Cliff Varnell

Here's Z335: Please note that Jackie appears to be looking at her husband's face. Her hand went right to the spot at the right-rear where the wound has been described. Please note the curvature of her forearm, wrist, and hand at the right back of JFK's head. Here's Z337: Please note that Jackie managed to lift her elbow off the seat and straighten her arm/wrist/hand without pushing JFK's head forward. That indicates to me that her finger-tips were going into the wound. She described what we see in these frames thusly in her WC testimony, in a passage the WC deleted: Jackie K: The witness testimony and photographic record agree, with the exception of two (2) faked autopsy photos and the mysterious 6.5mm x-ray frag. According to your scenario, there wasn't one witness with his wits about himself in Dealey Plaza, Parkland and Bethesda -- or they were all liars. Witness bashing is de rigueur among Parlor Gamers.

Paul, I've responded to your second post first, and I'll be back Tue with my response to the first part. Happy New Year. Paul Rigby wrote: (quote on) and 2) your failure to take account of the much greater benefits to the US of Castro remaining in power. (quote off) I responded: (quote on) Paul, you write about "the US" is if it were a monolithic entity. I think you make a crucial mistake in not recognizing the diverse power centers within the American ruling elite. Eastern Establishment blue-bloods like McGeorge Bundy represented different interests than intel cowboys like Robert Maheu. (quote off) Paul Rigby: Sorry, Cliff, but I just don't buy. Geographical conceptions of power diversity seem to me superficial and ultimately untenable. Has real power in the US really changed locus to that degree? Cliff Varnell: Ask a half million recently slaughtered Iraqis, Paul. That is the result of a very real "geographical conception," the Neo-Con foreign policy forged in the boardrooms of the energy/munitions/illicit-drug companies/ops -- and I'm not talking about some mythical "unseen hand. The hands are all too well known -- Halliburton, Chevron-Texaco, Bechtel, Carlyle. There was NO push to invade Iraq outside of a relatively small group within the American ruling elite who allowed the attacks of Nine Eleven to manufacture US public consent to invade Iraq. The JFK plotters were attempting to use JFK's death for the same reason, only the target was Cuba. Paul Rigby: By second or third generation, aren't the descendants of the Cowboys educating their kids at the same schools and unis as the Yankees? Isn't there an elaborate series of organisations and get-togethers - from CFR meetings to Bohemian Grove - designed to prevent precisely the kind of regional fissiparousness you have set in stone? Cliff Varnell: "Fissiparousness" is an exaggeration. The various factions of the ruling elite have always worked together until their own agendas come into conflict. On Eleven Twenty Two the factions of the American ruling class didn't come into conflict until Oswald was captured. The Eastern WASPs killed the Castro-did-it scenario because they didn't want business with the Reds disrupted without "irrevocable" proof of Commie complicity. In 1963 guys like H. L. Hunt and J. Edgar Hoover thought the "Eastern Establishment" was Communist. You can produce all the generalities you want, Paul, but looking at the forces in play in 1963 defies your "set-in-stone" monolithic elite model. Paul Rigby: Hasn't that been something akin to a post-Civil War obsession with the Yankees? Cliff Varnell: Why would it be an obsession if it were not a systemic problem? You claim that the CFR and Bohemian Grove are "designed to prevent" such conflict, but you assume this preventative is always successful. No such assumption can be made. Cliff Varnell: Just because there were CIA efforts in installing Castro, that doesn't mean that people didn't change their minds after the deed was accomplished. Paul Rigby: Installing Castro was inherently a long-range gambit, for which a swift, public, rhetorical volte-face was essential. Cliff Varnell: And yet out of the maw of this monolithic American Ruling Elite, which installed Castro, came high-level secret plans to remove Castro...