The Abuse of JFK Research by the far right and far left.

[Bob Ness]

2 hours ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

Tucker is genuinely interested in the assassination of JFK. There is alot of stuff going on right now behind the scenes that I am not allowed to publicly discuss at this time but these things would not be happening if Tucker was just interested in getting back at the CIA. 

 

Well, I'm sorry to be so cynical but really this is a news item? Tucker shining a light on this stuff is helpful and I don't really know his true motivations - it's not uncommon for interests to align after all, even in disparate groups. 

It's fair to say his report has probably pushed others to wade into the subject, so in that regard he's done something that not many could. But I remain skeptical of the reasons he's suddenly interested in influencing the story after years of catering to the same old line. 

He makes his bones exposing eyeballs to every kind of idiotic or partisan story line but @Simon Andrew 's "bias" is well founded. Shedding tears for Carlson because of someone's bias is an interesting defense considering Tucker's usually (but not always) stout defense of the absurd. Unfortunately, to he and many other commentators/journalists controversy and rage is coin of the realm and this story helps support some of his other ludicrous takes.

Edited December 24, 2022 by Bob Ness

[Bob Ness]

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

This is what Simon said:

Saying that you don’t watch Carlson normally is like saying it’s OK to sit down with Hitler because you haven’t read Mein Kampf.

If that is not making a comparison, what is it?

He's new. Being facetious to illustrate a point. All Nasis analogies should be off the table.

[Kirk Gallaway]

15 minutes ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

Kirk Galloway,

thanks for your questions.  Sorry for sounding sanctimonious. I am excited by what looks like an opening we have been waiting for years and when I take on a task, I proceed with confidence. I'm also very tactical so I will work with people i otherwise dont have much in common where we agree on a common goal.    

As to your first quesition, I often do watch Carlson for particular topics but  I watch programs from different stations to gain better perspectives on what others are thinking. 

I dont agree with Tucker's particular theory that the CIA as an organization was involved in JFK's assassination (if that is what he means). I believe it was probably some rogue elements at the operational level who had been running the exiles in combination with Carlos Marcello who were behind the assassination. Of course, given the overlap, it can be difficult to  discern where the exiles ended and the mafia started. 

But it is not important what I believe. With the GOP taking control of the House, Tucker's charges may increase the likelihood that we will get a hearing. Others are also contacting the incoming chair.  We were never going to get an oversight hearing as long as the Committee was controlled by the same party as the president.   

BTW- During the past few days, the MFF team has discovered that 677 documents dropped on the 15th that had never been part of the JFK Collection including those from NSA and Army Intelligence. we know there were outstanding record searches requested by ARRB that NARA had not follow-ed up on and this latest dump reinforces our belief that there are important records not in the JFK Collection.      

  

Thank you for your detailed answer Larry! You are giving me renewed confidence.

37 minutes ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

Indeed,  had an interesting conversation with Matt Whitaker, the last acting attorney general under Trump, while we were sitting in the green room waiting to speak on the Kennedy show on Fox Business Network. I asked him about the level of resistance that they encountered at certain agencies and why it was really hard for any president to push through their agenda.  It was a fascinating peek into the distribution of power in the federal governent. But I digress 

Maybe in the way of advice, you're getting a bit in the political weeds with Matt Whitaker, which I sense you want to avoid. He wasn't the final Trump AG, (Thank God! if you knew that story!) but was the interim revenge A.G. picked by Trump among Jeff Session's staff when Sessions recused himself from the Mueller investigation. He served for over 3 months as the interim A.G. transition figure between Jeff sessions and William Barr. Trump picked Whitaker because he wouldn't recuse himself in the Mueller investigation. So I do understand that he was going to have a problem getting anything serious done because he was only an interim A.G. 

Of course when you open up that  "Russia Gate" can of  worms you're in a real political maelstrom here which in light of the fact that Trump's First Impeachment Trial, (withholding trading  arms to Zelensky for dirt on Hunter Biden, which both parties agreed was wrong, but the Republicans disagreed it rose to the level of impeachment) was an almost identical influence peddling crime to Russia Gate, you might wonder why it would  still be so controversial? And then you add yet another similar bartering for favorable trade status with no less than the dreaded Chinese and Xi for their dirt on Hunter Biden, according to Josh Bolton in his book.

Well you understand what shark infested waters you can get into just mentioning Matt Whitaker. Please take this in the spirit of friendly advice and encouragement to the success of you task.

https://www.vox.com/2018/11/13/18087560/matt-whitaker-mueller-trump-sessions

 

[Roger Odisio]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Right. That is exactly Simon Andrew's point when he said, "Carlson is only interested because he thinks the CIA stuffed Trump, ...."  The CIA "stuffed" Trump by making him lose the election.

