7 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

So who chooses the expert Posner? A press agent who makes sure his name comes up first? 

As Morley pointed out, Posner's book is 32 years old, at a time when there have been numerous information releases. 

Add on: Due to the Biden Administration's snuff job on the JFK Records Act, the public---including the media---can not confidently even today to say "We have the full record."

Any present-day review of the JFKA should start with the caveat, "There are 3,500 records pertaining to the JFK still blacked out by the public. After 60 years, the reasons for such a black-out are not compelling. A reasonable assumption is the Biden Administration has complied with the CIA in preventing the public from learning unsettling truths about the JFKA." 

The BBC report may have been done on a budget, all journalism is. But there are certain basics that do not take that much time. But, the BBC is an establishment publication. 

The BBC is known for its unrelenting woke reporting, which, curiously enough, has also become establishment reporting. 

Perhaps a parallel is the WaPo, which is woked out, but in decades and with hundreds of reporters in DC, has never broken ground on the JFKA---indeed has ridiculed the JFKA research community the whole time 

3 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

He tells Tucker Carlson it was November 22. Paul believes the CIA was directly responsible, and he knew the republic was lost when Allen Dulles was appointed to the WC.

Carlson says, "So the guy who was responsible for the murder was investigating the murder."

Ron Paul Tells Tucker Carlson the Exact Date There ‘Was a Coup and We Lost Our Government’ (msn.com)

 

 

 

RE--Interesting post. 

Again, it is only political outsiders who can speak the truth about the JFKA, or many other topics.

Perfidiousness appears necessary to belong to a major political party in the US. 

27 minutes ago, Ben Green said:

This smacks of someone at the BBC sensing an opportunity to get some clicks by picking a topic of modern history which is the subject of a high volume of search queries on Google.

They then would have realised how much actual legwork would go into seriously addressing the question “Who was behind JFK’s assassination?” so instead followed the path of least resistance by sticking to the 'official' version.

Poor journalism? Yes. 

Ignorant? Ditto.

Lazy journalism? No doubt.

But I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that the objective of the article wasn't anything more sinister.

I wonder. Here is the lead from the BBC story. 

You didn't read about it. 

But in late February, a Congressman issued a press release calling on President Biden to end his snuff job of the JFK Records, and open up the document to the public. 

Here it is: 

6 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

You sure do have me pegged wrong.

You see, I agree with most of what you claim about Donald Trump, except for the Russiagate flavored McCarthyism that is. I tracked Trump's 300% increase in Drone assassinations, his huge increases in the military industrial complex budget, and his enabling of the Saudis in Yemen and of the military buildup in Ukraine in real time. Trump was poison, but the CIA would not forgive him for taking the anticipated war in Syria away from them. And by the way, your Russiagate hoax explanation for Trump's motives on shutting down Timber Sycamore strikes me as profoundly absurd.

The truth is you are carrying water for a group of neocon criminals that are no better than the Trump criminals, and that the Russiagate hoopla has been thoroughly debunked now for a good long time.

I was a Bernie Sanders supporter when Hillary Clinton first unleashed the Russiagate hoax against Sanders in 2016, and then I was one of the few people who actually read the much-heralded and overblown report of the 27 intelligence agencies entitled 'Background to “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections”: The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution.' https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/3254229/ICA-2017-01.pdf 

That report was supposed to be about "Russian interference" in the 2016 election, but actually reading it revealed it to be just a silly pro-censorship attack on RT (Russian television).

The notion of "Russian interference" was no more than a Hillary Clinton inspired diversionary tactic intended to discredit the profoundly embarrassing DNC email scandal. Emails which Seymour Hersch later confirmed were downloaded directly from the DNC's server by Seth Rich, a DNC IT Tech, who was mysteriously murdered very soon thereafter. According to Seymour Hersh's high level FBI sources, the DNC emails, and evidence that Seth Rich transmitted said emails to Wikileaks were found on Rich's laptop which was confiscated by the FBI from his home on the night of his murder.

 

The FBI denied all of this of course, but more recently, in the context of civil litigation, it has come to light that the FBI does indeed possess Seth Rich's laptop, and instead of obeying the Court's order to turn over all of the laptop files to the plaintiff's attorney, the FBI has disobeyed the order, asking instead for an order that the files not be released for SIXTY-SIX YEARS!

 

I could go on and on about this for many more posts, providing documentation about everything from the fraudulent FBI applications the FBI made to the FISA Court for surveillance authorizations on Trump and associates based upon the Steele Dossier and other fraudulent materials, to the more recent disclosures that the Hillary Clinton campaign -- and not Russian hacking -- initially inspired and was behind all of this.

 

The following is a video from just last month by Glenn Greenwald and Aaron Matte going over the history of the Russiagate hoax, including the more recent disclosures:

 

What most surprises me is that you seem to be unaware that this has all been exposed as a hoax, and/or that you have somehow compartmentalized and rationalized away all of the disclosures that have debunked your Rachel Maddowesk belief system.

The saddest part about all of this is the McCarthyism type environment it has imposed upon U.S. Russian relations. It is as if you are unaware of the lessons about this that JFK lived for at the end of his life, and then was murdered for, back when the USSR was truly a monolithic power, rather than the current country it is with a GDP roughly equivalent to that of the State of California.

JFK would be highly ashamed and disappointed in this state of affairs, and you should be too...

 

Here is an interesting if lengthy interview with a lawyer who worked in the Nixon White House, Geoff Shepard. Mark Groubert, the co-host has run a series on the JFKA, some pretty good. 

Shepard was for decades (IMHO) simply a Nixon loyalist, but in his winter he seems more detached, less defensive of Nixon, and more curious who was really behind the Watergate break-in (the entire Watergate team was CIA, with the possible exception of G. Gordon Liddy), and the CIA-major party collusion to remove Nixon from office. 

The since departed author James Hougan wrote a book on the topic, "Secret Agenda: Watergate, Deep Throat, and the CIA."

I enjoy your commentary in the EF-JFKA very much.

You will likely face rude, even self-righteous accusations from some participants in the EF-JFKA for your views on Deep State putsches.

That's OK, goes with the territory. A forum is for expressing and appreciating views, and I look forward to yours. 

1 hour ago, Keven Hofeling said:

You sure do have me pegged wrong.

You see, I agree with most of what you claim about Donald Trump, except for the Russiagate flavored McCarthyism that is. I tracked Trump's 300% increase in Drone assassinations, his huge increases in the military industrial complex budget, and his enabling of the Saudis in Yemen and of the military buildup in Ukraine in real time. Trump was poison, but the CIA would not forgive him for taking the anticipated war in Syria away from them. And by the way, your Russiagate hoax explanation for Trump's motives on shutting down Timber Sycamore strikes me as profoundly absurd.

The truth is you are carrying water for a group of neocon criminals that are no better than the Trump criminals, and that the Russiagate hoopla has been thoroughly debunked now for a good long time.

I was a Bernie Sanders supporter when Hillary Clinton first unleashed the Russiagate hoax against Sanders in 2016, and then I was one of the few people who actually read the much-heralded and overblown report of the 27 intelligence agencies entitled 'Background to “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections”: The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution.' https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/3254229/ICA-2017-01.pdf 

That report was supposed to be about "Russian interference" in the 2016 election, but actually reading it revealed it to be just a silly pro-censorship attack on RT (Russian television).

The notion of "Russian interference" was no more than a Hillary Clinton inspired diversionary tactic intended to discredit the profoundly embarrassing DNC email scandal. Emails which Seymour Hersch later confirmed were downloaded directly from the DNC's server by Seth Rich, a DNC IT Tech, who was mysteriously murdered very soon thereafter. According to Seymour Hersh's high level FBI sources, the DNC emails, and evidence that Seth Rich transmitted said emails to Wikileaks were found on Rich's laptop which was confiscated by the FBI from his home on the night of his murder.

 

The FBI denied all of this of course, but more recently, in the context of civil litigation, it has come to light that the FBI does indeed possess Seth Rich's laptop, and instead of obeying the Court's order to turn over all of the laptop files to the plaintiff's attorney, the FBI has disobeyed the order, asking instead for an order that the files not be released for SIXTY-SIX YEARS!

 

I could go on and on about this for many more posts, providing documentation about everything from the fraudulent FBI applications the FBI made to the FISA Court for surveillance authorizations on Trump and associates based upon the Steele Dossier and other fraudulent materials, to the more recent disclosures that the Hillary Clinton campaign -- and not Russian hacking -- initially inspired and was behind all of this.

 

The following is a video from just last month by Glenn Greenwald and Aaron Matte going over the history of the Russiagate hoax, including the more recent disclosures:

 

What most surprises me is that you seem to be unaware that this has all been exposed as a hoax, and/or that you have somehow compartmentalized and rationalized away all of the disclosures that have debunked your Rachel Maddowesk belief system.

The saddest part about all of this is the McCarthyism type environment it has imposed upon U.S. Russian relations. It is as if you are unaware of the lessons about this that JFK lived for at the end of his life, and then was murdered for, back when the USSR was truly a monolithic power, rather than the current country it is with a GDP roughly equivalent to that of the State of California.

JFK would be highly ashamed and disappointed in this state of affairs, and you should be too...

 

KH--

You get it. 

When the globalist-national security state, aka Deep State, Shadow Government, goes after a President...you see a JFK, Nixon, Carter, Trump. 

That is distinct from the president's personal or professional qualities, and even from most of their policies. Trump was likely the most obvious of the four cases. 

