Jump to content
The Education Forum

Shots from the Front and the LN Construct


Recommended Posts

Friends,

On another thread, Ashton Gray has offered the following:

"I've said it before and I'll say it again in yet other terms: It seems highly unlikely to me (not to say bunghole-plug dumb) that sophisticated, highly-trained intelligence agents would plot for months, if not years, to set up an assassination of the President of the United States, to set up a Communist patsy to take the fall for it, to set up the location for the patsy behind and above the target at the time of the shooting—and then have the real sniper(s) shoot from in front of the target."

Unless ...

If the selfsame "sophisticated, highly-trained intelligence agents" were assigned to design an assassination that would simultaneously A maximize chances for a kill, B convince honest investigators, via the development and planting in advance of wholly contrived "evidence," that the multi-shooter attack so obvious that day to even untrained civilian observers was pulled off by the Commies, and C provide a defensible public LN fallback position so as to protect the real conspirators from exposure by cutting off in-depth investigation before it could get started, then shots from the front do indeed make sense.

The plotters' argument: Of course there were multiple shooters, Mr. Chief Justice. The ambush was designed and executed by Commies. Although if we say so, the public demands WWIII. But don't worry. We can bury everything but Oswald, convince the public that he acted alone, and what we do to even the score later on, in private, will never see the light of day.

The KEY to this multi-phase conspiracy would be evidence of multiple-shooters.

But couldn't they be restricted to rearward firing positions?

Not if the chances for a kill were to be maximized. And as Ashton and I agree, a Parkland coup de grace was mandated for precisely that reason.

The rust on Occam's razor thickens.

Or does it?

Charles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Friends,

On another thread, Ashton Gray has offered the following:

"I've said it before and I'll say it again in yet other terms: It seems highly unlikely to me (not to say bunghole-plug dumb) that sophisticated, highly-trained intelligence agents would plot for months, if not years, to set up an assassination of the President of the United States, to set up a Communist patsy to take the fall for it, to set up the location for the patsy behind and above the target at the time of the shooting—and then have the real sniper(s) shoot from in front of the target."

Unless ...

If the selfsame "sophisticated, highly-trained intelligence agents" were assigned to design an assassination that would simultaneously A maximize chances for a kill, B convince honest investigators, via the development and planting in advance of wholly contrived "evidence," that the multi-shooter attack so obvious that day to even untrained civilian observers was pulled off by the Commies, and C provide a defensible public LN fallback position so as to protect the real conspirators from exposure by cutting off in-depth investigation before it could get started, then shots from the front do indeed make sense.

The plotters' argument: Of course there were multiple shooters, Mr. Chief Justice. The ambush was designed and executed by Commies. Although if we say so, the public demands WWIII. But don't worry. We can bury everything but Oswald, convince the public that he acted alone, and what we do to even the score later on, in private, will never see the light of day.

The KEY to this multi-phase conspiracy would be evidence of multiple-shooters.

But couldn't they be restricted to rearward firing positions?

Not if the chances for a kill were to be maximized. And as Ashton and I agree, a Parkland coup de grace was mandated for precisely that reason.

The rust on Occam's razor thickens.

Or does it?

Charles

Generally I agree with Ashton Gray's views on these matters, and he has a point here, but I believe what happened is best stated by (the inimitable) Vincent Salandria to Gaeton Fonzi (The Last Investigation p.29)

"Don't you think that the men who killed Kennedy had the means to do it in the most sophisticated and subtle way? They choose not to. Instead they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealy Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner. The cover story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiney The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear: ' We are in control and no one-not the President, not Congress, nor any elected official-no one can do anything about it' ".

These words were spoken at the beginning of HSCA. They ring as true today as they did then. And lest we forget our history: Bobby, (killed by CIA); HSCA "Killed" by CIA- Operation Mockingbird. Attorney Richard Sprague and Attorney Robert Tanenbaum were serious about a HOMICIDE investigation. But we all know what happened. Once Blakey took over the fix was in. What has changed since?

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Friends,

On another thread, Ashton Gray has offered the following:

"I've said it before and I'll say it again in yet other terms: It seems highly unlikely to me (not to say bunghole-plug dumb) that sophisticated, highly-trained intelligence agents would plot for months, if not years, to set up an assassination of the President of the United States, to set up a Communist patsy to take the fall for it, to set up the location for the patsy behind and above the target at the time of the shooting—and then have the real sniper(s) shoot from in front of the target."

Unless ...

