Jump to content
The Education Forum

Why did/do the Kennedys remain silent?


John Dolva
 Share

Recommended Posts

Terry, I suspect Frankie means Marina Oswald, as a mother, but I think you know that?

_______

Just to add to the previous post, when one talks about a persons worth, that refers to unencumbered monies. This is usually accompanied with money flows and often there are ''hidden'' assets for tax minimisation purposes, so the 4 million and the startup capital in toto could be considerable higher.

I think one needs to look back further still.

No I didnt that was a mistake on my part. Were talking about the Kennedy family and there was a reference to Marina. My mistake.

What's the point discussing "old money" versus "new money".It's irrelevant! The real question is who are the sponsors behind the Kennedy political dynasty?

Joe Kennedy was a bootlegger involved with Meyer Lansky and the Bronfman gang. He got the distribution rights to Dewars, Haig, etc. from the British. His acquisition of RKO studios also came from British aristocracy. Then the old boy married his daughter into the "Cecil" family. You can't find a more oligarchical clan then the Cecil's.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,850493,00.html

You have Robert Morrow blabbing about the "CIA" Mockingbird operation totally oblivious to the fact that Lazard had purchased the Washington Post back in the mid 1930's while they were also the trustee's of the Kennedy family fortune.

And keep in mind it was a fortune derived from criminal activity.

The irony of this entire mess is amazing.

The same interests that groomed the Kennedy family, cleaned them up and presented them as this liberal wonderkin were also the very same people that pulled the plug. That engineered the assassination(s).

Look at this. The Skybolt Missile Crsis. It is but one indication of the breach between Kennedy and the British. JFK was breaking with the "Special Relationship" in favor of an FDR approach.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/55664/philip-zelikow/report-to-jfk-the-skybolt-crisis-in-perspective

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 229
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I disagree. It is perfectly relevant. In the same breath as saying it you go on to talk about old money. The info posted is interesting. I assume you mean Rhodes? Kennedy was a Rhodes scholar. ie a groomed '''Philosopher* King'' as per Rhodes notions of global supremacy. Did he attempt to break that bond? Perhaps. I don't know.

edit typo

edit2 correction* : (not scholar)

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terry, I suspect Frankie means Marina Oswald, as a mother, but I think you know that?

_______

Just to add to the previous post, when one talks about a persons worth, that refers to unencumbered monies. This is usually accompanied with money flows and often there are ''hidden'' assets for tax minimisation purposes, so the 4 million and the startup capital in toto could be considerable higher.

I think one needs to look back further still.

No I didnt that was a mistake on my part. Were talking about the Kennedy family and there was a reference to Marina. My mistake.

What's the point discussing "old money" versus "new money".It's irrelevant! The real question is who are the sponsors behind the Kennedy political dynasty?

Joe Kennedy was a bootlegger involved with Meyer Lansky and the Bronfman gang. He got the distribution rights to Dewars, Haig, etc. from the British. His acquisition of RKO studios also came from British aristocracy. Then the old boy married his daughter into the "Cecil" family. You can't find a more oligarchical clan then the Cecil's.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,850493,00.html

You have Robert Morrow blabbing about the "CIA" Mockingbird operation totally oblivious to the fact that Lazard had purchased the Washington Post back in the mid 1930's while they were also the trustee's of the Kennedy family fortune.

And keep in mind it was a fortune derived from criminal activity.

The irony of this entire mess is amazing.

The same interests that groomed the Kennedy family, cleaned them up and presented them as this liberal wonderkin were also the very same people that pulled the plug. That engineered the assassination(s).

Look at this. The Skybolt Missile Crsis. It is but one indication of the breach between Kennedy and the British. JFK was breaking with the "Special Relationship" in favor of an FDR approach.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/55664/philip-zelikow/report-to-jfk-the-skybolt-crisis-in-perspective

Terry

Most "Kings " do not become so by employing diplomacy and tact .It is usually thier sword (metaphorically) that cements thier fate .The diplomacy and tact comes from those they employ to smooth the politicains and placate the masses.The Kennedy dynasty were very outward looking , Young and handsome with a family appeal ,Thats what made the crime so abhorent to many.Not just a life cut short it was the whole family that suffered and America along with it .IOW if a"Bush" was shot how many would grieve?. Do you think the U.S. would suffer the same amount of loss as with JFK?.

Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same interests that groomed the Kennedy family, cleaned them up and presented them as this liberal wonderkin were also the very same people that pulled the plug. That engineered the assassination(s).

I'd call this essentially correct. It worked in small with Old Joe in the Roosevelt administration. I've suggested elsewhere that Old Joe's amenable corruption was the guarantor that his sons would be no serious obstruction to the mob, the Fed, the defense industry, and the biggest of big oil.

Bobby's campaign may have been an optimistic bucking of the system, or he may have gotten tidbits of false approval. But either way, Nixon was the logical successor to a crumbling LBJ. The escalated number of Rockefeller associates in Nixon's second admin. is one tip-off

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This just an attempt to kick off some brainstorming in the hope of learning things.

With no supporting evidence: (just perhaps hypothetical inferences)

Could it be that the Kennedys have steered clear of the issue when they had the opportumity to not do so because they in their own way have already, behind the scene, dealt with it and a new investigation might uncover THAT??

If 2 of my brothers, uncles, dads, relations, were publicly shot in the head and I witnessed their assassinations and consequent cover ups, I wouldn't go playing the hero. Especially if I had children of my own. I don't think the Kennedy's can take fault for not making waves. God knows I wouldn't.

---------------------------------

Don't forget what they did to Ted. And then John Jr. A Kennedy cousin told me in 1997 that John studied this case and was going to do something about it. Look at all he was doing in Geroge mag, including an article by Oliver Stone ON conspiracy, but that particular mag has totally disappeared. Not online. I have been told about it by many but have yet to seee a copy. I do have a copy of Geroge where John Jr interviews Richard M. Scaife. And he also interviewed Castro. Anyone who has studied this case knows Castro knew the truth immediately. So to say that the Kennedy's remained silent is absurd. Bobby went to his death planning to unlock his brother's murder, as president. Then the got him. I just do not understand why this question keeps being asked. The answer is readily available.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So that those who don't know the answer may find out?

_______

You say Castro knew the truth immediately. Do you know what he knew?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terry, I suspect Frankie means Marina Oswald, as a mother, but I think you know that?

_______

Just to add to the previous post, when one talks about a persons worth, that refers to unencumbered monies. This is usually accompanied with money flows and often there are ''hidden'' assets for tax minimisation purposes, so the 4 million and the startup capital in toto could be considerable higher.

I think one needs to look back further still.

"Terry" it's Maria who married Arnold. Frankie meant the wife of the Patsy. Which Terry knows.

This is getting very old. Seeing my "sister's" views so mis-represented. Hard to continue to stay silent.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So that those who don't know the answer may find out?

_______

You say Castro knew the truth immediately. Do you know what he knew?

Yes. He gave an amazing speech the day after the assassination that was recounted in the very first book on the Garrison case by Paris Flammonde. I first read it in 1975. The speech is also printed in Dr Martin Schotz' "History Will Not Absolve us". Years ago I tried to get Marty to scan it online for me so that it could be read by all. It is long and incredibly informed. My scanner died long ago and I am also working this busy Monday so if someone has this book perhaps he or she could scan some relevent parts as I don't have time to type even a portion. (I did type relevant portions many years back here on the forum so you could perhaps find via a search engine).

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, Dawn. I've always been puzzled about why the texas database of Castros speeches have a big hole around the time of assassination. It would be fascinating to read a speech he delivered so soon. btw The Stone El Commandante film interview part is on youtube. Its link should be here somewhere.(that doesn't mean it's still loaded. Unforunately I didn't save it, I do know a convoluted way of getting a vcr tape of it all but it'd involve paths I don't really want to go unless absolutely necessary)). I have ''scoured'' the texas database and there are very few references I can remember of him mentioning the matter, from memory a couple of interviews with Shriver (?).

_______

I have nothing against side steps and cross talks. I may have started the topic but I don't wish to assert any control over it, but : I'd like to bring attention to the progress made on the Kennedy background from diverse contributions.. I think there still are things to answer there.(as well). That seems to be developing in an unexpected (but then again, maybe not)(to me) direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

So that those who don't know the answer may find out?

