Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

23 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Paul B.,

You also agree with Peter Dale Scott and his so-called Deep Politics.   This English professor attempts to connect the dots of the JFK assassination at the abstract level -- the ivory tower level -- of hazy concepts like 'deep politics.'

It's easy to stay at the abstract level, and to notice who is rich and famous -- but it takes real work to get down to the street level to try to identify the JFK Kill Team Street Crew.

That is too far below Peter Dale Scott and his so-called Deep Politics.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Why do you persist in denigrating such an important researcher? Even your favorite researchers wouldn't take that position. Unlike you I've actually met him, and he is a very serious and caring individual. 

Also, your second paragraph is in direct opposition to your assessment of the Kennedys. Seems like you've pegged JFK as being motivated by his wealthy background. It's a very one dimensional view.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

23 hours ago, David Andrews said:

Paul, I doubt that backing down the oil and steel interests, and the Fed, plus - the ne plus ultra - refusing war in Laos and Vietnam, were in the interests of assuaging big business.  JFK did what he had to do to preserve peace and equity, and might have done more for those denied those luxuries in a second term.  He was the most capital-P Progressive POTUS since FDR, and a far cry from con-men Progressives Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, who served the industrialists and the bankers.  (Insert Barrack Obama's name here.)  He was a Progressive for the internationalist age ushered in by FDR, and on that battlefield he opposed big business where the lives of its victims could be spared.

Agree David. Why do you suppose Trejo wants to paint our view of JFK as being because we are deluded lefty socialists? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Agree David. Why do you suppose Trejo wants to paint our view of JFK as being because we are deluded lefty socialists? 

I've come to the conclusion that Paul Trejo thinks he is some kind of genius of great proportions. He has to paint everyone else into marginal spaces, in his own mind, to perpetuate his psersonal myth, about himself, to himself. It's rather perverse and indecent. I wish the wagon waould finally come for him. It's a good thing children don't frequent this forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jason

I say the autopsy was fake because it supports a fake theory, the lone nut theory. False begets false, truth does not beget false. Which means both are false.

It's obvious that six shots were fired in Dealey Plaza on 22 Nov 1963, thus three shots by a lone gunman, one bullet wounds two people, one misses and causes the injury to Tague and one hits Kennedy in the back of the head is false and the conclusion of the autopsy that supports the lone gunman must be false also.

Leaving something to chance is far different than faking evidence.

Leaving something to chance is a wish, hoping something doesn't happen while faking evidence is an act, changing the outcome.

One implies wishing and hoping while the other implies acting.

One can say the evidence is false but as long as you are granted control so what. You have the final say. Nothing is left to chance in that scenario.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, George Sawtelle said:

Jason

I say the autopsy was fake because it supports a fake theory, the lone nut theory. False begets false, truth does not beget false. Which means both are false.

It's obvious that six shots were fired in Dealey Plaza on 22 Nov 1963, thus three shots by a lone gunman, one bullet wounds two people, one misses and causes the injury to Tague and one hits Kennedy in the back of the head is false and the conclusion of the autopsy that supports the lone gunman must be false also.

Leaving something to chance is far different than faking evidence.

Leaving something to chance is a wish, hoping something doesn't happen while faking evidence is an act, changing the outcome.

One implies wishing and hoping while the other implies acting.

One can say the evidence is false but as long as you are granted control so what. You have the final say. Nothing is left to chance in that scenario.  

George,

I agree that the JFK autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital was faked.

I agree with almost everything that David Lifton has written about it in the past 37 years -- except one thing.   I deny that it was planned months in advance.

The best evidence that the JFK autopsy was a rush job -- conceived only hours in advance, was that it was so sloppy that the photographic evidence -- and JFK's brain -- had to be hidden from the Warren Commission.

Therefore -- the JFK autopsy is part of the Cover-up Team, which was born only after the FBI realized that the Radical Right in Dallas had killed JFK.

