Jump to content


Spartacus

JFK assassination: From Dallas to Watergate


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#1 Dawn Meredith

Dawn Meredith

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,496 posts
  • Location:Austin, Tx.
  • Interests:political justice, conspiracy/truth, music, law, Bible prophecy

Posted 21 July 2006 - 02:34 AM

I propose that we discuss a bit about how totally interrelated Watergate is to 11/22/63, and the resultant "government" we have had since that horrific Friday in Dallas.

I am too busy with work- literally 18 hour days- at the moment to do any more than bring this up as a topic of discussion.

Have much to say, but no time at this moment except to start the thread.

( Oh, I agree with Terry on Ashton's post -(letter to W)- that if we are gonna have this twit Dunne (NOT RCD!!) tho other one) - posting his innane comments to Ashton's serious work, we might as well bring back Tim G. With apology to John here, as I know TG was banned for threats to sue John, so I am agreeing with Terry here in jest. )

FWIW.

Dawn

#2 Ashton Gray

Ashton Gray

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,045 posts

Posted 21 July 2006 - 03:53 AM

I propose that we discuss a bit about how totally interrelated Watergate is to 11/22/63, and the resultant "government" we have had since that horrific Friday in Dallas.


On "the whole Bay of Pigs thing" comment, I still don't believe that it was some euphimism for the Kennedy assassination, because I don't think Nixon himself ever figured out exactly who did that. If he had, he never would have allowed himself to get set up and cut down the way he was. I think it was Nixon's very pointed commentary about Helms and Hunt (and CIA Deputy Directors Vernon Walters and Robert Cushman) and others at CIA having intentionally sabotaged the Bay of Pigs operation. I don't think there's any question that they did, and since Nixon had been in on the ground floor of its planning, I believe that he was able to see how CIA had sabotaged it. So I believe that when he said "Bay of Pigs," he meant "Bay of Pigs," and Helms knew exactly what Nixon was referring to, which is why Helms went nuclear.

(NOTICE to the first idiot who is tempted to demand that I explain why CIA would sabotage the operation: first you explain to me a rational reason why John Wayne Gacy killed men, then hacked up their dead bodies and buried them under his house. Then I might bother entertaining your nonsense.)

Of course the same CIA crew also was behind the JFK assassination. It's impossible that they weren't involved. It's simply impossible, that's all. Ten seconds of rational thought is all it takes. It also eradicates about 30,000 false trails. (Okay, I haven't counted the false trails. Maybe my estimate is conservative.)

Most of the JFK assassination evaluation I've seen falls short of the Ivy League sophistication of the snakes in Brooks Brothers suits who did JFK. As I posted briefly in the JFK forum recently, Kennedy named the manner of his dying when he stated his intention to "splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds."

Dealey plaza is a mockery of a Greek amphitheatre in which they did to him exactly what he had threatened to do to them, and the Greek theatre setting was a visual pun to ridicule his hubris.

This isn't some obsession of mine with imagery and symbolism: it's how these scum think, and it's everywhere throughout their spoor. Wherever you track them you find this same kind of convoluted, perverted, sick, twisted "intellectualism," and you ignore it or miss it at your peril.

I also believe that the kill shot came from the last place in the world anyone ever would suspect, and that they put it in the world's face later that afternoon in the biggest way possible—another part of their modus operandi that they cannot escape. But that's all I'm prepared to say on this at the moment.

And now Dawn Meredith, with malice aforethought, has dragged me kicking and screaming into the JFK assassination discussion. She is utterly impossible. :)

Ashton Gray

Edited by Ashton Gray, 21 July 2006 - 03:56 AM.


#3 Michael Hogan

Michael Hogan

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,468 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 July 2006 - 06:15 AM

Ashton Gray wrote:

"Dealey plaza is a mockery of a Greek amphitheatre in which they did to him exactly what he had threatened to do to them, and the Greek theatre setting was a visual pun to ridicule his hubris."