(?) You can't have it both ways, Paul. If the American ruling elite had decided on installing Castro as a long-time gambit, how is it that so much effort was put into removing Castro at the highest levels of the government? And explain how taking away the lucrative Cuban market -- 90 miles off the US shore -- was in anyone's business interests. But they didn't have a problem losing the Cuban market? Apples and oranges. The "reach" of the American ruling elite and the "CIA-Pentagon"are one and the same thing. That's how the American ruling elite manifests its "reach" -- with the military and intel services. The unilateral bombing of Moscow and Peking was the mad dream of rabid anti-Communists. In 1962-3 their focus was on Cuba, as I believe the Northwoods documents reveal. The Mormon CIA officers don't work for the same interests as the WASP blue-blood CIAofficers. They don't go to the same schools. They didn't go to the same churches. And during the Rockefeller v. Hughes battle over TWA these two wings of the CIA didn't go to the same holiday parties. Cliff Varnell: I do not buy the view that "the CIA" was, or is, a monolithic entity wherein all the players are on the same page. The only people who knew about it were the people involved. The first two people to jump off the Commies-did-it bandwagon were McGeorge Bundy and Averell Harriman. Vincent Salandria: Paul, when Oswald was captured, everything changed. The plotters lost control of thecover-up -- the blame-it-on-Castro scenario fell apart -- and Bundy and Harriman took over quarterbacking the "lone-nut" scenario. LBJ wasn't in the White House more than a few minutes before Harriman came over to nix all talk of Soviet complicity (Holland, THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION TAPES, pg 57.) Paul Rigby: And no, I don't think the analysts are synonymous with the cover-ops brigade. Real power lies with the latter: the former is more often than not little more than a retrospective fig-leaf. Cliff Varnell: Wasn't it the cover-ops brigade that pushed hardest for a Cuban invasion? I don't see how you can deny the historical fact of this. CV: Paul, have you read the following? THE LAST INVESTIGATION, by Gaeton Fonzi BREACH OF TRUST, by Gerald McKnight SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TALKED, by Larry Hancock Read those and come back and tell me how much scorn you have for the false-flag scenario. SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TALKED is a must-must read. Cliff Varnell: In 1963, I'll argue, there were factions in CIA loyal to different masters. The plotters were loyal to a POLICY, not an organization. Those people in CIA most devoted to this POLICY change conspired to kill Kennedy in a manner that would propel them toward their goal: invade Cuba. Why would we question the loyalty of any American NOT involved in the plot? Cliff Varnell: What united them was a desire to invade Cuba. To deny that such sentiment existed is fallacious, to put it politely. Paul Rigby: No, it isn't. To the contrary: it is logical and sustained by the evidence. After all, they didn't invade Cuba! Cliff Varnell: So Operation Mongoose, Operation Northwoods, and that huge JM/WAVE station were all figments of the imagination? It is inconvenient to your pet theory that this anti-Castro effort existed, therefore it did not exist? Because a plot fails, that precludes any possibility of such a plot? Plots only exist when they succeed, is that what you and Ashton are pushing?

