16 mind-blowing facts about who really killed JFK

[Douglas Caddy]

Sixteen Mind-Blowing Facts About Who Really Killed John F. Kennedy

http://www.globalresearch.ca/16-mind-blowing-facts-about-who-really-killed-jfk/5581346

 

[Larry Hancock]

A couple of quick searches might provide some interesting context for the article...there seems to be some concern about GlobalResearch's agenda?

https://www.quora.com/Journalistic-Ethics-and-Norms-How-legitimate-is-The-Centre-for-Global-Research

 

 

Edited August 20, 2017 by Larry Hancock

[James DiEugenio]

I kind of disagree.  The source for that list is the Douglass book. 

The error was in the title of the article.  Not all of those are proven facts.  But there is compelling evidence for each.

That source referred to by Larry is kind of questionable.  The story of what went on in Ukraine as given by the American press was as wildly skewed as the Oswald story was in 1964. Global Research has it essentially correct and the US press was so wrong it was silly.

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/13/a-documentary-youll-likely-never-see/

Edited August 20, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Chris Newton]

Tommy supplied me with this great link I use when I think someone has snuck a fish in my glove box:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/

Consortium News : high marks overall

Centre for Global Research : Not so much (mixed reviews)

[Larry Hancock]

Jim, I think we will just have to disagree again, my view is that you are being far too charitable towards Putin and Russian covert political action since 2008  - but that's another story entirely.  Apart from that my post was with the intent of balance, further searches will provide other sources with contrarian views of Global Research.  My point was simply that its good practice to do some background checking on any essay of that sort which comes from a policy oriented organization - something that is becoming more an more common with the internet as a major source of "news".  

 

 

[James DiEugenio]

Global Research is pretty good on the JFK case overall.  And I give them credit for that, even though they do not really have a JFK expert on their staff.

As per Putin vs the US foreign policy establishment: let me put my thoughts in a nutshell.  The neocons have taken over both the Democratic and GOP foreign policy apparatus.  The Dems are really not substantively better, e.g. the Libya debacle. Ever since the 1980's and the ascension of Yeltsin and the shock doctrine he imposed on Russia, the USA has more or less tried to peel away every territory by a different color American/NGO sponsored "revolution", and also expanded NATO to the Russian borders

 Even though there is no Warsaw Pact anymore!

In my opinion, this is the ultimate extension of the destruction of Kennedy's foreign policy and the victory of Nixon and Kissinger.  (This has been a study project of mine for several months.) It was those two men who advised Reagan not to deal with Gorbachev on arms. And it was that policy, combined with neocons like DIck Perle, which caused the coup against Gorbachev.  Yeltsin then just about wrecked the country, opened it to rampant looting and brought on a Great Depression economy for the mass of the public.  Putin has done all he could to restore living standards, establish pensions, and improve respect for the law and stop the looting by the oligarchs.  The neocons do not like that and so they have tarred and feathered him in the press.  If you read the article I posted, or watch that film itself you will see just how nutty American coverage of the Ukraine crisis was. They covered up who the real killers were.

Edited August 21, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Eddy Bainbridge]

I do not think that Oswald being an FBI asset is an established fact. What I don't know is how we get from a Warren Commission memorandum stating he is, to no reaction?. Can anyone explain? 

[Larry Hancock]

Well this is taking the thread off topic again but as does happen Jim D and I do disagree at times.  Personally I find the remark that Putin  " has done all he could to restore living standards, establish pensions, and improve respect for the law and stop the looting by the oligarchs" to be a bit too similar to remarks about trains running on time in Italy under Fascism - true in parts but far short of the full picture of Fascism in Italy and Germany - or of Putin's return to power in Russia.  Especially the part about the oligarch looting, which is true but really applies to those oligarchs he could not bring under control and keep within his own domain.  So for the sake of transparency, I offer the following sources as starters for those interested in this and with a counter view of Putin and affairs in Russia, especially since 2008.  All the Kremlin's Men by Mikhail Zygar, The New Nobility by Andrei Soldatov and Irina Borogan, Winter is Coming by Garry Kasparov and Putin's War Against Ukraine by Taras Kuzio, published with the chair of Ukrainian Studies at the University of Toronto.