In another thread I quoted an excerpt from Gaeton Fonzi's book The Last Investigation. Fonzi describes his conversation in 1975 with Vincent Salandria:

"I'm afraid we were mislead," Salandria said sadly. "All the critics, myself included, were mislead very early. I see that now. We spent too much time microanalyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy. Don't you think that the men who killed Kennedy had the means to do it in the most sophisticated and subtle way? They chose not to. Instead they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealey Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner. The cover story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiny. The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear: 'We are in control and no one--not the President, nor Congress, nor any elected official--no one can do anything about it.'(Emphasis added) It was a message to the people that their Government was powerless. And the people eventually got the message. Consider what has happened since the Kennedy assassination. People see government today as unresponsive to their needs, yet the budget and power of the military and intelligence establishment have increased tremendously.

The tyranny of power is here. Current events tell us that those who killed Kennedy can only perpetuate their power by promoting social upheaval at home and abroad. And that will lead not to revolution but to repression. I suggest to you, my friend, that the interests of those who killed Kennedy now transcend national boundaries and national priorities. No doubt we are now dealing with an international conspiracy. We must face the fact -- and not waste any more time microanalyzing the evidence. That's exactly what they want us to do. They have kept us busy for so long. And I will bet, buddy, that is what will happen to you. They'll keep you very, very busy and eventually, they'll wear you down."



#4 Ashton Gray

Ashton Gray

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,045 posts

Posted 21 July 2006 - 06:39 AM

In another thread I quoted an excerpt from Gaeton Fonzi's book The Last Investigation. Fonzi describes his conversation in 1975 with Vincent Salandria:

"I'm afraid we were mislead," Salandria said sadly. "All the critics, myself included, were mislead very early. I see that now. We spent too much time microanalyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy. Don't you think that the men who killed Kennedy had the means to do it in the most sophisticated and subtle way? They chose not to. Instead they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealey Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner. The cover story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiny. The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear: 'We are in control and no one--not the President, nor Congress, nor any elected official--no one can do anything about it.'(Emphasis added) It was a message to the people that their Government was powerless. And the people eventually got the message. Consider what has happened since the Kennedy assassination. People see government today as unresponsive to their needs, yet the budget and power of the military and intelligence establishment have increased tremendously.

The tyranny of power is here. Current events tell us that those who killed Kennedy can only perpetuate their power by promoting social upheaval at home and abroad. And that will lead not to revolution but to repression. I suggest to you, my friend, that the interests of those who killed Kennedy now transcend national boundaries and national priorities. No doubt we are now dealing with an international conspiracy. We must face the fact -- and not waste any more time microanalyzing the evidence. That's exactly what they want us to do. They have kept us busy for so long. And I will bet, buddy, that is what will happen to you. They'll keep you very, very busy and eventually, they'll wear you down."


And a magnificent, astute, and prophetic quote it is. Just a brief visit to the JFK forum is grounds for a nap.

With the open admission that I've taken only the most cursory look, I see very little about how Kennedy got located in Dealey Plaza and by whom. I've seen some research analyses of when and how the itenerary and route might have been known and by whom—as in pursuit of a "target of opportunity" approach—but have not seen that string pulled all the way back to the influences that put him there in the first place.

If anyone has any pointers to what exists on that, I'd be grateful.

Ashton

#5 John Simkin

John Simkin

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16,117 posts

Posted 21 July 2006 - 07:46 AM

On "the whole Bay of Pigs thing" comment, I still don't believe that it was some euphimism for the Kennedy assassination, because I don't think Nixon himself ever figured out exactly who did that. If he had, he never would have allowed himself to get set up and cut down the way he was.


I think the opposite is true. It was because Richard Nixon knew about the role the CIA played in the assassination of JFK, that he was removed from office. His attempts at blackmail failed because the CIA had more on him than he had on them. That is the same reason why J. Edgar Hoover was never sacked by Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon.

#6 Ashton Gray

Ashton Gray

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,045 posts

Posted 21 July 2006 - 09:47 AM


On "the whole Bay of Pigs thing" comment, I still don't believe that it was some euphimism for the Kennedy assassination, because I don't think Nixon himself ever figured out exactly who did that. If he had, he never would have allowed himself to get set up and cut down the way he was.


