Jump to content
The Education Forum

Jools Gallagher

Members
  • Content Count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Jools Gallagher

  • Rank
    Member
  1. Jools Gallagher

    Prouty quote

    Thanks Jim, some interesting comments. Do you think it is possible that anyone who is still involved in the cover up of the assasination would have individuals looking at sites such as this to perhaps maybe - see how far the researchers are getting?? Do you think there is a chance something sinister would be done if anyone was to reveal something particularly sensitive? Or do you think that these forums are dismissed are mere speculation and not taken as a serious threat to the maintance of the cover up?
  2. Jools Gallagher

    Prouty quote

    Indeed. Quote taken from his letter to Garrison.
  3. Jools Gallagher

    Prouty quote

    What do the researchers on this site say to this comment from Prouty, especially the bold bit? "The whole story of the POWER of the Cover-up comes down to a few points. There has never been a Grand Jury and trial in Texas. Without a trial there can be nothing. Without a trial it does no good for researchers to dig up data. It has no place to go and what the researchers reveal just helps make the cover-up tighter, or they eliminate that evidence and the researcher. " Thanks Jools
  4. Jools Gallagher

    The Most Difficult Assasination

    Thank you Ron, a very decent and plausible answer - I can buy into that, it certainty seems logical. Still leaves a few niggles in my understanding though. Oswald was set up as a patsy, but as you say when then plan to get him to Cuba failed - he was eliminated. Ruby shot Oswald in broad daylight, in public - knowing he we going to be caught, and sentenced to prison or worse. Therefore making Ruby part of the operation - as a hit man on Oswald so that he couldn't talk and reveal any info about his knowledge of the conspiracy. This I understand. However, if Ruby was willing to risk all and sacrifice his own life, or at least the quality of his future life in order to silence Oswald for his cause - then why wasn't the assassination itself carried out by a similar individual who would simply walk up as close as he could to the president and shoot until he hit - not caring if he got caught or shot, (like Ruby). Why the multiple gunmen, the cover up. This could have all been avoided. If the plan was to ensure that the shooter could be traced back to Castro - in order to invoke a Cuban invasion - then surely a fanatical pro-Castro individual could have been found or persuaded to perform this operation, in much the same was as fanatical Isamics are prepared to sacrifice everything for their cause today. The point of starting this whole topic was to help my understanding of why Dealy Plaza, why massive cover up, why allow all this room for error. I believe strongly in the conspiracy - but it just leaves so many gaps. If you consider the means and intelligence of the individuals involved - then you can guess that there must have been a better way to carry this out. You want to invoke a Cuban invasion, the killing of the president by someone with strong Castro - Communist ties would justify this, then I'm sure the collective minds of this operation could have achieved the desired result with a better thought out operation. The whole thing just seems sloppy. Touching up of photos, doctoring of autopsy photos, film footage altered, witnesses killed, government embarrassment. It just all seems so rough around the edges. This is what I can't understand about the whole thing.
  5. Jools Gallagher

    The Most Difficult Assasination

    Thank you for your responses. I still don't feel satisfied though. If the conspirators or "the forces of power" wanted to make a public statement, to send out a message saying - we have the power, connections and audacity to publicly execute the president of the United States and we can get away with it! Who was this message to? The public, the government, rival organisations? If it is the public - then remaining anonymous and not claiming the murder would not serve much purpose. Usually an act of terrorism if it is pre-meditated and carried out by a group - will be claimed, sending a message to everyone that they are serious and they can get to you - a boost for their cause whatever. Covering up the event so that no-one knows who is responsible, what message does this send? If it was a message to the government, a - we can get to you - situation, then why wouldn’t the government have made more effort to find and expel these conspirators and protect their seat of power? Gangland or organised crime messages are common also - let your rivals know you mean business - send out the message. So saying the "forces of power were sending out a message" of course is true in many respects, it was a horrific murder, a public execution - it disposed of a president. But to take such a terrific risk, the headshot was not a sure thing, there was so much scope for it to backfire, why choose the assassination this way? 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.' Who was this message being sent to? - And how can they benefit from this message if the "we" remain anonymous? The many political/Cuba/Mafia/Cold War motives for the assassination would surely be achieved by the removal of Kennedy, but a subtler, slicker, more calculated assassination with less scope for error would have achieved this also. Why take the risk??????
  6. Jools Gallagher

    Everybody loves a conspiracy

    Thank you for your responses. I still don't feel satisfied though. If the conspirators or "the forces of power" wanted to make a public statement, to send out a message saying - we have the power, connections and audacity to publicly execute the president of the United States and we can get away with it! Who was this message to? The public, the government, rival organisations? If it is the public - then remaining anonymous and not claiming the murder would not serve much purpose. Usually an act of terrorism if it is pre-meditated and carried out by a group - will be claimed, sending a message to everyone that they are serious and they can get to you - a boost for their cause whatever. Covering up the event so that no-one knows who is responsible, what message does this send? If it was a message to the government, a - we can get to you - situation, then why wouldn’t the government have made more effort to find and expel these conspirators and protect their seat of power? Gangland or organised crime messages are common also - let your rivals know you mean business - send out the message. So saying the "forces of power were sending out a message" of course is true in many respects, it was a horrific murder, a public execution - it disposed of a president. But to take such a terrific risk, the headshot was not a sure thing, there was so much scope for it to backfire, why choose the assassination this way? 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.' Who was this message being sent to? - And how can they benefit from this message if the "we" remain anonymous? The many political/Cuba/Mafia/Cold War motives for the assassination would surely be achieved by the removal of Kennedy, but a subtler, slicker, more calculated assassination with less scope for error would have achieved this also. Why take the risk?????? Forgive me if I am being naive here. I'm young and inexperienced!
  7. Jools Gallagher

