Jump to content
The Education Forum

New Approach


William Kelly
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have come across many theories in the course of my research into the assassination of President Kennedy, and have explored them all, or most of them, and dissatisfied with them all, I've decided to develop my own, which is not set in stone and can be altered with the addition of new information or perspectives.

The traditional approaches to the crime have generally been narrowed down into two distinct categories, those who believe that the President was killed by a lone, deranged nut and those who believe there was a conspiracy.

There are many variations on these two themes, but for the most part, that's the way they have broken down in the course of debate, although there are those who also suspect the lone assassin was acting at the behest of others.

From there, those Conspiracy Theorists then break down into different categories, depending on who they put forth as the instigators of the conspiracy, with the usual suspects being the CIA, the Mafia, the anti-Castro Cubans, Castro, the KGB, each with its adherents and detractors who hold elaborate debates on the subject.

Actually, as those behind the assassination knew, the only real debate was/is between those who want the assassination and murders of Dallas to be reviewed by the established legal judicial system, and those who want to accept or debate the Warren Commission/HSCA/ARRB or any other appointed commission interpretation.

As long as the legal system is not utilized, those responsible go unpursued, and that's why Garrison was so dangerous, and vulernable.

The assassination cannot be looked at traditionally, as a liberal or conservative, democrat or republican, right wing or left wing, but it has divided debaters over whether the CIA or Communists were behind it, when I think it should be viewed as more of a skirmish in a war between competing intelligence agencies.

But in devising my own theory, besides looking at the whole situation in general as a war between competing intelligence agencies, I look at those who claim that the President was killed by a lone, deranged nut case, and see what they are really saying.

As most eloquently put by Prof. Rhan and Priscilla Johnson McMillan, this scenario sqarely blames the murder of the President on a series of apprently inconsequential actions - that led to the assassination - as indication that the death of Kennedy was something of a social accident totally unrelated to the political and historical situation of the day and today.

According to PJM, conspiracy theorists contrive the conspiracies to give meaning to what really was only the act of a psychotic madman.

Then among the conspiracy theorists, those who claim what happened at Dealey Plaza was the result of the actions of the Mafia, anti-Castro Cubans, mid-level CIA officers, or all three combined, continue to perpetuate the idea that the assassination was the result of forces outside the government acting on motives of revenge or hate but still an exterior force that is an aberation and not systematic.

In both the Lone Nut and the Conspiarcy Theoriums, the assassination is a Benign act, something of an accident of history.

My position is that the assassination, as viewed from a national security pespective, must have been one way or another, but whatever it was, it should, can and must be determined in order to prevent it from happening again.

But apart from the Benigh theories of the Lone Nut and Conspiracy Theoriests, there are other perspectives and approachs to the crime, including that of the open-minded CSI homicide detective and intelligence analysists who can determine the truth.

Of all the conspiratorial possibilities, other than those Benign attacks by Lone Nuts and Conspiracies by the Mafia, Cubans or CIA, there is the possibility that the assassination was an inside job, a covert coup d'etat in which those who planned and instigated the murder also took over the government, and changed policy.

If the assassination of the President at Dealy Plaza was not by a Lone Nut or an outside domestic or foreign conspiracy, but an inside job, a coup, then it was not Benigh but Infectious, and was part of the system and is still affecting us today.

Those who claim President Kennedy was killed by a Lone Nut or a conspiracy by the mob or Cubans or mid-level CIA officers, really mean that the assassination was a benign attack, and one we can argue over, debate and play palor games, but not have to really address through the legal system or as a threat to the national security. It's okay.

But those who see the assassination as a coup, also realize that the coup isn't over, and those who took over the government then are still pulling strings and covert ops and coups today, and will continue to do so until the assassination is recognized as not-benign, still infectious and must be cleansed.

There's a lot of changes being made in the political system today, especially in the way the game's been played in the past, and among them is the perception that political assassinations are accidents that can't be avoided or rectified.

The theory that I advocate is that the assassinations be viewed as part of the continuing Cold War between competing intelligence agencies, and the approach that I think is correct is that the assassination of President Kennedy must be recognized as not only a conspiracy but a coup, and a threat to our national security today.

Comments and critiques appreciated.