Have you ever looked into Nixon, Kissinger, the Watergate-CIA saga, and the joint Chief of Staff spying on Nixon? (The Moorer-Radford Affair). 

Usually, the Deep State will align itself with one party and kompromat media, and send the torpedoes. 

I will send a link soon to a recent podcast that address this issue of Nixon. 

BTW, I thought Nixon should have been impeached and convicted for what he did in Laos alone. 

PS Don't tell anyone, but I agree with you on Russiagate and Jan. 6. reporting. 

 In some ways, this reminds me of the JFKA. 

When there is no aggressive, well-funded defense counsel or opposition, there is no full narrative of events. 

There is a curious parallel to the COVID-19 media dunce-hour.

Hard as it is to believe today, stories regarding the true origins of C19 were actually censored on social media and elsewhere, and establishment media referred to lab-leak explanations as "debunked conspiracy theories." 

Of course, it now appears likely (IMHO, all but certain) that C19 leaked from a China lab. Why establishment media and one major party went bananas about the true origins of C19...well, a lesson in there. 

Don't believe major media. Or either major party. 

6 hours ago, K K Lane said:

I agree that the political discussion in this thread is better suited for the Political Discussions forum.

But, I think Trump's alleged statement that prompted this thread is pertinent to this forum, and I would prefer folks go to the  Political Discussions forum to make their political comments.   I prefer the moderators a) discourage political discussion in this forum but b) NOT move threads that devolve into politics.   Can specific comments simply be deleted?

Trump's comments on why he did not release the JFK Records are fascinating snd germane, regardless on one's beliefs about Trump.

Pondering what has happened to a string of Presidents who crossed the intel state---JFK, Nixon, Carter, Trump---in also fascinating. 

This is separate from whether those Presidents were good and honorable or terrible weezebags. 

Some days, it never seems to get better. The establishment media is, well, the establishment, and narratives top truth. 

Here, solid JFK researcher Jefferson Morley (Substack) ponders the BBC's latest insult to the JFKA research community. 

	Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more The Latest From JFK Facts BBC on JFK: A Case of Journalistic Malpractice Autopsy of an erroneous anti-conspiracy theory JEFFERSON MORLEY MAR 19     READ IN APP   The latest factually flawed account of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, comes, not from Donald Trump (who falsely fingered Ted Cruz’s father) or from QAnon pilgrims to Dealey Plaza (who await the second coming of JFK Jr.), but from History Extra, “the official website for BBC History Magazine.”  If that sounds like a prestigious venue, well, it is. With a worldwide network of correspondents in the shrinking industry of journalism, I find the BBC is a credible news source on many, if not most, news stories.  But on the JFK assassination story, caveat emptor, buyer beware. It’s a familiar phenomenon. In 1992 another prestigious publication, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), weighed in on JFK’s assassination. Like the BBC, JAMA vouched for the U.S. government’s official story of a “lone gunman”— and made a big mistake. The JAMA editors simply assumed their preconceived notions about Nov. 22, 1963, were true and didn’t check their facts. They dismissed the dissenting account of one of the doctors who saw Kennedy’s wounds and disputed they were caused by one gunman. They asserted Dr. Charles Crenshaw was not even in Trauma Room One of Parkland Hospital in Dallas where JFK was treated.  Oops. The Warren Commission stated that Dr. Crenshaw was in the room. The premier journal of medicine in America paid the price for its intellectual malpractice: an out-of-court settlement rumored to run to six figures.  The BBC’s boo-boos in 2024 originate in a similar prejudice. They may not cost the flagship of British broadcasting a king’s ransom but they do cast doubt on the organization’s credibility, at least when it comes to the unsolved mystery of the JFK’s murder. A Peculiar Phrase “Who was behind JFK’s assassination?” History Extra asks, promising “the real history that challenges the conspiracy.”  I was struck by that singular phrase, “the conspiracy.” What is that phrase supposed to mean, I wondered? As a historian of the U.S intelligence community, I do not find the U.S. government’s “lone gunman” explanation of JFK’s assassination to be very credible. I have plenty of company in this belief: from Lyndon Johnson to Harry Truman to Jackie Kennedy, to Marina Oswald to Bob Dylan, to CIA officer Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, to solid majoritiesof Democratic, independent, and Republican voters today, there are millions of sane people who doubt official story. Does that mean that I (we) believe in “the conspiracy”? No, I do not believe in “the conspiracy,” whatever that vague phrase is supposed to imply about the JFK story. I prefer to stick to the known facts.  History Extra is not so attentive. Ignoring New Evidence The BBC historians do not mention revelations of the past year, such as the story of the CIA operations officer who read Lee Harvey Oswald’s mail for two years before the assassination (New York Times). Or the undercover officer who funded Oswald’s antagonists among anti-Castro Cubans in New Orleans and lied to Congress about it (New York Times.) Or the Dallas doctors who tried to save JFK’s life stating collectively that the president had been hit by gunfire from two different directions (Paramount+). The BBC seems unaware of — and certainly uninterested in — other developments in the JFK assassination story in recent years as reported by legacy news organizations such as Politico, Washington Post, and Fox News. The JFK story is discussed on new digital platforms such as American Exception and Breaking Points and on podcasts like Rob Reiner and Soledad O’Brien’s “Who Killed JFK?,” which has been downloaded seven million times since last November.  Selling Old Theories Instead of reporting new JFK facts, History Extra’s podcast “Conspiracy” revived one of the oldest JFK theories by calling on author Gerald Posner. A prolific investigative reporter, Posner published his JFK bestseller “Case Closed” in 1992, briskly restating the lone gunman scenario, debunking some implausible conspiracy theories while studiously ignoring or skating over a large body of contradictory evidence. Posner was a predictable choice for the BBC, and perhaps defensible, given his investigative reporting record. I admire Posner’s books on the Vatican and Big Pharma. They are comprehensive and critical. His JFK book is neither, and it is (ahem) 32 years old. In the digital age, that’s more than ancient.  “Case Closed” was published in the first term of President Bill Clinton; before the release of millions of pages of previously unseen assassination-related files to the National Archives; before disclosures about the CIA’s surveillance of Lee Harvey Oswald and the agency’s stonewalling of the House Select Committee on Assassinations; before the sworn testimony of medical personnel involved in JFK’s autopsy who said the photographic record of the autopsy had been culled. In short, “Case Closed” is badly outdated. Posner’s book has nothing to say about the wealth of new information about Kennedy’s presidency (and its violent end) that has emerged in recent years.  In 2013, Robert Dallek’s Atlantic article, “JFK vs. the Military,” illuminated the venomous hostility between the 35th president and the Joint Chiefs of Staff in JFK’s last years in office. In 1999, James Bamford’s “Body of Secrets”revealed Operation Northwoods, a policty conspiracy to overthrow the government of Cuba in 1963 by staging a spectacular attack on a U.S. target and falsely blaming the crime on Cuba. In their podcast, Reiner and O’Brien say Northwoods was the template for November 22. My 2017 biography of James Angleton, "The Ghost,” documented how the CIA counterintelligence chief surveilled accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald right up until the week before JFK was killed. My presentation at the National Press Club in December 2022 explained how undercover officer George Joannides approved publication of the first JFK conspiracy theory — linking Oswald and Castro as “the presumed assassins.” David Talbot’s bestseller “Brothers” showed Robert Kennedy never believed the official story of a lone gunman and suspected rogue CIA officers and organized crime figures. Tim Naftali and Aleksandr Fursenko’s “One Hell of a Gamble,” revealed that RFK and Jackie Kennedy told the Kremlin they believed JFK had been killed by a “domestic conspiracy.” Perhaps the most elegant statement of the case against the official theory is James Douglass’ “JFK and the Unspeakable,” which delved into why November 22 persists as a central irritant in the culture of American Exceptionalism.  On such sources and interpretations, Posner’s book is entirely silent, if not ignorant. And so, by extension, are the BBC, History Extra magazine, the “Conspiracy” podcast, and its listeners. Too bad. They are victims of an elementary journalistic fail — a failure to report relevant new facts.  What Jackie Thought Instead of consulting the historical record, History Extra recycles the official story that two shots came into Kennedy’s limousine, both fired from behind. This is their account. One bullet tore through the president’s neck, followed seconds later by a catastrophic shot to his head. As he slumped toward his terrified wife, Jackie, the car accelerated from the scene. JFK was pronounced dead at Parkland Memorial Hospital at 1 p.m.  What the BBC doesn’t say is that none of the people who lived through the hail of gunfire on Nov. 22, 1963, actually believed this scenario, which was first propounded by Warren Commission attorney Arlen Specter. Texas Gov. John Connally was seated in front of JFK on that fateful day. He rejected Specter’s theory, which posited that one bullet passed through JFK’s neck and then punctured Connally’s back, arm, and leg. Connally said, emphatically and repeatedly, that he and the president were hit in the back by two different bullets. He told the Washington Post in 1966, “there is my absolute knowledge that … one bullet caused the president’s first wound and that an entirely separate shot struck me. It is a certainty.” Connally’s wife, Nellie, seated next to her husband in the limousine, rejected the single bullet scenario. She told the Warren Commission the first shot hit the president and the second shot hit her husband. Jackie Kennedy, seated next to JFK, also disputed the single-bullet theory. In 2014, her biographer Barbara Leaming wrote in Vanity Fair about what the former First Lady thought of her husband’s murder.  In April 1964, Jackie read press reports that  the Warren Commission’s findings were expected to show that, contrary to much previous opinion, the first bullet had struck both the president and the governor and that the last of the three shots had gone wild. That certainly was not how Jackie remembered it [emphasis added]. She had been there. The mental pictures with which she continued to be inundated were so sharp and detailed.  What limousine driver William Greer thought is unknown to me. But Roy Kellerman, the Secret Service agent seated in the front passenger seat recalled, “a flurry of shells” came into the car. A “flurry” of shells implies more than two shots. And if there were more than two shots, Lee Harvey Oswald could not have fired them all.  What the Doctors Saw So none of the four people closest to the gunfire believed the single bullet theory. Of course, eyewitness testimony about gunfire is notoriously unreliable. What about the doctors at Parkland Hospital who tried to save JFK’s life a few minutes later? What did they see and say? The Dallas doctors only talked very reluctantly. Dr. Crenshaw was the first to write a book. Dr. Kemp Clark said he was warned by FBI agents not to talk about the entrance wound in the throat. The doctors who treated JFK that day became circumspect, which was appropriate in terms of medical ethics and self-preservation. But eventually they got together and talked. The 2023 Paramount+ documentary, “JFK: What the Doctors Saw,” gives their collective point of view for the first time. They didn’t buy the single bullet theory either. Posner’s response on X/Twitter was that he had interviewed two of the doctors 30 years ago, which is not exactly up-to-date information. On camera, the Dallas doctors agreed that JFK’s throat wound was not an exit wound, as the Warren Commission insisted. They saw it as an entrance wound, which led them to conclude that JFK had been attacked from the front, not just from behind. In other widely available interviews, Dr. Robert McClelland said he was “quite certain” that the president’s head wound was the result of a shot from the front, not the back.  How does the BBC treat this new evidence? By ignoring it. Warren Commission Dissenters But what about members of the Warren Commission? They were not fallible eyewitnesses. They had broader experience than the doctors and more time to reflect on the crime scene evidence. Did they believe the single bullet theory? Three of the commission’s seven members did not. Sen. John Sherman Cooper didn’t believe it. Rep. Hale Boggs didn’t believe it. Sen. Richard Russell didn’t believe it.  Most importantly, the man who appointed the Warren Commission didn’t believe it. Lyndon Johnson told an aide in 1967 that he thought JFK had been killed by his enemies and that the CIA might have been involved. LBJ told Walter Cronkite he did not believe Oswald acted alone. He repeated the notion to the Atlantic magazine. He even said on tape that he did not believe the single bullet theory. Which raises the question: Is the BBC ignorant of the new JFK facts? Or has it been misled? What the Witnesses Said Let us return to the scene of the crime.  History Extra quotes Posner: “A lot of people say there was a world-class assassin somewhere on the grassy knoll [in Dealey Plaza]. There are plenty of people … who came forward 10 and 15 years after the assassination to say ‘Oh, I saw a puff of smoke over there. I saw somebody running’ … those accounts don’t hold up, but still, they stick with a lot of people.”  Posner deftly leaves the impression with unsuspecting BBC listeners that it was only years later that people started saying a shot came from the grassy knoll area. That’s not true, as Posner knows full well. In fact, multiple witnesses came forward immediately to report they thought a gunshot had come from the grassy knoll area in front of the presidential limousine — a shot that could not have been fired by Oswald.  Wire service reporter Merriman Smith didn’t come forward 10 or 15 years later. He filed a news story to United Press International within an hour of the assassination. He wrote: "Some of the Secret Service agents thought the gunfire was from an automatic weapon fired to the right rear of the president's car, probably from a grassy knoll  to which police rushed. [emphasis added.]" Thus, it was Smith who coined the immortal phrase “grassy knoll.” You can’t say he was not a credible reporter. Smith won a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting that day.  Bystander Bill Newman, who was standing about 15 feet away from Kennedy when the fatal shot hit, didn’t wait a decade. In the photo below, you can see Newman and wife Gayle (in the red dress) ducking from the gunfire. Newman talked that same day to WFAA-TV about the origins of the gunfire behind where he and his wife stood — meaning the grassy knoll area. (Forty years later, I interviewed Newman. He was a plainspoken thoughtful man, still married to Gayle, and a grandfather of nine. His story of the gunfire going over his head had not changed a bit. He was an eminently credible witness.) Secret Service agent Paul Landis, riding in the car behind JFK’s limousine, filed his written account five days later. Landis said that the fatal shot came from “somewhere towards the front” of the motorcade. And testimony from other bystanders lends credence to their reports. At least 34 witnesses would come forward to say they thought a gunshot had been fired from the grassy knoll area. A more comprehensive survey found 52 witnesses who said they heard a shot from the front of JFK’s limousine. Twenty-one of them were law enforcement officers. So Posner’s misleading claim, promulgated by the BBC, that the belief in a shot from the grassy knoll only developed years later, is factually unfounded. That belief, we now known, originated with UPI reporter Merriman Smith within minutes of JFK’s murder. Do Facts Matter? So if, 1) the survivors in JFK’s limousine didn’t believe that one bullet wounded Kennedy and Connally; and 2) if the doctors who treated JFK didn’t believe his throat wound was an exit wound; and 3) if three members of the Warren Commission and the President himself didn’t believe the single bullet theory; and 4) if dozens of bystanders said a shot came from the front, then how can History Extra blithely assert that the case for Oswald’s sole guilt is indisputable and no one should doubt it?  It is indisputable that many sane people very close to the situation said they were certain as certain can be that the single bullet theory was not true. Any fair and accurate summary of the known evidence would cast doubt the BBC’s desired conclusion. The only way the BBC, History Extra and Posner can get around this body of evidence is to abandon the practice of journalism and ignore it entirely. Yet I find it hard to believe the professional editors and reporters of the BBC are entirely innocent of the new JFK evidence. They read the Times and the Post. They watch Chuck Todd, CBS News, and C-SPAN. They listen to Rob Reiner and Soledad O’Brien. They must know at least some of the new JFK facts that have emerged in the past two decades, much less in the past year. But they seems to have adopted a mental mechanism that enables them to exclude inconvenient evidence from their consideration and their JFK coverage and commentary. Others will say the editors and writers of the BBC (and other MSM outlets) are psyops agents, latter-day tools of Mockingbird, a CIA operation that recruited friendly journalists from the 1940s to at least the 1970s. Still others will claim the Russian disinformation operations have influenced American thinking about a JFK conspiracy, a persistent but factually dubious claim. I think the BBC and History Extra have succumbed to the blinders of a theory, in this case, an anti-conspiracy theory. Like the editors of JAMA back in 1992, they simply assume their preconceived notions about November 22 are true. They feel no need to consider any new evidence that is cited by people who don’t believe the official JFK story. Such people are “conspiracy theorists,” and therefore any information they cite is tainted and inadmissible.  The account of the late Dr. McClelland, for example, is not considered the expert opinion of a medical professional who saw JFK’s wounds at a distance of less than two feet. He’s not cited as a professional who was revered by colleagues and students as a teacher and a man of integrity. Instead, the BBC ignored his account as if he were not a far more qualified eyewitness than the likes of those post-facto theoreticians, Arlen Specter and Gerald Posner. And so we see how the BBC’s factually challenged anti-conspiracy theory serves as a form of willful naivete. It is the armor of historical ignorance, a psychological defense that enables people to protect themselves from the unsettling (and growing) body of evidence that calls into question the official story of JFK’s assassination. The anti-conspiracy theory is politically prudent and journalistically bankrupt.

