Simon Andrew

I like Douglass’ book - However he does tend to present things as being fact when in some cases there is only a probability his interpretation is correct. I think that is why it’s a go to book for many. It confirms a certain view which is probably correct however not with the degree of confidence he portrays. I put this down to frustration- knowing so much about a case without having the evidence to say beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore filling in the gaps himself.

They are not aspersions on JFK just a different take to yours The tone of many of the replies remind me of Monty Python’s Life of Brian and the group discussing what have the Romans done for us. They do say that if you go far left enough, the left and the right end up indistinguishable. Perhaps I’m just too much of a centrist.

Perhaps that is what Oswald thought when he was given the opportunity to work for Angleton’s false defector program. ‘Hey let’s hitch a ride, I wouldn’t get the opportunity else!’ Look how that turned out. What was he considered…’a useful idiot’. I appreciate the desire to make progress and the years of frustration - however I think it would be wise to ask that question…’where did that come from?’…indeed you have been asking that very question about the JFK assassination for decades.

Sorry this is a daft load of nonsense. If you wanna get cosy with Carlson feel free. As for left wing provocateur nope. My wife is black and my kids mixed and I loathe that racist Carlson. So this is not culture wars based - it’s human and real. Having followed your work for many years it comes as something of a disappointment that you cannot see through what Carlson is doing.

Not correct. The JFK assassination was a conspiracy.Fred Litwin’s stuff is pure misinformation. Carlson also promotes white supremacy and has hitched a ride on the JFK issue due to his belief that the CIA stuffed Trump. That’s it.

Tucker and his ilk are old style pre war isolationist conservatives. If this was a bunch of southern whites blowing up a stadium of foreign people, it wouldn’t even get a mention. In fact he would blame immigration for allowing enough non whites into the country and at least it’s less white replacement.

I dare say that the attention is good. As you say Carlson is not interested in what JFK stood for. He just wants to get back at the CIA as he thinks they stopped Trump and his white nationalist agenda. If you think that’s ok - sure go ahead.

Oh dear. I think there is a misunderstanding here. You are absolutely correct that JFK was not an imperialist however he did come from a similar social strata and was not a class warrior- he was not Woody Guthrie for goodness sake. As for the Lumumba reaction pic - JFK is deeply upset over the murder of a black leader. Carlson on the other hand pumps out white supremacist bile. Saying that you don’t watch Carlson normally is like saying it’s OK to sit down with Hitler because you haven’t read Mein Kampf. Carlson is only interested because he thinks the CIA stuffed Trump, not because of what JFK stood for.

I would say the Carlson’s utilisation of the JFK case is abusive. He shares nothing in common with JFK’s outlook and simply wants to use it for his own political ends. Some like the publicity- however to what end.

Sorry I’ve never heard of the chap.

Oh dear, playground barbs.

What a president and what a loss. Much copied in style but not in substance.

The idea that JFK was some kind of class warrior is laughable. If anything JFK was part of that ruling class. His election was also mired by undemocratic practices and back room deals. The evidence points to a small group of ex OSS and a few members of the joint chiefs who abused their power…and that’s it. It wasn’t even the entire agency.

Unfortunately that is not what happens. Count how many times the terms globalist, elites and other dog whistle terms are used in posts. There is occasionally some good stuff, however it’s increasingly buried under world views that are unrealistic and actually damage any correction of the historical record.

JFK was probably assassinated in conjunction with the security state. That is established based upon the balance of probabilities, but not beyond a reasonable doubt. Ok then what? The far right hark back to pre-war isolationist nationalism, which would have not intervened in WW2 and allowed Hitler free rein. They often now use bogus terms like Globalist and elites this or that. The fact is that modern technology connects us all and therefore naturally points towards business on a global scale. In short those on the right are railing against a natural course of events. Every society has had elites…it’s entirely natural. Even a bee colony has an elite…so again your battling against a natural course of events. Until the research community can kick out the extremes and work towards an end which can benefit our democratic countries, it’s going to fail. The security state messed up in 63…however believe it or not we need them. We need them to be the best versions of those agencies. I ask you, what do you think the end game of Tucker Carlson an his ilk is? Do you think JFK would approve of his motives and end game?