BK

Edited by William Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 30
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Bill, I'm afraid we find ourselves in profound disagreement.

Was the murder of JFK a coup against the state/system or an instance of the self-correcting state/system righting itself?

Did JFK embody the pre-existing state/system or a mortal threat to it?

Those who killed JFK did not emerge in 1963 as new players. They were/are the long-established state/system which JFK endangered.

By killing JFK they did not take control, but rather maintained their control.

It is we who threaten their national security.

Edited by Charles Drago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill, I'm afraid we find ourselves in profound disagreement.

Was the murder of JFK a coup against the state/system or an instance of the self-correcting state/system righting itself?

Did JFK embody the pre-existing state/system or a mortal threat to it?

Those who killed JFK did not emerge in 1963 as new players. They were/are the long-established state/system which JFK endangered.

By killing JFK they did not take control, but rather maintained their control.

It is we who threaten their national security.

Charles is closer to right than Bill...though I think they are basically saying the same thing.

I believe the assn was indeed a COUP as Bill says...but only to REGAIN the control which

they had lost when JFK the usurper messed up their playhouse. So Charles is correct. The

assn was to MAINTAIN (regain) THEIR CONTROL.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill, I'm afraid we find ourselves in profound disagreement.

Was the murder of JFK a coup against the state/system or an instance of the self-correcting state/system righting itself?

Did JFK embody the pre-existing state/system or a mortal threat to it?

Those who killed JFK did not emerge in 1963 as new players. They were/are the long-established state/system which JFK endangered.

By killing JFK they did not take control, but rather maintained their control.

It is we who threaten their national security.

Charles is closer to right than Bill...though I think they are basically saying the same thing.

I believe the assn was indeed a COUP as Bill says...but only to REGAIN the control which

they had lost when JFK the usurper messed up their playhouse. So Charles is correct. The

assn was to MAINTAIN (regain) THEIR CONTROL.

Jack

I certainly don't want to get into a point/counterpoint debate about the nature of the Kennedy assassination. But I would like to offer something of a big picture view of the context of the assassination.

Meaning, that obviously for anyone who has read my posts here on the Forum, not only do I believe there was a conspiracy but that there were elements within our own government that were involved in its implementation and execution and cover-up.

Having said that what I wanted to delve into a little bit is to make the point that over the 20th century liberal governments around the world can be said to have reached their apex in two different periods in 1945, when the United Nations came into being and simultaneously many new nations emerged freed from the shackles of quote, their former imperialist masters, unquote, and in 1963 when, not only was President Kennedy assassinated, but there was, from that point on a steady worldwide shift to the right. To argue my point, compare the liberal governments of deGaulle's France to the France of today or, to the liberal governments of Premier Macmillan of Britain compared with the UK government today or Canada's Trudeau government in the 1970's compared with the Canadian government, which, incidentally just had a major shakeup that involved the government of Great Britain.

Critics will argue that I am discussing, with reference to the latter, two different dynamics...but my point is that there can be the argument that just as the assassinations of the 1960's were instrumental in destroying the center/liberal wing of the democratic party in the United States, expounding on that premise, the argument can be held that the forces of history, are, in my opinion even deeper than the "deep politics" that Peter Dale Scott, has delineated.

Edited by Robert Howard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meaning, that obviously for anyone who has read my posts here on the Forum, not only do I believe there was a conspiracy but that there were elements within our own government that were involved in its implementation and execution and cover-up.
[emphasis added by Drago]

Robert,

Your posts, like those of BK, are consistently of immense interest, and all thoughtful, principled observers of the JFK assassination welcome them. But I must disagree with your comments as copied above.

You more than most must move from "belief" to certitude. There was and is a conspiracy.

Further, I submit that the term "government" is rendered moot by the events of 11/22/63. Who governed us then? Who governs us now?

That individuals holding powerful positions within agencies of the over-government of the U.S. conspired to kill JFK is established beyond reasonable debate. But to imply that, based on their participation, said over-government did the deed is to perpetuate the myth that in large measure the assassination was undertaken to preserve.

More on this at www.deeppoliticsforum.com

Respectfully,

Charles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert Howard wrote:

Having said that what I wanted to delve into a little bit is to make the point that over the 20th century liberal governments around the world can be said to have reached their apex in two different periods in 1945, when the United Nations came into being and simultaneously many new nations emerged freed from the shackles of quote, their former imperialist masters, unquote, and in 1963 when, not only was President Kennedy assassinated, but there was, from that point on a steady worldwide shift to the right.