5 hours ago, Nick Bartetzko said:

Having been to Dealey Plaza twice and having stood in each location, both sites were definitely deliberate diversions. I am not 100% convinced that shots were fired from the “Oswald window”. Can anyone answer whether or not there would be any detectible scent of gunpowder on the 6th floor when reporters and police got up there? How long could the scent of gunpowder linger inside if a rifle had been fired? 

There are numerous and apparently earnest eyewitness accounts of somebody---not clearly seen enough for an ID---pointing a rifle out of the TSBD/6 and firing. Amos Euins is one such witness, and he was heard contemporaneously giving his account to the DPD on the street under the TSBD. 

I think it is reasonable to say someone fired a rifle from the TSBD 6 as the motorcade passed by. 

That does not mean the true assassin worked from the TSBD 6, or fired a Mannlicher-Carcano. 

9 hours ago, Michael Kalin said:

Affirmative. Dallas '63 The First Deep State Revolt Against the White House.

See Section 3. Oswald, the CIA, and the Hunt for Popov’s Mole. Unfortunately there are no page numbers.

Warning -- heavy duty spook stuff -- postprandial ingestion is recommended, following a barium meal.

Barium but not barium acetate. 

BTW Google "murders and barium acetate."

If you want to murder, say, Guy Banister....

7 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

The shared feeling, hearing of the shots being different in sound and intensity was so consensus wide, one can't easily dismiss this fact as meaningless.

It would make so much sense to consider that having a loud gun firing shooter placed in a location that was so laughably visible by hundreds right below as a diversion for the real shooters would be such a simple and basic part of any shooter plan. 

Oswald, or whoever, picked a shooting perch out of a window in a 60 foot high building wall that was so easy to see by everyone in Dealey Plaza and illuminated by the noon time sun so brightly you might have to shade your eyes when looking straight up at it.

And sticking your gun out of the window while shooting so people below can actually see the barrel is just another fact that makes the whole scene so ridiculously improbable.

Oswald was careful to pick a hidden and dark of night shooting location when popping at Walker. And running after one missed shot? 

