Jump to content
The Education Forum

55 Years Ago Today...


Mark Knight

Recommended Posts

I genuinely believe that the passions of the time and LBJ's need to show strength  would have led to a world war if the lone gunman theory was not reached. There would have been enormous pressure to punish castro or USSR (even though it was likely rightwing conspiracy). So maybe he really did save the lives of us on this thread. I'd give them all a mulligan if they just came out now and admitted that they lied because they thought that was what was best for the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/28/2019 at 12:13 PM, Lawrence Schnapf said:

I genuinely believe that the passions of the time and LBJ's need to show strength  would have led to a world war if the lone gunman theory was not reached. There would have been enormous pressure to punish castro or USSR (even though it was likely rightwing conspiracy). So maybe he really did save the lives of us on this thread. I'd give them all a mulligan if they just came out now and admitted that they lied because they thought that was what was best for the country.

The irony in your position is, of course, that had they conducted a real investigation, an honest investigation, there would have been no danger of WWIII: neither the Soviets nor the Cubans assassinated President Kennedy!

 By failing to investigate the crime, those who thought they knew what was best for the country actually increased the possibility of a nuclear armageddon! Once the "Oswald did it all by himself" facade fell away, the finger of suspicion would fall on the Communists in the USSR and Cuba and no belated admission that the original "investigation" was deliberately botched for "benign" reasons would have been accepted.

The JFK murder was carried out by forces within the United States (almost certainly under the general direction of Allen Dulles, although he was not the ultimate sponsor. Even Dulles could not have acted without the tacit approval of super elites here.) Peter Dale Scott has long argued that the crime was plotted in such a way as to seemingly threaten national security and therefore, a built-in incentive to find a "lone-nut, no conspiracy" solution was enormous.

But that only makes sense if the investigators honestly believed that "Oswald" shot the president. Since the evidence against "Oswald" was so deficient, any investigator had to know the reason he was killed was not so much to shut his mouth, but to hide the weakness of the pre-fabricated case against him. Only a dead "Oswald" spared the conspirators the certainty that the planted evidence against him would fall apart at a trial. 

Dead "Oswald", no trial. No trial, no testing of the evidence. No testing of the evidence, no revelation that the assasination was actually a conspiracy. 

Edited by Paul Jolliffe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/28/2019 at 9:13 AM, Lawrence Schnapf said:

I genuinely believe that the passions of the time and LBJ's need to show strength  would have led to a world war if the lone gunman theory was not reached. There would have been enormous pressure to punish castro or USSR (even though it was likely rightwing conspiracy). So maybe he really did save the lives of us on this thread. I'd give them all a mulligan if they just came out now and admitted that they lied because they thought that was what was best for the country.

I have a question or two if the highest leaders in our military and political realms truly believed or knew that the Russians and or Castro were behind the assassination.

Even if this speculative scenario were true - that LBJ and others felt compelled to push the lone nut scenario to save millions of lives via a possible hand forcing nuclear war with the true JFK killing perpetrators - do you not think we would have done at least "something" retaliatory to these countries and their leaders in other retribution ways for their ordering and/or facilitating the brutal murder of our President right here in our own country?

Did we initiate some secret extra aggressive economic or diplomatic punishment upon their regimes after JFK's murder?

Did we do anything punitively different in our relationship with them after JFK?

My guess is ... we didn't.

And that if one or both of these regimes had anything to do with JFK's slaughter, this non-punitive retaliatory response in any way towards them on our part afterwards seems so ridiculously improbable and illogical to the point of negating the whole premise.

In fact, we made things even less stressful on Castro by stopping assassination plots against him...did we not?

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

you are right that the Castro assassination business stopped after the  JFK assassination. Was this b/c they realized it backfired and they were not going to reward the exiles community or the intelligence community? However, the JFK backdoor peace feelers with Castro ended with his death. Message received?   

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...