Let's see, what would be easier? Fake two (2) back of the head photos...Or get dozens of people to lie and make sure each and every one of them maintain that lie for the rest of their lives? Gee, I dunno, what's easier....uh...

Paul, we can debate the "significance" of the Operation Northwoods documentsall day long, but it isn't going to change the fact that these EXIST. It is a fact that the Joint Chiefs in March of 1962 signed off on false-flag/ginned-intel plots against Castro. It is a fact that in August of 1964 the US military used the false-flag/ginned-intel Gulf of Tonkin Incident to ramp up US involvement in Vietnam. It is a fact that Neo-Con foreign policy is often based on ginned-intel, witness the current war in Iraq. Given the documentary and historical evidence of these false-flag/ginned-intel plots and operations, how on Earth can anyone heap "ridicule and scorn" on the notion that just such a false flag attack on Kennedy was possible? I don't see where you show any proof that the anti-Castro forces were any less committed to the overthrow of Castro merely because other factions in the American ruling elite desired a different result. Paul, you write about "the US" is if it were a monolithic entity. I think you make a crucial mistake in not recognizing the diverse power centers within the American ruling elite. Eastern Establishment blue-bloods like McGeorge Bundy represented different interests than intel cowboys like Robert Maheu. Just because there were CIA efforts in installing Castro, that doesn't mean that people didn't change their minds after the deed was accomplished. Again, you make the unsupported assumption that "the military" and "the CIA"were monolithic entities with a lock-step super-hawk policy. And how on earth does "CIA-Pentagon" reach differ in any respect from "the reach of the politico-corporate elite"? Could you expand on how "CIA-Pentagon reach" is divorced from the (usually cooperating but oft times competing) factions within the American ruling elite? Paul, have you read the following?THE LAST INVESTIGATION, by Gaeton Fonzi BREACH OF TRUST, by Gerald McKnight SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TALKED, by Larry Hancock Read those and come back and tell me how much scorn you have for the false-flag scenario. What united them was a desire to invade Cuba. To deny that such sentiment existed is fallacious, to put it politely.

I have added the emphasis to the following: James Bamford's BODY OF SECRETS pgs 89-90, emphasis added:

Paul, I fail to see where you discount the following: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/northwoods.html I do not buy the view that "the CIA" was, or is, a monolithic entity wherein all the players are on the same page. In 1963, I'll argue, there were factions in CIA loyal to different masters.

