well as well as her nephews and nieces on her mother’s side so can say without a doubt that this link is accurate

    https://www.geni.com/people/Rupert-Greene/6000000006580516381

    Have a look at the further link to her mother Marie too.

    So far from her father Rupert Greene being a Rabbi just take a look at what is said about him in this obituary of Elisabeth Murdoch by former newspaper editor John Monks

    https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/dame-of-the-people-champion-of-elite/story-e6frg6z6-1226530873024?sv=c9593bbc9aec0b225a829a43c31b828f

    It’s a good read anyway. Rupert Murdoch obviously inherited his gambler’s genes from grandfather Rupert Greene – who had been made the Victoria Racing Club’s official (unpaid) starter partly to curb his gambling – rather than from his Presbyterian Moderator paternal grandfather.

    Really one has to wonder why some of Ron’s readable commenters completely blow it as though some screw got lose in the neural networks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Actually, I got that information about Murdoch being the grandson of a Rabbi from a link posted by some internet commenter. Looks like it’s more lunatic internet “ research”.

    How could you know Murdoch’s Mother? He’s like 85.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. Mr. Anon says:
    @Iris
    "They were a clan of reckless, smarmy, cynical politicians"

    Their eldest, Joe Kennedy, died for his country in secret WW2 mission.
    https://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK/The-Kennedy-Family/Joseph-P-Kennedy-Jr.aspx

    There is nothing cynical about such ultimate patriotic sacrifice; the pompous Zionist posting on this thread could not even start to comprehend the adjective "patriotic".

    Their eldest, Joe Kennedy, died for his country in secret WW2 mission.

    He was flying a B-24 loaded with explosives on a one-way mission. I believe the idea was that the crew would fly the plane to the vicinity of the target (in this case, german submarine pens on the French coast), then bail out and the plane would be remote-controlled by radio from a nearby boat. From what I had heard (my Dad read a book on the topic and told me about it), Joe Jr.’s radio-man had told him that the radio equipment was faulty and could cause a premature detonation; he recommended scrubbing the mission. Joe Jr. ignored his advice, flew the mission, and got them all killed. i.e., he was reckless.

    There is nothing cynical about such ultimate patriotic sacrifice; the pompous Zionist posting on this thread could not even start to comprehend the adjective “patriotic”.

    I thought the whole war was supposed to be a zionist plot, in which case, wasn’t anybody who volunteered for it a sucker?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. bjondo says:
    @Laurent Guyénot
    The assertion that Oswald alone killed Kennedy is just not true. It is falsehood and lies and intellectual pollution.

    Lying, falsehood, intellectual pollution, time wasting are what these Israeli commenters are about.

    Many times one hasbaraRat will comment with one, two, three other ratbros replying in support.

    They earn many shekels.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. @Anon
    You seem to be the one who relies on the MSM for information, not me.

    So who killed him, his wife and her sister? What was the motivation? Only person with a motive I can see is Hildabeast because there was thought JFK jr would run for Senator and then president

    Too bad about the early deaths of the Kennedys. But they were no great loss, especially the anti White pro black and Hispanic RFK. JFK jr would have just been the typical anti White Democrat politician.

    You are on track again! Any serious conspiracist like Robjil wouldn’t have too much trouble getting in touch with one of Carolyn and Lauren’s close relations and finding out that their views are remarkably objective and don’t include any suspicion of foul play – and they would know, as well as being able to report on the well informed views of people like RFK Jr (in case he won’t bother to answer silly conspiracists’ inquiries).

    Robjil should inform himself by looking at Air Crash Investigation aka Mayday which, inconveniently for conspiracists, is a Canadian production [sorry, am I being naive? Does that show just how far the PTB go to cover their tracks - with all those old diversionary tricks to get you thinking of Mexican pilots with false credentials and Brazilians listening to the football match - LOL]. I forget the precise detail but recall that either Carolyn or Lauren turned up an hour late for the flight and, by the time the disaster occurred – after sunset – visibility was such that the obvious cause was spatial disorientation that could easily lead to a stall and plunge into the ocean.

    The hermits who believe the conspiracy theories Ron allows to be peddled on UR seem to be innocent of knowledge of human nature which would alert them to the malign or merely bizarre motives – rarely far from financial self interest – of those who publish conspiracy theories catering to pathetic outsiders – plus maybe a few who share the brain damage which undid the likes of the brilliant Howard Hughes. Here’s hoping that Robjil looks at Mayday as an aid to getting him on the path to sanity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Robjil
    Canada is a vassal state of the US deep state. So why would a Canadian Mayday company not do the bidding of the US deep state? Perhaps, a nation independent of the US deep state or one not afraid of it ( if there is any on this planet) investigating the crash would have had a different opinion. Netherlands is doing the same nonsense for the US deep state with the MH-17 crash. Here is another independent examination of the details of the crash.

