Jump to content
The Education Forum

Provocation of nuclear conflict with USSR was a motif


Recommended Posts

This is a continuation of discussion with David Josephs in http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20354&page=144
I named topic 'Provocation of nuclear conflict between the US and the USSR was a motif' because it was one of the possible motives and it's interesting to discuss this theory (DEG-hypothesis).

The Evidence IS the Conspiracy...

Ponder it a bit. The EVIDENCE says no one sees Oswald... who wrote all the evidence? Who translated it for the Commissioners? Who took what it said in total and para-phrased it for the WCR? Who punished people who contradicted the evidence?

How does the evidence prove the conspiracy as opposed to telling us what actually occurred? http://www.ctka.net/...conspiracy.html is an essay I did assuming Oswald planned the assassination and what he would need to know and do to be successful... Tell me what you think.

David, I read your article. You made good job. I agree with many arguments. I'l write my questions in next post.
Let's continue the discussion of Conspiracy version. Consider LHO was a patsy as he said.
1. Were FBI-CIA (all US Intelligence) and Conspirators the same party or the opposite sides?
There are 3 cases:
a. FBI-CIA and Conspirators were opposite sides;
b. FBI-CIA and Conspirators were opposite sides but Conspirators had their minor agents in FBI-CIA (Gus Russo said it was very possible for other Intelligence to have an agent in US Intelligence);
c. FBI-CIA was а Conspirator. Or FBI-CIA had inner conspiracy without any influence of foreign country.
a + b is more than 60% probability. Very often the other country supports the conspirators. Perhaps for USA we shall assume a + b is more than 90% probability. Therefore, first of all we have to investigate the most probable a + b.
2. Was it an accident that FBI-CIA chose LHO a suspect or was it provoked by Conspirators?
Only at first sight 50/50. But LHO in less than hour became the FBI-CIA main suspect with a communist background. This FBI-CIA choice was not an accident with 95% probability because it was very short time to analyze the background of all persons at TSBD and to choose LHO. To force this choice Conspirators shot a policeman. LHO was a patsy and LHO not shot Tippit. I don't think LHO paraffin test is appropriate revolver shots. 90% * 95% = 85% probability the choice was forced by Conspirators.
If the choice was not provoked than it's 5% probability FBI-CIA wanted to get a nuke on its head because JFK was a guarantor of peace. Maybe FBI-CIA wanted to take seats at the dock at The Hague Court. But FBI-CIA was not stupid and FBI-CIA know Sun Tzu. After the nuclear war USA should lost their top position in the world. Obviously it was not reasonably for USA and FBI-CIA. It is the last thing I could believe that CIA wanted USA lost the world top position. But I can't exclude this thus I leave 5%.
3. When had CIA to choose Oswald a suspect and then a patsy?
85% probability it was on Nov 22 because FBI-CIA was not a Conspirator and this choice was forced by Conspirators. That's why reports dated Nov 22 are the most truthful instead of others. CIA realized that main suspect was a patsy and decided to make him patsy too on Nov 23 or at the end of Nov 22.
4. When had Conspirators chose Oswald a patsy?
Much earlier than on Nov 22 and it's 99% probability because Conspirators was ready. It was not an improvisation. LHO was chosen by Conspirators beforehand. So Conspirators had a lot of time to prepare a patsy. Conspirators started that work and FBI-CIA was forced to continue and to finish.
5. What was happened on Nov 24?
Hypothesis: FBI-CIA detected Trojan Horse and erased LHO. FBI-CIA changed the scenario being imposed on. FBI-CIA already got enough information from LHO and realized that LHO was a patsy. But it was too late to release LHO. Ruby explained it allegorically. Conspirators had to react immediately to repair the broken scenario and possible did it that way:
I think the additional records could exist. (upd -> go to the list)
6. Why didn't FBI-CIA believe LHO was loner? Why was FBI-CIA not Conspirator?
FBI-CIA had 2 versions. Public version with LHO loner and a secret version with LHO a patsy.
If LHO was a loner there was no obvious need to make that investigation 3-4 years later.
If CIA was Conspirator there was no obvious need to make that investigation 3-4 years later.
Edited by Vitali Zhuk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 30
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • THE CIA is a compartmentalized organization. Sometimes OPS fought against CI. Ive posted on how CI might have wanted a FRENCH INTELL PATSY.

the TSBD may be a ONI op and CIA and ONI can be at loggerheads.

State Department had own agenda (and was also compartmentalized with Globalist / antiglobalist sides) that could conflict with CIA/ONI.

incompetence by lower level operatives and separated agenda of lower level operatives must be noted.

Russia military inferior to USA in nukes didn't want a war and elites in USA knew that.

============================================================================= GAAL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consider one main thing Vitali

The Evidence IS the Conspiracy...

Ponder it a bit. The EVIDENCE says no one sees Oswald... who wrote all the evidence? Who translated it for the Commissioners? Who took what it said in total and para-phrased it for the WCR? Who punished people who contradicted the evidence?