Photo, singular.The widely regarded HSCA "back wound" location is C7/T1. The Pat Speer/Anthony Marsh pet theory is T1. Pray tell, Pat, how does your analysis, or the conclusion about the wound location by the HSCA FPP, trump the clothing holes, the witness statements, and the official contemporaneous documents? And we've never seen the autopsy photos described by Rankin and Spencer. The HSCA FPP based their conclusion about the C7/T1 wound on a photo they deemed insufficient as evidence! They expressed no confidence in that upon which they drew their conclusion. They didn't have any confidence in Fox 5, but you do. You insist on mis-casting my argument. I singled out ONE photo -- Fox 5. As I said, the alteration/fakery in Fox 5 so obvious, it has a Keystone Kops quality. In order to get the photo with its "upward" trajectory to work they had to bend JFK over. People have been bending over for these big lies for a long time. Plan A was to pin the deed on Castro -- that didn't work out, so they had to improvise, and the fakery/alteration of ONE photo had to serve the purpose. Hey, the rubes have been buying this fraud for 40-odd years... Because your argument is inconvenient to the SBT we're supposed to accept it?The "low" location of the holes in the clothes render all this moot. Which is why you'll never acknowledge the facts of the case -- it renders your silly little analyses moot. Pat, you HAVE to deny the obvious fact of the T3 back wound -- just to keep your little Parlor Game alive (at least in your own head). We don't have to "convince" anyone of the failure of the SBT, all we have to do is show them the location of the holes in the clothes. It requires no further analysis, requires no corroboration other than the Dealey Plaza photos that show that JFK's jacket dropped an inch right before he was shot. By arguing the historical fact that JFK's back wound was at T3 I'm driving people away? One cannot begin to grasp the nature of the crime, nor the nature of the cover-up, without grasping the fact that JFK suffered a back wound in the vicinity of his third thoracic vertebra, and the wound was shallow. Any explanation of the crime and cover-up that does not account for this fact is obfuscationary. Yes. You steadfastly ignore the clothing evidence. You act like it doesn't exist. You've claimed that it was elevated 2+" -- re your pet theory -- but you can't support that in any way, so you act like it doesn't matter. Hogwash. He wrote that after seeing the wound. Here's what others said: Dr. John Ebersole attended the autopsy and told Dr. David Mantik in a 1992 interview that the back wound was at T-4. (Harrison Livingstone's KILLING THE TRUTH pg 721) Nurse Diana Bowron washed JFK's body at Parkland, and she told Livingstone the wound was "lower down on the back" than shown in the autopsy photos (KTT pg 188.) Autopsy photographer Floyd Reibe also claimed that the lower marking on the autopsy photo actually showed the back wound (KTT pg 721). Bethesda lab assisstant Jan Gail Rudnicki told Livingstone that he saw "what appeared to be an entry wound several inches down on the back." (HIGH TREASON 2, pg 206) Bethesda x-ray tech Edward Reed reported seeing a back wound "right between the scapula and the thoracic column." (KTT pg 720) James Curtis Jenkins, a lab tech who attended the autopsy, placed the back wound below the throat wound with this diagram for the HSCA: http://jfklancer.com/pub/md/jenkins.gif He graphically described it as even lower than he indicates in the diagram. Jenkins quoted in BEST EVIDENCE pg 713: (quote on) I remember looking inside the chest cavity and I could see the probe...through the pleura [the lining of the chest cavity]...You could actually see where it was making an indentation...where it was pushing the skin up...There was no entry into the chest cavity...it would have been no way that that could have exited in the front because it was then low in the chest cavity... somewhere around the junction of the descending aorta [the main artery carrying blood from the heart] or the bronchus in the lungs. (quote off) Chester H. Boyers was the chief Petty Officer in charge of the Pathology Department at Bethesda in November 1963. This is from Boyers signed affidavit: (quote on) Another wound was located near the right shoulder blade, more specifically just under the scapula and next to it. (quote off) That's consistent with T3 or lower. Secret Service Agent Glen Bennett reported, "I saw a shot hit the Boss about four inches down from the right shoulder." Secret Service Agent Clint Hill, who was at the autopsy, testified before the Warren Commission: (quote on) Yes, sir; I saw an opening in the back, about 6 inches below the neckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column. (quote off) This sample should carry the flavor of the variety of anatomical landmarks all these people used to describe the same thing -- T3. Because of the holes in the clothes. They had 4 different wound locations:(1) the actual wound at T3, a photo of which Rankin noted 2) and (3) the two seperate wound locations in the autopsy report locating the wound at just above the upper margin of the scapula (T2) and 13cm below the mastoid process (C7/T1) (4) the Rydberg drawing. By buying into your own pet theory about (3), Pat, you're perpetuating the cover-up. Notice he doesn;'t say "drawing" or "diagram" either. We'll get to what he actually said after this brief exposition... If a 4 year old draws a stick figure he might call it a "picture." But when adults use the word "picture" -- as in, "Hey mister, will you take our picture?" -- they're refering to a photgraph. Rankin: "the bullet entered below the shoulder blade to the right of the backbone." Rankin couldn't see the shoulder blade on the face sheet -- he could see it in the photograph. Many descriptions of the wound noted it just below the upper margin of the scapula -- so Rankin's observation was based on something he could see -- a wound right below the upper margin of the shoulder blade. Rankin refered to two anatomical landmarks that don't show up on the face sheet. The comment doesn't make sense applied to the face sheet.

