Trump Assassination Attempt Discussion

[Karl Kinaski]

@Gil ... JFK and Trump are very different human beings, but they are identical in their opposition to the deceptive and manipulative US deep state, this "forever wars" Parakratos, which was a menace then(1963) and is completely out of time today. 

The magic button which keeps this Parakratos alive is the political assassination, from Dallas to Butler. 

The shots of Butler weren't random nor were they fired by a lone nut ... somebody gave Crooks a free ticket for that roof. 

 

Edited 6 hours ago by Karl Kinaski

[Bill Fite]

3 minutes ago, Karl Kinaski said:

US deep state

Wouldn't Trump be a 'Deep State' servant and not opponent?

• Previously served as president - according to the assumption that the Deep State was behind this -> it still exists - so Trump did not destroy the Deep State in his first term.  Any evidence of actions he took against it?
• Doesn't the Deep State need a bogeyman to support its continued existence - you know - the Russkies - since the terrorists aren't attacking anytime recently. Isn't Trump more likely to pursue policies that keep Putin, a Deep State bogeyman, in power?

Sorry to have to ask, but where is Trump a threat to the Deep State?

[Karl Kinaski]

@ Bill Fite said, 

Quote

Sorry to have to ask, but where is Trump a threat to the Deep State?

 

 my two cents:

Both men JFK and DJT are/were opposed to foreign wars. The US deep state loves to ignite them … to oppose foreign wars is the main reason that the deep state regarded/regard them (or any future President) as mortal enemies and take "appropriate action", (assassination) after declaring them to an threat to  National Security(JFK was compared to Cesar, Trump was - and is still - compared to Hitler ...)  … therefore IMO Dallas is Butler. 

This can go on for a long time but not forever, especially not in our times of citizen journalism etc. 

 

   PS And I hate it to say, but being a longtime scholar of the JFKA I fear Butler was the first, but not the last attempt on Trumps life in he remaining months to the election. But who knows: Maybe he has God on his side.

Edited Monday at 11:04 AM by Karl Kinaski

[Benjamin Cole]

Just FYI. 

Side note: It does seem like the Trump shooter has been ID'ed as a LN within hours of the shooting. Really? 

 

The Latest From JFK Facts

---

BlueAnon and the 'Lone Gunman'

The doubts of 2024 are rooted in the bogus story of 1963

JEFFERSON MORLEY JUL 15

READ IN APP

Mother and dutiful son by Michael McDonald.

Liberal conspiracy theories (“Blue Anon”) about the attempted assassination of Donald Trump concern the Washington Post. The irrationality of the right has bled into the left, says the Post’s experts. The suspicion that slain gunman Thomas Crooks was part of some larger scheme is baseless, the New York Times assures us.

Presidents James A. Garfield, William McKinley and John F Kennedy were shot to death by lone gunmen who were upset with them for one reason or another, but the killings did not become sources of schism between the Republican and Democratic parties.

But the Times omits to mention that JFK’s assassination, while never a partisan issue, has always a source of class schism. The majority of the general public has never believed Oswald acted alone, while an elite minority stick doggedly to the original story of a "lone gunman,” despite the emergence of considerable evidence to the contrary. This class divide transcends partisanship. A poll of 2022 midterm voters voters found majority of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents do not believe that one man alone killed JFK. 

The evidence that Oswald alone killed JFK, never strong, has grown much weaker over the years. The problem with the “lone gunman” narrative of 2024 is rooted in the factual improbability of the “lone guman” theory of 1963.

The BlueAnon crowd has historical grounds for suspicion. 

The First ‘Lone Gunman’

The JFK story is key to understanding BlueAnon.

Contrary to the official story (and the New York Times), JFK’s accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald was not an isolated sociopath. Records declassified in recent years reveal Oswald was a figure of interest to top CIA officers, who, it should be noted, were opposed to JFK’s liberal policies. The CIA was even reading Oswald’s mail.

These same officers lied to the Warren Commission about what they knew of the supposed killer, stating falsely they had only “minimal” information about Oswald before JFK was killed. In fact Oswald was constantly monitored by CIA counterintelligence chief James Angleton and his staff as he made his way to Dallas. 

