Jump to content
The Education Forum

What event/events precipitated the plot to kill JFK


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 44
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I always thought the death of Marilyn Monroe gave J. Edgar Hoover a muzzle to place on Robert Kennedy.  Supposedly, Robert Kennedy, Peter Lawford, and Marilyn's doctor killed her. 

I have always wondered why Robert Kennedy said he supported the Warren Commission right up to the day he died.

Was Marilyn's death on Aug., 1962 a greenlight to the assassination? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the plot began about six months before JFK was killed. That would be around May-June 1963.

In doing some research to determine the events that occurred in May-June 1963 I found out that Lisa Howard had talks with Castro about US/Cuba reproachment. After her April 1963 talk with Castro she was briefed by the CIA. She indicated to the CIA that Castro was very much interested in peace with the US.

I do not believe the CIA plotted to kill Kennedy. However Allan Dulles did. I believe reproachment with Cuba was the catalyst to the assassination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe it started  with the Nixon - Kennedy debate. Kennedy warned of forces that wanted to enslave half of the world in the manner that United Fruit Company overthrew the elected Guatemala government, and enslaved it's people. Kennedy saw this as the model that was to be perpetuated throughout Latin Anerica, Africa, Asia and who knows where it would stop, if it would stop. If the takeover was not possible than a continuous war would suffice to enrich the MICC, and also act as a form if population control.

So I place it at that debate and certain events thereafter solidified the determination of the conspirators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George, I would agree with your starting point and with the timeline, its the same one I laid out in NEXUS.  Actually it comes in two phases.  The first phase with Howard went into a holding pattern during the summer but it was well known and opposed at the top levels of the CIA. However JFK initiated a second phase of contacts in early fall, working back-channels via Howard and the UN and doing it pretty autonomously, with contacts through New York City to Cuba. That outreach was picked up by the CIA, probably via taps on those involved and you can find traces of sudden high level interest in the individuals involved. The first talk of rapprochement was serious enough but when the second, and far more serous outreach was discovered it did serve as the final catalyst...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, George Sawtelle said:

I believe the plot began about six months before JFK was killed. That would be around May-June 1963.

George,

 

For me, it was his speech at American University on June 10, 1963. It was a stab in the heart to the military-industrial complex.

 

Steve Thomas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Larry

I did not read your work. 

There are two other occurrences that led me to believe that the plot started 6 months out.

Most here don´t believe in James Files and Judyth Baker but I do.

Files said Niccoletti told him Kennedy would be hit six months before the assassination.

Baker said in her book that Oswald told her he met with the plotters to discuss the assassination of JFK in July 1963 in Baton Rouge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George and John - methinks you are reading the wrong books.

RFK and Lawford killed MM? 

Judyth Baker? 

Have either of you read any of the great books by Larry Hancock, or James DiEugenio, both active posters here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, George Sawtelle said:

I believe if we can determine when the plot started to unfold we can determine who is responsible for the plot.

The problem being, so many people and groups would have been delighted to see JFK dead that you can (and others have) construct about ten different "plots," each with some level of believability and its own motivation and cast of characters.  What one believes the plot was is inevitably going to determine when one thinks the plot began to unfold - and then we're off to the races.  In the real world, conspiracies inevitably rely on the absolute minimum of participants, the absolute minimum of opportunities for things to unravel.  That would be my starting premise with JFK.  Case Closed presents an entirely believable scenario involving only LHO, whereas Larry Hancock's books outline a believable conspiracy involving a limited number of participants and opportunities for things to unravel.  The best theories start with the indisputable evidence and reasonable inferences from that evidence.  They then plug in the next-best level of evidence and reasonable inferences from that.  They do not ignore or artificially explain away evidence in either of these categories.  They involve a minimum of speculation.  They never elevate speculation over evidence.  They never prefer the wild and implausible to the mundane and plausible.  In my observation, those who favor elaborate conspiracy theories consistently proceed in almost an ass-backwards manner, beginning with a starting premise that is the precise opposite of the way conspiracies operate in the real world.

17 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

Kennedy warned of forces that wanted to enslave half of the world in the manner that United Fruit Company overthrew the elected Guatemala government, and enslaved it's people.

Please, show some sensitivity here:  My family was among the founding fathers of the United Fruit Company and brought the first bananas to the U.S.  Sure, they may have enslaved the occasional Guatemalan, but without them we would not have peanut-butter-and-banana sandwiches.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

The problem being, so many people and groups would have been delighted to see JFK dead that you can (and others have) construct about ten different "plots," each with some level of believability and its own motivation and cast of characters.  What one believes the plot was is inevitably going to determine when one thinks the plot began to unfold - and then we're off to the races.  In the real world, conspiracies inevitably rely on the absolute minimum of participants, the absolute minimum of opportunities for things to unravel.  That would be my starting premise with JFK.  Case Closed presents an entirely believable scenario involving only LHO, whereas Larry Hancock's books outline a believable conspiracy involving a limited number of participants and opportunities for things to unravel.  The best theories start with the indisputable evidence and reasonable inferences from that evidence.  They then plug in the next-best level of evidence and reasonable inferences from that.  They do not ignore or artificially explain away evidence in either of these categories.  They involve a minimum of speculation.  They never elevate speculation over evidence.  They never prefer the wild and implausible to the mundane and plausible.  In my observation, those who favor elaborate conspiracy theories consistently proceed in almost an ass-backwards manner, beginning with a starting premise that is the precise opposite of the way conspiracies operate in the real world.

Please, show some sensitivity here:  My family was among the founding fathers of the United Fruit Company and brought the first bananas to the U.S.  Sure, they may have enslaved the occasional Guatemalan, but without them we would not have peanut-butter-and-banana sandwiches.

