Benjamin Cole

Thanks for your comment. Even Robert Blakely has moved away from his "Mafia did it," and now points fingers at Del Valle. It may be the Mob was called in to put LOH down....

That's the guy. Yes, same day as David Ferrie. And as James DiEugenio has documented, Garrison had more spies than ernest investigators on his staff....

Thanks Chris. I do not claim my article is the definitive explanation, but it explains a lot. For example, if someone wanted to make Oswald the unknowing patsy, were they not afraid he might go down to the parade route and watch JFK from the street? And be photographed?

Just reading the Wikipedia page on Woolsey is daunting.

Thanks for your comment. Add on: If Oswald had been a loyal CIA asset for years, why frame him? A bit risky no? What if Oswald (after the assassination) begins to explain who he is? And does this hold water: There was an elaborate CIA plot to assassinate the President, unfolding over months, involving many dozens of participants including higher-ups, but CIA asset Oswald, in the very center of the plot, in the TSBD, had no clue what was going on?

Thanks for your comment. James DiEugenio is a top-drawer reporter and historian, and I do not disagree that the US military-foreign policy-globalist establishment was at odds with JFK, tactically and fundamentally. US globalists have always wanted the world open to multinationals, going back to the days of Smedley Butler. Freedom is a frumpy cousin----see the way Disney, Apple, the NBA, BlackRock, Tesla, WalMart and GM et al cozy up to Beijing. I differ with some in JFKA community in that I prefer explanations that have very few participants, pre-event. After the event, everyone fell in line with the leftie-loser-loner LOH explanation, including (shamefully) US media. In a few weeks, I will post an article here that presents an outline with very few pre-event participants. Interesting side note: Even within the JFKA community, everyone remembers Howard Brennan. But there was another assassination witness, often overlooked, who on Nov. 22 contemporaneously told Dallas sheriffs, indeed within moments of the shooting, that he had seen a man with a rifle shooting at JFK from the TSBD. That witness was Amos Lee Euins, a 15-year-old youth on hand to watch the motorcade. Euins described to the WC a bald man, of undetermined race, shooting at JFK from about the fifth-floor of the TSBD. Euins’ eyesight was fine. Late in his career, an awakening Robert Blakely said he thought Eladio del Valle had played a role in shooting the President. Del Valle was notably bald. Stay tuned.

My take is Woolsey is reading a palimpsest, or pentimento, of the Warren Report. The CIA planned a false flag, fake assassination attempt on JFK, to turn public opinion against Cuba/Russia and gin up a Cuba invasion Oswald, and intelligence sector asset, was willing participant in this plan. But someone learned of the false-flag fake assassination attempt, and piggy-backed on it make it real. Oswald fired twice, missing badly both times---the Tague shot perhaps. Someone else fired in earnest---knowing Oswald had already been set up as the patsy. A splinter group inside the CIA, or Cuban exiles, did the real shooting. I am working on an article to this effect, as it requires the fewest number of before-the-event conspirators. A lot fits together.

Well, they say the JFKA community has kooks in it. Maybe we do. But get this: "Lee Harvey Oswald was instructed by Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev to assassinate JFK, ex-CIA chief and former head of Romania's spy service claim in new book Lee Harvey Oswald defected to the USSR in 1959 before returning in 1961 A new book claims Oswald was a KGB agent and was told to assassinate Kennedy Author R. James Woolsey, who ran the CIA from 1993-1995, makes the claim" https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9289315/Lee-Harvey-Oswald-told-Soviet-leader-Nikita-Khrushchev-kill-JFK-ex-CIA-chief-claims.html As I recently said, for some reason, at this late date, it appears somebody in the CIA or intelligence is taking a fresh charge at undermining an understanding of the JFKA. This is a book by James Woolsey! So, Jack Ruby worked for the Russkies too?

I like that quote, and it probably expressed JFK's sentiments. But...the NYT attributes the quote to "one of the highest officials" in the JFK Administration, who then attributes the quote to JFK. There is an old joke that the deputy undersecretary on the Bolivia desk becomes a "senior official" when needed for an anonymous quote. A small matter, but perhaps we should say "a quote attributed to JFK."

Been a while since I read this excellent book. Worth recounting (if someone has a copy) is the way the establishment media handled a libel case against Mark Lane, as brought by E. Howard Hunt. As I recall, a member of the jury (the forewoman, second trial) basically said they believed Hunt was in Dallas or could not prove his whereabouts on Nov .22, which was the core of the dispute, but the media reported some other mish-mash. Worth rehashing, for a refresher on how the JFKA community was treated (and maybe still is).