..but my point is that there can be the argument that just as the assassinations of the 1960's were instrumental in destroying the center/liberal wing of the democratic party in the United States, expounding on that premise, the argument can be held that the forces of history, are, in my opinion even deeper than the "deep politics" that Peter Dale Scott, has delineated.

------

Was the "liberalism" of 1945 a "liberalism of convenience" i.e. only liberal because the forces of the right in Europe, Asia, indeed all over the world thoroughly discredited in the eyes of their own populations as a result of WWII? Was this liberalism of the 45-63 period in essence different from the conservative period that came later, or was it a necessary disguise for US global ambitions, and also to cover up British and US complicity with the Nazis?

To put it another way, why did Dulles turn to the Unitarians and other liberal protestant networks in Western Europe. Wasn't it because all others to the right were simply too tainted?

Edited by Nathaniel Heidenheimer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi William

You finished your "New Approach" thread with the statement: "The theory that I advocate is that the assassinations be viewed as part of the continuing Cold War between competing intelligence agencies, and the approach that I think is correct is that the assassination of President Kennedy must be recognized as not only a conspiracy but a coup, and a threat to our national security today."

My research has turned a new page into the mysterious operations of a group known as Secret Intelligence. Depending on how you view this group they were either a "contract" intelligence organization or a "deep cover" intelligence organization within the established intelligence community. Members/former members/associates include John J. McCloy, Richard Helms, Demitri de Mohrenschildt (brother of George), Winston Scott. It seems also clear that this group was affilliated with or a competing agency to the NSA and were most likely watching Frank Rowlett, Meridith Gardner and John B. Hurt (all names that can be associated with the assassination of JFK or the investigation of that assassination).

We sometimes forget that in 1963 the existence of the National Security Agency was denied by everyone in government yet it existed. It is, therefor, not to far fetched to suggest, as you advocate, that "competing intelligence agencies" existed and continue to exist. As I posted in a previous thread both Allen Dulles and John Grombach (head of SI) would provide testimony in the congressional hearings that would lead to the creation of the CIA. Dulles was constantly bothered by the "competing" agency ran by Grombach and continually tried to undermine its existance (the Dulles biography goes into detail about this). I would agree that this may be a reason that the Gordian Knot of the Kennedy conspiracy remains unresolved.....no one has discovered tha actual beginning or end to the string of information that has been woven into this Knot of unreleased information that may center around the competing intelligence agencies within the US Intelligence community.

It is here that I agree with you that a "New Approach" be entered into in the search for knowledge. I might suggest, just as Alexander 'solved" the puzzle of the Gordian Knot by cutting it open with his sword and exposing the interior threads, that we must quit dancing around the exterior of the knot and begin our seach by exposing what is at the core.

Those responsible for the result of the events that occured on November 22, 1963 will never be exposed by focusing on that days events, as has been done for the past 45 years.

It is my contention and I believe it is what you are suggesting as well, that we must look more closely at the mechanics of how a very small group of people could have planned, manipulated and pulled of the assassination as well as idnetifying their reasons behind their desire to eliminate Kennedy and how the coverup of thier responsibility was accomplished.

According to Plutarch for many years people focused on the Gordian Knot by examining the exterior of it from every possible and conceiveable angle.

But only the powerful blow of Alexander's sword exposed the interior of the puzzle.

Jim Root

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi William

You finished your "New Approach" thread with the statement: "The theory that I advocate is that the assassinations be viewed as part of the continuing Cold War between competing intelligence agencies, and the approach that I think is correct is that the assassination of President Kennedy must be recognized as not only a conspiracy but a coup, and a threat to our national security today."

My research has turned a new page into the mysterious operations of a group known as Secret Intelligence. Depending on how you view this group they were either a "contract" intelligence organization or a "deep cover" intelligence organization within the established intelligence community. Members/former members/associates include John J. McCloy, Richard Helms, Demitri de Mohrenschildt (brother of George), Winston Scott. It seems also clear that this group was affilliated with or a competing agency to the NSA and were most likely watching Frank Rowlett, Meridith Gardner and John B. Hurt (all names that can be associated with the assassination of JFK or the investigation of that assassination).

