Mervyn Hagger

Greg, no one kills someone for someone else out of the kindness of their heart. Organization that works costs big money.

If the derangement of the never-Trumpers who decided that the truth about Clinton's paid-for dossier, and Biden's big pay offs from foreign governments would never see mainstream media exposure until after the recent and controversial election, then the JFK Cult that drowns out an open-minded reevaluation of the Warren Report, seems to be walking hand-in-hand down that same alleyway in darkness. Because Clinton's paid-for fiction is now beginning to be exposed by more than a limited few outlets, and Biden's corrupt peddling is also being reported at last, surely enough time has now passed by to allow an honest and open-minded examination of who killed JFK and why? At the moment we see the same (old) slabs of never-ending and repetitive text which all seems to have one goal in mind: obfuscation of who murdered JFK, and why did they do it?

While I have read and collected a lot of material about Manuel Artime Buesa, I do not have a biography devoted to his life and times. Can anyone suggest such a book? (In the English language.)

Thanks Robert. I am curious as which "good English word" you are referring to? "XXXXX"? Surely not. EDIT: After I posted this the blanking out of the word that begins with 'l' and is followed by 'i' and then by 'a' and then by 'r' and followed by 's' got translated into 5 'x's ! I certainly don't understand that! It seems that the way I wrote and used that word the first time was okay and it got through the automatic censor. But when I wrote it as spelled out, which is what the other person did, it was not okay. I guess this is what computers do. As to your response to the issue posted, there is indeed a good explanation for the cover-up and it is one that I have been trying to penetrate for other reasons, and it is the seemingly unrelated chain of events that brought me here - with inspiration from Larry Hancock who apparently got his information from Gary Murr who in turn has become a great contributor to my knowledge base. It may be of interest for you to know that in this regard Gary wrote to a friend of mine in Norway who I had been assisting with information I have from the archives of Don Pierson. Gary informed my Norwegian friend that he had been investigating the same ship that my Norwegian friend had been investigating and posting on his web site (which is how Gary became involved.) So several years ago when Gary first made contact, my friend in Norway sent me information about Gary's email. Years went by. Then, very recently, on this Forum Gary very kindly sent me via email attachment, a lot of information he had collected about this ship. This research project about this ship stretches back to 1985! (Actually, back to 1967!) It has taken a lot of years to see the connecting dots, and that is why there is such a huge span of time involved in all this. But I did not come to this topic directly because of my interest in the death of JFK. (I lived in the Dallas / Fort Worth area, so I am well aware of the history, etc.) But this topic is related to the question you have now asked, and the answer is a very unlikely coming together of different interests all tied to big money and business interests and all of it was centered on Houston, Texas (where I also lived for some time.) It isn't Marcello that is the problem, but these other unrelated business interests that found common cause with the elimination of RFK by getting rid of JFK, and from what I understand, that was exactly what Marcello hoped to achieve. The lid came down to protect these other interests, and their story has yet be revealed, but it is the story that I am working on.

Robert: Yes, and your point is what, exactly? I did not use profane or obscene language as did the apparent original writer whose work was then used to attack this thread. Let us stick to the issues and not get into a personal attack. I have now outlined in greater detail my own response to this thread, so perhaps you would now care to discuss that as it relates to Marcello; Manuel Artime Buesa; the southern campus of the UM, and two other contributors: Larry Hancock and Gary Murr?