Ashton, please do a little research before spouting your paranoid claptrap. If you read the executive sessions--never meant to be released to the public in part because they're so damaging to the official lies--you'll see that McCloy and Dulles discussed the autopsy photos with Warren and agreed that Warren should look at them with Humes. Warren subsequently admitted he saw them by himself. Specter subsequently admitted he got the SS to show him the back wound photo. There is no evidence whatsoever that either Dulles or McCloy saw the autopsy photos. If you have any, please cough it up. WC chief counsel J. Lee Rankin and Rep. Wade Boggs in the WC Executive Session of January 27th, 1964: (quote on, emphasis added) Rankin: Then there is a great range of material in regard to the wounds...ince we have the picture of where the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below the shoulder blade to the right of the backbone, which is below the place where the picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front, and the bullet, according to the autopsy, didn't strike any bone at all, that particular bullet, and go through. So...how could it turn... Boggs: I thought I read that bullet just went in a finger's length. (quote off) This is hard documentary evidence the WC had the autopsy photos. This is hard documentary evidence of an autopsy photo the world has never seen -- one that shows the back wound in the vicinity of T3, where the vast bulk of evidence places it. ..."Unseen" because he isn't paying attention. He's too busy trying to study 'n spin the evidence to match his pet theories. It's a Parlor Game. I hate to say it, Pat, but you do the exact same thing. The Fox 5 autopsy photo, upon which you base your research, was faked in the manner of the Keystone Kops. Set aside the fact that the holes in the clothes don't match the "back wound" location, the purported "wound" shows an abrasion collar consistent with a bullet that struck on an upward trajectory. The HSCA concluded Fox 5 was prima facie inadmissible in court, and disputed its evidentiary value -- all the while basing its conclusion of a C7/T1 back wound exclusively on this improperly produced, poor quality artifact lacking in a chain of possession! Pat, you've picked the weakest "evidence" in the case as primary. You proceed in your arguments as if the irrefutable evidence of the T3 back wound simply doesn't exist. The T3 back wound is impeccably corroborated, but because this evidence is inconvenient to your pet theory you simply ignore it. Ashton Gray implies that witnesses inconvenient to his Parlor Game are part of the dark forces arrayed against Kennedy. Pat Speer pretends that witness statements inconvenient to his Parlor Game don't exist. Of course he was. I attribute your conclusions otherwise to naivete. ...You're joking, right? I'm saying that LBJ was nothing but a puppet in the Kennedy assass and that the real evil culprits were those G16 civil servants like Richard Helms and James Angleton, and former civil servants like Allen Dulles, as well as civil servants such as Gen. Curtis LeMay, Gen. Edward Lansdale, David Atlee Phillips, and David Sanchez Morales -- all waiting for an opportunity to incite a US invasion of Cuba and taking their ONE chance by shooting Kennedy and pinning it on Castro. Ashton Gray illogically implies that the failure of this plot precludes the possibility of its existence. There is going to be pushback against this conclusion because of its implications about the use of false flag attacks in Neo-Con foreign policy. Neo-Cons don't want the JFK assassination placed in the context of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, the ginned intel behind the Iraq War, and the willingness of Dick Cheney to disarm America's air defense system on Nine Eleven. The JFK assassination was organized around a POLICY change, not around the individual agendas of those who worked to kill Kennedy. They all shared one goal: invade Cuba. They all had individual agendas incidental to the plot. For the plot to succeed there had to be "irrevocable proof" of Castro complicty. The captured Oswald deprived the plotters of this "irrevocable proof." Everything changed when Oswald was captured. The plotters lost control of the cover-up. Harriman and Bundy took over, Bundy calling the shots on the Oswald-as-lone-nut scenario while AF1 was still in the air, according to Vincent Salandria. The vast preponderance of evidence is so consistent with this conclusion that I regard it as obvious. Anyone who touts the authenticity of Fox 5 is an apologist, imo.

I love it how people cherry pick the evidence. What about the 15 people who described the back wound at T3, Pat? That is inconvenient to your T1 pet theory -- so they were delusional?

No, Pat, I'm not taking you to task for sticking up for the witnesses. You have, once again, attributed to me an argument I haven't made. I am a champion of the first day witnesses. I am taking you to task for exactly what I quoted you as saying: You're sticking up for the Warren Commission's wound conclusions, are you not? Aren't you expressing contempt for the should-be-oh-so-obvious fact that the Warren Commission covered up, deliberately sowed confusion, and otherwise acted as accessories after the fact of JFK's murder?

Thank you, Gary. The autopsy photos contradict. This "back of the head" Fox 5 photo stands as a proven fake. The above cannot be reconciled with the other autopsy photos or the witness statements; nor can the back wound location be reconciled with the holes in JFK's clothing + the Dealey Plaza photos that conclusively show that JFK's jacket dropped a good inch right before he was shot.

