a broader perspective (?RFK, MLK == JFK)

[Glenn Nall]

a simple matter of curiosity. I've glanced at the RFK/MLK murders - which is important in that a simple glance is all it takes to see as clearly as a mountaintop that there were conspirators involved.

and it appears to me that many serious CTers accept that it's a JFK related circle of persons who did Bobby and Martin.

and it appears to me that those two crimes are MUCH more "provable" (in the researchers sense of the word) than the quite challenging JFK murder.

so i'm wondering, if a collusion of scum within the RFK/MLK/JFK is assumed (this is a conditional statement, KD - I don't expect you to get it), would it be an appropriate back way into the JFK solution if one of the other two were "solved" (again, in a researcher's sense of the word)?

just wondering why more attention isn't paid to the easier tasks when they so clearly offer a path to the King Slugs...

[Mark Knight]

Let's examine the RFK assassination. We'll work chronologically backwards. Cui bono? Who benefits? BY that November, Richard Nixon.

Now look at the MLK assassination through a similar lens. Politically, King was steering black voters towards the Democrats. With King out of the way, there was a leadership void in the black community, from a national standpoint. Who benefits from that? Same answer.

If we accept these two points, next let's look forward to 1972. George Wallace emerges as a somewhat viable third-party candidate for the Presidency. "Viable" in the sense that, if his early poll numbers play out, there's a possibility that no candidate would garner enough electoral votes to become president. In that case, the House of Representatives, with a 255-180 ratio of Democrats to Republicans, would decide...and that would stack the deck in favor of the Democrats. From this perspective, who benefits from the Wallace shooting? Same answer.

NOW...do I have actual evidence tying these events together? Absolutely not. In such a scenario, how would it tie Nixon into the JFK assassination? For Nixon to become President, he would have to get past a possible 2nd JFK term...and then a possible RFK term or two. That would back up a first-term Nixon presidency to '72 or even '76. Nixon was 55 in 1968 and had been away from the reins of power for 8 years already. At 12 years, Nixon's connections are a bit rusty; if he has to wait until '76, that makes him 63 years old and 16 years removed from the world of power that he knew in 1960.

So the timetable to rehabilitate the Dick Nixon that "you won't have...to kick around anymore" would have to be moved up. Without the killing of JFK, MLK, and RFK, the Nixon election in '68 simply wouldn't have happened...IMHO.

Working backward from that...WHO wanted Nixon in power that badly...and WHY? Not sure I can answer those two questions. But if anyone can, we might be closer to the answers we all seek here.

Just one possible angle.

[Glenn Nall]

ah, Mark, I knew I could rely on you. ty

right. hence my term "broad." I the outside-looking-in angle is what wins the game.

my proposal, or suggestion, even, is that iF most of the actors of the two crimes were disclosed, wouldn't something large be learned about the JFK murder?

again. just a suggestion...

[Don Jeffries]

All of these events are connected. As one of the all-time great conspirators, FDR, once said, "In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." That was the underlying theme of my book- that the past fifty years, starting with the JFK assassination, have constituted an uninterrupted timeline of official corruption.

I don't believe Nixon was behind any of these crimes. If Watergate proved anything, it proved that he was not in the inner circle. There are a multitude of memorable quotes, from Benjamin Disraeli to Teddy Roosevelt to Woodrow Wilson (all of whom should certainly have known) about the real power being "behind the scenes."

Glenn, I would argue that all of these crimes- JFK, MLK, RFK, 9/11, etc.- are transparent; the attempts to cover them up were childish, and as Vincent Salandria suggested long ago about the JFK assassination cover-up, it was done on purpose. It's incredibly easy to disprove these official narratives. The hard part is getting the vast majority of people to accept that they're being lied to continuously.

[Glenn Nall]

i agree with you, Don, mostly (i hate giving Nixon a pass on anything). I'm just probing the possibility of answers to JFK being unearthed in the solutions to RFK and MLK, since they're so clearly connected at some level...

[Mark Knight]

While I don't like Nixon. I don't consider him a plotter or a planner. I think he was simply the chosen "vehicle," and when he was no longer of use, he was also hung out to dry in his own way.

Mr. Jeffries, I think it's clear that the majority of Americans no longer believe the official story, at least concerning JFK. Where the problem lies is that, 50+ years later, we still don't have the complete truth available to us in one place.