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.

4 hours ago, Robert Burrows said:

How do you slash a wrist when the tendons in the wrist holding the knife have been severed? And why were his papers missing?

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.

51 minutes ago, Mart Hall said:

In the UK we have a 3x60min documentary starting this Sunday. Which I’m now hoping is the same production as reviewed by Vince.

JFK:Trauma Room One.
It says it’s a reunion of seven doctors who treated JFK “divulging unsettling medical details surrounding the assassination that raise doubts about the government investigations that found Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.”

9pm Ch5. 

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. 

1 hour ago, Karl Kinaski said:

 The 2024 US presidential election will be the most exciting ever. Involving a Kennedy for the third time. RFK jr starts where his uncle and his father were stopped by bullets ... IMO  there are too many fires in 2024 to put out for "Permanent Washington" and it's deep state zombies. 

In the course of this upheaval there is IMO a good chance that  the true circumstances of the JFKA will also come to light.

 

Article of Jeffrey A. Tucker, EPOCH TIMES.

 

Article Jeffry A. Tucker THE EPOCH TIMES, March 6th 2023 

 

Quote:

Close quote

 

 

 

 

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.

11 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

Posner is somewhat in the same boat as Stone. Posner has written many books on topics that have nothing to do with the JFK assassination which arguably would make him shaky when getting into the details of the case.

Stone and Posner would be at the same level in the debate.

DiEugenio and Litwin would be on the same level getting in to the details.

Seems like a fair match to me.

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.

35 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

Remarkable that Crosby would inject that into his performance at the Monterey Pop love fest.

Socially conscious even then.

I was at the Monterey Pop.

Unfortunately only hanging around outside of the fairgrounds.

I was just 15 in June of 1967.

Driving around with some friends just crowd watching. Up and down Fairgrounds road. Night and day, there were thousands of young people.

This was a fashion show with beautiful young people. The latest in hippie fashion. Not a cheap rags affair. Seemed it was a middle to upper middle class affair more than a poorer one in this regards from what I remember. Lots of fancy tasseled leather vests, coats, boots. Bell bottoms and crazy different, colorful and funny hats.

If Manson and his merry band of rag tag followers-pranksters were there, they might have seemed a little on the poor dress side I would think.

I can still remember the heavy smell of patchouli oil ( always feminine attractive to me ) constantly in the air.  That and the smell of weed. You could smell this for blocks around the fairgrounds. The mix was seductively intoxicating...to me anyways.

The whole scene and vibe was very attractive and exciting.

The youthful hippy love energy and fragrance smells, the music ( which you could hear for blocks around)  and the sight of so many beautiful young people everywhere. Again, with their free and expressive and colorful fashion.

Even the performers could be seen walking around outside from time to time. Look, there's Hendrix walking into a little open booth flower shop on Fremont street! Hey, isn't that the Mommas and The Papas!  The close by Denny's restaurant of Fremont street was constantly packed. Ummm, they weren't half bad back then. Can't screw up eggs and coffee, right?

The entire days of the event were remarkably easy going. No crazy or violent incidents. Everyone seemed mellow.

It is absolutely true what Eric Burdon wrote in his song "Monterey!"

"Even the cops grooved with us" "Can you believe me yeah" "Down in Monterey." The police "were" very calm and accommodating it seemed to me.

Scores of young people had simply slept outside during the three days and nights with sleeping bags in open land areas behind the fairgrounds versus all the motels in front which were full. The police didn't bother them.

I wish I had paid to actually go to the indoor shows. The prices were very affordable. And taken a camera to boot.

But, I was not understanding of the historical magnitude of it all. And I was of a different crowd than the hippie movement. I hung around other rougher edged kids from families like mine. Old school booze, violence, cursing, cops. No money.

Many kids from our high school had easily immersed into the more gentle "Peace And Love" music, fashion and lingo identity genre.

 Volkswagon bugs and vans, patchouli oil, Beatles style longer hair and music on their cumbersome 8 track players.

I was an angry, shorter haired, pimply faced kid still wearing 1950's style white T-shirts and Levis and Converse tennis shoes. My music preference was mostly black soul and Motown.

Still, even I was attracted to the gentler and more freely expressive new hippie/free love/marijuana/ patchouli oil sea change with young people all around me on the California Coast. The prettiest girls in school were flocking to Peace And Love message and style.

The Monterey Pop Festival was an amazingly powerful event that celebrated and advertised this new cultural movement in a dramatically iconic way.

Much more I think than even the original creators and organizers of it imagined it would be.

 

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.

16 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

Scary stuff.

I like global companies and don’t have a problem with open borders.