The unanswered question is why was JFK murdered? A lone gunman carrying out a spur of the moment whim cost no money in organization. The convenient killing of a policeman that was then blamed on the gunman helped to paint a picture of a deranged mind. Again, no money, no organization. But once the story goes beyond that, then problems arise. Even the senseless act by Jack Ruby in killing LHO is an instance of a lone gunman carrying out a spur of the moment whim without cost to anyone else but his own lifestyle from the moment he pulled the trigger. Once matters go beyond the point of two lone gunman in two senseless acts, then money takes over to create an organization. The idea that Marcello was behind the hit does make sense as an act of gangland vengeance. Marcello had money and such a hit was in keeping with gangland violence. Now if a common cause was entered into by 'others' with Marcello, then again the cost goes up in terms of money. There are indeed a lot of unanswered questions in the Warren Report, and there are also a lot of unanswered questions in the weird and deceptive behavior of both JFK and RFK, especially with regards to Manuel Artime Buesa and all of his ilk. If the leads are followed inwards from Manuel Artime Buesa to RFK, then the CIA base at the southern campus of the University of Miami comes into focus, and from it, more leads radiate to actions undertaken by RFK in support of JFK. The starting point of my own interest is not Dealey Plaza, but the leads that arrive at Dealey Plaza. Contrary to what some have attempted to suggest, contributors to this Forum such as Larry Hancock and Gary Murr are among various people who have created their own written works which in turn have provoked my own questions here. If you don't like the topic, avoid it. If you wonder what Larry and Gary have written then I suggest you pay more attention to the fine details of what has already been posted by me.

Michael, is this your idea of dealing with a topic that unsettles you?

Chris, obviously the question itself is something that unnerves you. Please keep your remarks to the topic in hand, or just avoid the topic. Thank you.

Ron, obviously you do not like the topic. Please do not try to cause a disruption by posting items intended to disrupt discussion.

Robert, I don't know what your purpose is in posting that, unless you don't like the topic, because the kind of language you infer has NOT been employed by me.

Jeff, all of that spells money. If an ideologue hired snipers then they had to be paid enough to do the job and offset the risks and keep their mouths shut. Even the organization of that would cost money. But why? What was the reason? The real world does not operate in the way you describe, only the world of Marvel Comics et al does that.

That spells money. Big money and big money leaves trails in places and ties to people. Many gang members got their own training in the military. That spells organization and organization creates its own records that touch base with the world at large. With modern technology and information now available, there is already a wealth of new information that can be fitted into a framework. But to do that requires an open mind, and too many seem to have a dreamy hero-worship view of the Kennedys which is both unreal and untrue. The same people who worship the Kennedys are the same people obstructing a resolution of this case.

Clearly a LOT of people are scared stiff of this issue! It is EASY to come up with all manner of wild stories regarding the murder of JFK, but it is difficult to pin any of these people down as to WHO killed JFK and WHY? It could be this person or that person or this motive or that motive, but when you ask them to put up or shut up as though they were entering a court of law.... what then? Silence. Then a flood of additional rubbish to bury this question: who murdered JFK (and why?) It is indeed a challenge for the great unwashed to be specific, but few are willing to do that.

Perhaps my initial question itself poses a problem for many people, because that which is known - the murder of JFK in broad daylight on November 22, 1963 in front of witnesses surrounding him on all sides - is a very clear and precise bit of information. The official answer is that a lone gunman named Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed JFK. That is very precise. However, the response to that same information is anything but precise, and therein is the problem. LHO was arrested and held in custody only to be shot by Jack Ruby, again in full view of not just ordinary witnesses, but newspaper; radio and television reporters, as well as a bevy of police officials. So it would seem that everything is crystal clear, until those who dispute this chain of events try to explain an alternative interpretation. Instead of basic statements of fact, huge slabs of text appear that go off course into many other issues unrelated to these instant acts. From these slabs of text a huge 'industry' emerges that utilizes printed and electronic publishing to bury clarity in mists of obfuscation. Can anyone stick to the facts and explain who shot JFK and why - without involving a massive organization that requires a command structure and an equally massive amount of money to pull it off? If that kind of money had to be expended, then it had to be financially worth more money to someone, over and above the amount that which was expended. No one wants to address that issue. Who funded this enormous operation, if indeed the official version is untrue, and why did they fund it? Surely no one is going to suggest patriotism out of the goodness of their hearts galvanized such an operation? No charity that I know of runs on thin air. Was the killing of JFK a unique act of some charity? I don't think so, and I am sure you don't either.

Sorry Greg, my mistake. I went back to read your original comment that precipitated your current comment, and then I reread my original response. I stand by what I wrote since that is within the scope of this thread.