We sometimes forget that in 1963 the existence of the National Security Agency was denied by everyone in government yet it existed. It is, therefor, not to far fetched to suggest, as you advocate, that "competing intelligence agencies" existed and continue to exist. As I posted in a previous thread both Allen Dulles and John Grombach (head of SI) would provide testimony in the congressional hearings that would lead to the creation of the CIA. Dulles was constantly bothered by the "competing" agency ran by Grombach and continually tried to undermine its existance (the Dulles biography goes into detail about this). I would agree that this may be a reason that the Gordian Knot of the Kennedy conspiracy remains unresolved.....no one has discovered tha actual beginning or end to the string of information that has been woven into this Knot of unreleased information that may center around the competing intelligence agencies within the US Intelligence community.

It is here that I agree with you that a "New Approach" be entered into in the search for knowledge. I might suggest, just as Alexander 'solved" the puzzle of the Gordian Knot by cutting it open with his sword and exposing the interior threads, that we must quit dancing around the exterior of the knot and begin our seach by exposing what is at the core.

Those responsible for the result of the events that occured on November 22, 1963 will never be exposed by focusing on that days events, as has been done for the past 45 years.

It is my contention and I believe it is what you are suggesting as well, that we must look more closely at the mechanics of how a very small group of people could have planned, manipulated and pulled of the assassination as well as idnetifying their reasons behind their desire to eliminate Kennedy and how the coverup of thier responsibility was accomplished.

According to Plutarch for many years people focused on the Gordian Knot by examining the exterior of it from every possible and conceiveable angle.

But only the powerful blow of Alexander's sword exposed the interior of the puzzle.

Jim Root

I can't really add anything else to this topic, well, that's not true. lol. As I figured not many Forum members have had an opportunity to read the 1963 Annual Report of the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

See the link.

http://www.archive.org/stream/annualreport...63unit_djvu.txt

But I enjoyed the discourse. I did want to respond to Charles' comments. I do believe with certitude that the JFK Assassination was a conspiracy, I also, have a deep respect for you, I understand you wrote the foreword to A Certain Arrogance, by the late and highly esteemed George Michael Evica. To have that distinction, speaks well of you. The rest of your comments lead to me believe, your knowledge base probably has some facts, I am not privy to......But I certainly couldn't disagree with any points you made.

I had a copy of George Evica's And We Are All Mortal once, and it was around that time, that I started to realize my life would

never be the same. If there is anything that places me in a unique situation, it is doubtless the fact that I have lived in Dallas.

I hate to say it, but to me, it will always be "nut country," I mean, where else would President Bush build his library?

It is one of the sad ironies of history that, it is the history that has been made since 1963, which has produced what we are all witnessing in America today. The question is, in what form will we survive it

President Kennedy sought to defeat totalitarianism by a free and open exchange of information and dialogue. It is the epic tragedy of our time, in my estimation, that we will never know, where that path would have taken us. In reality, after 1963, American foreign policy just went back to the drawing board and the business as usual of "containment," and organized crime went back to business as usual.

Like your post Jim. Dead on.

.

Edited by Robert Howard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did want to respond to Charles' comments. I do believe with certitude that the JFK Assassination was a conspiracy, I also, have a deep respect for you, I understand you wrote the foreword to A Certain Arrogance, by the late and highly esteemed George Michael Evica. To have that distinction, speaks well of you. The rest of your comments lead to me believe, your knowledge base probably has some facts, I am not privy to......But I certainly couldn't disagree with any points you made.

I had a copy of George Evica's And We Are All Mortal once, and it was around that time, that I started to realize my life would never be the same.

Robert,

Thank you. I'll make certain that the Evica family reads your kind words about George Michael.

Again, and not to dwell undeservedly on semantics, I read your comments as reflecting your certain knowledge of conspiracy.

For what it's worth, my thoughts on the case -- at least as far as this exchange is concerned -- are not informed by any information that is not readily accessible in the literature.

If there is anything that places me in a unique situation, it is doubtless the fact that I have lived in Dallas. I hate to say it, but to me, it will always be "nut country."

