Government Cover-Up of JFK Assassination

[Ron Ecker]

Tim,

Would you not consider the CIA to be an integral part of the NSS? CIA agent Morales reportedly said "We took care of that son of a bitch." CIA agent David Atlee Phillips reportedly admitted on his deathbed that he was in Dallas. A CIA agent or two are in photos taken at Main and Houston. They haven't talked, but a picture is worth a thousand words. In any case, Morales and Phillips are two reps of the NSS who reportedly talked.

I suppose you will say that they were just "rogue agents." So I will go ahead and say that I think the term "rogue agents" is a load of crap that originated, as far as I know, with the CIA itself. You either work for the CIA or you don't. If the CIA can't control its agents, how the hell does that exonerate it when they go off and do something like assassinate a president? Well, boys will be boys!

Ron

[Dawn Meredith]

As far as whether or not someone would eventually tell their children...Tim, are you unaware of some WWII vets who were so traumatized of what they saw--and what they participated in--that they never spoke of their wartime experiences, even to their children? If there was a participant in the JFK assassination who actually witnessed Kennedy's head exploding, is it totally inconceivable in your mind that this person may have been traumatized to the point that they refused to speak of the incident for the rest of his/her life?

___________________________

Point well taken. My dad was in Italy in WW11. On Sat. mornings after his kids were born he would listen to Italian opera and become very emotional. Never ONCE in my life did he talk about his terribly traumatizing wartime experience. Only after his death did I learn that he had to send all the boys "out to the front".

I also agree that being involved in this conspiracy would also mean silence. Why would anyone EVER tell their kid(s) that he had been involved in the murder of JFK???? Hardly a way to have one's child look up to dad.

Dawn

[Mark Knight]

Tim, until one is placed in such a position, one can only imagine what one might or might not do under extreme duress. Whether or not one would participate in a murder. one can only fantasize until or unless your own life, or that of an innocent family member, has been placed "on the line. And I really don't care about your fantacies, Tim.

I know that the lives of my two children are THE most important thing in my own life. While I think of myself as honorable and moral to the end, if my kids' lives were in the hanging in the balance, I can't say that I would steadfastly refuse to participate in a murder, knowing that my refusal would certainly bring about the death of one or both of my kids.

And I believe that any honest person who truly loves his/her family would feel the same way. Conversely, if your affection for your family isn't very great, your personal convictions might allow you to see them die in order to uphold your own "code." But respect for innocent victims is the only thing that makes the taking of hostages--physically or psychologically--work at all.

My point is, Tim...whatever occurs within the confines of your mind does not necessarily make your experience universally true for the rest of mankind. If you have children, I cannot fathom how you could possibly have stated the case so callously; if you don't have children, then your moralistic idealism, while lamentable, might be understandable...but only if you have no truly close family relationships at all.

It is very interesting to me that almost every one of you, who in my opinion exhibit lapses in critical thinking (witness your above post), have to resort to sarcasm and name-calling. Why don't you just state your position? But if it makes you feel better to resort to childishness, be my guest. It does not bother me in the least but it does diminish my opinion of your thinking processes. Sorry, but it is the truth, Mark

Tim, I have gone over and over this post of mine, and nowhere do I find evidence of sarcasm and name-calling that you cite. I still contend, to you and everyone else, that, despite Thoreau's words [Self-Reliance], simply believing what is true in your own mind is true for everyone else is not necessarily genius...because it may not be true for everyone else. That isn't name-calling, and it isn't meant as sarcasm [despite your beliefs].

In the quote from my previous post--the one above in green--I was stating my disagreement with your argument, based upon my own life experience. No name-calling or sarcasm there. In the quote above in blue, I was explaining why I disagreed with your premise that nothing could make one who has any principles participate in a murder...the only reason that I could understand that one would say never would be in the case that one either has no children or no close familial relationships that could be used as leverage.

If you take THAT as a personal attack, I have no idea why; it's merely me stating my position, as you admonished me to do after I had done so. If I struck a nerve about family relationships, that wasn't my intent. But my parents and my children--and their safety and welfare--could possibly be used against me to force me to commit acts against my will. I don't think I could say, "GO AHEAD--KILL 'EM!" and truly mean it, because I DO feel that kind of affection for them...the kind that would allow me to sacrifice myself for their safety.

AS I said before, if you cannot understand that kind of love, then you have my sympathy; but DON'T argue that reasonable people would NEVER capitulate to terror to insure the health and safety of loved ones. I'd wager that more WOULD than WOULDN'T, in today's world, if they were HONEST in their answers. As such, I merely contend that your position, upon which you base your argument, is flawed. On that basis, in my opinion it is YOUR position that "exhibits lapses in critical thinking," to borrow your own words.

Now show me exactly where the sarcasm and name-calling are in the green and blue quotes above. I simply don't see it. I was merely stating my beliefs as honestly as I know how...no more, no less, and without a trace of sarcasm. If you're gonna make the charge against me, at least show me where I'm supposed to be guilty [especially the name-calling]. Make your case, Counselor.

Edited July 5, 2005 by Mark Knight

[Mark Knight]

...still waiting for you to make your case...

[Charles Black]

Ron had suggested that the planners of the conspiracy might have "recruited" some of the otherwise law-abiding underlings by threatening their lives or the lives of their children.

I think someone would have taken precautions and come forward, even at the risk of his life.

I do not believe I would participate in a murder even if my life was threatened. Would you?

Moreover, even if some people had participated because of a threat against their life, don't you suppose one of their children would know and would now come forward with the story?

Tim, until one is placed in such a position, one can only imagine what one might or might not do under extreme duress.  Whether or not one would participate in a murder. one can only fantasize until or unless your own life, or that of an innocent family member, has been placed "on the line.  And I really don't care about your fantacies, Tim.

