The Future of the JFK Forum

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I am writing this post from memory, but I want to reiterate that Robert Chapman definitely had talks with Bill Clinton, when he was a candidate, and yes, Clinton was most interested in the Kennedy assassination.

David: I could not find the press conference you refer to, but Clinton did say this, on the 30th anniversary:

And there was a special on, as you might imagine, about John Kennedy, since this is the 30th anniversary of his death. And it showed a lot of predictable footage, but I enjoyed watching it all the same. And the people who were commenting on the channels I watched all pointed out that everyone who was old enough to remember could tell you exactly where he or she was at that moment on that fateful Friday 30 years ago.

But the thing that I was most moved by was the comment that, at that time, 30 years ago, the American people believed in their Government and believed in their President and believed in the promise of democracy to improve the lot of the people of this country and people throughout the world.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=46157

[Ian Kingsbury]

Paul T

Is this the antithesis stage of your investigation or are We

Meant to supply this?.

Ian

Ian,

OMG! You mean he's gonna develop a synthesis, too?

Heaven forbid.

--Tommy

Tommy

And not just any old synthesis a dialectical synthesis no less

I fear he has fooled himself in backing Hegelian philosophy

To bust the case.

"I am pink therefore I am Oswald"

Ian

[Paul Trejo]

...In my theory, Marguerite Oswald was half-right. IMHO we know that Lee Oswald was not a full-time employee of any Intelligence Agency -- however, insofar as he was falsely but deliberately made into the Lone Assassin by the Warren Commission for the specific purpose of National Security, then we might easily argue that Lee Harvey Oswald single-handedly prevented World War 3.

So, June and Rachel can both be right, within these nuances. Oswald was a martyr -- because he was victimized by his own associates; and yet Oswald was also a hero, because without the "Lone Assassin" mythology, the USA might easily have plunged into a Civil War during the Cold War which would have ignited a World War.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Oh pleez, Paul. . I think you're going way too far in this analysis.

What about the 58,000 people whose names are engraved on the Vietnam memorial in Washington, D.C.? (And the 1 million Asians who died in that conflict?)

Are we supposed to believe that somehow their deaths too, somehow are invested with some "meaning" because "they" too, functioned as a buffer of sorts, and prevented World War 3?

Sorry, but I can't buy into that kind of analysis.

At all....

DSL

6/18/13; 8:50 PM PDT

Los Angeles, California

David -- the Cold War was won by the patriots who fought for it. On that we agree.

However, the closest we came to World War Three was, I will argue, the moment when the truth of the JFK assassination had to be declared to the American People. That is a separate instance and stands alone in history.

In that case, the LBJ administration, with the support of J. Edgar Hoover, Earl Warren and Allen Dulles, made the command decision to blame the entire JFK assassination on Lee Harvey Oswald -- knowing full well that this was not the truth. However, they also knew that the truth would have led to Civil War.

It was already noted that reporters immediately suspected General Walker of complicity. In some parts of the USA citizens immediately went out with hatchets and began chopping down John Birch Society billboards. It had begun.

If not for the brilliant act of blaming Lee Harvey Oswald for the JFK assassination, Civil War would have broken out -- the JBS and their Minutemen cadre were large, well-armed and powerful -- and had the Deep South as allies because of Earl Warren's Brown decision (Impeach Earl Warren!). The Civil War of the 1960's would have erupted largely along the same lines as the 19th century Civil War.

Now, a Civil War in the middle of the Cold War would have tempted the USSR to become involved. Once that was perceived, charges of treason would have flown back and forth: Sleeping with the enemy! Coup'd'etat! TREASON! Then nuclear winter would have been on our doorstep.

One can make the case that we owe it to J. Edgar Hoover, LBJ, Earl Warren, Allen Dulles -- but especially to Lee Harvey Oswald -- that we do not live in a nuclear winter today.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited June 19, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

I'll tell you what I believe--and this arises from my belief that the autopsy was falsified; and furthermore, that it was the falsification of Kennedy's wounds (and the attendant "lone guilt" of Oswald) that provided the foundation for that false autopsy. Once I made those discoveries--and I'm going back now to the all of 1966--I felt that there was a pirate flag, flying over the White House. (And I wrote exactly that in Best Evidence). So that's how I felt about my government.

In short, I believed then--and still believe--that the Johnson presidency was illegitimate, and the subsequent escalation of the Vietnam War represents a complete departure from anything Kennedy would have done, or was intended by him.

Lee Oswald, and the narrative of the "lone assassin," provided the "political narrative" for the operation of the line of succession. The false life Oswald lived, and his supposed guilt as "the assassin" provided the basis for creating the appearance that the assassination of President Kennedy was a quirk of fate, and for their then being a stable political transition from Kennedy to Johnson.