Sorry David, you are obscuring the issues. If JFK was not the work of a lone nut, any plan would take a lot of organization and that means a lot of money. Who would gain? This is not a discussion about a religious missionary endeavor, but the planning and carrying out of a crime. Your slab of text quickly goes off course. That is why I employed the court room scenario. Your text would be ruled inadmissible using an In Limine motion. It covers a lot of words, but what does it say?

David, with all due respect to Larry whose works I have purchased and read and used as a means to follow my own investigation, citing Mary Ferrell is no response on your part. I subscribe to Mary Ferrell, so no dispute with that source either. I am tracking down a theme NO ONE else has followed to date. It interacts with other material but nevertheless due diligence is being carried out. So are you agreeing or disagreeing with the Established Version (Warren/LHO), or what?

Chuck - you wrote: "Thus, I feel that the motive was patriotism, not money." We are discussing KILLING someone and not just any someone, in broad daylight surrounded on all sides by witnesses, and that is NOT the way the secret forces operate. They work in stealth so that the hit takes place and everyone later wonders what happened. This was a ridiculous killing. Consequently you don't name the person who masterminded this killing. But even the daft way in which it took place would require massive cooperation and money to shut people up. Patriotism is something so nebulous that it is difficult to get any two people to agree as to what it is. Money talks, bullshit walks. This was more akin to a Mob hit and there is a name that others have suggested and according to some, this individual had both a personal grudge and therefore a motive and the means to carry out a hit, and according to some, this person also admitted for ordering the hit to take place. Now that is something that could be heard in a court. But to refer back to your reply, who are you suggesting should be prosecuted?

Chuck, I don't buy your answer. WHO exactly was threatened by this? Forget the "autopsy", stick to item number one: WHY? and then go to WHO? There is no motive. NONE. Look at all of the corresponding variations of policy. JFK and his brother were lying war mongers. A nuclear war with China was even discussed. Robert Kennedy was waging this same war against Cuba - AFTER the Bay of Pigs. People kill for personal reasons and most of them are about money. I want to know WHO was to gain?

Hi Adam. I don't know how much clearer I can make my reason for starting this thread, but I will try: 1. I stated that I am playing judge, not jury and that my sole purpose in this is to 'maintain order in court' (lol). 2. The case has been brought due to the unlawful killing (murder) of JFK on November 22, 1963. 3. The USA maintains as Prosecutor, that LHO killed JFK all by himself. 4. In a court of law MOTIVE is not necessary, but it can help with either the prosecution or defense side of the case. So what I did was pose a question (well, I suppose it is a split question in two parts): Who killed JFK and why? Forget all the entangled storytelling involving guilt by association. Let's look at the case as if it is being presented in a court of law (in Texas, since that is where the crime took place). It can be a Federal or a State case - you choose. But In Limine comes into play: no rambling guilt by association and "I think this" or "I think that". That's all ruled inadmissible in this court room. I know that many who don't understand the way courts work, think that "Donald Trump" lost in a US Supreme Court case very recently. He wasn't even a party to the suit. It was brought by the State of Texas and the USSC ruled that due to "Latches" (timing, it could have been brought earlier by someone in one of the defendant States), and because of "Standing" (it was not brought by someone in one of the defendant States), there was no case to be heard. End of. So we are not playing by the interpretation of the popular press (which in the Trump instance above is just downright silly and wrong), we are going by the rules of a Texas court. With all that restated: who killed JFK and why? Back to you.

Hi Adam. Now where did you get the idea that I am playing the part of a prosecuting attorney or a DPD detective, from? Not from me! Please read what I had (consistently) written on this thread.

Hi Greg. Let me address your second point, first. I basically agree with it ("Marcello of New Orleans"). On your first point I find it too wooly, it is not something that people kill for. Money is why Americans (primarily) kill. (There are secondary reasons of course.) Money got JFK killed and my finger is pointing at the ownership control of oil and (natural) gas. Bobby Kennedy was also a factor, and RFK lied through his teeth about what he was doing with a faction of CIA, and because I don't think JFK was ignorant, I think that he was a dangerous two face bastard who almost triggered a nuclear World War III. Too many on this Forum worship the memories of JFK and RFK, but that is what happens when cults form. I am not a member of that cult and the cult members hate what I write - which is, as Jack Webb might have said, composed of "just the facts".