I admit to having certain political worldviews myself, both the US and Russia have been conducting political warfare for a good while now, with Russia having a far longer history with it, extending back to its Imperial days and the "great game" against the British Empire across Asia. I'm not willing to give either party much of a pass in terms of stirring the pot of world affairs.

Edited August 21, 2017 by Larry Hancock

[Steve Thomas]

42 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

Well this is taking the thread off topic again but as does happen Jim D and I do disagree at times.  Personally I find the remark that Putin  " has done all he could to restore living standards, establish pensions, and improve respect for the law and stop the looting by the oligarchs" to be a bit too similar to remarks about trains running on time in Italy under Fascism - true in parts but far short of the full picture of Fascism in Italy and Germany - or of Putin's return to power in Russia.  Especially the part about the oligarch looting, which is true but really applies to those oligarchs he could not bring under control and keep within his own domain.  So for the sake of transparency, I offer the following sources as starters for those interested in this and with a counter view of Putin and affairs in Russia, especially since 2008.  All the Kremlin's Men by Mikhail Zygar, The New Nobility by Andrei Soldatov and Irina Borogan, Winter is Coming by Garry Kasparov and Putin's War Against Ukraine by Taras Kuzio, published with the chair of Ukrainian Studies at the University of Toronto.

I admit to having certain political worldviews myself, both the US and Russia have been conducting political warfare for a good while now, with Russia having a far longer history with it, extending back to its Imperial days and the "great game" against the British Empire across Asia. I'm not willing to give either party much of a pass in terms of stirring the pot of world affairs.

Jim,

 

I'm sorry, but I think I have to agree with Larry on this. I was reading the other day that with the fall of the Soviet Union, and the collapse of the ruble, a lot of the Soviet oligarchs moved their money out of the Soviet Union into the West, in particular, into Western real estate. I think I read that Putin is the richest man in the world with an estimated personal fortune in excess of $200 billion? That doesn't sound much like "stopping the looting" to me.

 

With respect to Douglas Caddy's original post, two things caught my attention:

1) In the Global Research article by Carl Gibson, when he talks about the Northwoods Memorandum, Gibson writes that the memo is in response to a "request by the "Chief of Operations, Cuba Project" for pretexts which would provide justification for  U.S. military intervention..."

The way this cover memo reads, Northwoods wasn't the original brainchild of the Joint Chiefs. They were tasked to do this by somebody else. Or was this cover memo just a CYA beaureaucratise?

Does anyone know who this memo is referring to? Is it a military branch? or a CIA division? or the "Special Group Augmented? and who was the "Chief"? Bobby Kennedy?

 

2) In that same memo, it says that "It is assumed that there will be similar submissions from other agencies..."

Does anyone know of any other "submissions" by "other agencies" for projects along the line of Northwoods?

 

Steve Thomas

 

PS: Larry,

Russia and China are going to butt heads in Central Asia I think.

[Paul Price]

Putin is the most perceptive and honest leader the world has seen for some time.  He has quite probably already prevented a thermonuclear war.  He is the only world leader to expose Pope Francis as a Christian fraud: "if you look around at what he(the pope) says it's clear that he is not a man of God.  At least not the Christian God,not the God of the Bible".  

[Paul Brancato]

22 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

Jim,

 

I'm sorry, but I think I have to agree with Larry on this. I was reading the other day that with the fall of the Soviet Union, and the collapse of the ruble, a lot of the Soviet oligarchs moved their money out of the Soviet Union into the West, in particular, into Western real estate. I think I read that Putin is the richest man in the world with an estimated personal fortune in excess of $200 billion? That doesn't sound much like "stopping the looting" to me.

 

With respect to Douglas Caddy's original post, two things caught my attention:

1) In the Global Research article by Carl Gibson, when he talks about the Northwoods Memorandum, Gibson writes that the memo is in response to a "request by the "Chief of Operations, Cuba Project" for pretexts which would provide justification for  U.S. military intervention..."