That's what this is all about, and nothing less.

DSL

6/18/13; 8:50 PM PDT

Los Angeles, California

David, I agree with you entirely that the autopsy was falsified, and that from the very beginning everything was manipulated to hide the actual perpetrators of the JFK assassination.

The second thoughts I have about J. Edgar Hoover are these: he was too certain about Oswald a little bit too soon for my comfort. The cover-up started immediately. Still, I will give Hoover the benefit of any doubt until the last possible moment.

Now -- we connect the dots differently after that. This does not prove that there was a coup' d 'etat, or that LBJ was a pirate. It is just as possible -- given the same material evidence -- that all of America, including LBJ, was surprised at this assassination -- but LBJ had to respond immediately (and so did Hoover). That they responded so smoothly might be interpreted as complicity -- or as genuine and skillful statesmanship. Without final proof, I will side with the statesmanship argument.

As for the Vietnam war, you have no proof that it was a departure from JFK's agenda, since he was very much of two minds over the issue.

Also, the false life of Oswald was his own making - because of his willing compliance with the guidance of Guy Banister.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited June 19, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Also, Raymond, although I've offered a primary motive for Oswald above, namely, that Oswald was motivated by efforts to do well in an undercover operation for Guy Banister, e.g. pretend to be an FPCC officer to fool the Cuban Embassy clerks in Mexico City to admit him into Cuba to meet Castro -- there is a secondary motive I'd like to clarify.

The secondary motive for Oswald in his obsessive cooperation with Guy Banister was to atone for his crime of attempting to kill the resigned General Edwin Walker for his role in the Ole Miss racial riots in September 1962.

Thank you Paul. Seems you -- and you alone-- have figured out Lee Oswald's motives.

Thank you, Raymond -- that's exactly what I think.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

[David G. Healy]

...In my theory, Marguerite Oswald was half-right. IMHO we know that Lee Oswald was not a full-time employee of any Intelligence Agency -- however, insofar as he was falsely but deliberately made into the Lone Assassin by the Warren Commission for the specific purpose of National Security, then we might easily argue that Lee Harvey Oswald single-handedly prevented World War 3.

So, June and Rachel can both be right, within these nuances. Oswald was a martyr -- because he was victimized by his own associates; and yet Oswald was also a hero, because without the "Lone Assassin" mythology, the USA might easily have plunged into a Civil War during the Cold War which would have ignited a World War.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Oh pleez, Paul. . I think you're going way too far in this analysis.

What about the 58,000 people whose names are engraved on the Vietnam memorial in Washington, D.C.? (And the 1 million Asians who died in that conflict?)

Are we supposed to believe that somehow their deaths too, somehow are invested with some "meaning" because "they" too, functioned as a buffer of sorts, and prevented World War 3?

Sorry, but I can't buy into that kind of analysis.

At all....

DSL

6/18/13; 8:50 PM PDT

Los Angeles, California

...

However, the closest we came to World War Three was, I will argue, the moment when the truth of the JFK assassination had to be declared to the American People. That is a separate instance and stands alone in history.

...

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

perhaps you should refresh your history AND argument.. when it comes to potential events leading to WW3: The Cuban Missile Crises... (see below) Then again, if you were not born then what would you know, eh?

http://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK/JFK-in-History/Cuban-Missile-Crisis.aspx

[Thomas Graves]

...In my theory, Marguerite Oswald was half-right. IMHO we know that Lee Oswald was not a full-time employee of any Intelligence Agency -- however, insofar as he was falsely but deliberately made into the Lone Assassin by the Warren Commission for the specific purpose of National Security, then we might easily argue that Lee Harvey Oswald single-handedly prevented World War 3.

So, June and Rachel can both be right, within these nuances. Oswald was a martyr -- because he was victimized by his own associates; and yet Oswald was also a hero, because without the "Lone Assassin" mythology, the USA might easily have plunged into a Civil War during the Cold War which would have ignited a World War.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Oh pleez, Paul. . I think you're going way too far in this analysis.

What about the 58,000 people whose names are engraved on the Vietnam memorial in Washington, D.C.? (And the 1 million Asians who died in that conflict?)

Are we supposed to believe that somehow their deaths too, somehow are invested with some "meaning" because "they" too, functioned as a buffer of sorts, and prevented World War 3?

Sorry, but I can't buy into that kind of analysis.

At all....

DSL

6/18/13; 8:50 PM PDT

Los Angeles, California

...

However, the closest we came to World War Three was, I will argue, the moment when the truth of the JFK assassination had to be declared to the American People. That is a separate instance and stands alone in history.