Of course this characterization, which was commonly held in 1963, was one of the two major factors that led to the selection of Dallas as the killing zone (the other, of course, relates to the efforts to include LBJ as a False Sponsor of the assassination and thus enhance control of his presidency and protect the true Sponsors).

I mean, where else would President Bush build his library?

Hey, don't knock it. "President" Bush is looking forward to his first library visit.

Thanks again, Robert.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill, I'm afraid we find ourselves in profound disagreement.

Was the murder of JFK a coup against the state/system or an instance of the self-correcting state/system righting itself?

Did JFK embody the pre-existing state/system or a mortal threat to it?

Those who killed JFK did not emerge in 1963 as new players. They were/are the long-established state/system which JFK endangered.

By killing JFK they did not take control, but rather maintained their control.

It is we who threaten their national security.

Charles is closer to right than Bill...though I think they are basically saying the same thing.

I believe the assn was indeed a COUP as Bill says...but only to REGAIN the control which

they had lost when JFK the usurper messed up their playhouse. So Charles is correct. The

assn was to MAINTAIN (regain) THEIR CONTROL.

Jack

Thank you Charles and Jack for responding.

As I said, my theories are not carved in stone but open to variables and persuasion.

I am trying to come up with an approach to the murder that will not lead to a debate but will result in the legal resolution of the matter so there will no longer be a debate.

In doing so, rather than have multiple theories expounded upon, I have latched on to the national security imperative that requires the truth to be determined, as what happened in Dealey Plaza only really happened one way.

Therefore, those who claim the assassination was the work of a Lone Nut case, and those who claim it was a conspiracy by a group outside the government - Mob, CIA, Cubans, KGB, et al., - are all in one category that claims that the assassination was a simple homicide against Kennedy the man, and not a systematic inside job, a coup.

Charles then asks, "Was the murder of JFK a coup against the state/system or an instance of the self-correcting state/system righting itself?"

Which is not my question, but allows me to adjust my theory so that it includes the idea that the coup was not a take over of the goverment, but a maintenance of power.

So like Jack and Robert, I don't see where we are in such profound disagreement.

Those who see the assassination as a lone nub, or a mob/Cuban/CIA murder in retaliation or revenge for the Bay of Pigs, or whatever reason, all claim that the assassination was an attack from the outside, and didn't change policy with a new president.

I am drawing the line in the sand, not between the tradional Lone Nutters and Conspiracy Theorists, but between those LNs and CTs who claim the murder was instigated by outside forces for personal motives, and those who recognize the assassination as an inside job, a coup, and who assumed the power of the presidency.

There are national security implicaitons in either case, but saying that the president can be killed by a crazy person anytime, and nobody can do anything about it, is one thing, but for a group of people to conspire to kill the president and get away with it is another, and for those people to have used the murder to take over the government is most certainly a threat to the national security.

I also want to address some of the things that Jim Root has to say, as that's the direction I am going.

When John Judge met Fletcher Prouty for the first time, they said that Judge worked from Dealey Plaza upwards and Fletcher Prouty worked downwards and they met at the Joint Chiefs.

BK

Edited by William Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Charles and Jack for responding.

You are quite welcome. I can think of no more important question.

I am trying to come up with an approach to the murder that will not lead to a debate but will result in the legal resolution of the matter so there will no longer be a debate.

In doing so, rather than have multiple theories expounded upon, I have latched on to the national security imperative that requires the truth to be determined, as what happened in Dealey Plaza only really happened one way.

I commend and join this effort.

Charles then asks, "Was the murder of JFK a coup against the state/system or an instance of the self-correcting state/system righting itself?"

Which is not my question, but allows me to adjust my theory so that it includes the idea that the coup was not a take over of the goverment, but a maintenance of power.

So like Jack and Robert, I don't see where we are in such profound disagreement.

[F]or those people to have used the murder to take over the government is most certainly a threat to the national security.

If I may focus on where I see the disagreement: "Those people" did not "take over" the government by killing Kennedy, but rather regained full control of the government that they had maintained for decades (if not longer) and that had been eroded to an unsettling degree (from their perspective) by JFK.

When John Judge met Fletcher Prouty for the first time, they said that Judge worked from Dealey Plaza upwards and Fletcher Prouty worked downwards and they met at the Joint Chiefs.