I work with people all over the world, no problem. 

 

4 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

One, Selverstone's book contains information that Galbraith did not know about in 2017.

Two, even Galbraith admits that even under the withdrawal plan we were going to leave 1,500 troops for supply purposes and would continue to aid South Vietnam:

        Training would end. Support for South Vietnam would continue. They had an army of over 200,000. The end of the war was not in sight. After the end of 1965, even under the withdrawal plan, 1,500 US troops were slated to remain, for supply purposes. But the war would then be Vietnamese only, with no possibility of it becoming an American war on Kennedy's watch. (JFK’s Vietnam Withdrawal Plan Is a Fact, Not Speculation (thenation.com)

Debate on this subject has been marred by Oliver Stone's false assumption that withdrawal meant abandonment. In Stone's narrative, JFK was killed because he was going to abandon South Vietnam to the Communists. But JFK had no such intention. He wanted to get as many U.S. military personnel out of South Vietnam as quickly as feasible, i.e., depending on the situation on the ground, but, as Selverstone shows, he had no intention of allowing a Communist takeover of South Vietnam on his watch.

 

Sorry but didn’t you have exactly the same argument a few weeks ago in a different thread.

Is it necessary to have another jumbo sized thread on the same topic with the same people making the same points.

It feels that the only reason is to start a fire. Certainly the arguments you make only hold water when filtered through a conservative lens, so they are not going to sway anyone one way or the other.

24 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

Sorenson may have believed this, but he was wrong. We now know that JFK had a Cuba coup planned for early December 1963. After Dallas, Bobby even tried to get LBJ to let the coup proceed, but LBJ refused. Lamar Waldron covers this in some detail in The Hidden History of the JFK Assassination.

LBJ's refusal shows that he was not part of the inner circle of the assassination plot, since the plotters appears to have hoped to use the assassination as an excuse to invade Cuba. I think LBJ knew that "something" was in the works against Kennedy, but I don't think he was one of the plotters. 

In terms of LBJ, it’s standard tradecraft to have different elements of the Big Event to be isolated from one another. He would have only known what he needed to know…which appears to be get sworn in asap and grab the reigns of power.

As Angleton said…JFKs murder was a house with many rooms. If you were in one room/element of the plot you were isolated from the other parts. Hence he did not know who shot John, as that was part of the ops room.

34 minutes ago, Gil Jesus said:

 

Don’t tell me…straight roads and aqueducts.

Right on Reg.

Sorry Gil, I’m only messing. The title just reminded me of Monty Python. I like your vids and input.

45 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

 

I never look askance at people who cannot see the sinister forces at work. I feel mostly sadness. I’ve read arguments that say folks like me need to be right, that we are attracted to the position that we see clearly where others are blind. Convenient way to dismiss the conspiracy minded. So many of my friends over the years have let me know that they prefer not to believe certain things because it makes them feel powerless. ‘What can I do?’ is the question often asked. Dr. Helen Caldicott called this propensity psychic numbing. 
What sees me through all this is that from studying history I’ve learned that this is nothing new, that power corrupts, that authority figures need to be very carefully vetted, which by the way comes down to one’s own desire to seek truth and doing the work oneself. History as we are taught it is full of lies, truth seekers have often been marginalized and worse. 
At its deepest level my desire for truth stems from empathy with humanity, and from wanting a better life. 
i also see that life on earth is beautiful, that friends and family take precedence, that the only person I can truly be responsible for is myself, that my behavior towards others is more important than my beliefs. It is not necessary to be detached from the horrors of war and poverty in order to live a good and meaningful life. It’s a gift beyond measure to be here now. 

One of the tenants of Stoicism is that history repeats itself and that what we experience has happened before. As you say, it’s nothing new.

Another tenant is that we should try and concentrate on what we can directly control and not worry about thing that are not directly within our control.

I’m not saying that necessarily applies directly to anyone here, just that it can offer food for thought.

14 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

Not in the least bit, at least not to me. 

The lone-gunman theory does not call into question the validity of our form of government and does not cause us to doubt our intelligence agencies, our law enforcement agencies, and our news media. The conspiracy theory does all of these things.

Very succinctly explained. Once I had processed the facts, I came to the conclusions that:

a) Despite these events, it’s still possible to live a healthy and relatively prosperous life and bring up my family in peace. This is far more than others around the world have. 

b) Personally I wanted the correction of the historical record in order to demonstrate that, despite its flaws, western democracies can discuss and work through these thorny issues over time. I don’t want external forces like Putin or China undermining our systems by weaponising this research.

That’s just my take. I’m not saying it works for anyone else.