    http://nstarzone.com/JFKJR.html

    According to government whistleblower Sherman Skolnick, JFK Jr. planned to reveal a well-kept secret that on or about August 1, 1999, he was to announce he was running for president, as a traditional Democrat or in view of the distrust of both parties, to run as a independent on a third party ticket. John F. Kennedy, Jr., made one grave mistake. He trusted the presidential campaign officials of Albert Gore, Jr. to know about his plans. That would have interfered with the plans of Gore as well as George W. Bush, the Texas Governor. The Gore campaign reportedly promised total secrecy, a pledge they never kept.
    He said he originally thought to run against Hillary Clinton for U.S. Senator from New York but decided instead to run for President. The secret got out. George W. Bush, likewise would most naturally have an interest in the demise of JFK Jr.. About three days before John's plane took off and exploded in mid-air, Michael Harari, and another Mossad agent were seen with former President George H. W. Bush and his son, Texas Governor George W. Bush at the Essex County, New Jersey airport where John Jr. kept his plane. This fact was also confirmed by separate U.S. intelligence sources who are also willing to testify before a grand jury. All four were positively identified by an aircraft mechanic and a maintenance worker. A coincidence? JFK Jr. was a captivating speaker and unlike other members of his family was unscarred by scandal. He would have most likely swept the field of Presidential candidates. Conservatives and liberals, both could join together to support him.
    The FBI covered up the bombing of JFK Jr.'s plane. Skolnick obtained the details of the secret FBI report which was not to have been disclosed for 30 years. The National Transportation Safety Board, NTSB, released a report claiming the JFK Jr. plane crash was due to "pilot error". Over the years, the federal crash investigators have covered up several sabotaged plane crashes, for example, FLIGHT 800, and FLIGHT 587. John F. Kennedy, Jr. was murdered before he could get to his planned announcement of a presidential run. If he lived and ran for President, he would have been 40 years old just after the 2000 election. Sherman Skolnick's secret FBI report:
    Excerpts from FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION REPORT ON THE RECOVERY OF PIPER SARATOGA AIRCRAFT OF JOHN F. KENNEDY, Jr.
    1. No declassificatin until 7/22/2029.
    2. This is in deference to the wishes of a senior member of the Kennedy family.
    3. Also in deference to the order of the national government and in respect to certain foreign intelligence agencies having reciprocal agreements with the U.S.
    4. POTUS order and national security findings attached.
    5. The recovered aircraft shows evidence of an explosive device having been glued or affixed within the tail luggage compartment.
    6. Device was apparently actuated by a barometric trigger. Radio signals not ruled out.
    7. Tail of aircraft was dismembered from the plane making it front heavy.
    8. Study of radar shows the plane fell in excess of 6,000 feet per minute up to radar cutoff.
    9. Satellite images supplied by the National Reconnaissance Office record an outbursting flash from the aircraft just prior to it going into perpendicular descent.
    10. Tail structure was dismembered just prior to descent.
    11. Recovery of a piece of luggage from beyond the flight path of the aircraft correlates with it being hurtled out of the tail luggage compartment at outburst.
    12. Preliminary examination of the aircraft shows residue of an explosive device the Laboratory identifies as being the type used by certain foreign intelligence agencies. Refer to POTUS order and findings.
    13. Study of Air Traffic Control and other radio signals shows no Mayday report from the aircraft, explained by rapidity of descent.
    14. Investigation and examination has been strictly compartmentalized.
    15. A short, perfunctory examination of the recovered bodies was completed. Examination revealed that Carolyn Bessette Kennedy was in third trimester pregnant, the fetus a boy. The four bodies were transferred to a senior member of the Kennedy family. The Bureau was not informed whether the bodies were actually cremated. Indirect advisories report that the bodies may have been shipped in untagged containers to foreign destinations. Reliable assets are to submit reports.
    The conclusion? JFK Jr. was a qualified pilot, in control of his flight, flying a reasonably new aircraft, in excellent condition. Visibility was 8 miles. Wind: calm. All indication from forensics and physical evidence investigations lend themselves to a violent explosion from a bomb placed aboard the aircraft. The aircraft exploded in mid-air, as evidenced by the eyewitness accounts, and the widespread debris gathered from the ocean and several different beaches, and the nature of collateral damage to recovered aircraft parts, and items on board such as the headrest, foot pedals, steering yoke carpeting and so fourth. All showed signs of violent damage, having been "ripped" or blown from their normal positions/locations. This could only have been caused by an onboard explosion. Considering the nature of the current political atmosphere in America, and the before mentioned facts, there is little doubt that JFK Jr. was murdered. In all likelihood, it was a political assassination of the highest order, meant to alleviate a potential threat to the ruling elite.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. @Robjil
    Michael Rivero has examined the many clues that JFK JR was assassinated. Here are some of clues that he found. We don't have a "free" press in our MSM. Investigating or questioning the narratives given to us by our "free controlled press" is considered "conspiracy theories".

