Jump to content
The Education Forum

Opium Lords


Lee Forman
 Share

Recommended Posts

Opium Lords, Salvador Astucia's take on the assassination - found Chapter 1 interesting, relative to the topic of the Media, discussed elsewhere. His take is that money through drug trafficking played the major role, and that Jewish concerns joined with the rightwing for the conspiracy, only to then be turned on immediately afterwards. Israel played a large role, as did a war internally between Yankees and Cowboys. Interesting stuff, with some intriguing connections to other theories - like Steve Rivele, Gary Wean, etc.

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/media_coup.htm

Chapter 1: The Media Coup

Analysis of NBC Coverage of JFK Assassination

Although President Kennedy was removed violently from office, the real strength of the coup was its ability to cover up the crime afterwards. Anyone with money can hire assassins, but covering up the crime is more difficult. This required the full cooperation of key people within the American news media. One such participant was correspondent for NBC television, the late Martin Agronsky. It’s interesting that Agronsky, a Jew, began his journalism career in 1936 as a reporter for the Palestine Post, now the Jerusalem Post.1

As it Happened, a four hour film showing NBC-TV’s live coverage of President Kennedy’s assassination on November 22, 1963, reveals that Agronsky aggressively promoted Lyndon Johnson as an able replacement for the slain Kennedy rather than merely report the tragic events. Agronksy’s behavior suggests that he and Johnson were both active participants in the coup d’état of 1963 and therefore had prior knowledge of Kennedy’s murder.

The raw NBC footage reveals how the media coup was executed. There were two types of news men: those "reporting" the news and those "interpreting" the news. Those reporting the news were almost exclusively gentiles. They included Frank McGee, Bill Ryan, Chet Huntley, David Brinkly, Robert McNeil, Charles Murphy (of WBAP-TV Fort Worth, Dallas), and Tom Whelan (also of WBAP). In stark contrast, the ones interpreting the news—or "correspondents" as they called themselves—were almost all Jewish. They included Martin Agronsky, Elie Abel, Irving R. Levine, Peter Hackes, Kenneth Bernstein, Lief Ede, and Gabe Pressman.

The Oswald cover story and supporting propaganda/disinformation was shaped and controlled by three factions: (1) the Jewish correspondents, (2) the Dallas Police, and (3) the Associated Press. The Jewish correspondents’ jobs were to promote Lyndon Johnson as Kennedy’s replacement, to prepare the public for shifts in foreign affairs, and to generally control the flow of information by putting a spin on things as needed. The Dallas Police department’s job, from a propagandistic viewpoint, was to leak the cover story to the AP wire and other media outlets that Lee Harvey Oswald had killed Dallas Police officer J. D. Tippet and had shot and killed President Kennedy from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. The AP’s function was to flood all levels of the news media with a cover story that vilified Oswald, portraying him as a lone gunner, a nut, an expatriate who moved to the Soviet Union and married a Russian woman, an unstable man who supported Communism and belonged to a pro-Castro group in New Orleans.

As previously stated, Agronsky’s role was mainly to promote the new president, Lyndon Johnson. On November 22, 1963, Agronsky gave four brief commentaries aggressively supporting the new president.

Transcripts of Martin Agronsky’s Commentaries

During his first commentary, Agronsky mentioned that House Speaker John McCormack would be next in line to the presidency if something would happen to Johnson. That was a reasonably acceptable observation, although it indicated that Agronsky had thought things through in a moment of crisis; clear thinking indeed. Agronsky’s comment was made only twenty minutes after Kennedy’s death had been announced to the world. Here is the transcript:

Bill Ryan:

The Capitol is now starting to react to what has happened in Dallas, and for a report on that, we go now to Martin Agronksy, NBC News in Washington.

Martin Agronsky:

… Senator Mansfield has made no statement, the Senate majority leader. Speaker McCormack, who is now in the position in relation to President Lyndon Johnson that Lyndon Johnson was in relation to President Kennedy, has made no statement. …

(As it Happened, NBC coverage of the Kennedy assassination)

An hour later, Agronsky made a second commentary. In the midst of a national crisis, he told a light-hearted anecdote about Lyndon Johnson and then Texas Governor Connally, who had been shot and gravely wounded while riding in the Presidential limousine with Kennedy. Agronsky told how he had bet fifty dollars with Texas Governor John Connally, in 1960, that Lyndon Johnson would accept the number two spot on the Democratic presidential ticket if Kennedy offered it to him. According to Agronsky, Connally was certain that Johnson would turn down the number two position. As it turned out, Connally was wrong about his "close friend," Johnson. Possibly Agronsky was merely sharing an innocent, personal encounter with Connally as an attempt to lighten a stressful situation. On the other hand, Agronsky may have been insulating Johnson from charges that Johnson participated in a coup against Kennedy. After all, even if Johnson disliked Kennedy; how could he allow his "good friend" John Connally to be placed in harm’s way? Here is the transcript:

Agronsky:

… I think back to a night of the convention in nineteen hundred and sixty when Vice-President Lyndon Johnson accepted the nomination. Governor John Connally was then the floor manager for Lyndon Johnson. He was the man who was always his closest assistant in all of his political campaigns. That is Governor Connally of Texas who now lies wounded in a hospital in Dallas.