Karl---I was surprised at TC's comments. Carlson has shown some real insights into the globalist-military industrial complex, and the contempt the US establishment has for the domestic employee class. It is a strange world when Fox become the voice of the "little guy" and CNN and MSNBC are aligned with the Big Tech Wall Street, Hollywood, and the globalists. (I am simplifying to make a point.) But then, out of the blue, TC comes out with these comments about Oswald, sounding like they were written in 1964. Well, Carlson can't be an expert on everything.

W.-- Thanks for your comment. I have not looked into the 9/11 situation, except to note that it led to just the sort of results you outline, all financed by us, the citizens and taxpayers. I am keeping an open mind.

I agree with you that there is a powerful and callous globalist class, unattached to any nation, city, neighborhood, ethnicity or culture. They are running most of US national government, media and academia. On small example: In the IMF, World Bank, and any number of globalist think tanks, the definition of family farms is "small and inefficient." In nation after nation, the globalists are pushing for the type of huge agribusiness that has taken over the US. You know what happens to generations of extended families that live on farms when economies of scale come to define the ag-business? They are obliterated. The book, "Trade Wars are Class Wars" by Michael Pettis is a must-read. It is not China vs. the US. It is the CCP, multinationals and American leadership against the employee classes of both nations. Well, I am rambling. Good luck out there. Better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness....but when it is raining, resolve can weaken....

Chris--Thanks for your comments. I am deep into another "JFK Assassination" phase, a recurring vice since the 1960s. I don't think I can handle any more plots, machinations and malfeasance. Add on: I am inclined to accept conspiracies that have very few participants, and I have written an article that "explains" the JFKA with only two-three conspirators---but a few more witting, semi-witting or unwitting accessories after the fact. If you have an explanation that offers a small confederacy pulling off 9/11...I will take a look. I am open-minded. Good luck out there, friend.

You raise some prime shortcomings of the Trump Administration's foreign policy. In regards to the "Russiagate" scenario, that seems to have turned into vapors. It reminds me of deciphering stories of political corruption in Latin America---the good guys are? And how do you know? Did not Biden halt an investigation into Burisma (his son on the Burisma board), as condition of a $1 billion grant? The storyline on the Biden interference in Ukraine sure smells bad. But side that aside. The much, much larger point: The multinational powers do not care much about Ukraine, Iran, or Yemen, or Somalia, or even climate change. No business there. The multinationals/globalists went after Trump on his China tariffs, and his other actions threatening business arrangements there. That was the River Rubicon. Apple has huge factories (through Foxconn) in China, WalMart imports from China, BlackRock (world's largest fund manager) has trillion-dollar-plus investment exposure to China, GM has a Buick factory there, Disney operates two theme parks and wants to sell movies there, and well, it would be impolite to mention the NBA. Even Tesla is in China now (as they could not export to China due to import barriers). The other spooky aspect is how much more powerful the multinationalists-globalists are today than in the era James DiEugenio so skillfully chronicles, the 1950s-60s. The international companies back then (1950-60s) were big and had influence, such as Freeport Sulphur, or the banana-fruit empires, and, of course, the oil companies. But on the national scale they were not overwhelming. They often had to operate through stealth, as DiEugenio so superbly relates. Apple's market-cap today is $2.24 trillion. That is trillion with a "T." Google's is $1.4 trillion. And they often own or control media companies. Disney owns ABC, for example. Apple, Disney et al wanted Trump out not because he bombed Somalia, but because he threatened their relationship with the CCP and China production facilities. Perhaps you know the sad tale about Disney and the Uighers. The one story tells of a huge encyclopedia. The NBA's blackout policy on all matters China...well, what does that tell you?

I can't seem to "get into" the 9/11 alternative versions of history. And I like alternative versions, given the establishment media. I completely agree the single, terrorist event of 9/11 as was used as a PR springboard into two fantastically expensive yet counterproductive wars, copious carnage, and like the war in SE Asia, has negative ramifications that continue to the present (mostly for the people living in the Mideast or SE Asia). Let alone, more domestic repression and police-statism. I ask you to ponder this, especially in the context of this forum, and the JFKA: James DiEugenio, dreadnought researcher, has broadly posited that JFK was assassinated largely due to his foreign policy positions. Certainly, a defensible view. Trump is no JFK, but what about Trump's foreign policy? The moment Trump applied tariffs on China, and suggested removing troops back to the US from various global outposts, the establishment media, and the globalist-national-security establishment, turned on Trump like rabid hyenas. This is the aspect of the Trump presidency that most resonates with the JFK Presidency. I am not defending Trump on his domestic policies, any more than LBJ's admirable record on civil rights then clears LBJ from responsibility for the holocaust he helped create in SE Asia. Trump is Trump, and LBJ was LBJ, and there is no dancing around it. But for this forum, the interesting story is what the establishment and establishment media did to Trump, and why. The globalists/multinationalists will not brook any tampering or threats to their control of the US foreign-policy military apparatus. A global guard service for multinationals. See JFK, see Trump. The Brian Sicknick story is a small example of the establishment media at work.

