The assassination of JFK: Who was the Mastermind?

[Michael Clark]

12 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

MIke, I thought that would mean what it says: you are allowed two posts per day.

It does not. Been there. James even acknowledged that at one point.

Edited October 12, 2019 by Michael Clark

[John Kozlowski]

41 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

It does not. Been there. James even acknowledged that at one point.

He’ll be back. Keep an eye out for a new user with an exotic sounding name using the photo of a telenovela actor. 

[David Andrews]

9 hours ago, John Kozlowski said:

He’ll be back. Keep an eye out for a new user with an exotic sounding name using the photo of a telenovela actor. 

 

Edited October 13, 2019 by David Andrews

[Bob Ness]

21 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said:

Maybe you should read.

Maybe I'll just ask him hahaha!

[Bob Ness]

11 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said:

Great!

While you're at it, ask him if Granpa Gise ever sold any of his Cotulla ranch mineral rights to Lady Bird Johnson or her father Thomas Jefferson Taylor.

Maybe you can ask him if Grandpa Gise ever mentioned who was on those Italian submarines he escorted to Bermuda in '43.

I just don't think the family tree bit you keep chasing is conclusive of anything other than it's a small world. When you state something as false that I know is true it calls everything else into question. My last name is Ness. My grandfather was the CO at Nebraska Street in DC with the AFSA. He was  in the ONI and served several years with Lou Tordella the longest active DD in NSA history who is in the Cryptology Hall of Fame. I grew up with Rockefellers and others who you would instantly know by name. None of this infers anything other than if you're around long enough you meet people. Hell I've met 12 Oscar winners. It seems your a man who has concluded something and are searching for the pieces to justify the conclusion. I appreciate the research but it doesn't convince me of anything.

[Paul Brancato]

The evidence on the Bush family is strong. I go with the theory of ruling families to a point. It doesn’t explain everything. 

[David Andrews]

Richard Case Nagell said the ground forces were essentially rogue CIA ("not the CIA as such") and anti-Cuban exiles.  Who pulled their strings is debatable.

[Cory Santos]

There is no evidence Bush had anything to do with JFK.  If so feel free to share.  Those alleged photos outside the TSBD? 

[Ron Bulman]

1 hour ago, Cory Santos said:

There is no evidence Bush had anything to do with JFK.  If so feel free to share.  Those alleged photos outside the TSBD? 

Yes, there is.  A memo from FBI Director J Edgar Hoover briefing George Bush of the CIA on the assassination the day after.

Funny.  Hoover was busy conversing with his neighbor and frequent guest the new president that day about the death of his predecessor, as well as going to the track to bet on the ponies, but found time to brief George Bush, of the CIA.

[Cory Santos]

Just now, Ron Bulman said:

Yes, there is.  A memo from FBI Director J Edgar Hoover briefing George Bush of the CIA on the assassination the day after.

Funny.  Hoover was busy conversing with his neighbor and frequent guest the new president that day about the death of his predecessor, as well as going to the track to bet on the ponies, but found time to brief George Bush, of the CIA.

Ron, that is not  evidence that Bush had anything to do with it.  Let me be more specific, the above posts, and others, suggest Bush had something to do with the assassination.  There is no evidence Bush had anything to do with the assassination.That memo shows a connection, at best , of Bush being involved in the investigation.  

[Ron Bulman]

9 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

Ron, that is not  evidence that Bush had anything to do with it.  Let me be more specific, the above posts, and others, suggest Bush had something to do with the assassination.  There is no evidence Bush had anything to do with the assassination.That memo shows a connection, at best , of Bush being involved in the investigation.  

Your the counselor not I but isn't the memo itself not evidence?  Strange either way isn't it that LBJ's neighbor JEH, head of the FBI,  would apprise  GB of the CIA regarding JFK's assassination the day after if happened.  Since Bush was supposedly, by his own word, Not CIA at the time. 

[Cory Santos]

Yes, it is evidence someone named George Bush  was briefed.  In 1988 when this memo, I believe found by Professor McBride,  went public, Bush said it was not him.  The other Bush who worked for the CIA later said it was not him either.  So  who was this referring to?  Unless that is answered we can't assume without evidence that it was President Bush. 

Edited October 15, 2019 by Cory Santos

[Bob Ness]

1 hour ago, Cory Santos said:

Yes, it is evidence someone named George Bush  was briefed.  In 1988 when this memo , I believe found by Professor McBride,  went public, Bush said it was not him.  The other Bush who worked for the CIA later said it was not him either.  So  who was this referring to?  Unless that is answered we can't assume without evidence that it was President Bush. 

I believe Bush called the FBI  as a confidential informant and claimed he overheard someone planning an attempt or some such thing. Not exactly a smoking gun but the name he dropped and the way he did it could be made to sound like an alibi. Interesting but not conclusive. Re the family writ large me thinks they stinketh the barn up pretty bad.

[Cory Santos]

37 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

I believe Bush called the FBI  as a confidential informant and claimed he overheard someone planning an attempt or some such thing. Not exactly a smoking gun but the name he dropped and the way he did it could be made to sound like an alibi. Interesting but not conclusive. Re the family writ large me thinks they stinketh the barn up pretty bad.

That was Bush.  He admitted to it.

[Bob Ness]

15 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said:

At tis point though (2019) there is still a cover up. The individuals in the separate factions are mostly all dead, and any resources they might have had to effect a cover-up in the early years would surely be exhausted at this point, therefore the ongoing cover-up must be institutional. 

If the cover-up is at the institutional level, then examining the individuals that control the resources of the institutions might provide guidance that point to the ultimate perpetrators. In a general sense, where the institutions include government agencies, corporations, foundations, religious orders, and various think tanks or societies, the same family names keep popping up (and as a control, some names do not "pop-up" at all.)

If you look at the Bush family, for example, the idea that it is a multi-generational crime syndicate is hardly preposterous.

Re the Bushes, no doubt they stink to high heaven.

But institutions have their own traits similar to a living organism which has it's own life cycles, defense mechanisms, survival skills and appetites. The CIA for example isn't going to do anything that could threaten it's existence. Even if the FBI knew the culprit of the JFKA cover-up was Hoover they're not likely to do anything with that information except burn it as fast as possible. FOX News (or other news orgs) isn't going to hire somebody who is philosophically at odds with their audience's views. The point is nobody has to give orders for this sort of thing. Doing anything different is counter the individual's and therefore the institution's survival.

The MSM continued cover-up or, more like it, support of the WC, seems fairly conventional and predictable to me. Look how hard it is for researchers then and today to come up with reliable and relevant information. The information that does come out doesn't fit between commercial breaks! The MSM produces content for advertisers not informed people. The information people get is graded on a price per eyeball and a value for demographic profile. Nothing more.

That's not to say there aren't great efforts going on in journalism because there are. It just needs to dovetail within the survival mechanisms of the institution. Most of the MSM have been totally scared away from anything that can be described as a "conspiracy theory" as we know. That's why serious efforts at research shouldn't come to premature conclusions. Interesting speculation should remain so stated until facts can be added as a catalyst to firm them up.