The Blue Anon crowd can cite, correctly, the inconvenient fact that Oswald vehemently denied killing Kennedy. They can note, accurately, that there is little evidence to support the Times’ claim that Oswald was “upset” with Kennedy. In fact, Oswald said positive things about Kennedy on multiple occasions. And Oswald was then killed in police custody, which lends a lethal credibility to his claim of being the “patsy” of others.

The Blue Anon crowd, it is safe to say, does not buy the so-called “single bullet theory,” a rightly ridiculed scenario, which holds one bullet cause seven non-fatal wounds in President Kennedy and Texas Governor John Connally. 

Wikipedia will tell you that this contrived scenario is true but no one in the. presidential limousine that was struck by gunfire subscribed to it: not First Lady Jackie Kennedy, not Secret Service man Roy Kellerman, not Connally or his wife Nellie. 

Of course, victim testimony about gunfire can be unreliable. But the doctors who saw Kennedy’s wounds a few minutes later also disputed the single bullet theory. In an important documentary “What the Doctors Saw,” which aired last year, the physicians who tried to save JFK’s life agreed he had been hit by gunfire from two different directions, prima facie evidence of a conspiracy.

Of course, the Dallas doctors didn’t have access to all the evidence. But three members of the Warren Commission didn’t believe the single bullet theory either. Nor did President Johnson. And medical personnel involved in the JFK’s autopsy said in sworn depositions in the 1990s that they saw autopsy photographs showing Kennedy had been shot from the front.

In short, doubts about a “lone gunman” in 2024 are rooted in the manifest implausibility of the “lone gunman” story of 1963. 

A True ‘Lone Nut?’

Which is not to endorse any BlueAnon scenarios about the attempted assassination of Trump, all of which strike me as improbable.

The irony, of course, is that Thomas Crooks may well be like Mark David Chapman and John Hinckley, an isolated sociopath, a proverbial “lone nut,” and not someone cuaght in a larger web of intrigue the way Oswald was. I very much doubt that Crooks has been monitored by the CIA for the past four years, the way Oswald was from 1959 to 1963. 

In the BlueAnon phenomenon, we see how the failure of accountability around JFK’s assassination undermines faith in government at a time when fascism is ascendant.

[Karl Kinaski]

Another sicko. This is Kathy Griffin, a so called comedian. She thinks this is funny. 

 

Edited Monday at 11:51 AM by Karl Kinaski

[Gerry Down]

The recent assassination attempt by Crooks on former president Trump provides an interesting opportunity for comparison between him and Lee Harvey Oswald.  

Some comparisons of note include:

• LHO was young (24). TMC was young (20).
• LHO was a loner. TMC was a loner.
• LHO was bullied (in school, and the marines). TMC was bullied (in school).
• LHO was intelligent (read a lot of books). TMC was intelligent (won a school math aware).
• LHO enjoyed playing chess. TMC enjoyed playing chess.
• LHO was involved in debates (on the radio in N.O.). TMC was involved in debates (school debates). 
• LHO in his teens was interested in military service. TMC in his teens, according to a former classmate, was interested in military service.
• LHO wore camouflage (in the marines). TMC wore camouflage to school.
• LHO liked guns (as confirmed by Adrian Alba in N.O.). TMC liked guns.
• LHO was interesting in bomb making. TMC was interested in bomb making.
• LHO involved himself in contradictory positions (FPCC & DRE). TMC involved himself in contradictory positions (registered Republican & donating to Democratic causes).
• LHO shot at his target from a distance. TMC shot at his target from a distance.
• LHO used an unsuitable assassination rifle (an old bolt action rifle). TMC used an unsuitable assassination rifle (AR-15, not suitable for long distance).
• LHO put other peoples lives at risk during his assassination attempt (Gov. Connally, Mrs. Kennedy). TMC put other peoples lives at risk during his assassination attempt (Corey Comperatore, James Copenhaver, David Dutch). 
• LHO shot a law enforcement officer (officer Tippit). TMC threatened to shoot a law enforcement officer (seconds before shooting at Trump).
• LHO had no obvious motive. TMC had no obvious motive (as of yet anyway).  
• LHO had no criminal record. TMC had no criminal record. 