Add on: The New York Times Retracts the Story Asserting Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick was Killed by a Trump Supporter

Oh, P.U.! A great reporter is respectful but skeptical, fair but tenacious, and has a compulsion to learn and relate the truth. Long ago, a great reporter wrote, "When a newsman sits down at his typewriter, he has no friends." Long time ago. We know the scarce few early reporters on the JFK assassination, the Mark Lanes, the Josiah Thompsons, Dorothy Kilgallens, the Harold Weisbergs. James DiEugenio follows in the tradition. In contrast, Hugh Aynesworth was a fraud and worse, a stain on the profession and part of what undermines democracy.

Egads--at his late date is there, yet again, another government-corporate media effort to re-write JFK assassination history? I ask this because of Fox News' Feb. 3 telecast by their star commentator, Tucker Carlson. Out of the blue, Carlson revivifies the "Oswald was a true commie" theme and that left-wingers are defending Oswald, but only as a fellow leftie, and trying to blame the righties. The same public argument made in 1964, under CIA direction. https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-abuse-of-history-jfk-capitol-riot And now, the Litwin "books." James DiEugenio is infatigable, and if he can read the Litwin stuff, and respond, then DiEugenio is made of sterner stuff than I. Reading DiEugenio's response to Litwin, and some of the history therein, reminds me of an odd aside: I recently re-read the very unusual interview given by Richard Lipsey to the HCSA in 1978, unsealed at a later date. Lipsey was at the JFK autopsy. He contends that during the JFK autopsy, doctors Humes and Bowell (and possibly Finck) conclude JFK had been shot three times, all from the rear, including a higher and lower head shot. As some may know, the putative wound in the rear of JFK's head has moved higher or lower depending on who is doing the talking, migrating from the base of the skull to above the cowlick and then back, as needed. So Lipsey stated that the doctors thought there were two rear wounds to the head, or at least the upper head and then the upper neck/lower head, and a third wound below that. (The Lipsey interview is aggravating, as Lipsey appears earnest, but a jumbled talker.) Of course, the Zapruder film records only a single head shot---meaning if there were two head shots, they would have been near-simultaneous, and thus could not have been fired by one single-shot bolt action rifle. As many of you know, Humes burned his notes from the original autopsy, and surviving photographic and x-ray imagery might have been doctored (some say, was conclusively doctored).

OK--- “The insurrectionists killed a Capitol Police officer by striking him in the head with a fire extinguisher,” the House impeachment managers stated in their pretrial memo. " Indeed, this version seems to be the one most people accept. But--- ..... “According to one law enforcement official, medical examiners did not find signs that the officer sustained any blunt force trauma, so investigators believe that early reports that he was fatally struck by a fire extinguisher are not true,” CNN reported. BTW, I am not a Donk or 'Phant, and I do not support violence of any kind. But you realize, House managers presented a falsehood as a fact, and the establishment-media version of what happened to Brian Sicknick is that he died of blunt force trauma. I cannot fault readers and citizens for being leery, even deeply suspicious, of the establishment media. In the "old days," it was the loosely defined "left wing" that thought the establishment media lied. Today it is the "right wing." So?