Reading Litwin and pals is the intellectual equivalent of shoving your head where the sun doesn’t shine and then jumping off a cliff.

Finally, what are the chances that a commission that was set up explicitly to avoid WW3 by concluding there was a LN, actually arrived at the correct conclusion anyway, despite being controlled by the people (Dulles, Angleton) who have both means an motive to get rid of JFK.

The source said ‘I believe’ rather than I know. As such his source gave an opinion. What he didn’t say was…I have a record that proves what I am saying. Carlson simply inferred this. The JFK assassination was kept largely off the books. We can see the skeleton of the operation however it can’t be proved beyond a reasonable doubt now as the people involved have been dead for decades. What should happen is to use a balance of probabilities argument. I would also look at using the same techniques agencies use for attribution of responsibility for cyber attacks to certain nation states to the Kennedy case. There are some parallels due to the nature of obfuscation in the case. They attribute malware attacks to different groups and nations all the time based upon less evidence than found in the Kennedy case.

As we know, the Russians put together a report following the assassination which placed the blame on a right wing individuals within the US security establishment. This has been dismissed as propaganda even though it actually linked in with much of what has been learned in the following decades. I always thought, how would they have established this anyway. The recent uncovering of Bruce Solie by Malcolm Blunt and then John Newman highlights a mole in the same team close to Angleton who may have had insight into such an insider plot at its root. This may explain why they managed to get close to the truth.

I provided my surname, my username was just set up like this and I can’t edit it. What a storm in a tea cup.

This is exactly the point. Indeed the extreme nature of some of the reactions here is indicative of the kind of politics Carlson stands for and the type of hatred that killed JFK in the first place.

It could have been worse, I could think of some other choice words to call him.

The Johannides info is interesting however it’s still a nuanced balance of probability argument that is beyond the general populace. There is enough information out there post ARRB for anyone to make an opinion. There maybe some nuggets left, however the real juicy stuff has gone. I think Malcolm Blunt detailed a few of the main elements of missing info. The missing Oswald box of records mentioned by Betsie Wolf, the Japan air base interviews, the New Orleans customs records..all gone. Had some of these been there, we may have gotten further.

Sorry, it’s the message as well. His suggestion that he rang someone at the CIA who has seen the records and they confirm it’s a conspiracy is bunk. It was a conspiracy, however the remaining records will if anything point to Angleton’s phoney Russia story. That is what would have been allowed to remain - however as we know, that is full of holes and the powers that be know it. Hence it’s easier for them not to go there. There may well be some interesting stuff on the DRE, however it’s still going to be a balance of probability argument. Tucker’s phoney CIA buddy claim will do more harm than good and take down any valuable points with it. As for political correctness, that is a really lazy term.

The problem with Tucker and his JFK spot is that he said the right thing but for the wrong reason. His aim is to use the JFK issue to delegitimise government and create a right wing ethno-state. He has more in common with Guy Bannister than any JFK policies. In 1963 Tucker would have gladly sat on the grassy knoll. He has more in common with the extreme right that snuffed out JFK. There is a balance of probabilities argument that elements of the CIA and joint staffs contributed to JFK’s murder. Any planning took place off the books, we can see the bones of the conspiracy however the connective tissue died long ago. You can’t look in the books/ records for something that took place largely off the books. You may find a few bones here or there, however the only way to have really solved this beyond a reasonable doubt was to have had Angleton and the joint chiefs thrown in Guantanamo bay in 63. That did not happen. I would suggest a different route. Make a better resolution of the JFK matter in the interest of the government and agencies. Namely, argue that as we confront non democratic forces in China and elsewhere that it is a sign of strength that we can confront what went wrong in Dallas. The CIA didn’t kill JFK, ex OSS elements within the agency abused their power. If any one person was responsible for JFKs murder it was Angleton. Siding with Tucker is therefore the wrong strategy in my opinion.