JB-

I contend the GK smoke-and-bang show was a diversion as well. And it worked. 

20 minutes ago, Mark Ulrik said:

I'd be surprised if Oswald didn't switch to the iron sights after the first shot. He probably also didn't struggle as much with the bolt action as Ventura did.

Well, maybe.

I wonder if LHO fired only once, as many earwitnesses described the second two, and rapid shots, as different in pitch and volume from the first shot. A few witnesses heard four shots.

Of course, there is possibility of simultaneous shots, shots that were heard simultaneously (even if not fired together, due to the speed of sound), and shots from weapons using silencers. 

As I have stated many times, for me (IMHO) JBC was struck at Z-295 and JFK at Z-313. 

Even LHO could not have worked the bolt that quickly. 

But, each to his own....

Maybe neither.

The LHO 201 file was on a CIA asset, of which there thousands in the US at the time, due to the Cuban exile/mercs situation. 

My guess is a group from CIA-Miami station did the JFKA deed, very tight-knit, perhaps even combat buddies. They felt betrayed by JFK for the BoP and later promises for a "Free Havana" on which JFK (they believed) failed to deliver. 

They hoodwinked LHO into participating in the JFKA. 

The CIA may have been planning to use LHO in a false flag op and have him disappear afterwards. Hence the biography build on LHO. 

But the CIA kept dozens of useful somewhat unhinged or oddball people on the string, who would do a deed that the CIA could then plausibly deny. After all, if a fellow like LHO or Richard Case Nagell or a David Ferrie says "I work for the CIA" they sound like a nut. 

BTW, it was John Newman that wrote the book on Popov's Mole. Did Peter Dale Scott also write a book? 

I will have to someday read Newman's vast tomes on the JFKA, which morph into treatises on the entire Cold War.  Newman sure has done a lot of serious research, and it is hard to dismiss anything he says. 

3 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

With regard to oligarchs, Gene Wheaton's account is instructive...

"...THE STRAIGHT STORY 

Wheaton: “The straight story is that there was a CIA fronted program to assassinate Castro and Carl (Jenkins) was in charge of training the Cubans in Miami to assassinate Castro and it was paid for by the CIA. They would go from Texas down to Mexico and take some convertibles and things into the hills and rocky areas and set watermelons up in the back seat and they had what they called a triangulation shooting team. And they were according to THEM, THEY were the ones that diverted the Castro funds and training for their own agenda to snuff Kennedy. It was a paid element and they were CIA people. They were training to assassinate Castro, but if you are trained to assassinate one person, you can use that training to assassinate anybody with that same training. That’s what they were using – the paid training program to get Castro. The Cubans, because of the imprisonment of those guys and JFK backing off at the last moment in support of the Bay of Pigs invasion, they were still angry, still are to this day. There was another clique above them that was worried about Kennedy not increasing the program for escalating the hostilities in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. So at an extremely high level, I’m talking about the political elite level, the shakers and movers of the country – the top guys in the Pentagon and White House, did not want Kennedy to shut down that war because they were just getting it warmed up and wanted to escalate.”..."

Part II - JFKcountercoup: PART II - PATHFINDER at JMWAVE and Dealey Plaza: https://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2018/10/part-ii-pathfinder-at-npic-and-dealey.html

______________

And I think that Trump created a similar problem for himself that accounts for his problems with the intelligence agencies and the CIA Operation Mockingbird media (Disclaimer: I am not a Trump fan, but find this analysis of his problems with "the deep state" compelling).

I have long been convinced that the rabid hostility of the U.S. national security state toward Donald J. Trump was the result of Trump shutting down the CIA Timber Sycamore operation in Syria shortly after he was elected president (Hillary Clinton had promised them a no-fly zone in Syria which would have led to a very dangerous confrontation with Russia). Professor Christian Parenti in this interview by Aaron Maté makes the most convincing case for this, brilliantly pointing out that Trump did so out of ineptitude and not due to any intent to further the cause of peace.

So the irony is that, unlike JFK, Trump was not conducting the anti-imperialist policy based upon anti-imperialist principles, but because he did not understand how U.S. imperialism works (rather, Trump was operating out of a short term everybody should pay their fair share philosophy).

THIS Is Why The Deep State Turned Against Trump -- https://youtu.be/sHRkTfB1prY

"Donald Trump’s presidency was a pipe dream for the wealthy and powerful, and yet the intelligence community still opposed him and even tried to cover up the Hunter Biden laptop story to prevent Trump from winning reelection. The reason is simply because Trump, while delivering on standard Republican issues domestically, was a wild card on foreign policy, frequently seeking to pull back from military deployments, railing against NATO and speaking the occasional truth about the rapaciousness of the U.S. empire.

Guest host Aaron Maté and John Jay College Economics Professor and investigative journalist Christian Parenti discuss the erratic foreign policy program that led the Deep State to turn against Trump."

______________
'Behind the Sudden Death of a $1 Billion Secret C.I.A. War in Syria' 

NEW YORK TIMES | By Mark Mazzetti, Adam Goldman and Michael S. Schmidt | Aug. 2, 2017 |  https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/world/middleeast/cia-syria-rebel-arm-train-trump.html

WASHINGTON — "The end came quickly for one of the costliest covert action programs in the history of the C.I.A.

During a White House briefing early last month, the C.I.A. director, Mike Pompeo, recommended to President Trump that he shut down a four-year-old effort to arm and train Syrian rebels. The president swiftly ended the program.

The rebel army was by then a shell, hollowed out by more than a year of bombing by Russian planes and confined to ever-shrinking patches of Syria that government troops had not reconquered. Critics in Congress had complained for years about the costs — more than $1 billion over the life of the program — and reports that some of the C.I.A.-supplied weapons had ended up in the hands of a rebel group tied to Al Qaeda further sapped political support for the program..."

______________

2011 STATEMENT OF WEBSTER TARPLEY THAT THE THEN NEW VIOLENCE IN SYRIA WAS AN INVASION BY FOREIGN COVERT FORCES, NOT A CIVIL WAR

The West is doing its best to destabilize the situation in Syria, author and journalist Webster Tarpley told RT. According to him, civilians have to deal with death squads and blind terrorism, which is typical of the CIA. "What average Syrians of all ethnic groups say about this is that they are being shot at by snipers.

People complained that there are terrorist snipers who are shooting at civilians, blind terrorism simply for the purpose of destabilizing the country. I would not call this civil war -- it is a very misleading term. What you are dealing with here are death squads, you are dealing with terror commandos; this is a typical CIA method. In this case it's a joint production of CIA, MI6, Mossad, it's got money coming from Saudi Arabia, The United Arab Emirates and Qatar," he explained.

He added that Syrian society is the most tolerant society in the Middle East, the one place where all kinds of people live together in remarkable harmony, Muslims and Christians of all kinds.

"This is a model of a peaceful coexistence of various ethnic groups. The US policy right now is to smash the Middle East according to ethnic lines," he added.

Assad's rule is increasingly being called illegitimate. But the US and Europe do not seem concerned that getting rid of the Syrian president could cause even more violence, as was seen in Egypt, believes Tarpley.

"After Libya becoming a bloodbath with 150.000 dead and now with Egypt showing what it was all along -- there was no revolution there, it was a complete failure and now people are beginning to understand that. Still, Mrs Clinton and Ms Rice (sic) continue to push this bankrupt model of the colour revolution, backed up by terrorist troops -- people from Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. There is a growing movement inside the Islamic community, which says 'We want reconciliation, we want law and order, and we want legality'," he said.'

'CIA, MI6 and Mossad Together against Syria' -- https://youtu.be/LUwBJltxZgY

 

KH-

In some ways I agree with this analysis of the Trump Presidency. The national security state, aka Deep State, Shadow Government was against Trump from even before he was elected, planting any number of articles and op-eds against him national media right through to the Hunter laptop and Jan. 6 story. 

Trump's intention to open up the JFK Records may have played a role in the hostility to him, but it was broader as well. 

However, this is a radioactive topic in the EF-JFKA. 

You and I might have civil discourse on this as an interesting example of how the Deep State that perped he JFKA has miantained it grip on DC ever since, putting torpedoes into Nixon, Carter and Trump. Perhaps we even disagree on some aspects of this version of events. Fine and dandy. 

Other people take partisan umbrage at such sentiments. 

So it goes. See you in "political discussions." I hear the hall-monitor footsteps....

Informative video, fun to watch, but not sure entirely "fair." Ventura uses a Mannlicher Carcano of the same make and model as LHO's (purported weapon), but with WWII wartime surplus there can be variations in quality. 

Also, Ventura tries to use the scope. It may be LHO dispensed with the scope for actual shooting.

This does not change my view that LHO likely only fired one shot, and that to miss intentionally. A re-boot of the Walker shooting. 

But, each to his own. 

1 hour ago, Keven Hofeling said:

With regard to oligarchs, Gene Wheaton's account is instructive...

"...THE STRAIGHT STORY 

Wheaton: “The straight story is that there was a CIA fronted program to assassinate Castro and Carl (Jenkins) was in charge of training the Cubans in Miami to assassinate Castro and it was paid for by the CIA. They would go from Texas down to Mexico and take some convertibles and things into the hills and rocky areas and set watermelons up in the back seat and they had what they called a triangulation shooting team. And they were according to THEM, THEY were the ones that diverted the Castro funds and training for their own agenda to snuff Kennedy. It was a paid element and they were CIA people. They were training to assassinate Castro, but if you are trained to assassinate one person, you can use that training to assassinate anybody with that same training. That’s what they were using – the paid training program to get Castro. The Cubans, because of the imprisonment of those guys and JFK backing off at the last moment in support of the Bay of Pigs invasion, they were still angry, still are to this day. There was another clique above them that was worried about Kennedy not increasing the program for escalating the hostilities in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. So at an extremely high level, I’m talking about the political elite level, the shakers and movers of the country – the top guys in the Pentagon and White House, did not want Kennedy to shut down that war because they were just getting it warmed up and wanted to escalate.”..."