[Cliff Varnell]

23 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

TMC involved himself in contradictory positions (registered Republican & donating to Democratic causes).

Factually incorrect.  Crooks donated $15 to Biden's inaugural.  That's it.  He was a conservative Republican gun nut in all other ways.

[Karl Kinaski]

Some corrections.

• LHO was young (24).  Yes. 
• LHO was a loner.  No. He was a black operative and connected with IC people, handlers etc. In fact Oswald knew more people in in higher positions than a average youngster.
• LHO liked guns (as confirmed by Adrian Alba in N.O.).  No, he was not.
• LHO was interesting in bomb making.  No, he was not. 
• LHO involved himself in contradictory positions (FPCC & DRE).  Yes, by order of his handlers. 
• LHO shot at his target from a distance.  No. Oswald did not shot anybody on 22. 211. 1963. 
• LHO used an unsuitable assassination rifle (an old bolt action rifle).  Therefore this was not his rifle. 
• LHO put other peoples lives at risk during his assassination attempt (Gov. Connally, Mrs. Kennedy). LHO did not shot anybody. Therefore he did nobody at risk. 
• LHO shot a law enforcement officer (officer Tippit). LHO did not shot Tippit.
• LHO had no obvious motive. Since LHO shot nobody a motive is not needed.
•  
• CONCLUSIO: Since your premises are wrong your comparison game is baloney. 
• 

[Gerry Down]

10 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

He was a conservative Republican gun nut in all other ways.

Oswald was left-wing and into guns. The notion that only conservatives are into guns doesn't add up. 

[Karl Kinaski]

The cover up to create a lone nut is starting right now. I am bored. 

  

Edited Monday at 12:13 PM by Karl Kinaski

[Jonathan Cohen]

1 hour ago, Karl Kinaski said:

He was a black operative and connected with IC people, handlers etc. In fact Oswald knew more people in in higher positions than a average youngster.

What "people in higher positions" did he know?

[Johnny Cairns]

Alexa… show me what clutching at straws looks like…

Edited Monday at 01:29 PM by Johnny Cairns

[Ben Green]

Oswald was married with kids. I wouldn't describe someone like that as a 'loner'.

[W. Niederhut]

5 hours ago, Bill Fite said:

Wouldn't Trump be a 'Deep State' servant and not opponent?

• Previously served as president - according to the assumption that the Deep State was behind this -> it still exists - so Trump did not destroy the Deep State in his first term.  Any evidence of actions he took against it?
• Doesn't the Deep State need a bogeyman to support its continued existence - you know - the Russkies - since the terrorists aren't attacking anytime recently. Isn't Trump more likely to pursue policies that keep Putin, a Deep State bogeyman, in power?

Sorry to have to ask, but where is Trump a threat to the Deep State?

Good question, Bill.

It's refreshing to hear from a forum member who isn't living in the alternate-reality Fox News MAGA-verse.

Trump and his MAGA propagandists (Fox, Breitbart, Daily Caller, et.al.) have been portraying Trump as an heroic victim and adversary of the Deep State since January of 2017, when the media belatedly began reporting on Trump's longstanding ties to Putin's oligarchs and the Kremlin.

But Trump was never really a victim and adversary of the Deep State, as portrayed in the MAGA media.

Instead, he's a compromised Kremlin asset who has blamed the Deep State for the aborted/redacted investigation of his illegal ties to the Kremlin.

The one area where Trump "clashed" with the Deep State, to my knowledge, was his decision to de-fund CIA Operation Timber Sycamore (in Syria) in the summer of 2017.  My own hypothesis is that Trump de-funded Timber Sycamore on Putin's instructions, but that is speculative, in the absence of explicit evidence.

Edited Monday at 03:08 PM by W. Niederhut

[Karl Kinaski]

 

@Jonathan Cohen

 

Admiral Chester Bruton, Baron de Mohrenschildt ( a man who called the later President Bush by his nick "Poppy"), Stanislav Shushkevich Russian atomic physicist and later first President of Belarus ... Alton Ochsner, Doc of the rich and famous,  Clay Shaw ... that's something for a kid around 20 ... isn't it.