    Having established that the government and the media have a prior (and quite deplorable) record of deliberate lies to the public, let us look at how the official story of the crash of John F. Kennedy Jr's plane evolved, and why it is suspect.
    As first reported by United Press International, John F. Kennedy Jr. on approach to Martha's Vineyard in 8 mile visibility, was in radio contact with the ground, calmly informing them of his intentions to drop off a passenger before proceeding to Hyannis airport. Then, according to ABC News, JFK Jr's plane went into a steep dive, and crashed.
    However, even before the wreckage was found, the story being put out in the media began to change. Gone was the previously reported radio conversation a calm JFK Jr. had with ground personnel just before the plane fell out of the sky, replaced by a declaration from the NTSB that JFK Jr. had not used his radio at all as he approached Martha's Vineyard. Gone also was the originally reported 8 mile visibility while the media began to hammer home the claim that Martha's Vineyard had been totally blanketed with a haze so heavy that pilots in the air would have been blind.
    No sooner were the various stories put out but they quickly fell apart.
    Here are some examples.
    PROPAGANDA: JFK Jr. was lost.
    FACT: When JFK Jr. radioed controllers on the Cape (as reported on Boston TV News) to announce his approach to Martha's Vineyard, radar showed him to be just where he stated he was and at the correct altitude for the approach.
    PROPAGANDA: JK Jr. was in "over his head".
    FACT: JFK Jr's conversational tone on the radio reveals that he was calm. He was not disoriented. He didn't ask for directions. He didn't indicate he had any problem at all. He clearly was confident he was going to find the airport and land.
    PROPAGANDA: JFK Jr. stalled the plane.
    FACT: The radar track shows that he was well above stall speed.
    PROPAGANDA: JFK Jr. went into a steep turn and lost his horizon.
    FACT: There is no reason for JFK Jr. to have been in any turn at all at that point on the flight path leading into the airport. He was already lined up with the main runway at Martha's Vineyard airport.
    PROPAGANDA: JFK Jr. didn't know his altitude and simply "flew into the ocean".
    FACT: The radar track shows him flying at the proper altitude, then (as ABC News put it) "falling out of the sky".
    PROPAGANDA: JFK Jr. lost his instruments, and that is why he could not handle the dark and hazy (?) conditions
    FACT: The fact that the radar was getting good data from his encoding altimeter proves his instruments were operating.
    PROPAGANDA: JFK Jr. would have lost his artificial horizon if the vacuum pump failed in the aircraft.
    FACT: MSNBC is the only media outlet to have tried to hype this one, using a self-proclaimed "aviation expert". His claim is also false, as there is a backup vacuum system in the pitot assembly of that aircraft.
    PROPAGANDA JFK Jr. was a reckless pilot.
    FACT: This claim was planted everywhere in the media, always attributed to an "unnamed source". One reporter, Cindy Adams at the New York Post, later had cause to suspect she had been lied to. So did Andrew Goldman at the New York Observer. Interviews with individuals directly familier with JFK Jr's flying ability shown on Inside Edition confirmed that he was a highly skilled and careful pilot.
    PROPAGANDA JFK Jr's wife was afraid to fly with him.
    FACT: Again a story attributed to "unnamed sources", and again debunked by the interviews shown on Inside Edition. JFK Jr's wife had no problem flying with JFK Jr. and flew with him often.
    PROPAGANDA JFK Jr. had only 40 hours experience.
    FACT: He had 40 hours in that one aircraft. His total experience was about 300 hours, more than enough to qualify him for a commercial pilot's license. According to FAA statistics, 300 hours made him a more careful and safer pilot than one with 1000 hours, who is more complacent.
    PROPAGANDA The weather was very hazy.
    FACT: The FAA issued VFR weather conditions that night, and the weather report (mentioned in the UPI story) called for 8 mile visibility. One witness on shore reported that there was very little haze and that standing on the shore, he could see airplanes out over the ocean on approach to the island, proof that airplanes on the approach could see the shore. This claim is backed up not only by the weather report of 8 mile visibility, but by a weather radar image taken at about the time of the crash. This radar image is showing haze and fog along New York and Long Island (if this radar image were of clouds, the FAA would not have declared VFR flying conditions that night) but none at all at Martha's Vineyard. On the morning after the crash, CNN reported that weather could be ruled out as a factor in the crash!
    PROPAGANDA: Martha's Vineyard is very dark and won't show through the haze.
    FACT: That may have been true only a few months ago. However, as evidenced by a Letter to the Editor of the Martha's Vineyard Times just days after the JFK Jr. crash, new lights installed on the island, lights that point up in the sky, are so bright they are drawing complaints from island residents.
    That the Kennedy family has been the target of political assassination is a part of the American political landscape. It's a given.
    That cover-ups surrounded the deaths of Kennedys is also a given.
    That our government lies to us, with the media's help, is a given.
    There is good cause to assume we are being lied to yet again.