That explains it rationally -- without inventing cloak-and-dagger scenarios -- or Deep Politics.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Jason Ward said:

 

Hi Mathias,

The circus stunt fireworks show in Dealey Plaza was left to chance.   The fruitcake pimp Jack Ruby actually doing his job was left to chance.   What perpetual low rent loser Oswald may have said to his wife was left to chance.   That Oswald would show up in the Texas Theatre was left to chance.   That a brilliant and honest man in the FBI, DPD, or Secret Service might happen on to the truth and spill the beans was left to chance.  

That someone might photograph the gunmen and the entire assassination was left to chance.  

That the Dallas doctors would tell the truth of frontal and rear entry wounds was left to chance.  That someone like Mark Lane or Joachim Joesten would discover and publish 90% of the true sequence of events within a year was left to chance.   The possibility that Governor Connally would tell the truth from November 1963 until the day he died was left to chance (Connally's testimony that JFK was hit by a separate bullet BEFORE any bullet hit his body).  That various hookers and Bourbon Street urchins might talk was left to chance - i.e. Rose Cheramie and Perry Russo.

...and on and on.

All of the above was entirely left to chance and many of the items above could or did in fact destroy the Lone Nut narrative if and when the truth is/was revealed.

This isn't some pinpoint precise operation by an all-powerful secretive cabal of Bilderbergers who rule the world without fear of prosecution.  This was a roulette wheel of luck and messy coverups and disastrous leaks from day one.  Nothing left to chance is how Alexander Litvinenko was killed and it's how powerful intelligence agencies like the CIA kill.    Nothing left to chance is the way powerful organized crime families killed Jimmy Hoffa.   

Practically everything left to chance is how Kennedy was killed - there was probably only 1 fatal shot out of 6 or more fired that day - with numerous misses.   People who leave nothing to chance don't count on incompetents like Oswald and Ruby, nor do they leave the likes of Rose Cheramie and Perry Russo hanging around with just enough gossip to sink the lone nut theory.   Those who leave nothing to chance don't shoot from a 6 story building at a guy passing below in a convertible.  The authors of the assassination were a bunch of gamblers taking a gamble.  The gamble failed; the plotters didn't get what they wanted when Kennedy died at the hands of a "lone nut assassin."  

The plotters get what they want only when the murder is blamed on Castro or the Soviets.

If the all powerful intelligence agencies and Hoover did it, then there would be no lingering evidence whatsoever and no industry of conspiracy books-theories-communities for the last 50+ years.  

Where is Jimmy Hoffa or Hale Boggs* right now? - - - these are examples of nothing-left-to-chance-killings, not Dealey Plaza.

 

regards

Jason

 

 

* missing since 45 years ago this day

 

 

Jason,

the idea of a huge conspiracy spanning Big Business, the military, intelligence agencies, politicians and the Mob may seem far-fetched, but this is exactly what existed in Italy for decades. I'm talking about the masonic lodge Propaganda Due, which has been linked to many instances of financial fraud, shady arms deals and support of terrorism in Italy. Similiar networks seem to have existed in Kennedy's time - they were united by one mutual goal: the removal of Fidel Castro.

You say that a lot of could have gone wrong in Dealey Plaza - and a lot DID go wrong in fact. Have you seen the "Prayer Man" film? -->

 It makes a convincing case that Oswald was indeed on the 1st floor drinking a coke when the shots rang out - just as he always maintained during his questioning. But evidence to support his claim was suppressed and testimony altered.

So the conspirators were obviously well connected. They had all the important people running the investigation in their pockets. How did Ruby get into the basement? Someone opened a door for him, obviously. And Oswald was not brought downstairs until Ruby was well in position. All he had to do was shoot Oswald in the belly when the police presented him on a silver plate...

I too believed for a long time that the conspiracy had to have been confined to a very small number of people. But that film above has been a real eye opener.