 

C'mon guys.  The CIA murdering Kennedy *changed the results of the 1960 election*.   Murdering Bobby on his way to the nomination to run against Nixon in '68 changed that election too.  Overseas there are many examples of the CIA changing elections, Lamumba, Allende, etc.  Dissing Carlson by trying to claim he was trying to back Trump's claims is ludicrous.   

[Bob Ness]

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I don't know if this is true or not, but it certainly makes sense.

Naturally I hope it's wrong. It would be great to see some good from Larry's discussions with Tucker's team.

 

Sure. I agree. It's helpful to the subject at hand. Let's see if it's real or not.

[Lori Spencer]

The National Security State was JFK’s enemy.

The National Security State is also Tucker Carlson’s enemy. 
 

Therefore, the enemy of JFK’s enemy is my friend. 
 

(🖕🏼Trump. He could’ve declassified and released ALL the JFKA docs at any time during his 4 year term, and didn’t, so he’s no longer relevant to this conversation!) 

[Simon Andrew]

7 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Please, if you get a wave, you ride it.

You don't say, "Hey where did that come from?"

 

Perhaps that is what Oswald thought when he was given the opportunity to work for Angleton’s false defector program. ‘Hey let’s hitch a ride, I wouldn’t get the opportunity else!’

Look how that turned out. What was he considered…’a useful idiot’.

I appreciate the desire to make progress and the years of frustration - however I think it would be wise to ask that question…’where did that come from?’…indeed you have been asking that very question about the JFK assassination for decades.

[Guest]

11 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I would say by a little bit maybe?

So Carlson would have said, on the NIght of the Long Knives: Uncle Adolf kill about 1600 more!!

So Carlson would have us sit by and watch six million people be incinerated over their religion or the fact they were gypsies, or the fact they were mentally afflicted or terminally ill?

Carlson would have us sit by and watch as the Germans rolled over the Netherlands, Denmark, parts of Scandinavia, and then begun an invasion of  France.

Carlson would then have us sit by and cheer as the Germans defeated France and took the country in six weeks.

Carlson would then egg on the German Luftwaffe as it conducted  an air war over England.

Carlson would then have congratulated the French and English as they signed a treaty with Hitler and Mussolini at Munich to take over the Sudetenland and then Tucker would have applauded as the Germans then took over the rest of Czechoslovakia.

Carlson then would have shouted yippee as the National Socialists then rolled over Poland in six weeks.

SImon, with you saying JFK was one of the ruling class, and now saying this load of malarkey I think its safe to say the Culture Wars have gotten the best of you.

Carlson is not Hitler, in fact he is not  Goebbels either.

And for you to say that shows either a real lack of knowledge and sensitivity about what the Third Reich really was or you are a leftwing provocateur.

 

It was a very unfortunate choice of comparison, one that not in peoples wildest dreams was up for debate.

I personally agree with some of the stuff that Tucker says, and not others. I find him pretty sarcastic and objectionable, however, is he the most watched newscaster for this reason? I think something is worth noting, Tucker has gradually become disillusioned with the system and has been incrementally ramping up his questioning of the military, security apparatus and corruption. Sure, he had apathy or naivety when Republicans were doing it but, sometimes the shoe needs to be on the other foot to open ones eyes. He has been outspoken about plenty of Republican corruption concerning Iraq, WMD’s and the Bushes. He knows he was duped like many others. Once bitten, twice shy. The truth is, it’s a net gain for the JFKA researchers, at worst we have still gained, as more people will be encouraged to examine the case themselves. 
 

What you need next, James, is segment on Joe Rogan’s podcast, with Tucker and perhaps one other. That will ultimately reach millions, there is a butterfly affect with this stuff. Other big podcasters will then seek to host the same thing again on their channels. This will be your route to pressuring full disclosure. 

I think Simon’s aspersions about JFK and his position was equally a howler. It shows a lack of reading on the topic. However, the latter is not so uncommon as a faux pas, as there has been plenty of media creating that illusion. 

[Guest]

9 hours ago, James Wilkinson said:

Not laughable to business elites who felt betrayed as a class by the Kennedys' hardball tactics in April '62 that backed steel companies off a price increase that they'd just broken a promise to avoid so as to avert a strike.

Henry Luce's Fortune responded by running an unsigned, inflammatory editorial headlined: "Steel: The Ides of April."

Schlesinger quoted JFK in A Thousand Days: "I understand every day how Roosevelt, who started out such a mild fellow, ended up so ferociously anti-business. It is hard as hell to be friendly with people who keep trying to cut your legs off."