    The Most Difficult Assasination

    In reading recent posts about the suspicious deaths involving members of the CIA, (William Colby), and various other witnesses to the events of the JFK assassination, it seems that the powers that be are more than capable of orchestrating hits on people and making it look like an accident, or some other kind of plausible, albeit untimely death. Why is it then that the assassination of JFK occurred in such an open forum, with masses of potential for it to go wrong, requiring an enormous cover up that could leave the USA government embarrassed for decades if exposed. This leading to the potential of multiple hits on witnesses who may know anything about the operation. Why was it not done as boat accident, a plane fault, poisoned pills even, (for which the idea was suggested for Castro). As I've read - there are so many better options to assassinate JFK, why would the conspirators, if they were members of such high society, opt for the most difficult assassination option?
  8. Jools Gallagher

    Everybody loves a conspiracy

    Again forgive my ignorance if this question has been asked before, and again it is devils advocate... In reading recent posts about the suspicious deaths involving members of the CIA, (William Colby), and various other witnesses to the events of the JFK assassination, it seems that the powers that be are more than capable of orchestrating hits on people and making it look like an accident, or some other kind of plausible, albeit untimely death. Why is it then that the assassination of JFK occurred in such an open forum, with masses of potential for it to go wrong, requiring an enormous cover up that could leave the USA government embarrassed for decades if exposed. This leading to the potential of multiple hits on witnesses who may know anything about the operation. Why was it not done as boat accident, a plane fault, poisoned pills even, (for which the idea was suggested for Castro). As I've read - there are so many better options to assassinate JFK, why would the conspirators, if they were members of such high society, opt for the most difficult assassination option?
  9. Jools Gallagher

    Everybody loves a conspiracy

    Thank you all for your interesting comments. John made a point : "Although most of us believe there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, we very much disagree about who was responsible". Being a novice and seeking the experience of the many knowledgeable contributors to this forum, it would help me greatly if one of the more experienced members who has read all of the different theories and ideas would be able to list in bullet points, the "key elements" of the assassination itself and the cover up that are universally, (within the researchers in this forum), agreed upon. Thanks Jools
  10. Jools Gallagher

    Everybody loves a conspiracy

    Before I get inundated with with posts from irate historians and researchers, utterly aghast that I could be suggesting that there was no conspiracy surrounding the assassination of JFK, let me first point out that I am a great player of devils advocate and will quite often argue the other side of topic even though I agree with the people I am arguing with. It makes for a more interesting and healthy debate. Being a relative newcomer to this topic, I cannot possibly compete with the wealth of knowledge that exists between the members of this forum, nor will I attempt to. I will however mention that as an open minded and objective participant in the study of the JFK assassination, I have tried to read as much as I can on both sides of the argument. I have watched on various web sites and indeed on this forum as members dispute minute details with each other, paraphrase testimonies and voice opinions as to why their theories are more valid than others. Whilst we all know there is simply too much evidence pointing towards a conspiracy for it not to be taken extremely seriously, could it also be that some people are taking things a bit too far. From reasonable and logical theories to some more far fetched and unlikely theories. The grassy knoll, the south knoll, the underpass, the curbside sewer, the CIA, the Mafia, the FBI, the Cubans, the Oil conglomerates, George Bush, Ronald McDonald and so on. I'm not discrediting any of these theories, (ok maybe Ronald McDonnald), but could it be that it is simply more interesting for there to be a complicated, highly covert, multi-layered, inter-woven tangled web of conspiracy? And that a simple answer or one of relative simplicity would never satisfy the appetites of theorists and people who enjoy researching and studying topics from infinite angles? I wonder if we were still not to yet know the explanation of a more recent assassination of a prominent figure like for example say, John Lennon, how many different and complicated multi-faceted theories would have been born surrounding his death? This is just a topic - not an opinion.... But can we be looking too deeply into things to find things that aren't really there?
  11. Jools Gallagher

    Jools Gallagher

    A 28 year old Investment Banker working in the city of London with a passion for travelling and a newly acquired interest in history. Firstly let me say what a real treasure it was to stumble upon your Spartacus website whilst trying to learn a bit about the Vietnam war recently. It was a detailed, yet concise account of the situation and I really learned a lot from it. From reading this I was directed to links about JFK and from here the assassination forum. For many years I have been fascinated by the assassination and the forum offers some unique insights by some very dedicated people. I look forward to reading it whenever I can. Like many I was seduced by the mysteries surrounding the life and death of JFK and have read many accounts, transcripts an opinions about the subject in recent years. Whilst I am still a newcomer to the subject and cannot offer much in the way of personal knowledge I hope that by learning and understanding the events before during and after the assassination I may be able to form my own objective opinions.
×