Part II - JFKcountercoup: PART II - PATHFINDER at JMWAVE and Dealey Plaza: https://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2018/10/part-ii-pathfinder-at-npic-and-dealey.html

______________

And I think that Trump created a similar problem for himself that accounts for his problems with the intelligence agencies and the CIA Operation Mockingbird media (Disclaimer: I am not a Trump fan, but find this analysis of his problems with "the deep state" compelling).

I have long been convinced that the rabid hostility of the U.S. national security state toward Donald J. Trump was the result of Trump shutting down the CIA Timber Sycamore operation in Syria shortly after he was elected president (Hillary Clinton had promised them a no-fly zone in Syria which would have led to a very dangerous confrontation with Russia). Professor Christian Parenti in this interview by Aaron Maté makes the most convincing case for this, brilliantly pointing out that Trump did so out of ineptitude and not due to any intent to further the cause of peace.

So the irony is that, unlike JFK, Trump was not conducting the anti-imperialist policy based upon anti-imperialist principles, but because he did not understand how U.S. imperialism works (rather, Trump was operating out of a short term everybody should pay their fair share philosophy).

THIS Is Why The Deep State Turned Against Trump -- https://youtu.be/sHRkTfB1prY

"Donald Trump’s presidency was a pipe dream for the wealthy and powerful, and yet the intelligence community still opposed him and even tried to cover up the Hunter Biden laptop story to prevent Trump from winning reelection. The reason is simply because Trump, while delivering on standard Republican issues domestically, was a wild card on foreign policy, frequently seeking to pull back from military deployments, railing against NATO and speaking the occasional truth about the rapaciousness of the U.S. empire.

Guest host Aaron Maté and John Jay College Economics Professor and investigative journalist Christian Parenti discuss the erratic foreign policy program that led the Deep State to turn against Trump."

______________
'Behind the Sudden Death of a $1 Billion Secret C.I.A. War in Syria' 

NEW YORK TIMES | By Mark Mazzetti, Adam Goldman and Michael S. Schmidt | Aug. 2, 2017 |  https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/world/middleeast/cia-syria-rebel-arm-train-trump.html

WASHINGTON — "The end came quickly for one of the costliest covert action programs in the history of the C.I.A.

During a White House briefing early last month, the C.I.A. director, Mike Pompeo, recommended to President Trump that he shut down a four-year-old effort to arm and train Syrian rebels. The president swiftly ended the program.

The rebel army was by then a shell, hollowed out by more than a year of bombing by Russian planes and confined to ever-shrinking patches of Syria that government troops had not reconquered. Critics in Congress had complained for years about the costs — more than $1 billion over the life of the program — and reports that some of the C.I.A.-supplied weapons had ended up in the hands of a rebel group tied to Al Qaeda further sapped political support for the program..."

______________

2011 STATEMENT OF WEBSTER TARPLEY THAT THE THEN NEW VIOLENCE IN SYRIA WAS AN INVASION BY FOREIGN COVERT FORCES, NOT A CIVIL WAR

The West is doing its best to destabilize the situation in Syria, author and journalist Webster Tarpley told RT. According to him, civilians have to deal with death squads and blind terrorism, which is typical of the CIA. "What average Syrians of all ethnic groups say about this is that they are being shot at by snipers.

People complained that there are terrorist snipers who are shooting at civilians, blind terrorism simply for the purpose of destabilizing the country. I would not call this civil war -- it is a very misleading term. What you are dealing with here are death squads, you are dealing with terror commandos; this is a typical CIA method. In this case it's a joint production of CIA, MI6, Mossad, it's got money coming from Saudi Arabia, The United Arab Emirates and Qatar," he explained.

He added that Syrian society is the most tolerant society in the Middle East, the one place where all kinds of people live together in remarkable harmony, Muslims and Christians of all kinds.

"This is a model of a peaceful coexistence of various ethnic groups. The US policy right now is to smash the Middle East according to ethnic lines," he added.

Assad's rule is increasingly being called illegitimate. But the US and Europe do not seem concerned that getting rid of the Syrian president could cause even more violence, as was seen in Egypt, believes Tarpley.

"After Libya becoming a bloodbath with 150.000 dead and now with Egypt showing what it was all along -- there was no revolution there, it was a complete failure and now people are beginning to understand that. Still, Mrs Clinton and Ms Rice (sic) continue to push this bankrupt model of the colour revolution, backed up by terrorist troops -- people from Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. There is a growing movement inside the Islamic community, which says 'We want reconciliation, we want law and order, and we want legality'," he said.'

'CIA, MI6 and Mossad Together against Syria' -- https://youtu.be/LUwBJltxZgY

 

I like Gene Wheaton and have viewed the video of him a few times, and reporting on him by Larry Hancock and Dvid Boylston.

As I say, perhaps the JFKA plot went to higher levels than the actual perps. Even that is separate from whether oligarchs or globalists were involved. At times, there are schisms between globalists and the national security state (see now, the national security state is very skeptical of Red China, but globalists are all in on doing business with Beijing). 

17 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

I agree with you about JMWAVE as being involved with the unit that carried out the assassination. I just think that Gladio was involved in the origins of these sorts of organizations and their operational methodologies (e.g., false flag operations, proxie armies, torture, assassination, etc.).

 

'PATHFINDER - PARTS 1 - 5 THE PLAN TO KILL CASTRO REDIRECTED TO JFK AT DALLAS'

William Kelly | JFKcountercoup | Saturday, December 22, 2018 | https://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2018/12/pathfinder-parts-1-5-plan-to-kill.html

https://www.facebook.com/groups/politicalassassinationsresearchgroup/posts/6051134211609264/

"...As Bill Turner put it, “the mechanism was in place” to kill Castro, and they just switched targets, and instead of shooting Castro they redirected their fire to JFK at Dealey Plaza...."

"...[W]e have now narrowed down the covert operational plans to kill Castro to a few – including Pathfinder that may have been the specific plan that was redirected to “snuff” JFK in Dallas. If it wasn't Pathfinder, it was one very much like it. Now we will soon know the names of the shooters – the five first-class Cuban mechanic-snipers who were paid and trained by the CIA to kill Castro but one or two of whom shot JFK in the head instead...."

"...“I took high powered rifles with scopes to Cuba,” Eugenio Martinez said, “and they weren’t going to be used to hunt rabbits.” “Chi Chi” Quintero was a shooter, said Wheaton, who also names five or six other Cubans who were on that team, that maritime crew of anti-Castro Cuban commandos who were paid and trained to kill Castro. But when that mission was scrubbed – “disapproved” by “higher authority,” and they learned of the JFK- Castro backchannel negotiations at the UN (from Henry Cabot Lodge), they redirected the Pathfinder target to JFK at Dealey Plaza. And considered themselves patriots for doing so...."

"...The U.S. Army Rangers are called Pathfinders, and two U.S. Army Ranger Captains - Bradley Ayers and Edward Roderick were assigned to the CIA by USMC General "Brut" Krulak to train the Cuban Commandos at JMWAVE. While Ayers trained the Cubans in small boat maneuvering at Pirate's Lair, Roderick trained the snipers at Point Mary, off Key Largo. The original anti-Castro Cuban Pathfinders were the best of the lot sent to Guatemala to train for the Bay of Pigs, and were commanded by US Marine Captain Carl Jenkins, whose specialty was infiltration and exfiltration of commandos while John "I.F" Harper trained the Cubans in explosives and sniper tactics...."

____________

SANTO TRAFFICANTE REVEALED MUCH IN CONFIDENCE TO HIS LAWYERS...

Listen to this video about Santo Trafficante confidentially providing the details about the origin of the S-Force to his legal counsel under the protection of attorney/client privilege. Trafficante did not do so to seek publicity or sell books. He only did so in the utmost confidentiality, expecting that it would never be divulged to anybody. Thus, the testimony is highly reliable. I've cued the video to the relevant segment for you.
----------------------------------------------------------
RE: THE S-FORCE

In 1960, once VP Richard Nixon came to believe he was going to win the presidential election and decided to send a hit squad after Castro, he called upon Howard Hughes on whose behalf Robert Mayheu contacted Johnny Roselli who contacted Santo Trafficante (because Trafficante was the Don over Cuba). Trafficante insisted upon proof that VP Nixon was authorizing it, so Nixon sent the CIA Chief of Security to a meeting with Trafficante and Roselli to confirm. They then assembled a 15 man team made up of anti-Castro Cuban mercenaries, Italian organized crime assassins (who had worked for Trafficante in Cuba), CIA operatives and special forces operators. This "S-Force" was funded by a skim off Las Vegas casinos, and was trained on U.S. military bases and Clint Murchison's ranch in Mexico to conduct triangulated crossfire ambush assassinations, and they were deployed to conduct such an operation against the President of the United States during the weekend of November 22, 1963.

This information is primarily derived from what attorney Daniel Sheehan has divulged about the attorney/client privileged communications between James McCord and Santo Trafficante and F. Lee Bailey while Bailey was representing them on CIA retainer during the period of the Watergate Hearings.