    Read more: John F. Kennedy Jr.: Evidence Of A Cover up | WHAT REALLY HAPPENED http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/JFK_JR/jj.php#ixzz5HPd8Ta8x

    See my reply to Anon [257]who put you right despite her (?) occasional eccentricities. I think it is #63 at the moment.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. Anonymous[436] • Disclaimer says:
    @David In TN
    RFK was NOT going to win the presidency in 1968. A few weeks before his death, he lost the Oregon primary to Eugene McCarthy. RFK couldn't get enough votes beyond his black base to win a general election. A poll in late May 1968 had him running 10 points behind Nixon. Robert Kennedy was about as out of touch with Middle America as George McGovern would be for years later.

    Hubert Humphrey was way ahead in delegates and in those days the "bosses" still had control. Humphrey was better liked than Bobby withing the party. The New York primary was going to give Bobby a poor result for his "home state."

    Although, RFK won the California primary, his 46-42 margin was 3-4 points lower than expected and was due to a heavy black and Mexican vote. Bobby still didn't do well enough with white voters.

    Thanks. Interesting information that makes it far more valuable than some of the approximately relevant argumentative stuff on the conspiracies.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. @Anon
    This article is simply bizarre. If the CIA didn't do it why is it still sanitizing the files 55 years later? Surely this article (which contains numerous basic errors (for example, there were never two entry wounds seen on the front of JFK's body, only a neck wound) is either written by an ignorant hack or more likely a CIA hack's imaginative narrative designed to confuse the idiots. For a start try the Kennedy and King website hosted by Jim D'Eugenio and spend a few years getting the facts before taking this rubbish seriously.

    From p.137 of DiEugenio’s latest book:

    …Tom Robinson of Gawler’s Funeral Home, who helped pick up Kennedy’s body from the autopsy room, says he saw a hole in Kennedy’s right temple.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. @Beefcake the Mighty
    A “friend”? Yeah, right. Fuck you.

    Thanks for admitting your stupidity and confirming the truth of my argument.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    A lost cause to get someone quite so stupid to understand how limited he is though he must surely have been confronted with the dispiriting truth at some stages of the attempts to provide him with an education. It makes you wonder if the efforts to achieve 98 - 100 per cent literacy are not misguided.
    , @Anon
    Nah, he can't admit his stupidity. He's too stupid. He can and does demonstrate it though.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. @Wally
    And no doubt your 'friend' could have fired the "magic bullet" as well.

    "Sex scandal"? LOL

    That would have taken years to have had any impact, if at all.

    And since when do sex scandals force Presidents to retire.

    Given your logic, a sex scandal could have been used against Lincoln, therefore John Wilkes Booth is innocent.

    No stupid. Oswald fired it. The reason Bobby Baker’s girl didn’t come out before JFK’s death was the “Deep State” cooperated in covering it up.

    JFK and the “Deep State” were on the same side.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. @Anon
    I have the book “ Abu Nidal Gun For Hire “ that claims Nidal was anbIsraeki agent all along. No opinion on how. valid the claim is.

    He most definitely was. Never apprehended, never hurt, injured or killed.

    Many in the fields of intelligence and politics believed the same.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. @Anon
    Does your post have anything to do with your disbelief in Darwin and evolution and the Bible history that goes back to God’s creation of the world 6,000 years ago?

    Does your post have anything to do with your disbelief in Darwin and evolution and the Bible history that goes back to God’s creation of the world 6,000 years ago?

    Does your post have anything to do with this thread whatsoever? Also, what in the blue blazes are you even talking about?

    I have no idea whose underwear you just crawled out of, you anonymous caitiff; but whoever that person is, he is fully justified in violently repudiating the very idea that something as loathsome as you could have come dripping out of his backside. Since you patently lack the intellectual breadth to understand anything about your inappositely introduced topic of Darwinism and only wrote this to be a moron, you deserve nothing but that invective which latterly the moderators, perhaps heeding the recommendations of those kind souls who have expressed concerns about my mental health, have judiciously declined to publish.

    To wit, I am not going to hold forth on you as I ought to. In honor of Ron Unz’s exemplary patience, and with due deference to those commenters who have taken the time to care about me, I will only ask you some innocuous rhetorical questions instead. What did you hope to gain by speaking to me in such a manner? Did you imagine that the Unz commentariat is secretly golf-clapping behind their keyboards and saying, “Yeah, you really stuck it to I.D. with that one”? Do you not realize that being so totally off-topic and personally vituperative makes you look like an idiot? Have you any idea that “Young Earth Creationism” is a Protestant novelty, a heresy, and is not part of the deposit of Christian faith and has never been held by Traditional Catholics like myself? Or that no less authorities than St. Augustine and St. Thomas both dismissed it? Do y’all even philoff, braugh?