I am not here to defend Trump. You are a doctor, so I will defer to you on medical matters. Here is a report that seems balanced on the cause of Sicknick's death, from some street reporters for a local TV station. All possibilities are open. https://www.kare11.com/article/news/national/who-killed-capitol-police-officer-brian-sicknick-capitol-riot/65-b374ba6e-12c4-4f58-aa95-adfd5b11d7ca My suspicion that Sicknick died of causes unrelated to the Capitol riot, or possibly in reaction to pepper spray, has to do with the reaction of his colleagues. In my hometown, if someone killed an LAPD officer, there was dread intent (to put it mildly) on revenge first and then justice. (I was a reporter in LA for a few decades). In contrast, Sicknick's brethren on the Capitol force are muted. Something doesn't ring right. There are not showing videos of suspects on TV, asking for IDs from citizens, for example. Sicknick's autopsy has not been released, and the body was cremated within days of death. He had complained not of head injuries, but being pepper-sprayed. It is puzzling that so many people dropped dead at the Capitol on that day. Here is a blurb: Lethal In Disguise: The Health Hazards Of Pepper Spray-Forbes Mar 16, 2016 "Some of the best information on the harms of OC (police pepper spray) comes from the ACLU. In their original report, "Pepper Spray Update: More Fatalities, More Questions” the ACLU found 26 deaths after OC spraying in just a two year period—one death per 600 times police used spray. They noted that death was more likely if the victim was also restrained. (The cause of death was not firmly linked to the OC and some of the victims had been using other drugs as well)." ---30--- Well, warping the news to fit a narrative is hardly new---after the JFK assassination, Life magazine reported JFK had a throat entry wound as he had turned around and faced the TSBD before being shot. Life magazine said they knew that, as they had viewed the Zapruder film (which the readers back then could not). On December 6, 1963, Life magazine published an article by Peter’s Mandel’s father, Paul Mandel, relating to the Kennedy assassination, which had taken place on November 22, 1963. In that article, Paul Mandel wrote the following: "The doctor said one bullet passed from back to front on the right side of the President’s head. But the other, the doctor reported, entered the President’s throat from the front and then lodged in his body. Since by this time the limousine was 50 yards past Oswald and the President’s back was turned almost directly to the sniper, it has been hard to understand how the bullet could enter the front of his throat. Hence the recurring guess that there was a second sniper somewhere else. But the 8mm film shows the President turning his body far around to the right as he waves to someone in the crowd. His throat is exposed – toward the sniper’s nest – just before he clutches it." That was Life magazine, one of the pillars of establishment journalism. Keep an open mind.

OK-- short story: Pat Tillman was a NFL player, quit to go to Afghanistan after 9/11. Big story. Then he gets killed in Afghanistan "fighting terrorists." Hero treatment by lead media. Later, truth out, it is revealed he was killed by friendly fire. Indeed, one autopsy said from a M-16 fired from about ten yards, two closely spaced shots to forehead. Some evidence destroyed. The truth is no less sad an ending, but not the PR ending. So now Brian Sicknick. No evidence he was struck by a fire extinguisher. Indeed, evidence of a fire extinguisher being thrown but not at Sicknick (I have seen to tape on Youtube). Sicknick was in a police office after the riot, texted his brother he had been pepper-gassed twice but was fine, and went to hospital where he had a stroke and died. The lead-media hero treatment again. Again, the truth is no less sad. But not the PR version. For me, this is not about Trump. It is about how the media plays the public.

No, I do not think a former President should be censored by corporate-owned media, or anybody for that matter. I prefer to err on the side of freedom of speech. Sure, it may "feel good" when it is Trump being censored...but where does this end? Who decides? A future US President who tries to curtail the US military-foreign policy complex and thus is run out of office and then erased? And sheesh, the 300 whackos who occupied the Capitol for a few hours....this was or is a threat? To who? To what? Sadly, the rioters who occupied the Capital looked like the marginalized, the unhappy, the unemployable, the disoriented, the unorganized----yes, uncharitably, "the rabble." Hey, I have been unemployed, I know how it feels. I spent a life shopping at 99-cent stores. No boo-hoo, but stresses can build up. Save for a lucky break here or there---who knows, maybe I would join the rabble. But 300 rabble do not pose a threat to the US, despite what you see on CNN. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/brian-stelter-cennsorship-harm-reduction And I ask again---is Brian Sicknick the new Pat Tillman?

Jeff Carter-- Right. This is a spooky situation. America's liberal intelligentsia has become a shoddy, puerile parody of the old Russian stooges. The Democratic Party and media apparatchicks represent Wall Street, Big Tech, the multinationals, and Hollywood, with poisonous, censorious ID politics window-dressing for cover. And the multinationals love doing business in China.

My view is the Facebooks, Googles, Twitters, YouTubes etc. have to make a decision: 1. Are the Facebooks, et al like the phone company, and thus not liable for what is said over the wires. I can plan and execute a violent bank robbery over the phone wires, or have the fringiest political view imaginable, and no one says the phone company should cut off my service. I can hold a conference call and hurl homophobic, racial and sexist slurs, and no one says my phone service should be cut off. 2. Or are the Facebooks et al like media companies, responsible for content, and they will and must curtail content as they see fit, but will also accept liability? Right now, the Facebooks et al are happily straddling the fence, censoring as they see fit and not liable for content. Very comfy. My own take is the Facebooks et at have become de facto Town Squares, and thus should not censor anything, other than overt hate speech intended to incite violence. If the Central American Association of Hermaphrodites Against IntraPersonal Rape have a website and following, so be it. What is spooky is the number of establishment "news" organizations, especially in the US cable business, gung ho for repressing alternative news sites. (Well, the alt-news sites are bleeding off ad dollars too.) Add on: Is Brian Sickman a replay of Pat Tillman?