Video is queued to 45:39 where Professor Sheehan describes Santo Trafficante's confidential attorney-client privileged explanation of the relationship between Operation 40 and the "S-Force" which was originally constituted under the auspices of VP Nixon to off Castro, but was instead ultimately deployed to assassinate President Kennedy:

https://youtu.be/ObB6IUtAk_0?t=2739

Also see detailed account of the origins of the S-Force as presented in Daniel Sheehan's autobiography via the following link: https://www.facebook.com/groups/politicalassassinationsresearchgroup/posts/6787297377992940/

 

Fascinating material. 

I agree, the CIA-Miami crowd are suspects, perhaps prime suspects, in the JFKA, and they were all CIA assets as was LHO (IMHO).

Post-JFKA, this had to be covered up by any means necessary. 

However, this neither confirms nor refutes that idea that higher-ups or oligarchs were involved.

I remain dubious of JFKA explanations that have too many pre-event witting participants or observers. 

9 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Spotters and facilitators. How can anyone doubt the broadness of the conspiracy? 

PB--

Well, alleged spotters and facilitators. 

These IDs are a bit subjective. 

Even so, if a group of, say, seven guys from Miami-CIA-Cuban-exiles-mercs community did the deed...that does not prove a conspiracy that runs all through US oligarchs and upper reaches of government. 

I happen to suspect two or three guys from Miami.  

BTW, I have plenty of poor sentiments regarding globalist US foreign-miitary-trade-immigration policies in the post-war era. 

DC is a global capital for commerce, and craven domestic elites. Under both parties. 

That being true (IMHO) does not prove JFK was assassinated by those elites (who are far more powerful today than in the 1960s).  

9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

The problem is, there is not much to be said about the topic of the thread. And so, instead, members talk about politics.

That's the problem with contemporary political threads.

BTW, the reason I haven't moved the thread is because members have been careful not to say negative things about the opposite party and their politicians. Also, admittedly, I find the comments interesting to read.

And -- as we all know -- the comments will stop being posted if the thread is moved to Political Discussions.

 

SL-

But imagine this: We have a serious candidate for the Presidency who says he believes the JFKA was a state action. Then, that candidate selects Jesse Ventura as his veep, also a reasonably knowledgable JFKA researcher. 

We can have solid hopes the JFK Records will be opened up from this pair of candidates. 

That is interesting and topical for the EF-JFKA.

But!... we cannot discuss this possible turn of events in the EF-JFKA, as some accuse this pair of candidates, and mere spectators as myself (I have zero political influence anywhere) of being "spoilers" for one of the major political parties. 

(In fact polling shows RFK2 drawing potential support from both parties, and polling lately has been unreliable anyway. BTW, like Paul Brancato, I have lost faith in both political parties.)

4

6 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

 

RE: The origins of the post WWII SS in America and abroad...

https://www.facebook.com/groups/politicalassassinationsresearchgroup/posts/2442248799164508/

"The Devil is in the details. And once you begin to get in to the details of Operation Paperclip one is quickly forced to conclude that the version of the Operation Paperclip narrative which focuses on German rocket scientists is the sterilized version of the story, carefully crafted by the intelligence resources of the American power elite to obscure the genuinely scandalous elements of the story (or in other words, a "limited hangout"). "Operation Overcast", the twin operation of Paperclip, remains hidden in plain sight, and once you become familiar with the details and cast of characters and realize that the story of Operation Overcast is the story of the creation of the hydra-beast that President Kennedy was executed for attempting to dismantle, the sensitivity of this particular facet of the hidden history of the U.S. national security state becomes quite obvious. Attorney Daniel Sheehan does an excellent job presenting an overview of the story (beginning at 59m35s of the following video lecture) which is basically that the American oligarchs brokered a deal with Reinhardt Gehlen (the Third Reich Waffen SS anti-Soviet intelligence chief) by which an anti-communist special warfare academy would be created (and placed under the command of Major General Otto Skorzeny, former commander of the Waffen SS Special Forces) beginning in 1946 to train 100 men per year for placement in key positions in all allied intelligence agencies (especially the newly constituted CIA and Israeli Mossad). 1200 such key operatives were trained in said special warfare academy between 1946 and 1965, profoundly influencing the tactics and strategies of these intelligence agencies, from the use of torture and death squads, to the deployment of mercenary regime change forces such as Isis. Among the very interesting and particularly telling facts is that the key translators between the American oligarchs and Generals Gehlen and Skorzeny were Special Agents Henry Kissinger and Ted Shackley (future Director of Central Intelligence under HW Bush) of the Army Counterintelligence Corps. Harry Truman would be manipulated (much to his future regret) to authorize all of this to finance the new anti-Soviet intelligence network and its operations (events in which Charles Willoughby and Edward Landsdale [future primary conspirators in the JFK hit] would play central roles).

https://youtu.be/KeNQixRRUCo?si=PeXmztd7K9vuEpce&t=3576

 

 

Certainly there are those within the JFKA research community who agree with this scenario of the JFKA. 

And there is no denying the extensive use of Nazi assets by the postwar US intel complex. 

A version of this played out in Japan as well. The US intel use of WWII dictators and worse after WWII. 

One might assume the CIA-US intel community would not like documents released that would confirm a CIA-Nazi hit on JFK. 

I still lean towards a CIA-Miami-Station-Cuban exiles version of the JFKA...but the book is not closed. 

Is the answer inside the JFK Records?

Only one way to find out....

8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Paul didn't use a pejorative against any particular (contemporary) party or politician, so no forum rule broken. But it's looking like a mod will have to move this thread to Political Discussions

 

SL--

If you move the discussion, then you do.

But I posted specifically and only about Ventura's stance on opening up the JFK Records, which would (I think anyway) totally back-up RFK2's stance. 

I think RFK2 is wise to select such a veep, if he does. 

If other EF-JFKA participants weigh in with their well-known partisan views and accusations...should not their comments be removed, but not the whole post? 

Paul B. makes a germane comment. We can be confident the two major parties will not open up the JFK Records. We can have a  reasonable level of confidence that RFK2 will. 

incredibly, conversations about prospects and possibilities of opening up the JFK Records Act get bumped off of the EF-JFKA, as some partisan sensibilities are affronted? Is that really a good outcome? 

This issue of the opening up the JFK Records should be very prominent in the EF-JFKA. 

Believe me, we will not tilt the national election come November, no matter what is debated herein. 

24 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:

In a manner of speaking, yes.

In my opinion, this is the lesson of the Kennedy assassinations, and of the travails of Nixon, Carter, and Trump as well...

"American Gestapo." Truman was known for blunt talk. 

It seems Truman thought the CIA might have had a hand in the JFKA.

My take is the national security state, aka Deep State, or Shadow Government, knew it had played the assassination card a little too often by the 1970s. But it had been working with media for generations, building up relationships and kompromats, and allies in both major political parties (no doubt a lot of kompromats there to).  

I wonder if there can be a US President that the CIA opposes. 

1 hour ago, Keven Hofeling said:

'WHY THE LAST OF THE JFK FILES COULD EMBARRASS THE CIA'

By BRYAN BENDER | 05/25/2015 07:15 AM EDT | Updated: 05/28/2015 12:34 PM EDT | https://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/why-last-of-jfk-files-could-embarrass-cia-118233

"...But among the 40,000 documents are roughly 3,600 that have never been seen by the public. They have been “withheld in full” primarily because they contain information that was considered “security classified” but also to protect personal privacy, tax and grand jury information, and “because information in the document reveals the identity of an unclassified confidential source,” according to Murphy.

Among the 3,600 are roughly 1,100 CIA documents, which make up the largest share. The second-largest batch belongs to the FBI, according to Murphy, while the rest include testimony and other records of the Warren Commission itself; the House Select Committee on Assassinations, which reopened the investigation into JFK’s death in the late 1970s and concluded it was the result of a conspiracy (though the panel couldn’t prove it); records from the National Security Agency and other Defense Department offices; and files from a pair of 1975 congressional probes of CIA abuses — the so-called Church and Pike committees — and a related commission led by then-Vice President Nelson Rockefeller.

The withheld CIA files include those on some of the most mysterious and controversial figures in the history of American espionage — particularly individuals who were known to be involved in CIA assassination plots around the world.

There are at least 332 pages of material on E. Howard Hunt, an almost mythical spymaster who is most famous for running the ring that broke into Democratic Party headquarters in Washington’s Watergate Office Complex in 1972, setting in motion the events that led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon.

But a decade before, he played a leading role in the agency’s botched Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba. The failed attack by CIA-trained guerrillas generated deep discontent with Kennedy from Cuban exiles seeking to overthrow Cuban leader Fidel Castro and who felt the president had let their forces die on Cuba’s beaches by refusing to provide air support against Castro’s army.

It was Hunt, shortly before he died in 2007, who claimed that he had been privy to a plot by several CIA affiliates to kill Kennedy — what he referred to as “the Big Event.”

Also under review by the special team of archivists are at least 606 pages about David Atlee Phillips, another CIA officer, who won a medal for his role in overthrowing the government of Guatemala in 1954, went on to run operations in Latin America, and, along with Hunt, played a leading role in anti-Castro activities in Cuba.

Phillips was accused — though never charged — of committing perjury when asked about agency ties to Oswald by the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Phillips, too, late in life attributed the JFK assassination to “rogue” CIA officers.

It is the type of information that many researchers believe the agency would still like to keep secret.