    No, you have no idea what you’re talking about. You have no idea where I’m coming from or who I am. You have no idea what the salient features of this intellectual landscape are. You are not qualified to speak about this. You are a child who would do well to hush up and learn while the adults are having a conversation. Do you honestly think you could withstand me in a debate about Darwinism, or anything else for that matter? The result would be too gruesome to contemplate. And as I have no relish for such spectacles, I earnestly entreat you to just back off from this one now. If you don’t it would have been far preferable for you to take the invective, for that’s the best outcome you’re going to get.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    From my great medical knowledge I realized after reading your post that you have diabetes. Only an uncontrolled diabetic would post such a thing due to out of control blood sugar levels
    , @vinteuil

    Have you any idea that “Young Earth Creationism” is a Protestant novelty, a heresy, and is not part of the deposit of Christian faith and has never been held by Traditional Catholics like myself? Or that no less authorities than St. Augustine and St. Thomas both dismissed it? Do y’all even philoff, braugh?
     
    OK, so, as I thought, you're criticizing "Darwinism" from a Traditional Catholic perspective.

    Is it possible that your main objection has something to do with the complete inability of evolutionary theorists to so much as explain their position without constant resort to teleological language?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. @Monty Ahwazi
    Wiz of Oz,
    Are you a troll or a Zionist sympathizer? Giving birth by a Zionist the child is a Zionist or Zionist sympathizer even if he or she doesn’t acknowledge it! This can go back as far as 7 generations if you really like to know!
    Your comments are worthless indicating you have nothing to say or to add to the subject matter! Bye!

    Beefcake the Mighty is a totally suitable reader to absorb the whole of your totally bizarre output. If you are capable of learning anything to modify your insane thinking about Murdoch and Zionism have a look at my reply to Anon [257] I think @ #61.

    And please stop using such mystical nonsense to bend your language incomprehensibly. I wonder if even the thick Beefcake can stand the idea – when something that passes the criterion for thought passes through his head – that one can have sympathies without knowing about/acknowledging it or that the (in this case imaginary) transmission of sympathies can be by genes from a remote ancestor.

    Come to think of it please don’t offer to manage anyone’s money as someone as innumerate as you would be dangerous. NB if there is a 50 per cent chance that you get a critical (Zionist sympathy!) gene from a parent – and that overstates even the hypothetical in general – the chances going back 7 generations are 25 per cent, 12.5, 6.25, 3.125, 1.5725, 0.78625 per cent chance. As your mother might have said please don’t make an ass of yourself in public especially if it does others the discourtesy of wasting their time. But, of course, stupidity is usually hereditary and you may have got the full 100 per cent from a dominant maternal gene.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. @republic
    There seem to be a lot of small plane crashes which involve controversial politicians
    such as, JFK,Jr, Ron Brown, Wellstone, John Towers, Michael Connell, (Bush campaign it expert) to name but a few.
    There use to be detailed analysis of the Martha’s Vineyard crash on the web, but these seem
    To have been scrubbed lately and only official MSM versions are easily available.
    An exception to that rule is the book, Ron Brown’s body: how one man’s death saved
    The Clinton Presidency.

    Get serious and see if you can see any problem with the Canadian Mayday aka Air Crash Investigation explanation about what happened. Kennedy hadn’t been flying and was recovering from an injury, one of his passengers turned up very late so he ended up flying in the dark (and eventually in cloud) and he wasn’t able to rely on instruments. Disorientation leading to stall and or spin.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. @David In TN
    Thanks for admitting your stupidity and confirming the truth of my argument.

    A lost cause to get someone quite so stupid to understand how limited he is though he must surely have been confronted with the dispiriting truth at some stages of the attempts to provide him with an education. It makes you wonder if the efforts to achieve 98 – 100 per cent literacy are not misguided.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    The only thing I’ve been confronted with here is your unique blend of appalling stupidity and unlimited tediousness.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. @Cloak And Dagger

    From one with no barrow to push
     
    LOL! Why would anyone not believe you to be a dispassionate observer without Israeli loyalties?

    Because they were not suffering from Attention Deficit Disorder.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. tac says:
    @Intelligent Dasein
    Yes, I believe that Oswald killed Kennedy. I have no reasonable doubt that Oswald alone fired the fatal shot.

    I also believe that the question, while certainly not irrelevant, is little thought of by most people today and would not affect their lives one way or the other. This is not to say that truth should not be investigated and justice done whenever possible. Falsehoods of any sort should be brought to light and expunged from the historical record, for there is no telling what damage an error may do even long after the fact. However, in the first place, I do not think that the historical record has enshrined any major errors in the case of the Kennedys; and in the second place, the fervency with which the contrarians (and they alone) continue to revive this long-buried topic does not savor of an honest pursuit of truth. I gather they would not be satisfied even if all the world were converted to their opinion.