I think the opposite is true. It was because Richard Nixon knew about the role the CIA played in the assassination of JFK, that he was removed from office. His attempts at blackmail failed because the CIA had more on him than he had on them. That is the same reason why J. Edgar Hoover was never sacked by Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon.


Well, of course it could be, John, but to me it's one of the biggest, fluffiest, pinkest pieces of cotton candy in all of Watergate—and that's a mouthful. (Pun intended. Unfortunately.)

What foundation is there for it? What evidence is there for it? What connections did Nixon have after he lost the election to Kennedy that would have put him in the loop enough to know who did the JFK murder op and any details of it, even if he might have suspected?

On the Bay of Pigs, per se, he unquestionably was in on the ground floor, and knew the whole Intel Cult command structure while he was V.P., so would have certainly had enough information on that to have known where the bodies were buried.

But when it comes to his means of knowing on the JFK assassination, foundation is just flatline as far as I can see.

It's a whole Rube Goldberg contraption of theory built in the air, and even the air it's built on was the breath spent on an off-hand opinion opined by Haldeman, which, as far as I can tell, he pulled out of his nose. Or out of somewhere.

If there's some actual foundation—any foundation—I'm completely open to it. Till then, it seems just an added level of complication to me that, really, goes nowhere. It doesn't resolve anything. It doesn't fit into the picture in any way that makes any sense. In fact, the exact time where it occurs, 23 June 1972, happens to be one of the days that the current article I'm working on in the "CIA Watergate Bait-and-Switch" series covers, and the fact of this being brought up by Haldeman in the meeting with Helms and Walters and Cushman has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on what already had been completely set up by the time the meeting happened. It doesn't change anything. It has no effect, except Helms gets to exhibit some of his haughty, arrogant righteous indignation.

I hope you'll read the article when I get it posted (hopefully by the end of this weekend), and see if you can tell me how it had any bearing whatsoever in the ensuing events. I can't. The events had already been set up with the traceable $100 bills linking back to Ogarrio and Dahlberg, plus the planted electronic "evidence," plus the "loaded safe," and the planted links to Hunt and Liddy. Every single one of those traps of the operation was cocked and ready to spring by the time "the whole Bay of Pigs" phrase was mentioned, and it didn't have the slightest influence on the outcome.

All that said, I sure would love to see any evidence or foundation for believing that Nixon had some inside skinny on the Kennedy assassination, or any evidence or foundation for deducing that when he said "goddamn" he meant "bless your heart." I think he meant "goddamn." And I think when he said "Bay of Pigs," he meant "Bay of Pigs."

Ashton

Edited by Ashton Gray, 22 July 2006 - 01:46 AM.


#7 Dawn Meredith

Dawn Meredith

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,496 posts
  • Location:Austin, Tx.
  • Interests:political justice, conspiracy/truth, music, law, Bible prophecy

Posted 21 July 2006 - 11:07 AM

[quote name='Ashton Gray' post='69508' date='Jul 21 2006, 04:53 AM']
[quote name='Dawn Meredith' post='69500' date='Jul 20 2006, 08:34 PM']
I propose that we discuss a bit about how totally interrelated Watergate is to 11/22/63, and the resultant "government" we have had since that horrific Friday in Dallas.[/quote]

On "the whole Bay of Pigs thing" comment, I still don't believe that it was some euphimism for the Kennedy assassination, because I don't think Nixon himself ever figured out exactly who did that. If he had, he never would have allowed himself to get set up and cut down the way he was. I think it was Nixon's very pointed commentary about Helms and Hunt (and CIA Deputy Directors Vernon Walters and Robert Cushman) and others at CIA having intentionally sabotaged the Bay of Pigs operation. I don't think there's any question that they did, and since Nixon had been in on the ground floor of its planning, I believe that he was able to see how CIA had sabotaged it. So I believe that when he said "Bay of Pigs," he meant "Bay of Pigs," and Helms knew exactly what Nixon was referring to, which is why Helms went nuclear.