I wonder, Bill, if you share my sense that the JCS even in its most lunatic incarnation looked to the figure of ultimate military authority for a de facto "go" order?

More on this on the Deep Politics Forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Charles and Jack for responding.

You are quite welcome. I can think of no more important question.

I am trying to come up with an approach to the murder that will not lead to a debate but will result in the legal resolution of the matter so there will no longer be a debate.

In doing so, rather than have multiple theories expounded upon, I have latched on to the national security imperative that requires the truth to be determined, as what happened in Dealey Plaza only really happened one way.

I commend and join this effort.

Charles then asks, "Was the murder of JFK a coup against the state/system or an instance of the self-correcting state/system righting itself?"

Which is not my question, but allows me to adjust my theory so that it includes the idea that the coup was not a take over of the goverment, but a maintenance of power.

So like Jack and Robert, I don't see where we are in such profound disagreement.

[F]or those people to have used the murder to take over the government is most certainly a threat to the national security.

If I may focus on where I see the disagreement: "Those people" did not "take over" the government by killing Kennedy, but rather regained full control of the government that they had maintained for decades (if not longer) and that had been eroded to an unsettling degree (from their perspective) by JFK.

When John Judge met Fletcher Prouty for the first time, they said that Judge worked from Dealey Plaza upwards and Fletcher Prouty worked downwards and they met at the Joint Chiefs.

I wonder, Bill, if you share my sense that the JCS even in its most lunatic incarnation looked to the figure of ultimate military authority for a de facto "go" order?

More on this on the Deep Politics Forum.

To borrow a Regis Philbin phrase...JFK was OUTTA CONTROL. That is what did him in. Simple as that.

The CONTROL GROUP had many members, and he defied them. Only THEY had the MOTIVE, MEANS,

AND OPPORTUNITY to do Dallas. Who was IN control? They are the suspects. They were primarily

internationalists power brokers (read money men, bankers), likely headed (from all I read) by

David Rockefeller. They have been in control again since 1963, and have tightened their control.

Remember the saying, FOLLOW THE MONEY. Money = Power. Power = Control.

Players who loved money and power were easy recruits for the plot...read LBJ, Hoover, Dulles, etc.

Charles calls them "false sponsors". I call them co-conspirators.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill, I'm afraid we find ourselves in profound disagreement.

Was the murder of JFK a coup against the state/system or an instance of the self-correcting state/system righting itself?

Did JFK embody the pre-existing state/system or a mortal threat to it?

Those who killed JFK did not emerge in 1963 as new players. They were/are the long-established state/system which JFK endangered.

By killing JFK they did not take control, but rather maintained their control.

It is we who threaten their national security.

Charles is closer to right than Bill...though I think they are basically saying the same thing.

I believe the assn was indeed a COUP as Bill says...but only to REGAIN the control which

they had lost when JFK the usurper messed up their playhouse. So Charles is correct. The

assn was to MAINTAIN (regain) THEIR CONTROL.

Jack

Thank you Charles and Jack for responding.

As I said, my theories are not carved in stone but open to variables and persuasion.

I am trying to come up with an approach to the murder that will not lead to a debate but will result in the legal resolution of the matter so there will no longer be a debate.

In doing so, rather than have multiple theories expounded upon, I have latched on to the national security imperative that requires the truth to be determined, as what happened in Dealey Plaza only really happened one way.

Therefore, those who claim the assassination was the work of a Lone Nut case, and those who claim it was a conspiracy by a group outside the government - Mob, CIA, Cubans, KGB, et al., - are all in one category that claims that the assassination was a simple homicide against Kennedy the man, and not a systematic inside job, a coup.

Charles then asks, "Was the murder of JFK a coup against the state/system or an instance of the self-correcting state/system righting itself?"

Which is not my question, but allows me to adjust my theory so that it includes the idea that the coup was not a take over of the goverment, but a maintenance of power.

So like Jack and Robert, I don't see where we are in such profound disagreement.

Those who see the assassination as a lone nub, or a mob/Cuban/CIA murder in retaliation or revenge for the Bay of Pigs, or whatever reason, all claim that the assassination was an attack from the outside, and didn't change policy with a new president.