I know that the lives of my two children are THE most important thing in my own life.  While I think of myself as honorable and moral to the end, if my kids' lives were in the hanging in the balance, I can't say that I would steadfastly refuse to participate in a murder, knowing that my refusal would certainly bring about the death of one or both of my kids.

And I believe that any honest person who truly loves his/her family would feel the same way.  Conversely, if your affection for your family isn't very great, your personal convictions mightallow you to see them die in order to uphold your own "code."  But respect for innocent victims is the only thing that makes the taking of hostages--physically or psychologically--work at all.

As far as whether or not someone would eventually tell their children...Tim, are you unaware of some WWII vets who were so traumatized of what they saw--and what they participated in--that they never spoke of their wartime experiences, even to their children?  If there was a participant in the JFK assassination who actually witnessed Kennedy's head exploding, is it totally inconceivable in your mind that this person may have been traumatized to the point that they refused to speak of the incident for the rest of his/her life?

My point is, Tim...whatever occurs within the confines of your mind does not necessarily make your experience universally true for the rest of mankind.  If you have children, I cannot fathom how you could possibly have stated the case so callously; if you don't have children, then your moralistic idealism, while lamentable, might be understandable...but only if you have no truly close family relationships at all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mark

I completely agree with your post. Regardless of any other moral convictions, I know, without a doubt, how I would react to a threat against my family. And I do mean "without a doubt" or hesitation. Perhaps my blood is too thick, but I could in no way imagine any other action on my part. Suicide might have been an only alternative.

I have heard a great many say that they are above corruption and could never be "bought". I say Bullxxxx!

Charlie Black

Edited July 20, 2005 by Charles Black

[Thomas H. Purvis]

I'm going to weigh in with Pat on this one.  Having invested a good deal of "skull sweat" and research on the details of the cover up I presented a case in my book that one can isolate LBJ as the single driving force behind the all the key elements of the cover up,  including medical via Burkley,  the FBI's evidence management via Hoover and the quashing of objections like those raised by Mann.  According to Mann himself LBJ was supported (for whatever reason) in this by RFK who also used his influence to quash pursuit of conspiracy immediately following the assassination.  Beyond that other elements were covered up for security and CYA reasons within the agencies involved - e.g.  intelligence contact with Oswald covered up by both FBI and CIA,  Ruby's crime connections and extensive associations in site the DPD covered up by DPD senior officers etc.  SS negligence covered up by the service itself, think of the effect of the late night drinking session on national news.  And we know directly from the Johnson tapes how he alone drove the legal cover-up,  the formation of the WC and the manipulation of the press.

So after written about all this minutia in boring detail I'd be happy to discuss it with anyone who managed to wade through it....grin.

-- Larry

I also feel that a widespread conspiracy of willing participants is unlikely.  But unfortunately I know that most people are like sheep and are easily controlled by those with "authority" or "expertise." 

Still, Salandria really stretches things to make a point.  At least half of the things he finds mysterious can be easily explained. His paranoia hurts the credibility of his argument.  The government's allowing Dr. Humes to destroy his notes, for instance, is not indicative of anything.  I mean, how were they gonna stop him?  It's not as if he asked permission.  Furthermore, since the only way we even know that he destroyed his notes is that he told us, how suspicious are his actions really?  If anything, Humes' action indicates he may have changed his interpretation of the wounds after writing his report--this doesn't fit with a widespread conspiracy, in which he'd have been briefed beforehand and told what his findings should be, and in which he would never admit to destroying any notes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In the event one wishes to find who was behind the assassination, then there is little reason to search beyond New Orleans, LA.

In the event one wishes to know the true purpose of the WC lie/misrepresentation/& obfuscation of the facts of the actual event, one need look only at politics.

Two separate and totally unconnected events.

Added together in some attempt to force an overall conspiracy merely confuses the matter, with the end result being what we now have.

Tom

[Charles Black]

I see a "vast" conspiracy, if you want to call it that, in that the national security state (NSS) aka the military-industrial complex assassinated JFK. The powers that be did it. How many people that would require as participants I really have no idea. But I would think they would carefully choose which individuals they approached to participate (approaching only those who were needed, of course). They would want to approach people who were likely to participate willingly, so to speak, but in any case they would know which buttons to push. Once a person was approached, he was either in it or dead, and that person would know it. If he didn't know it intuitively, he'd be told, you're in it or you're dead, you talk and you're dead. This would induce people, almost all of whom had families to worry about also, to participate and not to talk. (Look at the Mafia. In the Mafia this is a way of life, there's no need to explain how it works.) Many were probably gung-ho participants, and died proud of what they did, but others would live in fear for the rest of their lives. You would have to be in such a situation to appreciate fully what it's like. To me this is the best explanation of how it was managed in terms of containment. I may be wrong, but I will not reject clear evidence of something (in this case, a coup d'etat by the NSS) because I don't know the details of how they pulled it off. One thing that seems certain is that they had the unchallenged power to commit the crime and cover it up, and the NSS remains unchallenged to this day. And there were enough people connected to the NSS who knew about what was going to happen in Dallas without necessarily being participants that they showed up just to watch. 

Ron

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ron

Very well said. There is "clear evidence" if looked at with a clear and un pre-suppositioned mind.

To me it is crystal clear that the motive, the money, and most of all, THE POWER, came from what has been coined the MI Complex.

Money IMHO is the only true and universal power. Money and the power that it easily buys, controls the globe. Money wanted war. Money now wants The New World Order. Money will Win!!!

Money convinces people and organizations that they are Patriots and God appointed Leaders, who are neccessary to lead the blind and ignorant sheep. That they literally are the annointed servants of goodness, Godliness and wisdom.

There is nothing that the power of money cannot force or eliminate.

Charlie Black