Greg Wagner Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 As most of you know, or have surmised from my postings, I'm of the opinion that John Kennedy's murder was orchestrated by our government. I tend to align with Shanet Clark's version of events as posted in his seminar piece, with perhaps some subtle differences or gray areas (I can sense Tim shaking his head- stop that!) Now, of course I think I'm right. However, shocking as this may sound, I have been wrong from time to time on an issue here or there, throughout my life. And if you were to question people such as my boss, girlfriend, parents, sister and certain friends, you'd soon begin to realize that the list of people who can corroborate this is long and distinguished. Still though, I submit that my stance on this case is not one of those issues. But, oh how I wish it was. It gives me no pleasure to accuse my government. I love my country. And at the risk of sounding like an ethnocentric American jerk, I think it's the greatest place in the world to live. When, in my view, the evidence and suggestive nature of so many of the circumstances surrounding 11/22/1963 forced me to conclude that my own government murdered President Kennedy, has lied to me about it ever since, and has most probably killed patriotic Americans who have known too much or gotten too close to the truth, I lost a lot more than a few nights' sleep over it. I now question, since I believe that our democratic system and my voice in representative government was silenced that day, of what has this nation been built upon since 1963? How can I trust that my leaders are democratically elected? How can I trust that I really do have a voice? How do I trust a president Carter, Reagan, Clinton, or Bush, when the lies and cover-up continue to this day? How can I have faith in my senator when he won't respond to my queries about this event? How can I ever buy the "national security" excuse when the government uses it to withhold so much information that we should have access to? How can I trust that the Patriot Act, which gives federal government agencies so much latitude to look into the affairs of law abiding private citizens, will be employed ethically? Upon this realization and with these questions banging against the inside of my skull, I lost way more than just a few nights' sleep. I lost the ability to believe that we are as free a people as we'd like to believe and that our democratic system of self-government gives me a voice. I lost the ability to have faith in the integrity of our system. I lost the view that my government was there to protect me, and I was forced to trade that view in for one that makes me fear it. So, no matter what you believe about the tragic events of November 1963, know that it offers no pride or pleasure to believe as I, and many like me, do. In fact, it breaks my heart. I would never be more happy than to wake up one day and find out that the unequivocal truth had been proven and that Tim Gratz, or Gerald Posner (don’t misconstrue- I’m certainly not lumping Tim in with that dolt, Posner) were right all along. I would never be so happy to be wrong. I would welcome that day with open arms. I would humbly and joyously accept the error of my ways and acquiesce to those who had been right all along. But to my great and enduring sadness, I just don't believe it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Turner Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 Yeah its a bitter pill to swallow My own eyes were opened in the mid eighties during the miners strike this was along & very bitter struggle which at times verged on civil war I was a union rep for N.U.P.E (health union) at the time we had supported the miners financially for the duration of the strike and around Xmas 84 I was asked to go to a pit in durham to present there officials with money toys for the kids etc any way to cut a long story short I was invited to go to the picket line the next day. in the 4 hours I spent there, I witnesed scenes of violence (police on miner) That stay with me to this day but imagine my surprise when watching the evening news to see miners attacking the police and the newscaster condeming "the brutal violence of the miners" and this on the bastion of truth ,B.B.C. There is nothing wrong in loving your country(I can get misty eyed abou this damp old place) But trusting those in power to exercise it for everyones benifit is just plain nieve (now where are those wmd's) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanet Clark Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 We are bigger men than the ones in power. We are critical and courageous, they are timid and docile. We speak up at great risk, they clam up for personal gain. We make sense, they make a mockery of reason. We probe for the truth, they deny, deny and classify. We speak out in dismay, they hide behind grim institutional walls. We think, they only react. We explore the world, they retreat from it's reality. We struggle, they sit in wealth and arrogant contempt. We see the truth, they are blinded by misplaced self-interest. We fight for Constitution and Reason, they consolidate power irrationally. We live in pride, they are shameless and neurotic in their denial. We look for explanations, they only hunt for excuses. We act in the tradition of patriots, they act in the tradition of treason. We are free, they are indoctrinated, trained to go along, co-opted & intimidated. We are people, and they are simply beasts with polyester suits and trophy wives. We are self actualized, they are programmed. Be brave, be courageous, be critical..... we are better Americans, better scholars, better thinkers, better people. ...And then Shanet climbed down from the mountain and went unto Galilee.