_______

You say Castro knew the truth immediately. Do you know what he knew?

Yes. He gave an amazing speech the day after the assassination that was recounted in the very first book on the Garrison case by Paris Flammonde. I first read it in 1975. The speech is also printed in Dr Martin Schotz' "History Will Not Absolve us". Years ago I tried to get Marty to scan it online for me so that it could be read by all. It is long and incredibly informed. My scanner died long ago and I am also working this busy Monday so if someone has this book perhaps he or she could scan some relevent parts as I don't have time to type even a portion. (I did type relevant portions many years back here on the forum so you could perhaps find via a search engine).

Dawn

That Fidel Castro speech DEFINITELY needs to be scanned and put on line! Fabulous book:

Dr Martin Schotz' "History Will Not Absolve Us"

Edited by Robert Morrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So that those who don't know the answer may find out?

_______

You say Castro knew the truth immediately. Do you know what he knew?

Yes. He gave an amazing speech the day after the assassination that was recounted in the very first book on the Garrison case by Paris Flammonde. I first read it in 1975. The speech is also printed in Dr Martin Schotz' "History Will Not Absolve us". Years ago I tried to get Marty to scan it online for me so that it could be read by all. It is long and incredibly informed. My scanner died long ago and I am also working this busy Monday so if someone has this book perhaps he or she could scan some relevent parts as I don't have time to type even a portion. (I did type relevant portions many years back here on the forum so you could perhaps find via a search engine).

Dawn

That Fidel Castro speech DEFINITELY needs to be scanned and put on line! Fabulous book:

Dr Martin Schotz' "History Will Not Absolve Us"

Robert: I just did a google search and had zero luck. Do you have the book? Can you type some of it here? In particular the stuff on p 77-78, p 60-61, I simply do not have the time.

And John definately read Brothers. And JFK and the Unspeakable.

In 1972 I worked for George McGovern for president. I was a city coordinator in four different states. It was then that I learned first hand from former RFK workers who had been high up in RFK's presidential campagin that he knew about the coup that killed his bother and that as president he was going to expose it.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In some ways they have gone public. Remember that Jackie and Bobby went to the U.S.S.R after the murder to let them know what they themselves knew. That is public (if one is willing to seek it out). Also, imagine the Kennedy's position.......I am of the mindset that they actually know what happened. I do not believe they're that naive or unawares. If Bobby knew who was behind it, then I would naturally assume others in the family knew. Also, we cannot forget what message JFK Jr shot out to the world by having Oliver Stone in George Magazine and saying what he said in the article. It would also help if some corroboration could be made regarding A. True Ott's (if this is even his true name) story regarding his interaction with JFK Jr. regarding the murder of JFK Sr. I think this is crucial.

Edited by B. A. Copeland
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In some ways they have gone public. Remember that Jackie and Bobby went to the U.S.S.R after the murder to let them know what they themselves knew. That is public (if one is willing to seek it out). Also, imagine the Kennedy's position.......I am of the mindset that they actually know what happened. I do not believe they're that naive or unawares. If Bobby knew who was behind it, then I would naturally assume others in the family knew. Also, we cannot forget what message JFK Jr shot out to the world by having Oliver Stone in George Magazine and saying what he said in the article. It would also help if some corroboration could be made regarding A. True Ott's (if this is even his true name) story regarding his interaction with JFK Jr. regarding the murder of JFK Sr. I think this is crucial.

"B.A>" That- True Ott- is his real name. I only know that because another friend of mine knows him through his alternative medecine work. Yes his stuff online re his JFK Jr. file is mindblowing. Did you ever have a copy of the Oliver Stone "George" piece, or read it? There is zero about THAT online except that it occurred. According to writer Jonathan Vankin ("Conspiracies Cover-Ups and Crimes") he was also asked to do a piece for "George" that John Jr. ultimately rejected because it dealt with too many side issues such as UFO's, and not felt by John to be sholarly enough. Obviously we know what Stone would write about!!

John: I am in email contact with Paris Flammonde to see if he can locate the Castro speech. Will let you know. It really needs to be online.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same interests that groomed the Kennedy family, cleaned them up and presented them as this liberal wonderkin were also the very same people that pulled the plug. That engineered the assassination(s).