    They have some sort of an agenda. What it is varies from case to case and is not something I'm willing to speculate upon. But this sort of crusading over the meaning of an historical event is never anything but a quest for political power in the present moment, and is usually driven not by any coherent ideology but by the sheer passion for revenge. The willingness of so many revisionists to make saints out of the Kennedys---which on any objective reading they clearly were not---is by itself sufficient to discover the all-too-human wellsprings of their motivation. You have a beef with Israel, with the CIA, with Lyndon Johnson, with the whole American Deep State. I get that; I'm no fan of these people, either. But I'm not going to pervert my entire view of history so as to cast them in the role of the eternal villain. Self-deception is not only bad for your psychological health, it's also very politically inexpedient. You will never accomplish anything by this method. Just imagine the dismay that will come upon you if, peradventure, you happen to have a real shot at gaining some actual power and then you realize that your only friends and compatriots are the unreliable fruit loops who've been yup-yupping your articles these past years. A lot of help they're going to be.

    The assertion that Israel had anything to do with assassinating either Kennedy brother is just not true. It is falsehood and lies and intellectual pollution. The reverence for such a belief belongs as a sub-genre of postmodern urban mysticism and religious occultism, along with the belief that the CIA planted explosives in the World Trade Center.

    Isn’t it just sooo convenient that you along with your host of sayanim obfuscating agents show up in droves attempting to derail the discussion of the COMMON DENOMINATOR in most of these cases: the Zionist Jew assasins!

    In similar fashion you and your Hasbara crew came out in the most recent 9/11 article featured on UR with your faux theories–in an attempt to direct the blame AWAY from Israel. Your methods are transparent by now for those who see them clearly and have lost any traction as a consequence, akin to the antisemitic and holohaux$$ card. It is simply a matter of time before the tables turn …. the worlwide blowback you terroists have created will be interesting to watch as it will galvanize much of the world against you in the end …. I would not want to be in your shoes at the present time.

    Falsehoods of any sort should be brought to light and expunged from the historical record

    ….except when they originate from the terrorist state of Israel??!! What a hypocrite you are…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    You're just a fool if you think that commenter, for all that he has some very odd views, not least about Darwinian evolution, is in way characterizable as hasbara. Why not switch your brain on and, next time you feel moved to resort to cheap smears and jeers, do a bit of homework on what someone writes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. Biff says:
    @Laurent Guyénot
    No, I am not that ignorant. Either I expressed myself poorly (English being not my native language), or you misunderstood. The serial number of the gun from which the test bullet was shot (as indicated on official report) is different from the serial number of Sirhan's gun (as indicated on another official report.

    I might be mistaken but I heard that the bullet to the head of Robert Kennedy was a 38 caliber(.357), and I’m almost positive the gun that the assassin used was 22 caliber.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. tac says:
    @Intelligent Dasein
    I'm really beginning to wonder what Ron Unz is doing with his website. Last week we got that moronic article by 9/11 doucher David Lorimer, and now we are treated to a 10,000 word disquisition about how Israel assassinated the Kennedys---both of which articles are rather baseless canards but are deeply emotionally appealing to a certain coterie of contrarians and which are sure to attract (and have attracted) the most odious collection of commenters who are both uninterested in and oblivious to the the truth about any of it. Not only is it a frustrating exercise in futility to try to discuss anything with such people (their minds are closed not only with respect to the lunacy that they themselves believe but also with respect to what they assume you believe---they've already assigned you to a camp and will never allow you to depart from it), but also the subjects themselves have grown tiresome and tedious and are only anymore of interest to the very same propounders of revisionist idiocy who keep them alive with their siege mentality.

    What purpose can there be in publishing such articles other than to fuel the febrile files of this phantasist fringe? There is nothing here in the interests of truth; this is demagoguery and obscurantism of the worst sort. Articles like this are the intellectual equivalent of a plague bacillus, winding its way through human minds, putrefying and perverting all in its course. Such foul air requires a constant nosegay of truth to ward it off, and these flowers are in very short supply around here.

    I have no desire to defend the Jews, or Judaism, or Zionism, or the State of Israel, but the charges that they were involved with the Kennedy assassinations are completely without merit and ought to be repugnant to decent people. The fact that they were directly responsible for the attack on the USS Liberty is more than enough reason to despise the Israelis; they do not need to be beaten with every club or charged with every crime. To do so is vindictive and paranoid and shameful, and I cannot be sanguine about the motives of those who would whip themselves and others into such a frenzy.

    Why is it that when one reads your impetuously framed arguments, one comes to the almost universal consensus in which you are revealed as a sayanim agent? No matter whay you or your enclave of cohorts espouse it stands in stark contrast to the evidence at hand.

    Your BS strawmen arguments are an execrcise in futility…iow: most intelligent people recognize you and your poorly disguised Hasbara propaganda efforts as a clear fraud against plain common sense.