JFK spoke before a friendly UAW convention that May: "Last week, after speaking to the Chamber of Commerce... I began to wonder how I got elected. And now I remember."

Elites had called his father "the Judas of Wall Street" for using his insider knowledge as the first SEC head to more effectively crack down on profiteering. In the midst of the steel crisis, JFK was quoted in the 4/23/62 NYT: "My father always told me that all businessmen were sons of bitches, but I never believed it until now."

Joseph Sr.'s son may not have been roundly tagged as a class traitor in '61, but that perception was widespread the following year among those whose class empowered them to issue such decrees.

Let me know if you're still laughing and I can point to additional examples cited in chapter 4 of Douglass's book. You're the one who went with the vague qualifier "some kind."

Good comment, James. Douglass’ book is one of my favourites, its very immersive. So far; Monika Wiesak’s book “America’s Last President” is doing an excellent job of explaining who JFK was ideologically, through JFK’s journals and early essays. It paints a clear picture. 
 

 

Edited December 24, 2022 by Chris Barnard
Typo

[Simon Andrew]

51 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

It was a very unfortunate choice of comparison, one that not in peoples wildest dreams was up for debate.

I personally agree with some of the stuff that Tucker says, and not others. I find him pretty sarcastic and objectionable, however, is he the most watched newscaster for this reason? I think something is worth noting, Tucker has gradually become disillusioned with the system and has been incrementally ramping up his questioning of the military, security apparatus and corruption. Sure, he had apathy or naivety when Republicans were doing it but, sometimes the shoe needs to be on the other foot to open ones eyes. He has been outspoken about plenty of Republican corruption concerning Iraq, WMD’s and the Bushes. He knows he was duped like many others. Once bitten, twice shy. The truth is, it’s a net gain for the JFKA researchers, at worst we have still gained, as more people will be encouraged to examine the case themselves. 
 

What you need next, James, is segment on Joe Rogan’s podcast, with Tucker and perhaps one other. That will ultimately reach millions, there is a butterfly affect with this stuff. Other big podcasters will then seek to host the same thing again on their channels. This will be your route to pressuring full disclosure. 

I think Simon’s aspersions about JFK and his position was equally a howler. It shows a lack of reading on the topic. However, the latter is not so uncommon as a faux pas, as there has been plenty of media creating that illusion. 

They are not aspersions on JFK just a different take to yours

The tone of many of the replies remind me of Monty Python’s Life of Brian and the group discussing what have the Romans done for us.

They do say that if you go far left enough, the left and the right end up indistinguishable. 
Perhaps I’m just too much of a centrist.

 

[Simon Andrew]

57 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Good comment, James. Douglass’ book is one of my favourites, its very immersive. So far; Monika Wiesak’s book “America’s Last President” is doing an excellent job of explaining who JFK was ideologically, through JFK’s journals and early essays. It paints a clear picture. 
 

 

I like Douglass’ book - However he does tend to present things as being fact when in some cases there is only a probability his interpretation is correct.

I think that is why it’s a go to book for many. It confirms a certain view which is probably correct however not with the degree of confidence he portrays.

I put this down to frustration- knowing so much about a case without having the evidence to say beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore filling in the gaps himself.

[Guest]

47 minutes ago, Simon Andrew said:

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

They are not aspersions on JFK just a different take to yours

Ahhh, so after all that it wasn’t quite so laughable?! 🙂 

 

47 minutes ago, Simon Andrew said:

The tone of many of the replies remind me of Monty Python’s Life of Brian and the group discussing what have the Romans done for us.

There is certainly merit in being introspective, too.

 

49 minutes ago, Simon Andrew said:

They do say that if you go far left enough, the left and the right end up indistinguishable. 
Perhaps I’m just too much of a centrist.

You’re certainly in the middle of something. 

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, Simon Andrew said:

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

I like Douglass’ book - However he does tend to present things as being fact when in some cases there is only a probability his interpretation is correct.

I tend to agree. We are left with an incomplete picture and need to connect dots. 
 

42 minutes ago, Simon Andrew said:

I think that is why it’s a go to book for many. It confirms a certain view which is probably correct however not with the degree of confidence he portrays.

His work perhaps made the assassination much more than just a brutal killing IMO. It delved a lot into the “why”, and the human side of JFK. However, its worth me mentioning that I am not religious, I tended to switch off when it went down that route. It was still a remarkable piece of work. 

 

46 minutes ago, Simon Andrew said:

I put this down to frustration- knowing so much about a case without having the evidence to say beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore filling in the gaps himself.