...

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Perhaps you should refresh your history AND argument.. when it comes to potential events leading to WW3: The Cuban Missile Crises... (see below) Then again, if you were not born then what would you know, eh?

http://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK/JFK-in-History/Cuban-Missile-Crisis.aspx

DH,

I agree with you.

I was twelve years old at the time and my old, wise, teacher (Mr. McEwen?) brought a radio to class so we kids could listen to the developments of the historical event (the Cuban Missile Crisis) which he said had already become the most dangerous event in human history.

Only many years later did we learn how incredibly lucky we were to survive it. For example (and from memory), one of the submerged Ruskie submarines with nuclear weapons didn't get the message about not passing the embargo line the U.S. had drawn, and sailed past it. It was "depth charged" with warning grenades by a US destroyer. The submarine's captain wanted to use his nukes against the US ships but his second in command talked him out of it.

That's how close we came.

--Tommy

Edited June 19, 2013 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

...

However, the closest we came to World War Three was, I will argue, the moment when the truth of the JFK assassination had to be declared to the American People. That is a separate instance and stands alone in history.

...

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

perhaps you should refresh your history AND argument.. when it comes to potential events leading to WW3: The Cuban Missile Crises... (see below) Then again, if you were not born then what would you know, eh?

http://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK/JFK-in-History/Cuban-Missile-Crisis.aspx

David, while it's true that we came very close to World War Three with the Cuban Missle Crisis, I still maintain that we came even closer with the assassination of JFK, given the revelation that the radical right-wing in the USA was responsible for the act.

The occupation of Cuba by the USSR was indeed alarming -- but the USA was mostly united on that score.

The assassination of a sitting President is even more alarming. If the facts had come out in 1964, I feel certain the USA would have not been united -- we would have been divided -- and therefore much closer to World War Three because (1) Americans would have attacked each other; and (2) the USSR would have perceived a weakness and made some sort of overt move inside USA borders.

As for the time period in which I was born (or anybody was born) that is totally immaterial, because the power of historical method allows each of us to gaze upon the facts from the high-level perspective of reason.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited June 19, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[David G. Healy]

...

As for the time period in which I was born (or anybody was born) that is totally immaterial, because the power of historical method allows each of us to gaze upon the facts with the equal eye of reason.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

baloney Paul... nice dance though. When it comes to history and historians (sic) circa. 1963, most students/researchers know, the historians were asleep at the wheel and remain asleep, to this day, ALL of them! Reason? Whose reason? Certainly not the American public's.

Further, "historical method" goes to the victor-- and you know what that means.

[Greg Burnham]

Might I suggest The Silence of the Historians by David Mantik, MD, PhD.?

[Thomas Graves]

...

However, the closest we came to World War Three was, I will argue, the moment when the truth of the JFK assassination had to be declared to the American People. That is a separate instance and stands alone in history.

...

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

perhaps you should refresh your history AND argument.. when it comes to potential events leading to WW3: The Cuban Missile Crises... (see below) Then again, if you were not born then what would you know, eh?

http://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK/JFK-in-History/Cuban-Missile-Crisis.aspx

David, while it's true that we came very close to World War Three with the Cuban Missle Crisis, I still maintain that we came even closer with the assassination of JFK, given the revelation that the radical right-wing in the USA was responsible for the act.

The occupation of Cuba by the USSR was indeed alarming -- but the USA was mostly united on that score.

The assassination of a sitting President is even more alarming. If the facts had come out in 1964, I feel certain the USA would have not been united -- we would have been divided -- and therefore much closer to World War Three because (1) Americans would have attacked each other; and (2) the USSR would have perceived a weakness and made some sort of overt move.

As for the time period in which I was born (or anybody was born) that is totally immaterial, because the power of historical method allows each of us to gaze upon the facts from the high-level perspective of reason.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Dear Paul,

I think you've got it backwards.

If anyone thought that we came close to World War iii when JFK was assassinated, it was only an engineered, temporary, illusory danger. It now appears that the plotters either manipulated Oswald into visiting/calling the Russian Embassy in Mexico City (where the KGB's assassinations expert, Valery Kostikov, worked) or had an Oswald impersonator do these things. Whichever was the case, it established a putative Oswald - KGB assassinations connection to make it look like Oswald killed Kennedy for the Russians. The theory is that this was done in order to force LBJ's hand in pushing the "Oswald-did-it-by-himself" scenario (and the attendant cover up), concomitantly providing LBJ with more than enough political/moral leverage to do so, so that the feared WW III could be "avoided."

Sincerely,

--Tommy

Edited June 19, 2013 by Thomas Graves