(NOTICE to the first idiot who is tempted to demand that I explain why CIA would sabotage the operation: first you explain to me a rational reason why John Wayne Gacy killed men, then hacked up their dead bodies and buried them under his house. Then I might bother entertaining your nonsense.)

Of course the same CIA crew also was behind the JFK assassination. It's impossible that they weren't involved. It's simply impossible, that's all. Ten seconds of rational thought is all it takes. It also eradicates about 30,000 false trails. (Okay, I haven't counted the false trails. Maybe my estimate is conservative.)

Most of the JFK assassination evaluation I've seen falls short of the Ivy League sophistication of the snakes in Brooks Brothers suits who did JFK. As I posted briefly in the JFK forum recently, Kennedy named the manner of his dying when he stated his intention to "splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds."

Dealey plaza is a mockery of a Greek amphitheatre in which they did to him exactly what he had threatened to do to them, and the Greek theatre setting was a visual pun to ridicule his hubris.

This isn't some obsession of mine with imagery and symbolism: it's how these scum think, and it's everywhere throughout their spoor. Wherever you track them you find this same kind of convoluted, perverted, sick, twisted "intellectualism," and you ignore it or miss it at your peril.

I also believe that the kill shot came from the last place in the world anyone ever would suspect, and that they put it in the world's face later that afternoon in the biggest way possible—another part of their modus operandi that they cannot escape. But that's all I'm prepared to say on this at the moment.

And now Dawn Meredith, with malice aforethought, has dragged me kicking and screaming into the JFK assassination discussion. She is utterly impossible. :up

Ashton Gray
[/quote]



ohmygod, stop the presses. I agree with 100% of the above post. Someone must have drugged my morning coffee. Or perhaps I am not really yet awake. :)

I believed at 14 it was LBJ but by the time I was 22 I knew it was CIA. (And by CIA I mean it in the generic sense as there is also DIA and even more secretive "IA's") I believe LBJ was involved, and had pre-knowledge. But when JFK fired Dulles and Cabal and threatened to splinter the CIA "to a thosand winds" he signed his death notice. Viet Nam as motive has been PROVEN, As has been Cuba. That he and Castro were to meet "after a brief trip to Dallas" . This has been established long ago. We even have here on this forum a member who made sure Lisa Howard made those trips to Cuba. Until he's ready to come back and say hello to us I shall not name him. Of course Lisa committed suicide, as usual.

Dawn

[quote name='Michael Hogan' date='Jul 21 2006, 07:15 AM' post='69530']
Ashton Gray wrote:

"Dealey plaza is a mockery of a Greek amphitheatre in which they did to him exactly what he had threatened to do to them, and the Greek theatre setting was a visual pun to ridicule his hubris."

In another thread I quoted an excerpt from Gaeton Fonzi's book The Last Investigation. Fonzi describes his conversation in 1975 with Vincent Salandria:

"I'm afraid we were mislead," Salandria said sadly. "All the critics, myself included, were mislead very early. I see that now. We spent too much time microanalyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy. Don't you think that the men who killed Kennedy had the means to do it in the most sophisticated and subtle way? They chose not to. Instead they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealey Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner. The cover story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiny. The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear: 'We are in control and no one--not the President, nor Congress, nor any elected official--no one can do anything about it.'(Emphasis added) It was a message to the people that their Government was powerless. And the people eventually got the message. Consider what has happened since the Kennedy assassination. People see government today as unresponsive to their needs, yet the budget and power of the military and intelligence establishment have increased tremendously.

The tyranny of power is here. Current events tell us that those who killed Kennedy can only perpetuate their power by promoting social upheaval at home and abroad. And that will lead not to revolution but to repression. I suggest to you, my friend, that the interests of those who killed Kennedy now transcend national boundaries and national priorities. No doubt we are now dealing with an international conspiracy. We must face the fact -- and not waste any more time microanalyzing the evidence. That's exactly what they want us to do. They have kept us busy for so long. And I will bet, buddy, that is what will happen to you. They'll keep you very, very busy and eventually, they'll wear you down."

