Simon Andrew

In the early days of chatgpt, if you typed in who killed JFK, you got a very balanced response highlighting a lot of the issues and evidence. A matter of days later the response was changed to reflect the WC findings. I think that whatever model is used, someone will say it’s biased one way or another.

They also mentioned that he had a plastic bag over his head. Based upon the cutting of the tendons, the bag over his head and the missing notes…it does lend credence to the notion that he was snuffed out. Given the context I find it strange that he was embalmed with such haste.

Which means it’s 35 mins of program and 25 mins of advertising, so probably is the same. The paramount plus program is geo fenced meaning you can’t watch from a UK account (even with a VPN via a US server). So here in the UK we will get a program about Trauma room one interlaced with adverts for tampons and erectile dysfunction tablets.

The Epoch Times is a far-right international multi-language newspaper and media company affiliated with the Falun Gong new religious movement

What a load of misleading cobblers. Define what you mean by the deed? The deed implies action, ie pull the trigger. The list mixes up potential shooters, with people or organisations that had a motive. This list is the same sort of guff you get from daytime television whenever they cover the event and have not analysed the evidence.

The main reason why you can’t reach a decision on the assassination, beyond a reasonable doubt, is by design. Bearing in mind that the most probable culprits are intelligence based, we need to expect plausible deniability, obfuscation and compartmentalisation. I would suggest looking at the assassination using a similar framework to an intelligence analyst…assess the reliability of the evidence and assign it a probability of occurring and a confidence level. Forget about beyond a reasonable doubt- it’s a wild goose chase.

If the assassination and all of the information had taken place in Russia and not the US, what do you think the conclusion from the average CIA analyst would be? The research community should hold its head up high for doing the work that democratic institutions failed to do. The Warren Commission was a travesty, which we know was cooked up under a false pretence.

Another interesting video by Dr Newman. The back door link between LBJ and nut job LeMay is especially revealing. I could listen to Malcolm Blunt for hours …I wish there more videos with him. I think it was Blunt who flagged Solie in the first place.

In my opinion Angleton is probably the person who holds the most responsibility. Dulles had been kicked out and had to rely on guys on the inside. Angleton probably picked up on the intelligence about Kennedy’s back door communication with Castro. As we know from The Devil’s Chesboard…Dulles met up with his OSS buddies at his house, Angleton probably passed on the info and it flared up from there. Dulles then acted as a go between with Harvey and the JCS along with Angleton’s input. Without Angleton none of it would have happened imo. Hence it was a non official conspiracy by right wing elements of the military and intelligence community who abused their position and were traitors to the constitution.

Whilst I don’t agree with LN posters in general, they do sometimes offer some fact checking which can be interesting. Koch and Cole are a bit extreme politically for me and I do see them wasting the time of some of the most knowledgeable posters (eg Pat). Life is too short and maybe time could be spent more wisely by adding them to your block/ hide list.

The debate would go as follows - A) Litwin would overstate his case and avoid elements he doesn’t want to talk about. B Jim D would overstate his case on some points. C) Joe Rogan would sit there looking confused and perhaps offer some insight he obtained through hunting trips and firing rifles. Just my opinion- however things are somewhat more grey on both sides of the argument. However Joe Rogan doesn’t do grey particularly well. On balance, with all things considered there is a stronger case for conspiracy. However I can understand why the powers that be don’t want to go there.

That’s pretty cool that you were there. I came after that generation but was always attracted to the music of the 60’s. I did manage to get a guitar pick from Keith Richards a few years later…that’s my only claim to fame. People laugh but that generation was on a collision course with Angleton and his ilk. This is evident in the book Chaos and the nonsense going on with the Manson case.

Edit

Instead of trying to think what may or may not have happened to JFK’s Vietnam policy given certain events had he lived, isn’t the most salient point what the Chiefs Of Staff thought in 63. Following the conference where they were told to put plans together to get out, and given the extreme hawkish nature of some of them, that is enough motive. Second guessing what may or may not have happened seems irrelevant- what really matters in the context of the assassination is whether there was enough to provide motive. I think there is a decent case that there was motive. The rest simply muddies the water.

I like global companies and don’t have a problem with open borders. I work with people all over the world, no problem.