You and Paul still seem to ignore the other plots in Chicago and Dallas. What do you make of the eery similarities between Oswald and Gilberto Lopez? They were obviously used and manipulated by the same people. Most likely people who had access to Oswald's top secret file - and who passed on the wrong description of Oswald that the file contained to the Dallas Police. How would General Walker get access to this kind of information?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mathias Baumann said:

Jason,

the idea of a huge conspiracy spanning Big Business, the military, intelligence agencies, politicians and the Mob may seem far-fetched, but this is exactly what existed in Italy for decades. I'm talking about the masonic lodge Propaganda Due, which has been linked to many instances of financial fraud, shady arms deals and support of terrorism in Italy. Similiar networks seem to have existed in Kennedy's time - they were united by one mutual goal: the removal of Fidel Castro.

You say that a lot of could have gone wrong in Dealey Plaza - and a lot DID go wrong in fact. Have you seen the "Prayer Man" film? -->

 It makes a convincing case that Oswald was indeed on the 1st floor drinking a coke when the shots rang out - just as he always maintained during his questioning. But evidence to support his claim was suppressed and testimony altered.

So the conspirators were obviously well connected. They had all the important people running the investigation in their pockets. How did Ruby get into the basement? Someone opened a door for him, obviously. And Oswald was not brought downstairs until Ruby was well in position. All he had to do was shoot Oswald in the belly when the police presented him on a silver plate...

I too believed for a long time that the conspiracy had to have been confined to a very small number of people. But that film above has been a real eye opener.

You and Paul still seem to ignore the other plots in Chicago and Dallas. What do you make of the eery similarities between Oswald and Gilberto Lopez? They were obviously used and manipulated by the same people. Most likely people who had access to Oswald's top secret file - and who passed on the wrong description of Oswald that the file contained to the Dallas Police. How would General Walker get access to this kind of information?

Mathias - great post. I think the analogy to Italy and P2 is more than appropriate. Like you I see a large and deep group of conspirators and a lot of planning. 

Btw, does anyone notice that Paul T has the habit of ignoring questions that show flaws in his theory? Such as the Martin film not showing what he claims it does. And both he and Jason Ward are very fond of mischaracterizing others statements, the straw man approach. So when Jason makes that statement that if it was the CIA that did it nothing would have been left to chance, he ignores the fact that the posters he is disagreeing with never said that this or that organization was responsible. Both he and Trejo argue against the 'CIA did it' theory, yet none of us as far as I can tell believe they did. If Angleton, or Dulles, or Phillips, or Harvey, are suspected of being operational, that does not make the CIA the suspect. Very simple really, and I wish for once that the two of them would acknowledge this distinction and cease and desist the false labeling. 

Edited by Paul Brancato
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Btw, does anyone notice that Paul T has the habit of ignoring questions that show flaws in his theory? Such as the Martin film not showing what he claims it does. And both he and Jason Ward are very fond of mischaracterizing others statements, the straw man approach. So when Jason makes that statement that if it was the CIA that did it nothing would have been left to chance, he ignores the fact that the posters he is disagreeing with never said that this or that organization was responsible. Both he and Trejo argue against the 'CIA did it' theory, yet none of us as far as I can tell believe they did. If Angleton, or Dulles, or Phillips, or Harvey, are suspected of being operational, that does not make the CIA the suspect. Very simple really, and I wish for once that the two of them would acknowledge this distinction and cease and desist the false labeling. 

Paul B.,

I never ignore challenges to my CT.  I've been answering you for over five years on this Forum.  You just don't listen.

I'm developing a new theory about people who refuse to talk about the Radical Right CT -- despite its many strong points -- I call it "Psychological Denial."

The US readership for the past half-century has been in "Psychological Denial" over the strongest likelihood that the Dallas Police killed JFK and Lee Harvey Oswald.  People don't want to look at the data.  People don't even want to think about it.

If somebody proposes it -- people will work for YEARS to try to shut them down.  No matter how much strong data is offered.

Jason has offered new FBI data on this very thread -- data that wasn't even shown by Jeff Caufield in his 900-page book on the topic.

It just goes right over your head.   People keep bouncing back to some CIA-did-it scenario, or Pentagon-did-it scenario, or LBJ-did-it scenario, or Deep Politics scenario -- ANYTHING but look at the actual data square in the face. 

It's clearly a case of "Psychological Denial."

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul, My greatest problem with your theory is that upon discovering that Walker was behind the JFK assassination the authorities would have responded by stomping on this faction with their little toe. Remember that up to that point there were no urban race riots, but peaceful protests and on the right there were just singular acts of resistance and a few small cowardly lynchings. (so what else is new?)
 
The capture of Walker would not have incited blacks at all because the media would have seized the narrative just as they did with Oswald and portrayed it as personal revenge for Walker's treatment at the hand of the Kennedys. So I assume you think the capture of Walker would foment an insurgence from the white racists, but the facts are that up to that point they had backed off at every confrontation to Federal forces. Why would the Feds fear them?
 
I can't imagine a government on the fly, as you say, brazenly risking exposure that they covered up the killing of a very popular President to protect a group of white racists. Somehow making this calculus that a largely regional white backlash was much  greater to be feared than the broad nationwide revolt across the political spectrum that would have ensued had the public found out that the government had in fear not punished those who negated their choice at the ballot box.  I can tell you with certainty, no one would have accepted the excuse that their government was cowering in fear at the feet of this group. It is just a fundamental flaw.
 
 
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:
Paul, My greatest problem with your theory is that upon discovering that Walker was behind the JFK assassination the authorities would have responded by stomping on this faction with their little toe. Remember that up to that point there were no urban race riots, but peaceful protests and on the right there were just singular acts of resistance and a few small cowardly lynchings. (so what else is new?)
 
The capture of Walker would not have incited blacks at all because the media would have seized the narrative just as they did with Oswald and portrayed it as personal revenge for Walker's treatment at the hand of the Kennedys. So I assume you think the capture of Walker would foment an insurgence from the white racists, but the facts are that up to that point they had backed off at every confrontation to Federal forces. Why would the Feds fear them?
 
I can't imagine a government on the fly, as you say, brazenly risking exposure that they covered up the killing of a very popular President to protect a group of white racists. Somehow making this calculus that a largely regional white backlash was much  greater to be feared than the broad nationwide revolt across the political spectrum that would have ensued had the public found out that the government had in fear not punished those who negated their choice at the ballot box.  I can tell you with certainty, no one would have accepted the excuse that their government was cowering in fear at the feet of this group. It is just a fundamental flaw.
 
 

Exactly my sentiments, and I've said the same many times, and Paul T has rebuffed it many times.

Paul - when have I rejected a theory about the DPD? I haven't. But what I've tried to add to this possibility which you can't seem to recall it wrap your head around, is that not only were many of them racists KKK, rabid rightists, THEY WERE ALSO MEMBERS OF THE 488th MILITARY RESERVE INTELLIGENCE UNIT RUN BY RETIRED US ARMY COLONELS JACK CRICHTON AND FRANK BRANDSTETTER. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Mathias Baumann said:

...

but this is exactly what existed in Italy for decades.

...

So the conspirators were obviously well connected. 

...

You and Paul still seem to ignore the other plots in Chicago and Dallas. What do you make of the eery similarities between Oswald and Gilberto Lopez? They were obviously used and manipulated by the same people. Most likely people who had access to Oswald's top secret file - and who passed on the wrong description of Oswald that the file contained to the Dallas Police. How would General Walker get access to this kind of information?

Hi Mathias, thanks for the polite conversation.

1. With apologies in advance to anyone who takes this offensively - Italy is not America.  There is a big reason why Italy is a perpetual loser in world wars, economics, and in terms of business growth or technological innovation.  To put it bluntly - crime and corruption is inherent in Italian culture.   It is proven fact of Italian history for all of the modern era and even into the middle ages that they live under the influence (sometimes rule) of a strong criminal elite.  Not so with America - there is simply ZERO evidence of anything like the wide all-encompassing cabal of criminal elite like in Italy; furthermore there is zero evidence of any of the CIA / government / corporate elite in America involved in widespread criminal conspiracies in ANY context in any era, and certainly no evidence they ever conspired to kill the chief executive.  There is only the wishful thinking.

2. Yes, indeed the conspirators were well connected - in Dallas.  No evidence whatseover of any help outside of Dallas prior to d-day.

The coverup and Lone Nut theory came from Washington.

Washington and Dallas had two separate agendas here.   Dallas wanted the backyard photos and everything they imply - Castro, Soviets, Communism.  Washington wanted an angry young man upset at the world because he makes $1.10 an hour.

3. You can look to Chicago or wherever else for CLUES, but only clues - this crime took place in Dallas and it can only be solved in Dallas.  Take a criminology class - you cannot invoke another crime someone committed or tried to commit to prove their guilt in the crime under consideration.  It's a logical fallacy.   You must be able to prove it with the facts in Dallas - not with whatever may have happened elsewhere.   Take clues from elsewhere, but if they don't pan out, which they don't, they mean nothing.  Nothing.  Chicago is irrelevant to proving the assassination masterminds.

James Hosty and Walker were either friends themselves or shared a mutual friend.  They ran in the same circles.  Walker has advance knowledge of Oswald's FPCC Canal Street episode and Walker has advance knowledge of Oswald as the April 10 attacker in the Turtle Creek shooting,  before the DPD or SS or FBI does; and before they find the letter at Ruth Paine's house from Oswald admitting the crime.

Walker knows Oswald only in a way the conspirators can know Oswald.   Hosty would be my best guess as to where they got the description delivered after the assassination - but again, take criminology 101, you can almost never solve a crime by what takes place AFTER the crime is committed.   You can only solve it by studying the local events leading up to the crime.  Post-crime behavior for the innocent, the guilty, law enforcement, and everyone else goes in 1000 different directions for many reasons, but you can't convict someone for something that happens after the crime is committed; again all this post-crime evidence is a clue worth studying but anyting happening after 1230pm is dispositive to nothing. Nothing.

The CIA, the political elite, the military-industrial complex, Hoover, LBJ, have neither the motive nor the irrational wish to risk the electric chair to attempt this crime.

Thanks again for the polite words,

 

Jason

 

 

Edited by Jason Ward
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, David Andrews said:

To put it bluntly - crime and corruption is inherent in Italian culture.

 

As Michael Corleone would say, and rightly so, "Only there, Senator?"

Michael Corleone is a fictional character, and it is therefore right for one with your beliefs that you quote from fiction.

Evidence is required.  Speculation is rampant but it is only speculation.  Where is your evidence of a wide ranging criminal conspiracy among the CIA, Hoover, political elites, etc. in any context whatsoever?

 

Edited by Jason Ward
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Jason Ward said:

Michael Corleone is a factional character, and it is therefore right for one with your beliefs that you quote from fiction.

Evidence is required.  Speculation is rampant but it is only speculation.  Where is your evidence of a wide ranging criminal conspiracy among the CIA, Hoover, political elites, etc. in any context whatsoever?

 

David Atlee Phillips.  William Harvey.  Richard Helms.  Allen Dulles.  Those are factional characters.

Edited by David Andrews
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, David Andrews said:

David Atlee Phillips.  William Harvey.  Richard Helms.  Allen Dulles.

If you're not willing to do better than that we can politely end our discussion with one another on this point.

Evidence is witness testimony and documented with primary sources. There's 2million plus documents at Mary Ferrell, there's the Library of Congress online; evidence is available to anyone anywhere. Easily.  It isn't hard to find.   I ask you to provide evidence or agree that you to decline to do so and there is nothing more for us to discuss.

regards

Jason

Edited by Jason Ward
Link to post
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...