“I don’t see the CIA handing out 600 pages on David Atlee Phillips in two years,” said Jefferson Morley, a leading Kennedy researcher and founder of JFKfacts.org, who has sued the CIA to reveal more information about several key figures known to be the focus of some of the withheld files.

“It may have nothing to do with JFK but about other assassinations,” he added. “They still don’t want to open that window and let everyone look in. I expect the worst.”

Another colleague of Phillips at the CIA was Anne Goodpasture. The career agency officer denied to congressional investigators in 1970 that she had any knowledge of recordings of Oswald’s phone calls in possession of the CIA’s Mexico City station, where she worked. But she later admitted in sworn testimony that she had, in fact, disseminated the tapes herself. A 286-page CIA file about her is among the documents that are supposed to be released in two years.

Also among the agency’s withheld files: 2,224 pages of the CIA’s interrogation of Yuri Nosenko, a Soviet KGB officer who defected to the U.S. shortly after the Kennedy assassination. He claimed to have seen the KGB files on Oswald in the 2 ½ years before the assassination when Oswald lived in the Soviet Union.

Rex Bradford, who runs the Mary Ferrell Foundation, a research organization that has digitized more than 1 million records related to the JFK case, has also identified numerous depositions before the Church Committee that are referenced in the panel’s final report but have yet to be made public.

They include testimony on secret plots to assassinate Castro from CIA officers; Kennedy’s national security adviser, McGeorge Bundy; and the head of the CIA at the time, John McCone.

“The principal question we were trying to pursue was who ordered the assassination of Castro and five other leaders around the world — was it the president or the attorney general?” former Sen. Gary Hart, who was a member of the Church Committee and tasked with looking into the issue, said in an interview.

It was Hart’s digging that first revealed that the CIA had enlisted leading figures in organized crime to help kill Castro, who had closed down all their gambling and prostitution rings in Havana when he took power in 1959. The CIA’s assassination plots at the time have been considered by many government investigators to be relevant to finding out who might have had a motive to kill the American leader.

“How could the U.S. government bring itself to order these [CIA] assassinations?” added Hart. “We never resolved that. If these documents answer any of those questions it would be worthwhile.”

Also withheld are the Church Committee’s interviews with CIA officials about “JM/WAVE,” the code name for the secret CIA station overseeing covert operations in Cuba that was located on the campus of the University of Miami — and files on the obscure figure who ran its psychological operations branch, George Joannides.

It was revealed in a previous document release in 2009 that Joannides had links to some of the same anti-Castro forces that were connected to Oswald — something that was never shared with the Warren Commission.

Meanwhile, Joannides also served as the liaison between the agency and the House assassinations panel that reopened JFK’s murder in 1978 and inquired about the agency’s links to Oswald. But Joannides never told the panel about his role in Miami, a failure that the federal judge who ran the Assassination Records Review Board recently said amounted to “treachery.”

The CIA acknowledged in a lawsuit filed by Morley that there are more than 50 documents about Joannides’ activities, including in 1963 and 1978.

The bulk of the JFK collection now being processed by the National Archives includes thousands of files that were partially released over the years but with key sections blacked out — some of them “heavily redacted,” according to Murphy. Among these files are the CIA’s official history of its Mexico City station (which was opened in 1950 by Hunt).

Oswald visited Mexico City in the weeks before the assassination seeking visas to travel to Cuba and the Soviet Union, which he was denied. Previous government disclosures have revealed that while initially the CIA denied any knowledge of Oswald’s activities, at the time itwas monitoring him closely and created several cover stories to hide what it knew.

Meanwhile, as PBS reported in 2013, “intelligence documents released in 1999 establish that, after Oswald failed to get the visas, CIA intercepts showed that someone impersonated Oswald in phone calls made to the Soviet Embassy and the Cuban consulate and linked Oswald to a known KGB assassin — Valery Kostikov — whom the CIA and FBI had been following for over a year.”..."
________

'TRUMP BACKTRACKS, DELAYS RELEASE OF JFK ASSASSINATION RECORDS UNTIL AT LEAST 2021'

By BRENT D. GRIFFITHS | 04/26/2018 11:16 PM EDT Updated 04/26/2018 11:59 PM EDT | https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/26/trump-jfk-records-delay-557339

"President Donald Trump on Thursday delayed the full release of JFK assassination records until at the latest 2021, siding with the CIA and FBI over national security concerns that the release of the remaining files could spark."

"I agree with the Archivist’s recommendation that the continued withholdings are necessary to protect against identifiable harm to national security, law enforcement, or foreign affairs that is of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest in immediate disclosure," Trump wrote in a memorandum released by the White House...." 
________

James DiEugenio wrote:

"There are two upcoming deadlines with the extension of the JFK Act that Trump unilaterally made when he changed the law back in 2017. The first is coming up in about four days when the pubic declassification board will make a recommendation. Then next month, on October 26th, the White House will make a determination on whether or not to finally declassify the last of the JFK documents. Mark Adamczyk is the Kennedys and King attorney on this issue. Here is his latest."
--------------------------------------------------------
"The JFK Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 (the “JFK Act”) mandated the final release of all assassination records by October 26, 2017. In October of 2017, President Trump publicly committed to authorizing the release of all records, as mandated by the JFK Act. However, on the eve of the October 26, 2017, deadline, President Trump changed course and issued an executive memorandum authorizing an additional delay of six (6) months. We can only assume that agencies protecting these records (namely the CIA and FBI) pressured Trump at the eleventh hour for more time. We will never know exactly what happened. What we do know is that Trump’s executive memorandum was a violation of the JFK Act. At the very least, President Trump was supposed to issue a document that certified the specific reasons for postponement as required by the JFK Act.

After the six (6) month “extension,” agencies were supposed to provide their final reasons for postponement to the President and the Archivist. Compliance with the JFK Act was to be finally accomplished by April 26, 2018. Inexplicably, President Trump then issued another executive memorandum granting agencies an additional three (3) years to “complete” their review of assassination records. This was on the heels of a twenty-five (25) year mandatory review obligation imposed by the JFK Act and then an additional six (6) month period to complete that review.

In that same memorandum of April 26, 2018, the President required final action from agencies by April 26, 2021. By that date, the President required that all information on declassification of JFK Records be delivered to the Archivist. That would, according to the executive memorandum, put the Archivist in the position of making final recommendations to President Biden by September 26, 2021. After receiving recommendations from the Archivist, President Biden would then be in an informed position to authorize a final release by October 26, 2021. That was the plan, at least designed by President Trump in 2018 with legal advice from the Office of Legal Counsel.

What happened instead? We do not know of any action taken by agencies in the three (3) year period between April 2018 and April 2021. We saw no press releases from the Archivist and the President in April 2021 indicating that agencies (protecting these records) did their jobs. We saw no press releases from the Archivist and the President this summer indicating that they were making serious progress, in anticipation of the artificial “deadlines” authorized by President Trump in 2018.

The Archivist is not to blame here. I sincerely believe that the Archivist wants to see these records released. These records are based on an event that happened in 1963. The problem is that the Archivist is a custodian of records and does not have the authority under the JFK Act to compel the release of assassination records. Only the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) had that power under the JFK Act, but unfortunately the ARRB only had authority and funding through 1998.

Congressional oversight committees had authority to ensure compliance with the JFK Act after the winding-down of the ARRB. Those committees have done nothing that we know of, despite receiving correspondence from lawyers and researchers interested in compliance with the JFK Act. At this stage, President Biden has the authority to ensure compliance. President Biden should no longer entertain continuing and stale requests from agencies to postpone assassination records. In order to do his job under the JFK Act, a federal statute, President Biden needs legitimate and transparent reasons from agencies for continued postponement. If the President receives that information, he can then make an executive decision on continued postponement. If the President authorizes postponement of more records, it must be accompanied by a written and unclassified certification of the reason(s). That is what the JFK Act requires. Vague explanations based on “national security” do not come close to meeting the standards of the JFK Act.

Congress declared that continued classification of records would be warranted in only “the rarest of circumstances.” That was in 1992, almost 30 years after the assassination. We are now almost 30 years after the passage of the JFK Act, and almost 60 years after the assassination itself.

I recently signed a letter and legal memorandum to President Biden expressing the importance of this issue. That document can be viewed here. I strongly encourage you to contact the White House with a simple request. Follow the law. Stop the delays based on unfounded (and undisclosed) arguments from agencies that wish to continue hiding these records.

This effort is not about proving a conspiracy or validating the previous findings of the Warren Commission or House Select Committee on Assassinations. It is about following the law, which was passed by Congress in 1992. It is worth noting that Joe Biden was the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee when the JFK Act was passed by Congress in 1992. The executive branch recently authorized the release of 9/11 records and it has the same chance to earn trust from the American public by authorizing the release of the JFK records. It should not be a difficult decision. It is what the law requires."

Wednesday, 22 September 2021 05:04

'FINAL DEADLINES ON JFK RECORDS -- WHAT IS BIDEN GOING TO DO?'

Written by Mark Adamczyk | https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/final-deadlines-on-jfk-records-what-is-biden-going-to-do

"Mark Adamczyk highlights the looming final deadlines for the release of the JFK records by the National Archives. He outlines President Joe Biden’s responsibilities as defined by the JFK Assassination Records Collection Act and urges our readers to join him in writing a letter to President Biden asking him to follow the requirements of the law."
________

'WHAT WAS IT ABOUT THE JFK ASSASSINATION RECORDS THAT SCARED TRUMP TO BACKTRACK ON HIS PROMISES TO RELEASE THEM?'

by Adam Dick | Nov 25, 2022 | http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2022/november/25/presidents-trump-and-biden-keep-john-f-kennedy-assassination-records-secret/

"...Trump had indicated he would release the records before he instead chose to keep much of them secret through 2021 — a time period that could and has been extended since.