I am drawing the line in the sand, not between the tradional Lone Nutters and Conspiracy Theorists, but between those LNs and CTs who claim the murder was instigated by outside forces for personal motives, and those who recognize the assassination as an inside job, a coup, and who assumed the power of the presidency.

There are national security implicaitons in either case, but saying that the president can be killed by a crazy person anytime, and nobody can do anything about it, is one thing, but for a group of people to conspire to kill the president and get away with it is another, and for those people to have used the murder to take over the government is most certainly a threat to the national security.

I also want to address some of the things that Jim Root has to say, as that's the direction I am going.

When John Judge met Fletcher Prouty for the first time, they said that Judge worked from Dealey Plaza upwards and Fletcher Prouty worked downwards and they met at the Joint Chiefs.

BK

Well put Bill, I would like to add my own thoughts to a rather significant aspect of the last post by Charles Drago. And on this one we, Charles and I, are apparently in total agreement. That is, Landslide Lyndon......There is, with the passage of time, a certain dynamic that has slowly been taking place......Tentatively, I would describe it as the "politically correct big fish." And I would assume, there is no ambiguity in where I am going with this.

LBJ, I will submit, has, for the time being anyway, emerged as the politically correct "fall guy" for the JFK Assassination. When E Howard Hunt wrote his book shortly before he died, the following passage's did not go un-noticed by myself and others....

"So there are now three CIA agents who have been named in connection with Oswald-- David Phillips, Cord Meyer and Bill Harvey-- all with means, motive, opportunity or some connection to kill Kennedy. If that's the case, Harvey had seniority and would have been the person in charge, with the others taking orders from him........Some theorists hypothesize that two other high-profile individuals might have been involved:Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson. As far as I'm concerned, as paranoid as he was, Nixon would never have been involved. He would not only have been horrified of the action but would never have trusted anyone to know he was involved. Lyndon Johnson was an opportunist who would not have hesitated to get rid of any obstacles in his way.1

1 pages 135-36, American Spy: My Secret History In The CIA, Watergate & Beyond with Greg Aunapu - John Wiley & Son's Inc. 2007

Personally, for someone who spent half his active career with a veneer of secrecy attached to his whereabouts and involvement in the very topic he was analyzing, I never felt comfortable letting Eduardo be my guide on his Kennedy-Assassination chronicle, but the point is that he had, arguably offered up Lyndon as the sacrificial offering for a pseudo-credible media credible, for lack of a better word....spokesman....[Obviously space and time don't allow time to go into the Saint John aspect of this, and, what I am focusing on is irrespective of that material anyway. Even though I find E.H. Hunt's son credible, more or less.]

Now, I would like to direct your attention to other events, including the flight from Dallas Love Field to Andrews AFB in Washington......

2:50 P.M. Jim Bishop reports that a Dallas policeman whispers to Captain Will Fritz: "I hear this Oswald has a furnished room on Beckley."

It has been suggested that the policeman who gave Fritz this information could have been Roscoe White.

3:00 P.M. Word reaches LBJ aboard Air Force One through Major General Chester Clifton who is sorting out messages in the communications shack that Lee Harvey Oswald has a dossier in the State Department. LBJ asks for a quick check to find out if the State Department has erred in permitting LHO to return to the USA from Russia. 2

2 pages 101-02 Murder in Dealey Plaza - James H. Fetzer, Ph.d - Catfeet Press - 2001

There is an account given by a Secret Service agent of being unable to locate LBJ while enroute back to Andrews AFB, the Secret Service agent stated that he found Johnson hiding in the bathroom on the plane and saying words to the effect, that the Communist's were going to kill him too, or it's a conspiracy......

In my opinion this is a rather significant allegation that needs to be clarified. If, then-President Johnson actually said and did what has been alleged, then he was either giving an Academy Award winning performance or sincerely thought his life was in danger. In either case, it should be determined whether this account is true, or not, at least for the record.

It does not appear in either Taking Charge:The Johnson White House Tapes,The Day Kennedy Was Shot, Death of A President or Murder In Dealey Plaza.....Beschloss, Bishop, Manchester and Fetzer respectively......To be honest I know the material but it's not like I can just look it up.....Any comment's on where that story originated would be helpful.