The way this cover memo reads, Northwoods wasn't the original brainchild of the Joint Chiefs. They were tasked to do this by somebody else. Or was this cover memo just a CYA beaureaucratise?

Does anyone know who this memo is referring to? Is it a military branch? or a CIA division? or the "Special Group Augmented? and who was the "Chief"? Bobby Kennedy?

 

2) In that same memo, it says that "It is assumed that there will be similar submissions from other agencies..."

Does anyone know of any other "submissions" by "other agencies" for projects along the line of Northwoods?

 

Steve Thomas

 

PS: Larry,

Russia and China are going to butt heads in Central Asia I think.

According to the Wiki article, General Lansdale was chief of operations, Cuba project. 

[Joe Bauer]

To me, the following is a true "mind blowing fact" regards who was possibly or probably behind the JFK killing in Dallas on 11,22,1963.

If that well known, police escort tramp walk through Dealey Plaza photo Fletcher Prouty claims shows Ed Landsdale walking past the tramps next to the Texas School Book Depository building ( and seconded by Marine General Victor Krulak )  is indeed Landsdale,  then that fact would ( IMO ) be one of the most important pieces of evidence ( top 3, 4 or 5 ) strongly suggesting who was truly behind the assassination.

It's amazing to me that this photo just never seemed to get the important scrutiny I always thought it deserved considering it's "mind blowing" implications.

Was it ever given anything close to a thorough analysis by the "best experts" to either confirm it was Landsdale or not?

Not that I have read about.

Just from looking at what photos of Landsdale I could find in internet searches myself, it certainly appears to be Landsdale.  

I also feel based on my life experience that when someone physically interacts with another person ( often up close and face to face ) over a period of years ( as Prouty and Krulak did with Lansdale ) even if it may be just a half dozen times each year, they could know them well enough and recognize them well enough that even a picture taken of this person from behind is enough for them to identify that person with certainty and credibility.

Especially highly intelligent and highly achieving individuals such as Prouty and Krulak.  You don't achieve long career high military rank by being a poorly observing, poorly thinking BS artist.

Over a period of years of interacting with someone, you can't help but notice subtleties and nuances about them. How they dress. How their clothes fit. Their builds and body movements and postures. Their hands ( rings they wear? )  How they carry themselves when walking to and away from you. Their hair type, color and cut. 

That Dealey Plaza photo is a great one in regards to how many details it offers like this to someone who knew well Ed Lansdale.

When enlarged and brought up close it is a sunny broad daylight, brightly lit full length head to foot, back and side view body shot with clear details of everything from clothing ( including shoe type ) to hair cut to height, weight, body type, head shape and size, ear size and type, hand size and type.  It also is of someone walking which reveals how they carry themselves (with perhaps a distinctive stoop? ) the step distance and style,  how they carry and swing their arms and even their hands.  So much more body size, shape and movement identification information than a photo taken of someone sitting and in darker lighting.

It would seem that there must be some still photos or even film of Lansdale walking ( front and backside views ) that could be compared to the Dealey Plaza Tramp walk photo and ID'd quite easily due to the clarity and full body measure of that photo.

I personally am convinced that the Dealey Plaza tramp walk photo does indeed show Lansdale which literally forces me to believe in the premise that he was involved in the JFK event. I can't believe that he would be in Dealey Plaza the afternoon of 11,22,1963 for some other incredibly coincidental and innocuous reason.

Please excuse all the underlining. I don't even know what key I accidentally pressed to make this happen, hence my not correcting it.

Edited August 23, 2017 by Joe Bauer

[James DiEugenio]

Putin is worth 200 billion?   Steve, that is more than Gates, Buffet, and Ellison combined.

And while hoarding all that money, he greatly improved the Russian economy, living standards, and pensions for the elderly?  While spending one tenth on the military that the USA does.

The neocons have been even more successful than I thought they were.