Yeah, there's the guy that lets you know that he's read three of four books on poker and is now an expert. He's convinced he knows poker and you don't. He brags about himself and radiates a know it all attitude that belittles the skills and abilities of others. He's cocksure, conceited, arrogant, and convinced he's the best player at the table. He's always talking, telling you how the game should be played and where you went wrong. He eagerly points out your mistakes, oblivious to his own. The players at the table that are easily intimidated may fall victim to his tactics. But the players that know the game see him for what he really is.....just another easy mark. Touche, Michael. They always go broke in the end...

This is a statement of stunning naivete.

Human nature is enduringly comic. The first people to cop a self-righteous attitude are also the first people to engage in slimey rhetorical tactics. At least, that's how it works on the Education Forum...

Ashton, If you have a couple of minutes I wonder if you could explain why the Parkland doctors immediately performed a tracheometry on a guy with gun wounds in his head but not his throat. I'd start a seperate thread on the issue, but I'd have to see more of the Gospel According to Ashton Gray.

....indeed....and I'll add my vote to Robert being one I'd put some weight on the thoughts of. I can 'buy' Dulles being in on the hit, and always had though he was...but he is the type not to dirty his hands...but just ask the 'stone be removed from his shoe'..... Thank you, Peter. The guy who WOULD get his hands dirty was Lansdale. Lansdale has been positively ID'd in Dealey Plaza by counter-insurgency legend Gen. Victor Krulak in this tramp photo, AFTER Oswald's arrest. http://www.geocities.com/quaneeri3/LastScan58.jpg http://www.ratical.org///ratville/JFK/USO/appD.html I'll argue that the ONLY way Lansdale would have exposed himself by appearing in Dealey Plaza was if something had gone WRONG. The patsy was captured alive, the blame Castroconspiracy Plan A scenario was killed, and like an quarterback calling an audible at the line, Lansdale was out fixing the patsy chain to leave only one link -- one Lee Harvey Oswald. I was supposed to be on the road an hour ago...peace and love, y'all...

Hi Lee Thanks for helping restore some civility to the thread...Terry brought up the subject of assassination-as-psyop. I doubt I am anywhere as well read on the subject as yourself (or Terry for that matter, for all I know). I was relating my emotional reaction to the events of Saturday and Sunday following the assassination. I was 8 and there was nothing on TV. I certainly didn't mean to denigrate any one's emotional response to the events of Friday the 22nd or Monday the 25th, or to imply that I took JFK's death lightly. In fact, my sister has reminded me (I'd forgotten this) that JFK died one week after my first personal pet, a turtle, was crushed under the couch. A week after JFK's death one of our favorite uncles died. My sister tells me I was wailing about all three deaths, but I don't remember. I personally don't buy the assassination-as-psyop scenario, but I thought it was interesting to consider. Anyhoo...As we say on the south side of Haight St. -- happy holidays y'all!

"Well, I think you're a Neo-Con shill givin' the Texas perps a pass, so there." If that's the case I sincerely apologize for the imprecision of my retort. The way you wrap your ugly little smears in high self-righteousness makes you kin to Karl Rove, exactly. I stand corrected.

To my fellow Forum members and the gentle reader at large: I am here to discuss the cover-up of the assassination of John Kennedy, the assassination itself, and its ramifications and implications that reverberate into the current day. I'd prefer a lively but polite exchange of views. Otherwise, it's just engaging in a flame-y Parlor Game, albeit a game I have enjoyed considerably in the past, I must admit. For all of those so inclined to bare their fangs at me over points of disagreement, may the following inventory of my life experience give you just one moment of pause going forward. I spent 20 years dealing No Limit Lo-Ball and Texas Hold'Em in northern San Mateo county CA poker houses, watching people use well-timed verbal jabs as a way of making a living. I spent the better part of nine years engaged in point-by-point debate on the subject at hand on usenet, and I've seen every rhetorical dodge, feint, slip, spin, gambit and bluff. I rarely stray into areas where I'm not confident of my command of the facts. Let's all play nice, okay? Otherwise, pack a lunch...