Also regarding all of those hours of AF2 tapes that are missing.....Well, I am not going to telegraph the answer but anyone who wants to email me through the Forum is welcome to get the skinny on some good news in that regard.....

In Summary, President Lyndon Johnson as the big-fish in the Kennedy assassination, has, in effect been given a certain amount of media credibility, albeit in conspiracy circles fused in with mainstream media......

While I would never try to defend LBJ of complicity in the JFK Assassination, conversely there is also that fact that there is a political dynamic in all of this as it relates to politics today in 2008. Which is the point I am trying to make.....If anything the Republican politicians of that era, were all over the place...there were quite a few lawyers in Dallas in 1963 who went on to be big in politics, not to mention Governor Wallace, who was in Dallas, day's before the assassination Senator's James Eastland, not a Republican, but a Dixiecrat] John Tower, and Congressmen John Rousselot and Edgar Heistand, who were both members of the JBS....Obviously, I am not saying the aforementioned were involved in the assassination, just the obvious fact that Kennedy had more Republican enemies than Democrat's, but that is just my opinion.

Edited by Robert Howard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...]

Of all the conspiratorial possibilities, other than those Benign attacks by Lone Nuts and Conspiracies by the Mafia, Cubans or CIA, there is the possibility that the assassination was an inside job, a covert coup d'etat in which those who planned and instigated the murder also took over the government, and changed policy.

If the assassination of the President at Dealy Plaza was not by a Lone Nut or an outside domestic or foreign conspiracy, but an inside job, a coup, then it was not Benigh but Infectious, and was part of the system and is still affecting us today.

Those who claim President Kennedy was killed by a Lone Nut or a conspiracy by the mob or Cubans or mid-level CIA officers, really mean that the assassination was a benign attack, and one we can argue over, debate and play palor games, but not have to really address through the legal system or as a threat to the national security. It's okay.

But those who see the assassination as a coup, also realize that the coup isn't over, and those who took over the government then are still pulling strings and covert ops and coups today, and will continue to do so until the assassination is recognized as not-benign, still infectious and must be cleansed.

There's a lot of changes being made in the political system today, especially in the way the game's been played in the past, and among them is the perception that political assassinations are accidents that can't be avoided or rectified.

The theory that I advocate is that the assassinations be viewed as part of the continuing Cold War between competing intelligence agencies, and the approach that I think is correct is that the assassination of President Kennedy must be recognized as not only a conspiracy but a coup, and a threat to our national security today.

[...]

________________________________________________________________________________

William,

I find myself more-and-more frequently convincing myself that the assassination was, truely, what you aptly characterize "an Infectuous Coup." A big-time Infectous Coup by L.B.J. and his "buddies," (probably involving none other than a certain "Mr George Bush of the CIA" lol), and the support of many of the "agencies" and "departments" under L.B.J. (and their respective extra-legal "associates").

Obviously, Kennedy had a lot of seriously heavy-hitting enemies, some of whom may even have had their own plans for JFK in Dealy Plaza. Whatever. Let us not forget that the fingerprint of L.B.J.'s long-time hatchet man was found on one of the "sniper's lair" boxes. Psycho killer Mac Wallace, that is.

--Thomas B)

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is, Landslide Lyndon......the "politically correct big fish."

Well put, Robert.

When E Howard Hunt wrote his book shortly before he died, the following passage's did not go un-noticed by myself and others....

"So there are now three CIA agents who have been named in connection with Oswald-- David Phillips, Cord Meyer and Bill Harvey-- all with means, motive, opportunity or some connection to kill Kennedy. If that's the case, Harvey had seniority and would have been the person in charge, with the others taking orders from him........[emphasis added by Drago]

Here is a prime example of how Hunt inadvertantly gives away his game. In asserting as a matter of widely accepted fact that an overt hierarchical structure would be maintained within the covert JFK conspiracy, Hunt seeks to misdrect investigative efforts while subtlely reinforcing a wholly erroneous meta-view, if you will, of the deep political paradigm.

Let's get this straight: Because Bill Harvey had institutional "seniority" over Phillips and Meyer, by definition he would have maintained that position within the plot structure???

Hunt would have been the first to realize the absurdity of such an assumption. Hunt knew better.

And he tried to play us for suckers all the way to the end.

Edited by Charles Drago
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...