Hi Paul! No, I am not at frustrated with my research which did not begin with JFK on November 22, 1963, but sort of came to engulf it due to a timeline I was working on. November 22, 1963 is smack dab in the middle of it. So is Gordon McLendon (no double 'c'). My appearance here is part of a bigger endeavor and for your part I thank you for the 'Brandy' suggestion. An interesting character about whom at the moment, I am not sure what to make of him. I can see 'guilt by association', but I try to avoid that dot connection like the plague. I also thank Gary Murr who came into my life via a friend in Norway who was drowning himself in the history of a ship and a Texan named Don Pierson who brought it to his attention via a 50kW station called 'Swinging Radio England' which was cobbled together from a variety of US formats of the Sixties and was the most brash and in-your-face (ears) station ever to affront the solemnity of the staid British Crown. Pierson had earlier dragged a carbon copy of McLendon's KLIF in Dallas across the seas to the coastline of England and eventually, the UK passed a law to censor it (because it was so popular), and then told the BBC to make a carbon copy of WRL, which they did very badly as BBC Radio One. But I interviewed Don Pierson in his home in Eastland, Texas - on tape and at one point he became furious with me. (We were friends who had previously gone into business together in publishing and I also made programs for his FCC licensed Eastland radio station.) Pierson told me that if I ever asked a similar question again - that would be 'it' for our friendship. He did this with a hand across the throat gesture to stop the tape and then told me what for! I told my friend in Norway who I gave a lot of Pierson documents to, and for years this friend in Norway plagued me about to learn more about why Pierson had reacted this way. For years I shrugged him off. Finally I began digging. In the meantime Gary Murr contacted my friend in Norway because of my friend's web site about Pierson's stations. My friend in Norway then sent me a copy of Gary's email. Years went by, and then, in the last seven days, Gary sent me information that he had been collecting for publication about one of Pierson's ships, before Pierson got hold of it. The dots connected to Bobby Kennedy; the Zenith Project on the U of S.Miami campus and Manuel Artime Buesa, and finally to Gordon McLendon in Dallas - all via Galveston and .... Sweden. A very complicated tale which I am assembling into a new timeline. Do I and did I have a quick answer to your previous question: No. But I am working on it.

Jeff there is a way to trace this cabal from the first rigged (fraudulent) election by Democrat LBJ. What is missing in all of this is the fact that the Democrats were the racist party of the Klu Klux Klan. Now that is being hushed up with a new slogan BLM. It is all meaningless drivel. There is even another new thread on here that mentions the racist Democrat who supposedly was going to bump off JFK at the Electoral College level. But this is the problem with this topic: A LOT of people seem to enjoy just making up more allegations while ignoring the main issue: JFK was murdered in broad daylight in front of an audience in the round at high noon in Dallas, Texas, but no one seems to want to deal with the facts, only the fiction. The official version concluded that a loner named LHO killed JFK, but this is disputed by many people. But WHY was JFK murdered in broad daylight in front of an audience? Was it the work of a loner? If not - who and why? What was the motive? The wooly-bully reasons posted by many are downright absurd, but they keep the silliest of social posters busy presenting their opinions founded in nothing but guided by their own vanity to express THEIR opinions. But their opinions are totally meaningless and still we come back to the main question asked by this thread .... Who murdered JFK?

Richard, I will let your own word condemn you. I won't argue with you. Because you are turning this thread into something differe. nt than what it is, I will restate it: "The BIG UNANSWERED QUESTION: Why was JFK murdered?" That's it. At first you decided that it had something to do with a defensive position. I told you to reread the preamble - you did and then to defend yourself you began alleging motive. Goodbye Richard. To open minds this thread is exactly what the title says that it is. The official version says the LHO murdered (unlawful killing), but all we actually know is that JFK was shot and killed in Dallas in the middle of the day in plain sight of onlookers. If you don't want to participate Richard that is your right, but don't try to stir up animosity when it does not exist.