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 (edited) As a patriotic American, I can relate to all the posts on this thread. In 2003, I marched in an anti-war rally which ended up outside the CNN building. I scanned the crowd, counted how many people there were in a given area, and multiplied that by how many similar areas were covered by people. As I remember it, I estimated there were 25,000 people at the rally. That night, despite the fact the street in front of its offices (Sunset Boulevard!) was closed down by the rally, CNN made scant mention of the rally and said that the crowd was only 5,000. It then hit me that they had their own agenda--to report the rally accurately would have been encouraging other groups to rally outside their building. That's a hard pill to swallow--that even the news agencies have their own agenda to which the pursuit of truth comes secondary--but it's good medicine that can help us understand the JFK Assassination. After reading thousands upon thousands of pages of testimony before the Warren Commission, the HSCA, and the Church Committee, and after reading thousands of pages of the official reports and executive session testimony, I've come to a conclusion that may be even scarier than the conclusion that the government killed Kennedy and lied about it. My conclusion is that the personalities of those in public service make them crave attention, but shy from controversy, and that they are therefore incapable of asking the hard questions and getting the real answers. The search for truth in the JFK assassination was from day one subordinate to LBJ's desire for domestic calm, and Warren's desire for international peace. The fear of upsetting the FBI and the CIA was such that neither organization felt pressured to come clean, and so neither ever did. The medical testimony, from day one, was structured to support the firing of three bullets, and three bullets only. Experts within the government certainly were aware of silencers, and yet neither the Warren Commission nor the HSCA spent one second or one dollar testing or discussing silencers. While the members of the WC and HSCA would probably say that this info was speculative and that its discussion endangered "National Security," the reality was that they were cowards who shied away from really doing their jobs. To me, the key moment was when Specter saw the back wound photo before the FBI re-enactment on May 24, 1964. Quite correctly, he ran the tests using the location of the wound in the photo. Based upon photos of the tests, however, it seems obvious that Specter would have to have concluded that the trajectories did not add up, although they came close enough to fudge. He was then faced with fighting the whole WC to try to find out what REALLY happened, or going along with the single-bullet theory, HIS theory, which he knew might not be true. He elected to pretend that the photos supported the doctors' recollection of the wounds, and allowed the Rydberg drawings, which he knew to be inaccurate, to be published inside the Warren Report. Congressman Ford, in his zeal to convince the American public that the single-bullet theory was correct and that Oswald acted alone, then compounded Specter's error by changing the descriptions of the back wound to read the back of the neck, in accordance with the inaccurate Rydberg drawings Specter knew to be incorrect. Still, Specter said nothing. In fact , he's stuck by his decision ever since, even after the HSCA acknowledged that the Rydberg drawings placed the back wound two inches higher than its actual location. I'm sure Specter, Ford, and Belin, and all the other defenders of the WC really wanted to believe it all added up; I don't believe they consciously lied; it's just that their sense of political survival was stronger than their sense of right and wrong and their self-proclaimed "passion for truth." The HSCA medical panel was similarly flawed, refusing to test what they had doubts about, insisting that everything added up when there were serious flaws in their analysis, and trusting only those experts who told them that Oswald created all the President's wounds. From my understanding of the character of these men, I have come to the realization that the assassins may have escaped prosecution not due to government complicity, but through institutional incompetence and inefficiency. I'm not sure which scenario is scarier. Edited February 19, 2005 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Richards Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 Pat, After I read your last post, I stood and loudly applauded until my wife told me to sit down and stop making a spectacle out of myself. That piece needs to be printed on a plaque and nailed to the front door of the White House. Brilliant stuff. James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 Pat, I cannot agree more with James' commendations of your post. I think it very accurately summarizes much of what was happening. I just want to add, though, that I think the CIA was concerned, to some extent appropriately I would think, with protecting its methods of operation. If the CIA was recording everyone going in to the Soviet and Cuban embassies in Mexico City, is it not