[/quote]



Michael:

That is my all time favorite quote on this case. I have copied that page for so many people and I have posted those words here on the forum. I highly recomment this book by the wonderful Gaeton Fonzi. The Last Investigation.

In a recent communication with someone here on the forum I used those last words: "they'll wear you down". Vince Salandria remains the best there is on this case. (Along with others of course, but he's long been a personal favorite of mine as well as a personal friend since 1998. )

Dawn

#8 Norman T. Field

Norman T. Field

    Experienced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 182 posts

Posted 21 July 2006 - 02:59 PM

(NOTICE to the first idiot who is tempted to demand that I explain why CIA would sabotage the operation: first you explain to me a rational reason why John Wayne Gacy killed men, then hacked up their dead bodies and buried them under his house. Then I might bother entertaining your nonsense.)



John Wayne Gacy was crazy, that's why he did those things.

Psychotic, multiple personalities, consumed with guilt about his homosexuality. John didn't even do the work, his buddy Jack (another personality) did. Check out 'Buried Dreams' by Tim Cahill and Russ Ewing. And he didn't hack them up, he buried them whole after he raped and killed them.

What does that perverted clown have to do with Watergate?

#9 Dawn Meredith

Dawn Meredith

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,496 posts
  • Location:Austin, Tx.
  • Interests:political justice, conspiracy/truth, music, law, Bible prophecy

Posted 21 July 2006 - 11:09 PM



(NOTICE to the first idiot who is tempted to demand that I explain why CIA would sabotage the operation: first you explain to me a rational reason why John Wayne Gacy killed men, then hacked up their dead bodies and buried them under his house. Then I might bother entertaining your nonsense.)



John Wayne Gacy was crazy, that's why he did those things.

Psychotic, multiple personalities, consumed with guilt about his homosexuality. John didn't even do the work, his buddy Jack (another personality) did. Check out 'Buried Dreams' by Tim Cahill and Russ Ewing. And he didn't hack them up, he buried them whole after he raped and killed them.

What does that perverted clown have to do with Watergate?



Forgive my ignorance folks, but I, along with many others, happen to belive that 11/22/73 and 6/17/72 are so inter-related that a person could write several books on this issue alone. In fact a few have already been written. And much has been written here on the forum. John is scanning Carl Oglesby's magnificant Yankee and Cowboy War. I believe there are at least 2 chapters here on the forum (It's sub-titled Conspiracies from Dallas to Watergate.) Altho published in 1976, this book covers the gammit, but is in need of updating. Tim Carroll did an excellent update here on the forum two years ago, and it has been re-posted in the "seminars" portion of the forum. I highly recommend anyone interested in these two events and how they are really one huge event, begin with those two postings: Oglesby and Carroll.
Ashton Gary has also done some very good investigative work on the Watergate issue.

The late, great Mae Brussel was another who did terrific work on these events, and how each leads back to the other.

Of course there are also the books by the Watergate felons themselves, and while these texts are probably of little value, save for entertainment purposes, perhaps a kernal of truth is found in these writings as well.

Gacy was a nut. The people who killed JFK and set-up Tricky Dick for Watergate were/are evil. I happen to believe there is a difference.

Dawn

#10 Ashton Gray

Ashton Gray

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,045 posts

Posted 22 July 2006 - 01:13 AM

Gacy was a nut. The people who killed JFK and set-up Tricky Dick for Watergate were/are evil. I happen to believe there is a difference.

Dawn



Then again, they're wonton murders, they're pathological liars, and they hide what they do in a crawl space of "national security."

Of course, they don't wear clown suits. (Well, actually, sometimes they do.)