How does the evidence prove the conspiracy as opposed to telling us what actually occurred? http://www.ctka.net/2014/The%20evidence%20is%20the%20conspiracy.html is an essay I did assuming Oswald planned the assassination and what he would need to know and do to be successful... Tell me what you think.

David, I agree with you that LHO had a very little probability to shot JFK if LHO planed to do it alone. LHO had to know the right time and LHO had to have opportunity to prepare the nest and the rifle and LHO had to have a fortune. The only case was that LHO decided to play a lottery and took the rifle to shot JFK in the suitable circumstances. But we know problems: paraffin test, bullet clip, downed rifle-scope, changing testimonies, etc. Each problem apart slightly reduces the probability that LHO was guilty according to WCR. But all together they say LHO was not guilty with more than 90% probability. It's the main road to consider.

My approach is: if we are hesitating to make a definite conclusion we have to speak about probabilities.

[Off-topic]

This just in:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-demands-probe-into-us-moon-landing/ar-AAbNWHp

One does have to wonder: If we got there with the kind of equipment we had in 1969...why didn't the Soviets follow?

Obvious answer: money lack. The arms race was already started. USSR was able to compete with USA only in overloaded mode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • THE CIA is a compartmentalized organization. Sometimes OPS fought against CI. Ive posted on how CI might have wanted a FRENCH INTELL PATSY.
  • the TSBD may be a ONI op and CIA and ONI can be at loggerheads.
  • State Department had own agenda (and was also compartmentalized with Globalist / antiglobalist sides) that could conflict with CIA/ONI.
  • incompetence by lower level operatives and separated agenda of lower level operatives must be noted.
  • Russia military inferior to USA in nukes didn't want a war and elites in USA knew that.

1-4. The political assassination is more probable in Latin American countries not USA. USA have an extensive network of Intelligence with competitive environment thats decreases the inner conspiracy probability.

5. USSR military inferior to USA in nukes. USSR had at the end of 1963:

5 diesel submarines Zulu each with three 10 kT nuke missiles 150 km range;

1 diesel submarine Juliett with four 200 kT nuke missiles 500 km range;

23 diesel submarines Golf each with three 1 MT nuke missiles 600 km range;

8 atomic submarines Hotel each with three 1 MT nuke missiles 600 km range;

5 atomic submarines Echo-I with six 200 kT nuke missiles 500 km range;

4 atomic submarines Echo-II with eight 20 kT nuke missiles 300 km range;

Hundreds of strategic bombers with hydrogen bombs

122 intercontinental ballistic missiles

1% of these was enough to ruin top 10 US cities.

9'11 shows that it's easy to start the war if you have a suspicion.

Edited by Vitali Zhuk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[Off-topic]

This just in:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-demands-probe-into-us-moon-landing/ar-AAbNWHp

One does have to wonder: If we got there with the kind of equipment we had in 1969...why didn't the Soviets follow?

Obvious answer: money lack. The arms race was already started. USSR was able to compete with USA only in overloaded modeThere was a Space Race alongside the Arms Race, and the latter fueled the former, from the time of Sputnik. The Space Race was taken seriously by both sides in the 1960s.

Sorry to go off-topic to a related topic, but there was a Space Race alongside the Arms Race. It was taken seriously by both sides in the 1960s.

If a moon landing was feasible for the US in 1969 with its Radio Shack-quality equipment, the Soviets should have had no problem deferring all future space efforts - space stations, space shuttles - to replicate it in the 1970s. Drop all other space projects to achieve moon landing parity and plant the red flag, and there would have been no effect on the Soviet defense budget. But it was never attempted.

Was a moon landing ever seriously considered by the Soviets? That answer would go a long way to address the feasibility issue.

If our moon program was a fraud, it has serious ramifications for NASA-related defense contractors and our Defense Department, both then and now. If the modern Russians choose to call us for the first time on our moon landing veracity, in response to our action against FIFA that has been labeled a back-handed strike against the Federation government, it is their coda to the days and crimes of the Arms Race and Space Race.

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, both our moon project and the Soviets are extremely well documented now - details on the Soviet moon program were available as early as 1981 in a book titled Red Star in Orbit and later books contain details from Soviet designers and even photos of the Soviet moon lander. That info became widely available when we started working on joint activities at the end of what now appears to have been the first Cold War...sigh. A moon landing was quite feasable for the Soviets until they had major problems with their own Saturn class booster including an explosion which killed several key design personnel. Until that point it was a race, after that the Soviets tried a couple of propaganda gambits including a sample return but that was small stuff compared to a landing and they turned to a focus on their large space stations. If you want sources I can give you more..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to go off-topic to a related topic, but there was a Space Race alongside the Arms Race. It was taken seriously by both sides in the 1960s.

If a moon landing was feasible for the US in 1969 with its Radio Shack-quality equipment, the Soviets should have had no problem deferring all future space efforts - space stations, space shuttles - to replicate it in the 1970s. Drop all other space projects to achieve moon landing parity and plant the red flag, and there would have been no effect on the Soviet defense budget. But it was never attempted.