It’s a dirty war on information, one side has tried to bury, distort or confuse the situation. I don’t really have an issue with the side seeking justice presenting what seems probable. The opposing side will tell bare faced lies to millions, with a perfectly sincere tons and demeanour. I guess some authors are try to restore some balance. One side also has unlimited funds to throw at disinformation, and a hugely powerful mechanism of delivery. The other side is operating on a shoestring and is mostly unheard. It isn’t a level playing field. I am certain the torch would not be burning almost 60 years on if it wasn’t backed by truth. 
 

Unfortunately St Augustine’s quote is only partially true or misused.

”the truth is like a lion, let it loose and it will defend itself.” 
 

In this case it still hasn’t been let loose but, what truths that have been told have needed defending ferociously, and some guys here have spent their best intellectual years, giving everything to the cause. I find that incredibly admirable. They feel much of this frustration, some of which you can see in this thread. 

[Matthew Koch]

3 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

It was a very unfortunate choice of comparison, one that not in peoples wildest dreams was up for debate.

I personally agree with some of the stuff that Tucker says, and not others. I find him pretty sarcastic and objectionable, however, is he the most watched newscaster for this reason? I think something is worth noting, Tucker has gradually become disillusioned with the system and has been incrementally ramping up his questioning of the military, security apparatus and corruption. Sure, he had apathy or naivety when Republicans were doing it but, sometimes the shoe needs to be on the other foot to open ones eyes. He has been outspoken about plenty of Republican corruption concerning Iraq, WMD’s and the Bushes. He knows he was duped like many others. Once bitten, twice shy. The truth is, it’s a net gain for the JFKA researchers, at worst we have still gained, as more people will be encouraged to examine the case themselves. 
 

What you need next, James, is segment on Joe Rogan’s podcast, with Tucker and perhaps one other. That will ultimately reach millions, there is a butterfly affect with this stuff. Other big podcasters will then seek to host the same thing again on their channels. This will be your route to pressuring full disclosure. 

I think Simon’s aspersions about JFK and his position was equally a howler. It shows a lack of reading on the topic. However, the latter is not so uncommon as a faux pas, as there has been plenty of media creating that illusion. 

Chris, I LOVE Tucker's sarcasm, it is very much like Chael Sonnen and IMO is done to be a heel and be extra abrasive to leftists. I don't know wether to laugh or cry that people here like Bob and Simon are letting their bias and ego's  distract from the topic which is waking up or "red pilling" normies that the JFKA is the work of people in ABC agencies in their government. 

One can easily make the same case for Joy Reid, she's racist. But it doesn't have anything to do with her telling her audience about the JFK files so I think Conservatives are smart enough to get that.. I shared Richard Spencer a literal White Supremest and Neo fascist who helped organize Charlottesville earlier. That guy is saying the same thing as Simon, which is shut Tucker down. Personally I find it laughable hyperbole to compare Tucker to Mein Kompf when one of the biggest White Supremests hates Tucker. Tucker Carlson is Christian and not a fan of Pagan far rightists, and that nuance is something Bob and Simon like to act isn't there so they can justify their bad behavior towards people they hold bias towards. Rather humorous that Bob of all people is making excuses for Simon, especially that Simon is new, lol, when the whole time I've been posting he's used any diversion of topic to tell new people to quote "F/O" 

Watch Tuckers segment from last night, he mentions the 9/11 and JFK Files in passing in the first two minutes and you will see how it ties into the rest of his segments, and that talk of Tucker is just into this because he has nefarious purposes. Exposes the person for; arguing out of ignorance and alarmism IMHO.. 

 

 

[Matthew Koch]

16 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I would say by a little bit maybe?

So Carlson would have said, on the NIght of the Long Knives: Uncle Adolf kill about 1600 more!!

So Carlson would have us sit by and watch six million people be incinerated over their religion or the fact they were gypsies, or the fact they were mentally afflicted or terminally ill?

Carlson would have us sit by and watch as the Germans rolled over the Netherlands, Denmark, parts of Scandinavia, and then begun an invasion of  France.

Carlson would then have us sit by and cheer as the Germans defeated France and took the country in six weeks.

Carlson would then egg on the German Luftwaffe as it conducted  an air war over England.

Carlson would then have congratulated the French and English as they signed a treaty with Hitler and Mussolini at Munich to take over the Sudetenland and then Tucker would have applauded as the Germans then took over the rest of Czechoslovakia.

Carlson then would have shouted yippee as the National Socialists then rolled over Poland in six weeks.

SImon, with you saying JFK was one of the ruling class, and now saying this load of malarkey I think its safe to say the Culture Wars have gotten the best of you.

Carlson is not Hitler, in fact he is not  Goebbels either.

And for you to say that shows either a real lack of knowledge and sensitivity about what the Third Reich really was or you are a leftwing provocateur.

 

Jim that's really funny, I read it in a tone similar to this: