16 mind-blowing facts about who really killed JFK

[Joe Bauer]

This rather nice and good guy Putin take, even from Oliver Stone whom I revere, has me very confused.

The documentaries I have viewed on TV and on the internet seem to indicate the opposite.

Who's right here?

[James DiEugenio]

I am not saying Putin is a saint.  Not at all.  

But what the MSM has done to him is an irresponsible smear.  Done for political purposes.

Putin has done an effective job is restoring the economy of Russia from the disaster Yeltsin presided over.  And he has also restored some national pride.

As for the NGO's and what the State Department has done, what if the Russians were to go into say Puerto Rico or Guam or even Hawaii and start pro independence movements using tons of money  and appealing to the most violent elements in those areas?  And actually unleashing them to kill dozens of people?  We wouldn't like it I think.

But for the neocons, the more wars the better.  

Edited August 23, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Larry Hancock]

Paul,  I think I posted a number of books that would be good sources for you to resolve  your questions. Those works are from Russians, Ukrainians - people who can give an inside view of Putin's two periods in power - and by he way the second is not at all like the first which was far more open and very much unlike his second time in power circa 2008.  Admittedly there is more a more simplistic, neocon oriented view of the whole matter which you will find in books I did not cite as sources (such as Douglas Schoen's Putin's Master Plan).  As far as the financial aspects of the whole matter and Putin's massive skimming of financial resources, that is discussed in the books I mentioned but also in The Panama Papers by Bastian and Frederick Obermaier, very much recommended reading for understanding the full scope and nature of today's dark money networks.

To be repetitive, one of the things that really confuses this matter is the evolution of Putin - Russia post 2008 is very much not the Russia it had been previously.  Very important to make the distinction.

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

So Jim, do you think the " alleged Russian hacking of the election" is true or a  creation of our own intelligence agencies fortified by the mainstream media to  unseat the populist Trump?

[James DiEugenio]

I don't have any idea on that.

Since the evidence has not been revealed.

Therefore, I will not venture an opinion on it.

 

[James DiEugenio]

Here is an example of what I am talking about.

Here is  a source for the whole 200 billion dollar scheme:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4736126/Russia-investor-tells-Senate-Putin-worth-200-BILLION.html

Now read what the MSM does not tell you about the source:

Here's one counter: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/08/09/how-congress-learns-about-russia/

 

Here is another:  

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/08/02/a-blacklisted-film-and-the-new-cold-war/

 

How many people on earth have heard of this film mentioned in the last article?  Ask yourself why.

 

Edited August 23, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Kirk Gallaway]

 

So you suspend your sleuthing skills  on the issue of the day. I don't think we need a gaggle of lawyers to tell us that Trump attempted to obstruct justice with Comey and now apparently with Mitch Mac Connell , he doesn't disclose taxes, does this pattern of obfuscation give you any pause?

I know that you would be conflicted, because you've expressed that you thought  Julian Assange should be Time's Man of the Year in 2016. So obviously you like him. I personally prefer Snowden, do you know that Snowden has condemned Trump's firing of Comey?

http://www.newsweek.com/edward-snowden-condemn-trump-comey-firing-606375

As far Browder, I'm not sure I completely believe him, not saying that I don't think Putin has benefited financially from office, I'm just not sure how much..

[James DiEugenio]

"So you suspend your sleuthing skill on the issue of the day."

You know Kirk, I don't know where that kind of hostility comes from.  Do you work for Mueller?  Do you know someone who does?  Unfortunately I do not.  Thererfore I have not seen the evidence he has.  When he discloses it, I will study it.  Until then, we are sort of like the NY Times telling the public Oswald is guilty BEFORE the volumes are published.

As per my "sleuthing skills" those can only be utilized if I have evidence to sort through.   If the evidence is not there, then what do we have?  But even at that, I will not spend anywhere near the time on that as I do on JFK, RFK or MLK.  Or I would not be who I am on those cases.

And maybe you forget this Kirk, but Assange is the guy who got your hero Snowden out of Hong Kong.  That was even in the movie.

For you to then turn around and write off that column and that film in one sentence is a bit absurd.  Consider what the film director found out about the true facts, and recall, Nekrasov began as  Putin critic.

1. Browder lied about Magnitsky being a lawyer.  And this was to camouflage the fact that he was working for Browder as an accountant, in other words as part of Browder's fraud.

2. Browder lied about the Russians killing his accountant in detention.

3. Browder lied and mistranslated what was in Russian documents.

4.  Browder embezzled state funds from Russia, and when that fact got out, his accountant turned into a crusading legal whistleblower.

5.  Magnitsky was a part of Browder's accounting team massaging  his books.

6. Soros' group, the OCCRP, played a key role in the so called Panama Papers and used them to develop attack lines against Putin, although his name did not appear in them. The linkage of the Browder/Magnitsky 230 million dollar fraud, and payments to an ally of Putin is nonsense, because the dates of the Panama Papers transactions predates the alleged BM fraud.

After all that, for you to say you are not  sure you completely  believe Browder tells us something about "suspension of sleuthing skills".  And need I add that Soros has sponsored dozens of NGO's to break away Russian states, and was greatly involved in Ukraine. In other words, the real facts indicate a looting of Russia by American plutocrats who wanted to get in on the action.  And this xxxx is the guy who's says Putin has 200 billion he ripped off from skim actions.

Let me end by saying this:  we should never forget that the USA has the worst media in the world.  And to limit that to the JFK case is utterly and completely wrong.

Edited August 23, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Kirk Gallaway]

Wow JIm, that was quite of diversion of stuff that you threw out there that you cite as evidence all the while saying that you're "waiting for the evidence."

If you saw the "'suspending of sleuthing skills" as being hostile, I'm sorry, it wasn't meant that way. It's by way of engaging you.

Let's simplify this. You've written volumes in your book and on various sites about Ruth Paine. Let's pretend Ruth Paine is Donald Trump, and speculate about his behavior, up to now.I was asking you about Trump behavior that would certainly show a pattern of obfuscation,  and whether you would agree. That's all I said..  Since it's Comey and it appears Mc Connells word against Trumps, we'll probably never have the "evidence" as you say.  If you're inclined to believe Trump's account, OK. Then Comey and Mc Connell are lying.

I'm not sure why you're so defensive, but I should tell you that you are allowed to phone your lawyer. Heh heh

Please don't go off on a tangent about Ruth Paine. That was just an analogy.

 

 

Edited August 23, 2017 by Kirk Gallaway

[Cory Santos]

Jim,

 

I think what he is trying to catch you in is this: 

Jim, since you believe an intelligence conspiracy killed JFK, do you think the same group is conspiring to get rid of President Trump visa a fake Russian hack of the election.

Then if you say "no" he has you, but you punted, you said you dont have all the evidence.

So he swings his bait to Ruth Paine. . . implying that you speculated in your books about her. . . so alas, you can do so on Trump.

Certainly, if you have been watching CNN, you would know President Trump has done lots of bad things. 

So if you continue to not take the bait and say you dont have the evidence, he will use that to destroy your theory on Ruth Paine.

At least that is what I got out of it.

It was a clever bait.  He knew what he was doing.

Jim, you did not fall for it.

Edited August 23, 2017 by Cory Santos

[James DiEugenio]

Nice analysis Cory.

Maybe the problem is this: I don't watch television.  

 

[Paul Trejo]

The weakest point in this article, "16 mind-blowing facts about who really killed JFK" is its pitiful effort to keep dragging Ruth Paine into the mud (and along with her, Linnie Mae Randle, Buell Wesley Frazier).

As if these housewives and this teenager were CIA agents.   What baloney.

Roy Truly, the TSBD supervisor, is also dragged through the mud on mere innuendo.  Pitiful. 

And the fact that George DeMohrenschildt was once a CIA informant is turned into a plot to involve Lee Harvey Oswald in the JFK assassination -- with mere innuendo.  Nonsense.

History is far more complex than this simplistic article, which turns out to be mere polemic of the CIA-did-it CT which is already 50 years old and has proven nothing. 

Just admit you're wrong and start looking elsewhere for the solution to the JFK mysteries.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited August 23, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Kirk Gallaway]

21 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

Jim,

 

I think what he is trying to catch you in is this: 

Jim, since you believe an intelligence conspiracy killed JFK, do you think the same group is conspiring to get rid of President Trump visa a fake Russian hack of the election.

Then if you say "no" he has you, but you punted, you said you dont have all the evidence.

So he swings his bait to Ruth Paine. . . implying that you speculated in your books about her. . . so alas, you can do so on Trump.

Certainly, if you have been watching CNN, you would know President Trump has done lots of bad things. 

So if you continue to not take the bait and say you dont have the evidence, he will use that to destroy your theory on Ruth Paine.

At least that is what I got out of it.

It was a clever bait.  He knew what he was doing.

Jim, you did not fall for it.

Corey says to Jim about Kirk: 

So if you continue to not take the bait and say you dont have the evidence, he will use that to destroy your theory on Ruth Paine.

????

Then Jim says:

16 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Nice analysis Cory.

Maybe the problem is this: I don't watch television.  

 

 

Hmm, yeah, when I first read this, I thought that maybe if I binge watch CNN, I might understand this "analysis", but apparently Jim can. I guess I'm more clever and cunning than I give myself credit for.  Apparently neither of you read fine print.

Corey I like your picture, you look like a good guy.  I noticed you felt necessary in an earlier post to quote LNer "Mr. Bassman" Mike Huckabee (who I'm sure has spent many years tirelessly researching the JFK assassination) saying that   "the conservative city of Dallas was unfairly blamed for years for JFK’s killing when the real culprit – as has been true so many other times in history – was actually an angry leftist trying to murder someone he disagreed with"

 

 If you really hold that view. I'm sure you and Jim could find hours of things to talk about.

 

 

 

[James DiEugenio]

I guess, as I always thought, no one here has read Reclaiming Parkland.  Which Joe McBride actually compared with Accessories after the Fact as a defense of Oswald and an exposure of the Warren Commission.  But, who's he right?

In my above links I showed how the smear job about Putin's 200 billion dollar skim was based upon dubious sources.  And how that dubious source has censored any dissemination of his own cover story.

With this link, there is evidence that maybe, just maybe, there is a question about the origin of the DNC hack.

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/08/10/new-cracks-in-russia-gate-foundation/

I will repeat: I never forget that the American media is the worst in the world.  Which is why I do not watch TV or read major newspapers.  I only seek out my news sources from places I have found to be credible, and also informed about true facts and data.  The Kennedy case did not happen in a vacuum.  The media had been spinning Wisner's  Mighty Wurlitzer for a very long time before that murder.  And its great trumpeted triumph, Watergate, was also not what it was cracked up to be.  Neither was Iran Contra.  Neither was the Pentagon Papers.

We should know that, but some of us do not.