:huh: :)

Ashton

#11 Dawn Meredith

Dawn Meredith

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,496 posts
  • Location:Austin, Tx.
  • Interests:political justice, conspiracy/truth, music, law, Bible prophecy

Posted 22 July 2006 - 02:34 PM

[quote name='Ashton Gray' date='Jul 21 2006, 04:53 AM' post='69508']


And now Dawn Meredith, with malice aforethought, has dragged me kicking and screaming into the JFK assassination discussion. She is utterly impossible. :rolleyes:

Ashton Gray



It's a dirty job Ash but someone had to do it. :)

"Impossible"? Probably. :)

John G. I agree with your comment to little boy Dunn
he needs to find a thread where he has some knowledge .
(I know I am mixing and matching threads here- (with apologies) - but just saw your
post on Ashton's letter to WH thread.

Dawn

#12 Ashton Gray

Ashton Gray

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,045 posts

Posted 22 July 2006 - 06:09 PM

Ashton, to answer your question on JFK in DP and the exact route change, as far as I know that is one of the black holes. Prouty always made a big point in my talks with him that things like that were the most important and the magic show of the exact shooters et al. minor compaired to it.


Prouty spake sooth. If you never get the overview, the details have no form to adhere to, so will stick to anything. With insufficient major pieces, somebody assembles the little pieces to make a gryphon and somebody else assembles the pieces to make a giant rat-like creature with hooves, and somebody else assembles the pieces to make Marilyn Monroe. (In all cases, though, pieces are left out, or non-pieces are postulated in.)

The one question of whether Kennedy had been set up to go to Dallas prior to 14 October 1963 or not is absolutely crucial. Central. Pivotal. That's the tea party with Ruth Hyde Paine and Marina and Linnie Mae Frazier after which Paine does the set-up for Oswald being hired at the TSBD.

If plans for Kennedy to go to Dallas were made prior to 14 October 1963, that's the end of all "lone assassin" theories. Their dust can be put into an urn and scattered at sea, and the JFK Assassination forum will be entirely deloused of that whole faction of disinformation scum.

There also would be some relevance and point of reference to the "route change" that would then fit into a whole.

We'd also then know that the Paine track will connect with the instigators for the Dallas trip somewhere, somehow, and you're on the hot trail. It might even run into Southwestern as yet another CIA front.

Yet I go to look for that one absolutely crucial piece of information about when and by whom the decision to go to Dallas was made or planted, and can't find it anywhere. It's this giant, yawning, gaping Grand Canyon where an eight-lane highway of crucial information should be. But by God there's 40 million man-hours of arguing over crap that can never possibly have any resolution, specifically because it was set up just that way.

It's Bedlam, just like Watergate was before somebody did an actual timeline of it—only exponentially worse in the JFK assassination case.

I'm willing to bet the farm that the answer to my question can be found in the available literature somewhere, but I'll also predict that the date has been heavily obfuscated, since this is another primary psy-op tool (which I can't believe I left out of the article I did on those techniques, and which I am going to correct).

For any worthwhile timeline to be done where CIA has been involved, it always is necessary to compute important dates that they want hidden, and the computation inevitably can be done from clues that inevitably are in the record, but it takes one hell of a lot of work. That's because it's almost always in terms of "several months earlier" or "in early 1962" or some other vague, obscure time reference. That's why multiple sources are vitally important, because by putting multiple accounts of the same event into one timeline, however imprecisely to begin with, they ultimately nudge each other into line, and—when placed against known time-located events—ultimately can be clicked into place, even when there's been a lot of effort expended to keep the dates as hazy as possible.

I touched on this in the CIA Psy-Ops article when I said that timelines are "the single most neglected and misused tool of investigative research." The entire subject really could have a whole book devoted to it, but I'll just say here that from my observation one of the biggest failures people make is to fail to compute omitted or vague dates as accurately as possible, and then to use multiple sources to continue to narrow the dates (and in some cases even time of day) of those events down as precisely as possible.

The cover-up is IMO the next most important thing and that is clearly continues to this day shows [to me] that the heirs to, and a few older members of the gang are as much in control as they were 11/23/63...in fact more so.


Ayup.

Lastly, that you cringe and withdraw from much on the JFK threads doesn't surprise me. I'm sure thousands who come from the search engines here do also....too much in-fighting; too much battling with the disinformation and disruption agents; too much detailed analysis [though also important] without sometimes stepping back and looking at the larger picture and interconnections; and very inbred.