I'd call this essentially correct. It worked in small with Old Joe in the Roosevelt administration. I've suggested elsewhere that Old Joe's amenable corruption was the guarantor that his sons would be no serious obstruction to the mob, the Fed, the defense industry, and the biggest of big oil.

Bobby's campaign may have been an optimistic bucking of the system, or he may have gotten tidbits of false approval. But either way, Nixon was the logical successor to a crumbling LBJ. The escalated number of Rockefeller associates in Nixon's second admin. is one tip-off

I couldn't disagree more with this, terribly unfounded. Almost Chomskyian really.

Let us start with JFK. If you have not read RIchard Mahoney's JFK:Ordeal in Africa, then you have no real insight into how Kennedy developed his views on the Third World, and his consequent open challenges to the COld War orthodoxy of John Foster Dulles and Eisenhower. It wasn't that some Old Money group "cleaned them up" etc. When Kennedy went to Saigon in 1951, he ditched his French escorts and sought out the best American reporters and diplomats, sometimes knocking on their doors late at night. And then staying late to pick their brains as to the true circumstances of the French colonial state. When he got back, he then tried to make some speeches for Adlai Stevenson's presidential campaign. But they were deemed as to radical and provocative. So Stevenson told him to stop it. Then when JFK got word about the Dulles/Nixon idea to use atomic weapons at Dein Bien Phu, he issued a press release and called it an act of lunacy. The Dulles brothers never forgot that. Neither did Nixon.

Recall, this is 1951-54. Before JFK has seriously thought about running for anything but senator.

Then, Kennedy made one of the great speeches of his career on the other French colonial ordeal: Algeria. This one was so remarkable that it garnered something like 104 editorial comments nationwide. Most of them negative. Its a wonderful speech to read even today. Its in the Nevins edited Strategy of Peace book.

Kennedy's ideas were his own. Developed on his own, with the confidence of a few select advisers and friends.

Kennedy never felt at home with the upper classes. In fact, he would joke about the airs they put on with his girlfriend Inga Arvad. This is why at college, he never joined any of those secret societies, instead hanging out with a bunch of more or less regular guys. Then when he went into the service, he got out of a plum intelligence assignment to go on those dangerous PT boats with a bunch of grunts. This is not what children of the rich and privileged usually do. The true upper classes, the Astors, the Cabots, they actually looked down on the Kennedys. Because 1.) They were nouveau riche compared to them and 2.) The Kennedys were Irish Catholics. This is one reason that when JFK defeated Lodge for senator, he waited all night for the concessionary phone call. It never came.

Kennedy was never a part of that Eastern Establishment crowd and he didn't like most of them, with a few exceptions like Robert Lovett. For instance, when he relieved Jock Whitney of his British ambassadorship he sent him a three line telegram: "Jock, Pack, Jack". He didn' t like the Rockefellers either. That is why on a trip to Venezuela, RFK told the people to nationalize their own oil. When they said that Davdi Rockefeller would send down the Marines, RFK replied: "The Kennedys eat the Rockefellers for breakfast."

So when JFK wanted to get something done, he would bypass his Cabinet and his advisers like Rostow and Rusk and work through one trusted agent of his : like RFK on the Missile Crisis and McNamara and Galbraith on the Vietnam withdrawal plan.

You have to be very careful in these waters. The Establishment has done all they could to cloud and camouflage who JFK was in the wake of his death. It reminds me of the scene in the movie Z, when the generals have a meeting after they have killed Montand, the Kennedy-like figure. One of them says, "Let's knock the halo off his head." Meaning of course, smear his legacy after they have had him murdered.

In addition to the Mahoney book, you have to read The Kennedy Tapes, which is JFK unfiltered through the Missile Crisis. After you do, you will see that he never one of them.

I am not talking about JFK and his Presidency. I am talking about the Kennedy political machine. The power behind the Kennedy family that cleaned up their history and prepared them to run the country.

Surely you understand the difference.

Just for instance take a close look at those Kennedy men from the Justice Department. They went to work for Meyer Lansky's INTERTEL or Louie Jacobs "EMPRISE".

The Kennedy political machine is a nasty piece of work. As opposed to John F. Kennedy who lived up to his obligations as an American President.

Edited by Terry Mauro
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...