My take on this is simple:  Boris Yeltsin was a drunken buffoon, who allowed his country to be a victim of the Friedmanesque Shock Doctrine. That in turn caused an economic crisis that was, accord to Steve Cohen, even worse than the Great Depression.  Yeltsin also completely wrecked the law codes by crushing legal elections he would have lost, and letting a small coterie of plutocrats ransack the economy by purchasing industries for pennies on the dollar.  The USA liked this, and no matter how bad Yeltsin got, they gave him a good press. Because the fool played into the hands of the neocons who wanted to take control of all the territories outside of Russia and bring NATO to its borders.  This objective was achieved with these NGO sponsored "color revolutions".  These were all praised as legitimate uprisings of the people, when in fact they were sponsored by a combination of the American State Department and American money.  In Ukraine there were a staggering 69 NGO projects afoot to destabilize the government.

If you see the film Ukraine on Fire, or read my review, you will see a vivisection of all this propaganda and covert action--except its not really covert.  America sided with a bunch of thugs and neo Nazis in Ukraine who had a history of anti Semitism, and massacres of Poles that went back for decades.  They also perverted the constitution and plotted to assassinate the elected president.  This Ukrainian movement was sponsored by the CIA in the fifties and sixties as a way to splinter the USSR, but it actually went back further to people like Stephan Bandera, and Roman Shukhevych.  The USA decided to jump into bed with their followers in Ukraine and these neo Nazi thugs murdered dozens of innocent civilians during the protests there in the square.  They brought in weapons under the guise of a Christmas Tree and began killing people while the police were given orders not to fire back.  Meanwhile Victoria Nuland and the State Department manipulated the uprising from the American Embassy.

Just look up who Nuland's husband is and that will tell you what happened in Ukraine.

All of this is part of the playbook that Nixon and Kissinger told Reagan about.  Namely that Gorbachev was just another commie appartchick.  To say  that judgment was wrong is much too kind to those two pretentious  blowhards.  Gorbachev presented one of the great opportunities for USSR/USA relations.  I see Gorbachev as a kind of latter day Nikita K, and in fact Gorbachev  often compared himself to Nikita, who was deliberately altering the system Stalin left behind.

 Can you imagine what someone like Kennedy could have done with Gorby?

 

Edited August 22, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Paul Brancato]

Jim - media like NBC and CNN have reported the $200billiom figure and explained it by saying that huge sums are in other people's accounts which Putin controls. 

I am very confused about all this. There is a huge concensus on Putin being a murderous thug, and the head of a group of oligarchs whom he has helped make rich, one of whom had his $25 billion fortune stolen from him by Putin himself, who had this oligarch arrested and then took all his assets. That sounds pretty bad. Then there are the dead journalists, the arrests of 'leakers' in the cyber security wing of the FSB. Rachel Maddow in particular has done a lot of reporting on all this, and she has some credibility in my eyes.

Is one of your primary sources for Russia and Ukraine news Global Research? Michel Chussodovsky was on KPFA during the presidential campaign of 2016 and said point blank that Clinton was more dangerous than Trump. I found that statement outrageous.

Honestly, I am open to the idea that we are being fed a bunch of lies by the 'Deep State' in regards to Russia. But to me this whole news cycle feels different in some way than during the Cold War. I think David Talbot may share some of your views on this, and I respect him as a journalist and author too. I guess it boils down to this question: is there a real nexus between Russian crime families, Trump operatives, Brexit enablers, hackers, data miners, that altered the course of the election in order to keep Clinton out of the WH? What would be the reason for that? I find the argument that this was a conflict between the old order and a new gang persuasive. But if it's true, the new gang ain't my friend either. Hence painting Putin favorably, as Oliver Stone did and as you appear to be doing, rubs me wrong. But I am not fully convinced that I have a handle on what's going on, here, in the Ukraine, or elsewhere. It's a strange and complex situation.

Edited August 22, 2017 by Paul Brancato

[James DiEugenio]

Paul:

If you watch that film, Ukraine on Fire, that film was not made by Oliver Stone.  It was a made by a Ukrainian director and and Italian producer.  Stone hopped on because he liked the research and the style of the film which was very well done.

Please watch that film.  You will get a whole new idea about Ukraine, which the NY Times and W Post completely altered for the masses.

As per Putin, the plutocrats in Russia hate him because he demanded new laws be put in place since they had raped the country.  That is why they say that stuff about him.