likely it was doing the same thing with repect to Communist nation embassies in other countries? To the CIA, it was probably more important to protect the secrets of its surveillance operations than to solve the Kennedy assassination. The other thing that could have been going on, of course, was the great concern of US agencies that a full investigation would demonstrate that LHO had links to one or more U.S. agency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 Greg: This perhaps belongs on the other thread as well. As you know, the Secret Service is sworn to protect the life of the President, and the agents are willing to sacrifice their own lives in the process. I believe a Secret Service agent who was assigned to Clinton recently wrote a book very critical of Clinton. It may not be approporiate for a SS agent to reveal secrets he learned doing his job, but so be it. The point I want to make is that regardless of how much that SS agent may have detested Clinton's politics or personal life, or both, there is no doubt in my mind that that agent would have immediately sacrificed his life to protect Clinton's had the need arisen. IMO, if someone, regardless of his status in the government, had approached anyone in the Secret Service and said to him, "We're going to assassinate President Kennedy, and we need your help", rather than saying (as you seem to think someone in the Secret Service did) "What can we do to help?", instead the Secret Service officer would have immediately removed his service handgun and said, "Sir, you are under arresst!" And that would have happened if the person making the request was J. Edgar Hoover, Richard Helms, or even Vice-President Johnson Moreover, even if there was a rogue government agent who planned or participated in the assassination, why would the planner have risked exposure by trying to enlist the secret service in the plot, when there was no need for "security stripping" to kill Kennedy. Involving more and more people in the plot just doesn't make sense. Remember all it takes is one person with integritry to stop the operation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Wagner Posted February 18, 2005 Author Share Posted February 18, 2005 (edited) Greg:This perhaps belongs on the other thread as well. As you know, the Secret Service is sworn to protect the life of the President, and the agents are willing to sacrifice their own lives in the process. I believe a Secret Service agent who was assigned to Clinton recently wrote a book very critical of Clinton. It may not be approporiate for a SS agent to reveal secrets he learned doing his job, but so be it. The point I want to make is that regardless of how much that SS agent may have detested Clinton's politics or personal life, or both, there is no doubt in my mind that that agent would have immediately sacrificed his life to protect Clinton's had the need arisen. IMO, if someone, regardless of his status in the government, had approached anyone in the Secret Service and said to him, "We're going to assassinate President Kennedy, and we need your help", rather than saying (as you seem to think someone in the Secret Service did) "What can we do to help?", instead the Secret Service officer would have immediately removed his service handgun and said, "Sir, you are under arresst!" And that would have happened if the person making the request was J. Edgar Hoover, Richard Helms, or even Vice-President Johnson Moreover, even if there was a rogue government agent who planned or participated in the assassination, why would the planner have risked exposure by trying to enlist the secret service in the plot, when there was no need for "security stripping" to kill Kennedy. Involving more and more people in the plot just doesn't make sense. Remember all it takes is one person with integritry to stop the operation. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hi Tim- The foot soldiers did not need to know of the plot, but simply follow the orders of their superiors with regard to actions that day in Dallas. I never suggested that they were all "in on it". That would have eliminated the need for Emory Roberts to order Rybka off of the limo at Love Field and also for Roberts to order the agents in the follow-up car not too move during the shooting. But that is precisely why such orders were necessary and given. I agree with you that if the leadership would have attempted to tell the whole SS detail about the plot, it would have stopped right there. Too bad it didn't. But as you say, perhaps more appropo on another thread. Edited February 18, 2005 by Greg Wagner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted February 19, 2005 Share Posted February 19, 2005 (edited) My point, Greg, is that anyone in the Secret Service, including its leadership, would have immediately arrested any government official who seriously proposed the assassination of the president. Who in the Secret Service do you propose initiated these orders to strip or at least decrease security in Dallas? and why do you suppose he was willing to violate his oath and risk life in jail if not the death penalty by participating in an assassination? It just does not make sense. Moreover, as I said before, even if it WAS an internal coup, it was unnecessary for the plotters to risk exposure or leakage by involving the secret service. The more people witting of the plot, the more chance for exposure either before or after the fact. Edited February 19, 2005 by Tim