Was a moon landing ever seriously considered by the Soviets? That answer would go a long way to address the feasibility issue.

If our moon program was a fraud, it has serious ramifications for NASA-related defense contractors and our Defense Department, both then and now. If the modern Russians choose to call us for the first time on our moon landing veracity, in response to our action against FIFA that has been labeled a back-handed strike against the Federation government, it is their coda to the days and crimes of the Arms Race and Space Race.

David, as Larry mentioned the start of Soviet Moon program was not lucky as it was expected so the extra resources needed. It was a matter of priorities. Smth had to be dropped. It was Moon program because it was largely propaganda project and US landed first. Defense in any case was the 1st priority. Space program was connected with Defense and was the 2nd priority. Moon program was the 3rd priority.

I like this explanation: USSR have been programmed by EU to compete with USA. USA and USSR spent a great resources on cutting-edge research. EU needed a time for re-organisation and now we see the result of this. After EU re-organized the USSR was broken apart.

Edited by Vitali Zhuk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This just in:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-demands-probe-into-us-moon-landing/ar-AAbNWHp

One does have to wonder: If we got there with the kind of equipment we had in 1969...why didn't the Soviets follow?

They tried to, but the way they ran their rocket programme meant that too many design decisions were based on personality rather than best design. They tried to launch their N-1 a number of times - unsuccessfully - and the receding Politburo support for a lunar landing programme meant they didn't get a chance to fix the problems. People forget (or didn't know) that the Soviets had a "lunar" spacecraft (which had been tested unmanned a number of times) and a lunar lander.

At a certain point it became more expedient to just hide the attempts they made, claim they never intended to go to the Moon, and concentrate on a more successful low Earth orbit space station programme.

mai-lunar-craft-2-russo_0.jpg

n1a2.gif

5148733952_18237bf461_b.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Update for my list of doubtful events related to possible provocation (list is under discussion):

b. Anonymous phone call - http://www.maryferre...eId=30&tab=page
d. From Mexico city (Alvarado?) - http://www.maryferre...geId=2&tab=page
Edited by Vitali Zhuk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the linked article: "In 2009 Nasa admitted they had deleted footage of the landing for budget purposes but the footage was then restored thanks to contemporary TV recordings."

Larry or Evan, can that be true? I don't recall hearing about any such admission, though I can understand why the media might not report it. If it's true, it sounds like utter BS to me. I guess there's nothing wrong after all with Hillary Clinton deleting her State Dept. emails, or the IRS deleting Lois Lerner emails. It's just the government at work as usual.

Edited by Ron Ecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron, I have no knowledge of that but I do know that once most Agencies turn material over to the media and the scientific/professional research community they don't necessarily retain everything and for that matter material is sometimes just lost in the retention process or even taken....I think a few of the actual Lunar soil samples went that route. NASA went to a lot of trouble in past years to recover certain design documents that had gone into deep storage or off to archive sites. I know there is a temptation to find conspiracy in just about everything but I'm pretty sure no agency retains every document and piece of material in its own possession in perpetuity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know there is a temptation to find conspiracy in just about everything but I'm pretty sure no agency retains every document and piece of material in its own possession in perpetuity.

Well I would think that NASA might make a small exception in the case of the historic moon landings and keep all the footage. And they didn't lose it, they deliberately deleted it for "budget purposes"? Gee, it must cost a fortune to keep some tapes. Better to delete the less important stuff and reuse that valuable tape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It interests me that some here believe the U.S. Government, through its agents, covered up the facts of the JFK assassination yet also believe the U.S. Government, through its agents, told the truth about the moon landings and 9-11.

Don't call me a conspiracy theorist. I focus on verifiable facts. If there's a conflict between verifiable facts and the official story, I'm inclined to question the official story.

As for the initial moon landing in June 1969, consider these verified facts, Neil Armstrong allegedly landed the lander on the moon without any help from the lander's primitive computer. The computer, we've been told, was overloaded. OK, I can buy that. Even though Armstrong crashed a practice lander on the earth several weeks before. On earth, Armstrong had the advantage of air. On the moon, all he would have had to control the lander as it landed was its rocket engines. OK, I'll buy that.

But a day or so later, the lander has to leave the moon's surface and meet up perfectly with the space capsule orbiting the moon. And the meet-up is perfect. This is far, far better than Annie Oakley's shooting. Could anyone today, let's say a top gun flier, replicate this feat? You tell me.

In any event, I say let's replicate the July 1969 landing using today's technology.

As for 9-11, I say, believe the official story. You'll sleep better. You won't want to investigate plane crashes and the parts they leave on the ground. You won't have to ask uncomfortable questions, such as why the FBI seized all surrounding camera footage of the Pentagon strike.

No, please go to bed believing you're on to something about the JFK assassination. And that the world is all well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...