Terry, I think you could make a stronger argument that it was a psy-op designed for MINIMUM visual effect. By pre-empting all regular programming that weekend (Saturday and Sunday) it left people to stew in their grief with less to take their minds off it. I think Mr. Knight's recollections are telling because he doesn't include any memories of Saturday and Sunday.

Obviously, Mr. Knight didn't read what I wrote. I spoke of the events of the weekend -- Saturday and Sunday -- as regards to the VISUAL impact of the assassination. Terry claimed that the reason JFK was murdered in the manner he was because it was a psy-op designed for maximum visual effect. I say it was a murder designed to indict Castro and provide a rationale for the invasion of Cuba. Several members of this forum have done break-through research on this subject -- Larry Hancock and Rex Bradford. Gerald McKnight's must-read work on the WC cover-up BREACH OF TRUST also leads in this direction, as McKnight himself speculates. I hope this clarifies the context of the discussion. But please, continue... And how would those images have differed if Kennedy had died in his sleep?Please, Mr. Knight, perhaps you can explain why these powerful images would have been any less powerful if Kennedy had died of apparent "natural causes." Would our grief have been less? Would the shock to the nation been less? No. He had his brains blown out in a public square in a obviously conspiratorial manner because the plotters had more to their agenda than merely ending JFK's life, or so I'll argue. And how did the manner of his death affect the above? It has obviously escaped Mr. Knight's notice that the two days he is discussingare the Friday JFK was shot and the Monday he was buried -- and I specifically was refering to the weekend, which is, in The City where I live, on Saturday and Sunday. Maybe they do it differently where Mr. Knight lives. Are you claiming that that image was shown over and over and over on TV? No. That's not how they did it in those days. Maybe you are attributing the modern 24-hour news practice of showing the same images over and over to the events of Eleven Twenty Two. [ Except I wasn't talking about that afternoon or evening. And if you think the major networks broadcast gruesome images of Jackie's dress over and over for MAXIMUM EFFECT you've mis-remembered.

Terry, how can we coax you out of your shell? Ashton Ashton, care to explain why the Parkland docs immediately performed a trach on a guy with a big hole in the back of his head but no throat wound? Just curious...

"That's funny, the film of the assassination was suppresed for almost 12 years." You claimed it was done for maximum visual effect.The reason liberal Republicans whack a moderate Democratic President was to create maximum visual effect? You're making this up out of your own fevered imagination. "I guess Rockefeller/Morgan wanted to bring the nation to its knees in the MID-SEVENTIES...?" Yes, Neo-Con queen? Big deal. Ruby whacked Oswald and my old man said the US government was behind the whole thing. He was a Kennedy liberal from Arkansas, my Pop. Of course, we lived about 50 miles north of San Francisco and enjoyed a fresher view of world and national affairs than those poor souls back east who were kept in the dark and fed xxxx. It's true. When the MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE was pulled off the market after the Kennedy assassination, there was only one TV station in the country that broadcast it: KTVU Oakland. There's always been a freer flow of information in the San Francisco Bay Area. "Well, Rocky was VP by that time, so maybe these guys *are* that prescient..." To maximum visual effect.And what audio of the assassination are you refering to? This is a fight you picked. I made a collegial argument that a powerful cabal within the National Security state murdered Kennedy and for that you accused me of being a lamebrained Langley whore, or words to that effect. Well, I think you're a Neo-Con shill givin' the Texas perps a pass, so there. Yeah, we didn't have that problem out West. We're not given to such hysterical over-reaction...Given the tenor of your posts...I take it you've never recovered. They could have achieved the same result without the elaborate ambush. I deride your claim that the assassination was done to maximum visual effect. You're inventing things because you have a weak argument. Weak arguments always tend to ad hominem. My brother volunteered for 'Nam. My Pop told me never to ask him about it, it wasn't to be discussed, period. My first cousin didn't come back with all the same parts that he took over there. So the LAST thing I need from some stuck up New York clown is a xxxxING LECTURE ABOUT VIETNAM. I'm done with you.