Legal scholar Andrew Napolitano, who has known Trump since before Trump’s 2016 presidential run, provides some insight on Trump’s change of mind regarding the release of the still secret Kennedy assassination records in a Tuesday video conversation with Gerald Celente of the Trends Journal. Napolitano, who is an Advisory Board member for the Ron Paul Institute and was a state trial judge in New Jersey, discusses a late December of 2000 phone conversation he had with Trump in which Trump not releasing the records during his presidential term was discussed. Napolitano relates that Trump, who was then finishing up his presidential term, told Napolitano, “Judge, if you saw what I saw, you would know why I can’t release them.” Queried then by Napolitano concerning what Trump was talking about, Napolitano relates Trump said he could not tell Napolitano over the phone but could tell Napolitano next time they meet in person — something that is yet to happen.

Napolitano, in the video conversation, speculates regarding why Trump changed his mind regarding releasing the Kennedy assassination records, stating, “Well what the hell could he have seen? Whatever it ...was it was proof of more people involved than Lee Harvey Oswald — people in the government, and he didn’t want to reveal it even though many of those people are themselves now dead.” “I think they scared him or threatened him,” further states Napolitano, “I don’t know, I don’t know what he saw; he was determined to reveal it and then he saw something and he goes ‘I can’t reveal it.’”"

________

________

________

'IS TRUMP TUCKER CARLSON'S JFK ASSASSINATION SOURCE?'

by Jacob G. Hornberger | December 27, 2022 | https://www.fff.org/2022/12/27/is-trump-tucker-carlsons-jfk-assassination-source/

On December 15, 2022, Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson delivered a monologue stating his conviction that the CIA was involved in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The presentation was remarkable given that that sort of thing is never found in the mainstream media. As most everyone knows, the mainstream media avoids the Kennedy assassination like the plague.

Carlson’s presentation motivated Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., to issue the following highly dangerous tweet: “The most courageous newscast in 60 years. The CIA’s murder of my uncle was a successful coup d’état from which our democracy has never recovered. @TuckerCarlson.”

Carlson made his presentation in the context of the CIA’s continued steadfast refusal to disclose thousands of its assassination-related records to the American people, along with President Biden’s decision to go along with the CIA’s decision. These are records that the CIA was mandated to release to the American people by the JFK Records Act, which was enacted in 1992 — thirty years ago!

As I have long maintained, there is only one reason for the CIA’s continued secrecy. Those thousands of records contain pieces of incriminating circumstantial evidence that further establish criminal culpability on the part of the CIA in the assassination of President Kennedy. Obviously, the CIA has concluded that it simply cannot afford to permit the American people, especially assassination researchers, to view those records. Better to have the American people believing that the records are incriminating rather than letting them know that they are incriminating.

On November 8, 2022 — approximately one month before the Carlson presentation — Gerald Celente conducted an interview with Judge Andrew Napolitano, a former judicial analyst for Fox News. In that interview, Napolitano recounted a conversation with President Trump, with whom he was friends. In that interview, the pertinent part of which you can view here, Napolitano stated:

"I once had a conversation … with President Trump when he was in the White House. He used to call me all the time. And we talked about everything under the sun. I said, “Are you going to release those documents or not?” And he said to me, “If you saw what I saw, you wouldn’t release them.”"

In his presentation, Carlson stated the following:

"In 1992, Congress passed the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act. That act mandated full disclosure of all documents by 2017, 54 years after JFK was killed. The last administration promised to comply fully with that law. But under intense pressure from CIA Director Mike Pompeo, withheld, in the end, thousands of pages of CIA documents. Today, this afternoon, the Biden administration did exactly the same thing. That would be thousands of pages of documents after nearly 60 years, after the death of every single person involved. But we still can’t see them. Clearly, it’s not to protect any person. They’re all dead. It’s to protect an institution. But why? Well, today we decided to find out. We spoke to someone who had access to these still hidden CIA documents, a person who was deeply familiar with what they contained. We asked this person directly, “Did the CIA have a hand in the murder of John F. Kennedy, an American President?” And here’s the reply we received verbatim. Quote, “The answer is yes. I believe they were involved. It’s a whole different country from what we thought it was. It’s all fake.”" (Emphasis added.)

Is Trump Carlson’s source? It would make sense that he is. After all, just a little more than a month ago, Trump told Napolitano that had seen the CIA’s still-secret records. He also implied to Napolitano that the still-secret records contain explosive information of an incriminating nature. What else could he have meant when he said, “If you saw what I saw, you wouldn’t release them”?

It also stands to reason that Carlson would have known about the Napolitano interview, given Napolitano’s longtime relationship with Fox News. It also stands to reason that Carlson would have reached out to Trump and that Trump would have talked to him, given Trump’s longtime close relationship with Fox News.

But whether Trump is Carlson’s source or not, the obvious question arises: Why didn’t Trump order the release of those long-secret records of the CIA? Why did he, like Biden, participate in the CIA’s assassination cover-up by authorizing the CIA to continue keeping its half-century-old records secret? Indeed, why doesn’t Trump, a recently announced candidate for president, go public right now with what he saw in those records?

One possibility is that the CIA “Hoovered” Trump into continuing the keep the CIA’s decades-old assassination-related records secret. By “Hoovered” I am referring to J. Edgar Hoover, who was a serial blackmailer when he was serving as FBI director. Hoover would acquire personal information about people with the aim of blackmailing them into bending them to his will. If they complied, he would keep the information secret. If they refused to comply with Hoover’s will, he would release the information through trusted assets in the mainstream press.

My hunch is that that is what happened with Trump. After all, when the deadline for release was coming due, Trump publicly announced that he intended to order the release of the CIA’s assassination-related records. Then, just before the deadline came due, however, the CIA somehow prevailed on Trump to suddenly change his mind and instead to grant the CIA’s demand to extend the time for secrecy.

In the final analysis though, the CIA’s steadfast refusal to disclose those thousands of assassination-related records is, largely, irrelevant. As I have maintained over the years, once it was established beyond a reasonable doubt that the national-security establishment conducted a fraudulent autopsy on Kennedy’s body, the gig was up. That’s because there is no innocent explanation for a fraudulent autopsy. None! No one has ever come up with an innocent explanation for the fraudulent autopsy, and no one ever will. A fraudulent autopsy necessarily means criminal culpability in the assassination itself. See my article “Why the JFK Assassination Should Matter to Everyone.” Also see my books The Kennedy Autopsy, The Kennedy Autopsy 2, Regime Change: The JFK Assassination, and, most recently, An Encounter with Evil: The Abraham Zapruder Story.

The CIA’s continued steadfast refusal to release the thousands of remaining assassination-related records tends to confirm what Trump told Napolitano. But those records would simply add additional evidence to what the fraudulent autopsy has already established: that the November 22, 1963, assassination was a regime-change operation intended to protect “national security” from a president who was determined to lead America in a direction different from the direction that the Pentagon and the CIA were determined to lead America.

NOTE: Credit is given to Charles Burris, who first raised the possibility that Trump is Carlson’s source in the following article at LewRockwell.com: “Will Tucker Carlson Reveal The High Level Source Which Confirmed That The Deep State Murdered JFK In A Regime Change Coup d’état?"

This post was written by: Jacob G. Hornberger

Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has advanced freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across the country as well as on Fox News’ Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren shows and he appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s show Freedom Watch. View these interviews at LewRockwell.com and from Full Context. Send him email.

________

________

 

Great post KH. 

Something fishy happened in and around Watergate and Nixon, who had demanded to see the "Bay of Pigs" files. Then a team 100% of CIA'ers, including Hunt and McCord (except possibly Gordon Liddy) breaks into Watergate, is caught red-handed, and Nixon is said to have organized the break-in, and he goes out. But not before Agnew also gets the boot...and Gerald Ford, WC'er, becomes the unelected President.

This is not a defense of Nixon, who should have been impeached/convicted for what he did in Laos alone. 

I wonder if four presidents have been effectively deposed by the security state...JFK, Nixon, Carter, Trump. This is entirely separate from whether I agreed or not with these Presidents and their policies, or thought they were crooks or not. 

Is the right lesson from the JFKA to be aware of putsches in civilian clothing? 

The people who are in the JFKA research community, with the background to understand the JFKA (even if we disagree on points) are dwindling. In another 10 years....

Some say there is not that much inside the JFK Records. 

Really, and that is why the national security state is flagrantly, aggressively, and at great length violating the terms of the JFK Records Act. I would say 3,000 records, 60 years after the JFKA, that the national security state does not want you to see, does not suggest banal official forms. 

That is why, even yet, the media continually refers to people who are involved  in JFKA research as "conspiracy nuts."

Now, Jim Grochenaur has passed, never having his right as a citizen to see the records fulfilled. 

2 hours ago, Robert Morrow said:

Washington Post reporter Carol Leonnig in her book on the Secret Service Zero Fail wrote that every major thing SS director James Rowley did after the JFK assassination had to be approved by Rufus Youngblood, who was Lyndon Johnson's #1 Secret Service agent. In other words, Rufus Youngblood was de facto running the Secret Service post JFK assassination, formal titles  and nominal chains of command be damned.

I don't think Leonnig understood the significance of this.

RM--Very interesting insight.