Gratz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Wagner Posted February 19, 2005 Author Share Posted February 19, 2005 My point, Greg, is that anyone in the Secret Service, including its leadership, would have immediately arrested any government official who seriously proposed the assassination of the president.Who in the Secret Service do you propose initiated these orders to strip or at least decrease security in Dallas? and why do you suppose he was willing to violate his oath and risk life in jail if not the death penalty by participating in an assassination? It just does not make sense. Moreover, as I said before, even if it WAS an internal coup, it was unnecessary for the plotters to risk exposure or leakage by involving the secret service. The more people witting of the plot, the more chance for exposure either before or after the fact. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Tim- Good points and I'm glad you raise them. I have responded to this on the "French Connection" thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Perez Posted February 19, 2005 Share Posted February 19, 2005 Great discussion guys !!!!! But this is the way I look at things.. Might not be right but it makes sense to me. EVERYONE I don't care who you are has a price that their integrity is worth, for some it doesn't take much for others it takes the cost of making that man President of The United States. Now IMO there have been 2 people paid off with the Presidency 1st LBJ. And he isn't going to say anything after the payoff, remember he heard and saw the results of the shots in Dallas. So he know he has to hold the line. The 2nd Gerald Ford. His payoff was being made Vice President at the right time in history when it was almost guarenteed that Nixon was either going to be impeach or would be made to resign. Either way Ford was going to get his payoff. Ford wasn't going to talk because he had been a member of The Warren Commission and he already knew what had happened to John Kennedy in Dallas, and he didn't want that to happen to him. All the instigators of the plot had to do was find out what the price was for each individual for them to keep their mouths shut, and then be able to come up with the payoff. I believe with the exception of the 2 Presidents mentioned that each sitting President either just before they take office or immediately after they take office is taken into a room and shown the Zapruder film and it is explained to them that they are NOT in control and if they start thinking or acting like they are, then what happened to John Kennedy in Dallas could happen to them too. Their payoff was making it through the Presidency alive. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanet Clark Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 Great discussion guys !!!!! But this is the way I look at things.. Might not be right but it makes sense to me. EVERYONE I don't care who you are has a price that their integrity is worth, for some it doesn't take much for others it takes the cost of making that man President of The United States. Now IMO there have been 2 people paid off with the Presidency 1st LBJ. And he isn't going to say anything after the payoff, remember he heard and saw the results of the shots in Dallas. So he know he has to hold the line. The 2nd Gerald Ford. His payoff was being made Vice President at the right time in history when it was almost guarenteed that Nixon was either going to be impeach or would be made to resign. Either way Ford was going to get his payoff. Ford wasn't going to talk because he had been a member of The Warren Commission and he already knew what had happened to John Kennedy in Dallas, and he didn't want that to happen to him. All the instigators of the plot had to do was find out what the price was for each individual for them to keep their mouths shut, and then be able to come up with the payoff. I believe with the exception of the 2 Presidents mentioned that each sitting President either just before they take office or immediately after they take office is taken into a room and shown the Zapruder film and it is explained to them that they are NOT in control and if they start thinking or acting like they are, then what happened to John Kennedy in Dallas could happen to them too. Their payoff was making it through the Presidency alive. Mike <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Mike: I agree so much - esp. about the power of Gerald Ford to dictate to Nixon in 1974. Once Nigel Turner and Barr McClellan spoke out on the nature of the Johnson alliances, I have sought further evidence. John Simkins ( a British man, by the way, not even an American), seemed to have the most complete and up to date consensus gathered. But the focus on Johnson left other principles out of the loop and off the hook...Maxwell Taylor, Edgar Hoover and C.D. Dillon seemed to me to be involved in some sort of executive action sanction that involved all the federal agencies and also seemed to be approved at the highest levels EXCEPT for John and Robert Kenneddy, The P. and A.G....now when I read the account of Cord Meyer and James Angleton and Mary Meyers murder, I thought that is it, incapacity, sanction, removal of the executive by the other executives --- and this is shown to be the fact by the 25th amendment and the succession in August 1974.... The Warren Commission Report and the 25th Amendment are contemporary documents ! Thanks for posting \ Shanet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now