Nevertheless, all those of good intention here have much work to do....but please keep in mind the need to use the information to make a change in 'things' and not just score points on how many assassins did dance on the head of a pin.


If anything I've said has seemed to be any kind of gratuitous criticism of the many fine people and the enormous and admirable industry that has been honorably and selflessly devoted to unraveling the great mystery of Dealey Plaza, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa. I'm simply focusing my efforts and attention elsewhere at the moment, and am not ready to launch into the JFK assassination.

The JFK forum is invaluable. So are all the other sites and forums carrying all that data. Every bit of it is important.

As with any body of data, though, when it all is equally important, then it's a land fill. That's the definition of "land fill": everything in it has the same importance.

A prime example is the exchange I've had with John Simkin in this very thread about this "the whole Bay of Pigs thing" quote from Nixon. It's achieved blimp-sized stature in the annals of Watergate, while the fact that the "first break-in" was nothing but a massive CIA hoax gets completly missed for 34 years.

Every Watergate researcher without exception has tripped over the inconsistencies in this "first break-in" hoax and fallen flat on his face, then gotten back up and gone on chasing colorful blimps without bothering to see what he tripped over.

And from my evaluation, Nixon's blimp-sized comment is nothing but hot air. It wouldn't have mattered if he'd been referring to a secret NASA mission to Uranus. Once it's timelined it becomes glaringly obvious that it was so far into the whole CIA operation that no matter what he'd been referring to, it was the equivalent of putting a penny on the tracks trying to stop a freight train.

To switch analogies, by the time Nixon uttered that banality, the gallows had been built long since by CIA, and Nixon was standing on the trap door with his neck in the noose and the hood over his head, and he didn't even know it. All that remained was for CIA to do was pull the lever. Then haul him back up, reset the trap door, and pull the lever again. Then haul him back up, reset the trap door, and pull the lever again. Which they did, repeatedly. John Dean was Lord High Executioner, and L. Patrick Gray his assistant. Hunt was the obligatory witness-to-execution, having built the gallows.

The point to this harrangue is simply that no matter how large an ocean of data is available, it doesn't, and can't, assume its rightful value until that data has been carefully organized and evaluated and sorted for proper sequence and importance. Getting it into proper sequence is a primary step, and that, alone, usually sorts out at least the paramount importances. The others sift down into line then.

I told John Simkin weeks ago my very strong opinion that no new analysis ever would emerge from the Kennedy assassination evidence until it has been meticulously timelined, as Watergate has been. If and when it is, just such grossly misplaced and misaligned importances will right themselves. Also, glaring vital omissions and undetermined or incorrect sequences like the "Dallas trip planned vs. Oswald hiring at TSBD" will light up like a winning Vegas dollar slot.

I never heard anything back. I stand by that opinion.

And now I've used up my entire week's posting quota. :rolleyes:

Sorry for the unsolicited essay, but all these things go to the very heart of the matter from my view.

Ashton

#13 Dawn Meredith

Dawn Meredith

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,496 posts
  • Location:Austin, Tx.
  • Interests:political justice, conspiracy/truth, music, law, Bible prophecy

Posted 23 July 2006 - 10:50 AM

[color=#000066][quote name='Ashton Gray' date='Jul 22 2006, 07:09 PM' post='69792']
[quote name='Peter Lemkin' post='69711' date='Jul 22 2006, 01:25 AM']Ashton, to answer your question on JFK in DP and the exact route change, as far as I know that is one of the black holes. Prouty always made a big point in my talks with him that things like that were the most important and the magic show of the exact shooters et al. minor compaired to it.[/quote]

,
The one question of whether Kennedy had been set up to go to Dallas prior to 14 October 1963 or not is absolutely crucial. Central. Pivotal. That's the tea party with Ruth Hyde Paine and Marina and Linnie Mae Frazier after which Paine does the set-up for Oswald being hired at the TSBD.
If plans for Kennedy to go to Dallas were made prior to 14 October 1963, that's the end of all "lone assassin" theories. Their dust can be put into an urn and scattered at sea, and the JFK Assassination forum will be entirely deloused of that whole faction of disinformation scum.
[/color]