If the selfsame "sophisticated, highly-trained intelligence agents" were assigned to design an assassination that would simultaneously A maximize chances for a kill, B convince honest investigators, via the development and planting in advance of wholly contrived "evidence," that the multi-shooter attack so obvious that day to even untrained civilian observers was pulled off by the Commies, and C provide a defensible public LN fallback position so as to protect the real conspirators from exposure by cutting off in-depth investigation before it could get started, then shots from the front do indeed make sense.

The plotters' argument: Of course there were multiple shooters, Mr. Chief Justice. The ambush was designed and executed by Commies. Although if we say so, the public demands WWIII. But don't worry. We can bury everything but Oswald, convince the public that he acted alone, and what we do to even the score later on, in private, will never see the light of day.

The KEY to this multi-phase conspiracy would be evidence of multiple-shooters.

But couldn't they be restricted to rearward firing positions?

Not if the chances for a kill were to be maximized. And as Ashton and I agree, a Parkland coup de grace was mandated for precisely that reason.

The rust on Occam's razor thickens.

Or does it?

Charles

Generally I agree with Ashton Gray's views on these matters, and he has a point here, but I believe what happened is best stated by (the inimitable) Vincent Salandria to Gaeton Fonzi (The Last Investigation p.29)

"Don't you think that the men who killed Kennedy had the means to do it in the most sophisticated and subtle way? They choose not to. Instead they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealy Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner. The cover story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiney The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear: ' We are in control and no one-not the President, not Congress, nor any elected official-no one can do anything about it' ".

These words were spoken at the beginning of HSCA. They ring as true today as they did then. And lest we forget our history: Bobby, (killed by CIA); HSCA "Killed" by CIA- Operation Mockingbird. Attorney Richard Sprague and Attorney Robert Tanenbaum were serious about a HOMICIDE investigation. But we all know what happened. Once Blakey took over the fix was in. What has changed since?

Dawn

Not much [read all but zero], from the official side, sadly...most sadly. On our side, we are a lot wiser and more confident of what we long suspected. We have new supporting facts and

documents, some new witness testimony and statements. Etc. The official side is not just afraid of being embarassed or proven wrong - or even complicit...they will fight with everything they have [and that is a lot!], as they know....as we should too...that the truth of the events of Dallas and all that went before and after, that inteconnect and intersect would [and should!] bring down the entire house of cards...boom....end of America, as presently constructed. I for one, will not mourn its passing should that great day arrive, for what will rise from the ashes of that Pheonix can only be better by far, more democratic by light-years, an end to rule by the Oligarchs and Corporations, a nation of peace and justice, and not the current War monger monster, a nation that takes care of its own poor and in need and not socialism for the rich and preditory/competitive capitatalism for everyone else. I'm not holding my breath, but I, like MLK, [who the bastards killed as well]

have a dream........

I think the crossfire was built-in. Yes, the wanted to set it up to look like shots from one long nut in the back...but they really didn't care if that came off or not!.....they wanted it to be a public execution and keep other presidents and people in power in line [none of whom were fooled for a second, as to the same could happen to them...it was also a message to the American drones that they were not in control - it was no longer a representational democracy, nor a real democracy at all....it was run by a powerful few and a mountain of denial and figleafs would be applied so no one had to 'freak'.....just get lost in the bread and circus of American life....and look where we are in that now! I don't even think the shots fired, nor their caliber and angle are so important, though of interest and add new levels of evidence. Look at what happened, who lost, who benefited, who covered-up, who lost their lives for knowing or seeing too much, what followed that never could have if the conspirators had been exposed and brought to justice...but how could they within our system...as they control the [in]justice system. As to a bullet or other missile to the neck, its academic. I personally believe it was a small frontal wound...but who cares...his head was so shot up with multiple bullets, one at least exploding type, they had to reconstruct it and hide the brain [what little remained]. We were had. JFK was had. RFK was had. We were overthrown....and it was done with a big finger in our face in public. They could have killed him in his sleep or at home or the White House any day they wanted. They chose a public exectution and one that, yes, had some transparent elements and others that were deeply hidden. Both were altered by new lies after the fact. False and controlled 'investigations' assured no real mis-steps, nor secrets much revealed. They don't care a few of us know...as long as most are silent, don't demand a revolution, only evince confusion and depression.....even better fo the kinds of things that came after...all the way through 9/11 and the genocidal and imperialistic war in Iraq and soon to be in Iran.....

`Go ahead and print it,' Dulles said. `Nobody will read it anyway.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...