Jump to content
The Education Forum

Why is the JFK assassination research community so easy on Nixon?


Recommended Posts

Paul -.please - Nixon saved the world from WW 3, and Hoover saved the U.S. from civil war. You are delusional.

X2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 131
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Paul -.please - Nixon saved the world from WW 3, and Hoover saved the U.S. from civil war. You are delusional.

I'll go you one better, Paul B. -- the CIA high-command was completely innocent of the JFK murder.

Also, J. Edgar Hoover was completely innocent of the JFK murder.

Lee Harvey Oswald was indeed a Patsy -- and there was indeed a Conspiracy to kill JFK -- however, the traditional villains portrayed by hundreds of CT books are nothing of the sort.

Most JFK "Research" rants are useless political tracts -- tales told by idiots, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

what an absolutely delightful read that thread was!!! I'll be tickled when the personal flaming can be eliminated (Mark) but I thoroughly loved the thought provocation - the conjecture. Sure, Nixon was never powerless, was well "connected", as was LBJ. If Nixon was not complicit directly, it does seem he must have at least known "something."

Mark, I'm sorry if Ms Coulter confuses you. Perhaps we can get her to slow down a little...? (a joke. kindof.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've studied Nixon for a long time. He was rotten to the core. He ran a criminal enterprise out of the White House, using his power to deny due process, sending thugs to burglarize private offices, steal secret documents, blackmail. He was a racist, a bigot and an anti-Semite.

Beginning with his shameful treatment of Helen Douglas, where he used smears and innuendo to win, to his threats against the press and PBS, he was intent on stifling dissent and using his office to feather the nests of his cronies. He was responsible for the deaths of thousands of US soldiers who did not have to die.

He was directly involved in hush money payments, theft, slander, money laundering, CIA dirty tricks and murder plots. At every turn, he tried to subvert democracy in favor of thug rule.

Other than that, he was a swell guy.

be that as it may, i'm pretty sure Nixon doesn't have a few dead people and a professional hit-man in his closet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don: "It's extremely naive to doubt the words of FDR himself, who said, "If something happens in politics, you can bet it was planned that way." We have been ruled by primarily corrupt leaders since well before the assassination of JFK. However, things really went into overdrive at that point."

Bingo! Carl Oglesby got me to seeing things this way - the being in bed with anti-Bolshevists and Nazis and the Mafia at the same time we're publicly fighting communism, it's easier for this layman and Patriot to see that there were things leading up to this "coup" for a long time. I don't necessarily subscribe to the paranoiac "Illuminati did it" theories (well meaning CT's tend to shoot themselves in the foot by making things more complicated than they really are), but Clinton's quote is spot on - there is a government in the government.

It's my thought that discovering the secrets behind JFK's death will tell us how and when it got there.

Where did it start? Somewhere. What can we do about it? Probably nothing, except know that it's there.

Edited by Glenn Nall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don: "It's extremely naive to doubt the words of FDR himself, who said, "If something happens in politics, you can bet it was planned that way." We have been ruled by primarily corrupt leaders since well before the assassination of JFK. However, things really went into overdrive at that point."

Bingo! Carl Oglesby got me to seeing things this way - the being in bed with anti-Bolshevists and Nazis and the Mafia at the same time we're publicly fighting communism, it's easier for this layman and Patriot to see that there were things leading up to this "coup" for a long time. I don't necessarily subscribe to the paranoiac "Illuminati did it" theories (well meaning CT's tend to shoot themselves in the foot by making things more complicated than they really are), but Clinton's quote is spot on - there is a government in the government.

It's my thought that discovering the secrets behind JFK's death will tell us how and when it got there.

Where did it start? Somewhere. What can we do about it? Probably nothing, except know that it's there.

Good posts, Glenn. As for an alleged, "coup," which was first charged by Vincent Salandria in the 1960's, as I recall, I cannot find any reason to use that term.

A "coup'd'etat" presumes a group of people who take over the Government and stand up and announce boldly, "We're now in charge!"

Nothing like that happened in the JFK assassination. Unlike every other US Presidential alleged assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald firmly DENIED the charge.

Further, even in the overwhelming evidence of Conspiracy (cf. Gaeton Fonzi) we saw no Groups or Individuals of any kind stand up and take credit for any "coup" in the USA. The Constitution stood as usual -- the Vice President became the new US President before the afternoon was over.