Plans were definately made prior to 14 October. I will try to locate the exact cite later today. It originated with Connolly, and LBJ who stated that Jack needed to drum up some support in TX. Adlai Stevenson had been to Dallas prior to October and saw that it was far from friendly and strongly urged JFK to abandon this trip to Dallas.
Indeed that morning -11/22/63- Wanted for Treason signs were being passed out. Nellie Connally's last word's prior to the first shot-"Well you can't say Dallas doesn't love you" have always seemed very creepy to me. Like she knew. I know that sounds overly paranoid, that coincidences do occur, but the timing was very weird.
In Blood Money and Power, How LBJ Killed JFk, Barr McClellan writes:
"ON June 5th , 1963 Kennedy Johnson and Connolly met in El Passa Texas and agreed the Texas trip whould be in the fall...to raise money for the 1964 election (p 183) ...the details for the Texas trip were announced November 3" (p 189) including trips to Fort Worth, Dallas and Austin.

We'd also then know that the Paine track will connect with the instigators for the Dallas trip somewhere, somehow, and you're on the hot trail. It might even run into Southwestern as yet another CIA front.


Many have long considered the Paines "help" to both Lee (job at TSBD) and Marina overtly suspicious. Ruth and Michael Paine's CIA ties made for a most strange and intriuging " friendship" to the young couple.

Attorney Craig Zirbel, writing in The Texas Connection states: "On April 23, 1963 Johnson announced that the Presidnet would visit in the near future. Less than 45 days after this announcement the basic outline for a November trip to Texas was agreed upon in a private meeting between Kennedy, Johnson and Connolly at the Cortez Hotal in Texas" (p 185) (There is no cite for this quote however, a problem overall for much of this book, published in 1991)

Dawn

#14 Dawn Meredith

Dawn Meredith

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,496 posts
  • Location:Austin, Tx.
  • Interests:political justice, conspiracy/truth, music, law, Bible prophecy

Posted 03 August 2006 - 12:12 PM

[quote name='Dawn Meredith' date='Jul 22 2006, 03:34 PM' post='69759']
[quote name='Ashton Gray' date='Jul 21 2006, 04:53 AM' post='69508']
[quote name='Dawn Meredith' post='69500' date='Jul 20 2006, 08:34 PM']

And now Dawn Meredith, with malice aforethought, has dragged me kicking and screaming into the JFK assassination discussion. She is utterly impossible. :rolleyes:

Ashton Gray
[/quote]



Ashton. I expect that by 11/22/06 you will have solved this case. That's an order :))

Best of luck with all your projects, here in cyberspace and in real life.

Dawn

#15 Guest_John Gillespie_*

Guest_John Gillespie_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 August 2006 - 06:57 PM

[quote name='Ashton Gray' date='Jul 21 2006, 04:53 AM' post='69508']


And now Dawn Meredith, with malice aforethought, has dragged me kicking and screaming into the JFK assassination discussion. She is utterly impossible. :rolleyes:

Ashton Gray



It's a dirty job Ash but someone had to do it. :)

"Impossible"? Probably. :)

John G. I agree with your comment to little boy Dunn
he needs to find a thread where he has some knowledge .
(I know I am mixing and matching threads here- (with apologies) - but just saw your
post on Ashton's letter to WH thread.

Dawn


____________________________

Thanks Dawn,

Peter is quite eloquent and quite correct (I'm one of the offenders): "I'm sure thousands who come from the search engines here do also....too much in-fighting; too much battling with the disinformation and disruption agents; too much detailed analysis [though also important] without sometimes stepping back and looking at the larger picture and interconnections; and very inbred."

Yeah, the word internecine comes to mind, n'est ce pas (a few others, I'm sure)?

I'm turning over a new leaf...I won't even respond to the name callers who resent so much when one offers a different perspective.
JG

Edited by John Gillespie, 04 August 2006 - 07:24 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users