23 minutes ago, Mark Ulrik said:

But the notion of a dark and mysterious conspiracy is also strangely appealing, isn't it?

For me personally, this was not the case. I simply wanted to understand our recent history.

I’m not attracted to conspiracy per se. If all the evidence pointed to a LN scenario then fine. 

27 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

This is one reason that I find it so very odd, if not bizarre, that WC apologists claim that many people embrace the conspiracy view of JFK's death to avoid facing the supposedly deeply disturbing implications of the lone-gunman theory. This turns reality on its head. I would truly love to believe that JFK was killed by a lone, disturbed assassin, and that there was no conspiracy of any kind behind his death. That would be a comforting thing to believe. The idea that JFK was killed by some lone nut is far less disturbing than the idea that a powerful, high-level conspiracy murdered him in a public execution and then launched an extensive cover-up.

I think this is correct.

When you start reading something like the Devils Chessboard it forces you to re-evaluate history and realise the world is not really the way you thought it was.

I would say this kicks off something akin to a mourning process with different stages - anger, depression and eventually some kind of acceptance and compromise.

I think some people maybe get stuck in a particular phase. I started catching up with the assassination literature again in 2015 and went through this mourning process and came out the other side. I think reading about Stoicism a few years back helped, as well as having a family with kids to help balance things out.

Anyway, all the best, have a good holiday season.

Whether you are a hardcore researcher or casual reader, the information you learn along the way via the research community can be a heavy weight.

It’s an incredibly dark topic. When you delve into the world of Angleton and Dulles, there is no light, it’s just feels evil.

Especially at this time of year, look after yourselves and don’t forget to love and allow yourself to be loved by your family, friends or trusty pet!

7 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

Quite right, Matt.  These threads are not about Carlson, his past, or what anyone thinks of him and his motive for saying what he did, despite some attempts to make them about that.  They're about what he said, which has created the space for others to pursue.   Particularly, in my view, his thoughts about the damage to society that the JFKA has caused since, and the role of the CIA in that.

May I make a further suggestion?  Please stop your attempts at gatekeeping--what people can say and what they shouldn't be allowed to say.

I’m afraid there is gate keeping on both sides.

For some, assassination research has taken over their life and their ego and sense of self has become intertwined with the topic. This can result in a lack of critical distance. 

You are correct that everyone is entitled to their opinion. Perhaps the most challenging thing can be to try and view the world from someone else’s perspective sometimes.

Personally, I doubt TC’s source exists and it’s not the first time someone from within the agency has allegedly said ‘yeah we did it’ or words to that effect.

13 minutes ago, James Wilkinson said:

Unspeakable took enough liberties to give me pause in accepting any of its other conclusions at face value without regularly scrutinizing its endnotes. Newman's books, by contrast, are a much smoother read because he's never given me cause to routinely second-guess his sourcing, and he's transparent about his suppositions and interpretations.

But as others have noted, Unspeakable is priceless as a compendium of scores of other works. My class-traitor-JFK argument doesn't rely on Douglass's interpretations one iota, but I still felt compelled to credit him for compiling the primary sources upon which my previous post was based.

I don't see how you could dismiss as "laughable" Wall St's turn against JFK if you'd been familiar with Chapter 4 of Unspeakable in particular, let alone the '62-steel-crisis fallout in general. It's an inescapable fact, and debunking superficial assertions to the contrary isn't nitpicking over the Judean People's Front -- it's pursuing intellectual honesty regardless of who's arguing what.

I've already laid out my aversion to playing footsie with white nationalists like Carlson, in the thread dedicated to that debate. It's a separate issue, and disagreement on one issue doesn't imply disagreement on the other.

Thanks for the clarification.

Newman has made some impressive findings over the years. I was disappointed with the last book of his I read where he described the Bagley encounter with Malcolm Blunt and said the chains moved down the track that day. I just thought…really, is that it. A conversation with nothing to back it up in writing and one of the parties dead to confirm or deny. I dare say it did occur however the book was underwhelming.

The new book (Poppov’s mole) sounds interesting however so I may read that in the New Year. If Malcolm Blunt is impressed, that’s a good start.

The problem with JFK from a historical perspective is that there is often evidence for both sides. He was sometimes playing both sides and flip flopping. I remember watching a documentary on his early years and marriage to Jackie. It was very well to do. His Dad had aspirations for one of his kids to be president for a long time…almost as a birth right.

As much as their is evidence for JFK being a class traitor I’m sure he did plenty of other things that don’t fall within this category.

He certainly made many enemies- however as these goons were slightly to the right of gengis khan - it was not difficult.