Nothing changed at the level of a "coup'd'etat". There was no "coup'd'etat".

Rather, those cowards who killed JFK were hoping that the USA would believe Lee Harvey Oswald was a Communist, and would use that "fact" to invade Cuba and kill Fidel Castro. That was their plan, and we have evidence of this from David Morales and his crew, as well as from Frank Sturgis, Johnny Martino, Jack S. Martin, David Ferrie, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall and many others who were directly and indirectly involved in this act of cowardice.

It was poetic justice when J. Edgar Hoover announced -- before the day was over -- his "Lone Nut" theory of Lee Harvey Oswald, who "had no accomplices who are still at large." This strategy defeated those cowardly killers who ran and hid in the shadows for the rest of their miserable lives.

That's how I see it. There was simply no "coup'd'etat."

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thanks, Paul - i'm eating up all of the great wisdom from you guys (even that of you who are wrong :-) - love some things you and Douglas and Brian have said; it's encouraging to find some real thinkers in this melting pot of CT's.

I've never taken from the term "coup" anything other than the drama it's intended to present. I think the people i've read have used it loosely to mean just a culmination of a long series of unfortunate events; it reminds me of the warning Jack Ruby issued outside of the courtroom, and it certainly does seem to me that something has changed since this incredible, world-changing event. To me it does stink of an end of one thing and the beginning of another, esp. in light of the direction the US has gone since. I believe that the philosophies that you mentioned are justified; i also think it was a bit bigger than that.

I believe Jack Ruby's words might have been given some credence. I think some powerful people instead stayed seated and snickered to each other, "We're now in charge."

Nevertheless, I'm in these forums with an open mind, to learn about some names i've not yet read about and to wipe some from my mind. I will enjoy getting to know some of you. Some others i can see i will simply tolerate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amusingly, Nixon blames Kennedy, and then "Kennedy and Lodge," for killing Diem in this conversation with Billy Graham.

Taken in context with Nixon's attempted control of Helms during Watergate, one has to wonder: Did Nixon really believe this? Was Nixon briefed by someone to accept this as truth?

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

thanks, Paul - i'm eating up all of the great wisdom from you guys (even that of you who are wrong :-) - love some things you and Douglas and Brian have said; it's encouraging to find some real thinkers in this melting pot of CT's.

I've never taken from the term "coup" anything other than the drama it's intended to present. I think the people i've read have used it loosely to mean just a culmination of a long series of unfortunate events; it reminds me of the warning Jack Ruby issued outside of the courtroom, and it certainly does seem to me that something has changed since this incredible, world-changing event. To me it does stink of an end of one thing and the beginning of another, esp. in light of the direction the US has gone since. I believe that the philosophies that you mentioned are justified; i also think it was a bit bigger than that.

I believe Jack Ruby's words might have been given some credence. I think some powerful people instead stayed seated and snickered to each other, "We're now in charge."

Nevertheless, I'm in these forums with an open mind, to learn about some names i've not yet read about and to wipe some from my mind. I will enjoy getting to know some of you. Some others i can see i will simply tolerate.

Well, Glenn, my take on Jack Ruby is that he named two key suspects to Earl Warren, namely, "Edwin Walker and the John Birch Society" in Dallas.

Naturally the Warren Commission refused to follow up on that lead -- it would have canceled the Lone Nut theory they were pushing.

As for Jack Ruby's involvement -- I tend to agree with Seth Kantor's opinion; that Jack Ruby himself had nothing to do with the JFK murder, but everything to do with the Dallas Police plot to murder Lee Harvey Oswald.

J.D. Tippit was evidently a close personal friend of Jack Ruby (according to his sister) and Jack Ruby was persuaded by his DPD officer pals to exact vigilante revenge on this Cop-killer. That was Ruby's motive.

The real killers of JFK were, IMHO, exactly who Jack Ruby named, because most people in Dallas in November 1963 had already guessed that it was Edwin Walker and the John Birch Society.

It's no accident that the first two volumes of the Warren Commission testimony contain *hundreds* of references to Edwin Walker, and eventually Walker himself and his closest Dallas associates would later give testimony to the WC. The WC almost solved the JFK murder with those interviews -- except that they were committed to a "Lone Nut" outcome (for National Security) and so Edwin Walker was allowed to walk.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

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...