    IOW: your days are numbered …. and you should conern your efforts as to the best possible places to hide against what is coming for you …. hint: there will be NO place to hide! Keep at it thought, you’ve managed to solidify world public opinion against you …. we’ll see how that works out for you in the end.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    The word Hasbara always reminds me of the name of the fictional Bajoran dish from Star Trek: Deep Space Nine---hasperat. That's about the extent to which I care about the whole subject. You belong in a straitjacket if you think that I'm part of some sort of coordinated effort to disturb your precious bodily fluids. The State of Israel does not even know that I exist, and neither would I serve that wretched pseudo-country in word or deed.

    Your paranoid fantasies in which I figure are really remarkable. I look forward to the day you come to deliver my comeuppance. Shall I pass along my name and address to make it easier for you?
    , @MikeatMikedotMike
    You are clearly a couple tics short of a tic tac.

    But since Tic Tacs are KNOWN to be the preferred breath fresheners of the Mossad, I think it is YOU who are the double agent here. Don't bother switching your name to Al(toid) or Men(tos) either. We are on to you, Semite!

    I shudder to think of all the helpless goyim who's last sense of this world was the cool refreshing breath breaking upon the backs of their necks, right before the knife plunged, and the lights went out., forever.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. anon[101] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    From one with no barrow to push: this is refreshingly sane.

    From one with no barrow to push……

    the more you say that the less i believe you

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Well do your homework and prove it. My interest in UR and its threads as in nearly everything where contentious issues are discussed is to follow the evidence where it leads, with additional pleasure to be obtained by cruel expressions of contempt for those who insist on inflicting dopey or careless comments without civility after showing themselves incapable of being helped or cured by politely offered comment.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. ians says:
    @Sean
    Thew real Oswald was a Communist that lived and worked in the Soviet Union before returning to the US with his Russian wife (who said he admitted shooting segregationist former Airborne division commander Walker) and becoming enamored of Cuban socialism. A Texan familiar with firearm fro his childhood, Oswald qualified as a rifleman in the Marines (where he was also disciplined for pouring a beer over a sergeant's head, and possession of an illegal pistol).

    Wrong on almost every count, yet again. Oswald was ONI and part of a fake defector scheme that sent several such agents in Russia in that period. Walker was not shot; he was shot at. Two men were observed at the scene, who departed in a car. Marina changed her story numerous times, was then coached and threatened with deportation if she didn’t comply with the official story.
    Oswald worked with Bannister, a notoriously right-wing anti-Communist. Oswald was a poor shot in the Marines.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. ians says:
    @Sean
    He was a Texan (like Audie Murphy) and familiar with rifles from an early age. He was a trained rifleman who though not an expert shot scored 49 hits and one miss at a target 200 yards away. LHO was seen practicing at a rifle range before Dallas, and at a range of under 100 yards his performance in getting one fatal shot on Kennedy was good, not exceptional, even for a rusty and mediocre shot (which he was not).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5IWK9sRYTs

    Charles Wittman was a Texan too, as was Chris Kyle.

    You’re certainly determined to prove your ignorance here. Oswald was not seen at a range practising. He was not in that area at the time. The rifle booked into evidence is of a different length to the one he supposedly ordered. Olympic riflemen were unable to replicate the shots supposedly fired. All the doctors at Parkland testified to the fatal shot having come from the front.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    The driver of JFK's limo did not seem to have thought the shots were from the front because he stopped the car and turned around in his seat. Oswald was presented with stationary target, no fire from the secret service in response to a couple of misses, and a range of around a hundred yards; for a young man who qualified with a rifle to Marine active service standard, and had shown a disregard for societal norms and his own life (assaulting a marine NCO, shooting himself with an illegally held Derringer, renouncing his citizenship and attempting suicide in the Soviet Union then asking for Cuban residency ) killing the Cuba hating Kennedy was psychologically and politically intelligible. What made it ballistic-ally probable was the foolhardy Kennedy had insisted on leaving the perspex bubble canopy off the limo for the motorcade. It was good shooting in a fraught situation by Oswald, but he was not being shot at himself and he did not have to fire through the canopy, so you cannot give him credit for magic bullets, super human coolness or being a crackshot. He had a lot of luck in a leftie woman getting him the job in the book repository before the motorcade was even thought of. With a basic skill set to shoot another human being (what the Marines are taught to do) and the balls to try in a determined way, Oswald killing Kennedy was neither certain to fail or succeed. It can not be accounted a fluke, still less impossible.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. ians says:
    @Anon
    RFK was not shot from behind. There was one shot right at his ear which is on the side, not back if the head. The rest were in the front

    Couldn’t be more wrong. Read the goddam autopsy report.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. ians says:
    @Anon
    I visited the Book depository when I was in Dallas for a week and noted that the distance was short, the window was way above the street and it would have been an easy shot. I doubt a Marine would have missed.