Lance,

I think you just made a big mistake by admitting your family ties to United Fruit. That company is one of the long cherished "bogeymen" in the eyes of many theorists. You may have just gone from researcher to suspect. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lance Payette wrote:

"The problem being, so many people and groups would have been delighted to see JFK dead that you can (and others have) construct about ten different "plots," each with some level of believability and its own motivation and cast of characters.  What one believes the plot was is inevitably going to determine when one thinks the plot began to unfold - and then we're off to the races.  In the real world, conspiracies inevitably rely on the absolute minimum of participants, the absolute minimum of opportunities for things to unravel.  That would be my starting premise with JFK. "

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

I wrote this in another thread. It it is quite the opposite of Lance's suggested requirements in that it indicts pretty much everyone. Including lover's of peanut-butter-and-banana sandwiches.....

 

".......I have not yet reached a conclusion. Most recently, however, one realization has led me to see it as an "Organic" (if I may) conspiracy.

That realization came from finally having an answer to a question that I have had for a long time. The question was "why weren't  the Kennedy's more vocal about the the facts surrounding the assassination?" The quick and easy answer is that there was too much dirt on them that would be exposed. Stretch that out a bit, or a lot, a whole lot, and I am seeing that the whole mess of them are really all gangsters. If you cut into someone else's racket, you get whacked. So, RFK, Teddy, Jackie and their throng all understood that it was all just the way things work in the world that they lived in. I think of The Godfather somewhat when it is repeated that it is just "business". They all just move on.

JFK didn't really accept that, and believed that the world could be made better, more fair, and more just. That threatened a lot of rackets. Wars and the businesses that wars support were threatened. Corporate slavery in the Bananna Republics and business prospects in non-aligned nations were potential sources for vast wealth. 

It all just became an organic movement and a decision that the body was not really interested in having a good heart. Hearts are replaceable in such an organism, I guess.

This realization makes me reflect on the Civil War. Forigive me if I skip the attempt at making the relationship explicit since it is just a place I wander to in relation to this discussion. I am of the mind that slavery was the reason that the Civil War was fought. It seems to me that Slavery would have ended soon enough in The South, perhaps 20 years? I am starting to think that the hate and ugliness that Slavery represents, perhaps persist longer than it would have, and runs deeper than it might have, if the war were delayed, or separation was accepted; and we may have come back together again soon enough, in peace.

JFK's vision was radical, and a lot of people felt threatened. The body seems to have rejected it's own benevolent heart transplant on its own. Without truth and reconciliation, the pain and ugliness and the death and fear, that still rolls in the wake of that experience will continue."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/24/2017 at 10:17 AM, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Lance,

I think you just made a big mistake by admitting your family ties to United Fruit. That company is one of the long cherished "bogeymen" in the eyes of many theorists. You may have just gone from researcher to suspect. :)

It's more of a symbolic than a specific culprit, although UFC has the convenience of tying-in the Dulles Brothers and John Cabot Lodge, who's fingerprints are often claimed to be detected on some of the evidence.

I've also come to think that Francis Ford Coppola is trying to tell us the samething with the oranges that seem to appear in many scenes, especially in the one where Michael is sucking on a half-peeled orange when he is insisting that even the president can be hit if they decided to do it.

Traditionally, the New Orleans mob's main racket was in the fruit business, so that is a convenient place to see a culprit.

Again, and not just to be sensitive to Lance and his families deep ties to death, destruction, and desire for world domination :lol:, I note that the UFC angle is largely notional, but it has the Guatemala Coup as a handy reference point.

 

Mike

Edited by Michael Clark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading the wrong books?  May be so.  The book is question is:

The Murder of Marilyn Monroe: Case Closed by Jay Margolis  and Richard Buskin.

Monroe claimed she “had been passed around like a piece of meat” by the two brothers.

Bobby Kennedy was no different from his brother.  Internet trash indicates that one of Bobby Kennedy’s lovers was Jackie Kennedy.  It states that at one time the 3 Kennedy brothers were sharing (or, passing around like a piece of meat) Jackie Kennedy mainly at her instigation.  The passing around of Marilyn Monroe as “a piece of meat” seems to have been a family trait. 

Mrs. William Harvey said the Kennedys were scum and they were the worst people.  She did not specify.  Maybe, she was talking about something like that.

If secrets like this were exposed then that would have permanently destroyed the political careers of Bobby Kennedy and Jack Kennedy and, maybe even Ted Kennedy.

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/24/2017 at 11:07 AM, John Butler said:

Reading the wrong books?  May be so.  The book is question is:

The Murder of Marilyn Monroe: Case Closed by Jay Margolis  and Richard Buskin.

Monroe claimed she “had been passed around like a piece of meat” by the two brothers.

Bobby Kennedy was no different from his brother.  Internet trash indicates that one of Bobby Kennedy’s lovers was Jackie Kennedy.  It states that at one time the 3 Kennedy brothers were sharing (or, passing around like a piece of meat) Jackie Kennedy mainly at her instigation.  The passing around of Marilyn Monroe as “a piece of meat” seems to have been a family trait. 

Mrs. William Harvey said the Kennedys were scum and they were the worst people.  She did not specify.  Maybe, she was talking about something like that.

If secrets like this were exposed then that would have permanently destroyed the political careers of Bobby Kennedy and Jack Kennedy and, maybe even Ted Kennedy.

I would think that If these things were true, it would have been used to control the Them and they would not have had to be killed. This is not to say that they were clean, only that they didn't have enough to control the Kennedys without murdering them. These accusations look more like an expos-facto, manufactured justifications and a means to keep those so influenced from looking for both the real answers and justice.

Edited by Michael Clark
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

×
×
  • Create New...