It was well within the power of Rockefeller/Morgan to turn just one of Kennedy's doctors -- and JFK could have died in his sleep, or been incapacitated and forced to step down for health reasons. Instead they had his brains blown out right into the face of Eastern Establishment high society Queen Jackie Bouvier with flecks of skull and brain and blood and cranial fluid all over. Do you really think they'd put her -- and the nation! -- through that needlessly? The manner of JFK's execution strongly suggests that ending his life was not the primary motive, but rather as a means to the primary motive, which eventually failed: establishing a pre-text for the invasion of Cuba. ***************************************************** "Do you really think they'd put her -- and the nation! -- through that needlessly? The manner of JFK's execution strongly suggests that ending his life was not the primary motive, but rather as a means to the primary motive, which eventually failed: establishing a pre-text for the invasion of Cuba." It was a massive psy-ops ploy at bringing the citizenry to their knees, psychologically, and in the most traumatic, audio/visual way possible, for MAXIMUM EFFECT. That's funny, the film of the assassination was suppresed for almost 12 years. I guess Rockefeller/Morgan wanted to bring the nation to its knees in the MID-SEVENTIES...? Well, Rocky was VP by that time, so maybe these guys *are* that prescient... And what audio of the assassination are you refering to? Were you alive on 11/22/63, Terry? (Your photo indicates you were not). The only visual this 8 year old in Petaluma CA saw was a picture of Kennedy on the cover of the local newspaper. As I recall vividly, the one aspect of that weekend following the assassination that most sticks in my mind, is that there was nothing on television and I spent that weekend bored out of my mind. Oswald getting shot by Ruby -- maybe "they" thought that would traumatize the nation. Otherwise, that has to be the weakest psy-op ever attempted. Taking people's regularly scheduled entertainment away for a weekend led to the war in Vietnam?....not so much. The historical record indicates otherwise. From James Bamford's BODY OF SECRETS, pg 90: Terry, the events of this decade. coupled with this-decade's groundbreaking research by James Bamford, Larry Hancock, Gerald McKnight and Rex Bradford, (added to the prior writings and investigations of Gaeton Fonzi and Vincent Salandria) have lead me to conclude that the following is obvious: There's a straight line from Dealey Plaza to the Baghdad Green Zone, by way of the Gulf of Tonkin and Ground Zero. It's called "false flag." Staple of American foreign policy since the USS Maine blew its last bubble. East-based bankers aren't the only ones to play this game, hate to tell you.

Gary, Thank you very much for your collegial response. I prefer collegial discussions, much more productive, etc. Angleton was the key member within Kennedy's Catholic constituency in CIA -- they shared social circles. Losing Angleton sealed his fate, I'd speculate. After all, who would have been Oswald's ultimate boss at CIA if not Angleton at counter-intel? Also, we associate Angleton with an interesting word Ashton cited: mad. The manner in which Kennedy was killed indeed reflected something unhinged. I'll argue that the "unhinged" elements in the American ruling class in 1963 operated within the National Security state and not among the bean counters at the Fed. I also want to point out the sectarian fault lines within the CIA as it relates to the Y/C dichotomy. Robert Maheu's "Mormon mafia" CIA faction controlled the Hughes empire, and those dudes were Cowboys. Here's a passage from the memoirs of CIA case officer Joesph B Smith, PORTRAIT OF A COLD WARRIOR (pg 13), explaining why he quit in 1973 after 23 years with the CIA. Usually when you see a phrase like "CIA memoir" ya need yer back-up bullxxxx detector to be in as good a shape as yer main rig. But PORTRAIT OF A COLD WARRIOR managed to get published without being vetted by CIA -- something to do with Smith living in Mexico, if I recall correctly. That crack about Princeton was a direct slap at WASP blue-blood Richard Helms, key figure in CIA's covert action programs. Most CIA blue bloods went to Yale (like Bush) but Dickie Helms was the Princeton man. As Smith indicates, however, Clandestine Services was dominated by Catholics.