    What’s really silly is the way people who’ve never held any type of gun in their lives keep insisting that Oswald’s score on the Marine marksman test proves he was a bad shot. Just because he didn’t get the highest score doesn’t mean he wasn’t capable of firing the shot that killed Kennedy.

    Been there. Easiest shot from Depository is directly at limo as it slowly approaches, not as it speeds away. Easiest shot at Dealey Plaza is from the knoll, where fatal shot that blew out the back of his head was fired.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. @Bardon Kaldian
    Because local Jews & pro-Israel bunch are not equivalent to "deep state". It is true that Zionist Jews are now more influential than ever, but they do not "own" US nor direct most currents of US policy. Being 2% of US population, Jews are perhaps 20-25% among American elites (which, evidently, is not the majority), and most of them are liberals who are not involved in shaping of American middle east politics. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld.... were/are American imperialists, and not some Jewish puppets.

    As regards Kennedy, it is true that he had strong positions re nuclear weapons, but, having in mind huge arsenals of US & Soviet Union, and smaller ones of Britain, China..- Israel's nuclear program was not considered to be something spectacularly important, especially at that stage. It is bizarre to consider that Israelis would even think of, let alone try to execute US president, just because he gave them slap on the wrist at some point.

    And, in 1963, Zionist Jews (and all US Jews) were much less influential then today, after 5 decades that have, beginning with counter-cultural 60s, multiculturalism & Vietnam war, transformed US beyond recognition. Back in 50s/early 60s they had just wanted to assimilate into society as quickly as possible & minimize traces of their ethnic identity, while Israel was a schnorrer, beggar economy trying to survive & keep a low profile.

    That Golda Meir or Ben Gurion would even contemplate anything similar is simply weird: https://www.haaretz.com/.premium-golda-meir-had-doubts-on-kennedy-death-1.5292291

    Again, I think you are missing two points:
    1. We are not talking here about Jews influential in US politics , but of a network of Irgun sayanim, Mickey Cohen type, directly under the Israeli State (and Ben Gurion in particular, who happened to go underground in nov 1963).
    2. For Ben Gurion and his paranoid gang, going nuclear was a matter of life and death. It was non negociable. Whoever stood in the way had to be eliminated. Period. For Kennedy, having one more nuclear power was out of the question, and inspecting Dimona was non negotiable. Period.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    As I have already asked a commenter:
    How was Kennedy going to prevent Israel getting nuclear weapons? France was already lined up as a supplier wasn't it? And that's apart from Israel doing what North Korea has done.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. JFK had many enemies, CIA, FBI, USA maffia, JFK did not give them back Cuba, Johnson.
    His murder, who pulled the triggers, Lee Harvey Oswald certainly was not the only one who fired, is not important.
    Important is who organised the killing.
    A book that throws an interesting light on the murder is:
    Avner Cohen,’Israel and the Bomb’, New York 1998
    The author tries to prevent the reader from seeing that JFK was killed two weeks after he had threatened Israel not so supply them with weapons any more unless they stopped developing the atmomic bomb.
    A weird book, the Warren report, when I read it I had the vague feeling of to good to be true, the same feeling I had when I, long ago, when I read Churchill’s WWII memoirs.
    Harold Weisberg, ‘Whitewash – the report on the Warren Report’, 1965, 1966, New York makes mincemeat of the Warren fairy tale.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  186. @Erebus

    The JFK assassination and 9/11 featured Jews documenting the event for celebration and narrative control.
     
    That's an interesting point, but it looks like documentation is surplus to requirement. Despite several years of countless opportunities, no Jew with a camera managed to record any of the Auschwitz gassings. Nevertheless, narrative control over the Holocaust was not only unaffected, I'd argue that it was enhanced.

    Interesting remark, Wiesel describes how weapons were smuggled into Auschwitz camps.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. @Art
    We see more and more articles about “the Jews killed the Kennedys.” True or not, this is not good for the Jews. This opens the floodgates to “the Jews did 9/11.”

    Defending 9/11 is problematic for the Jews. There are many many angles that are impossible to defend.

    Think Peace --- Art

    ” This opens the floodgates to “the Jews did 9/11.” ”

    PNAC of AEI did ask for ‘ a new Pearl Harbour’.
    However, as far as I know Cheney is not a jew.
    He accidentally was at NORAD to lead an excercise op Sept 11.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Oh dear you are so often sensible. (Alden I think????). But being so assertive about something where you are completely wrong is bad news for your general credibility. I knew Rupert's mother well as well as her nephews and nieces on her mother's side so can say without a doubt that this link is accurate

    https://www.geni.com/people/Rupert-Greene/6000000006580516381

    Have a look at the further link to her mother Marie too.

    So far from her father Rupert Greene being a Rabbi just take a look at