About two o’clock in the morning, when there was much talk that Lyndon Johnson would be offered the vice-presidential nomination, John Connally told me that he was positive he would never accept it. I had talked earlier to the late speaker, to Sam Rayburn. He told me too that Lyndon Johnson would never accept the vice-presidency, would never give up the job of Senate majority leader to take it.

And I bet John Connally then, fifty dollars that Lyndon Johnson would take the vice-presidential nomination. And at two o’clock that morning, John Connally made that bet with me, clearly positive that his very close friend, Lyndon Johnson, would not accept it. This I suppose is the way that history is made. Had Lyndon Johnson not accepted it, he of course would not be president of the United States today.

No one could ever have believed or dreamed that a president so young would not conclude the term of office, that death would interrupt. There is very little else to report here in Washington, just the general reaction from – oh and a bulletin has just come in from Dallas: "A sniper, armed with a high powered rifle, murdered President Kennedy today," according to the Associated Press dispatch, "barely two hours after President Kennedy’s death, Lyndon Johnson has taken the oath of office as the thirty-seventh president of the United States."

So it is President Lyndon Baines Johnson, fifty-five years old, the new president of the United States. Now, back to New York.

(As it Happened, NBC coverage of the Kennedy assassination)

About two hours after Kennedy’s death was announced, Agronsky delivered his third commentary. At that point, he stepped up the pro-Johnson rhetoric quite a bit. He immediately attempted to cut to film footage of three prominent Senators. Unfortunately there was a "mechanical failure" and the audience saw Senator Mansfield’s lips moving, but without sound. Agronsky apologized for the malfunction, and proceeded to tell what appeared be a bald-faced lie—that the senators were "rallying" around the new President Johnson. Later he showed the footage again, in working order, but none of the three even mentioned Johnson by name. In fact, all three senators—Mike Mansfield, Everett Dirksen, and Wayne Morse(Footnote 7)—praised the slain Kennedy and spoke only of the tragic loss. Morse did state, however, that Americans should "pray for the president, and pray for the country." I assume he meant to pray for President Johnson.

Agronsky had planted a seed of disinformation that three prominent senators had quickly rallied around the new President Johnson. Agronsky used this false premise to shower Johnson with praise, stating that Johnson was a "well-known intimate friend of all the members of the Senate of the United States." Agronsky also stated that Johnson had "a more vast governmental experience behind him than any president we have ever had." It looks very much like Agronsky faked the mechanical failure which showed Senator Mansfield’s lips moving without sound as a pretext for building the new president up in the eyes of the American public. This mysterious "malfunction" allowed Agronsky to make the transition to his obviously prepared text which praised President Johnson immensely. Here is the transcript:

Agronsky:

The leaders of the Congress of the United States have united in bipartisan unity in this tragic moment. Senate majority leader Mike Mansfield of Montana, a man who now occupies the office last held by our new president, Lyndon B. Johnson, his Republican opposite Illinois’ Senator Everett Dirksen, the Republican minority leader in the Senate, and Oregon’s Democratic Wayne Morse speak now.

[Video of Senator Mike Mansfield is shown on the screen for eighteen seconds, but no sound is heard. Agronsky returns and explains the "mechanical failure."]

Senator Mansfield was just speaking. Unfortunately, a mechanical failure has cut off the sound from the picture. We’ll come back with the statements of Senator Mansfield, the majority leader; the minority leader, Senator Everett Dirksen; and Democratic Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon later.

The man around whom they are now rallying, Senator—President Lyndon Baines Johnson is a very, very close friend; a very, very, well-known intimate friend of all of the members of the Senate of the United States. Lyndon Baines Johnson, at the age of fifty-five, takes office as president of the United States with probably a more vast governmental experience behind him than any president we have ever had. He has been in the House of Representatives for, I think, four terms. He was elected twice to the Senate of the United States, served as the Senate majority leader where his record was as an extremely able legislative leader, a man who accomplished much in the office. His knowledge, his companionship with the members of the Senate of the United States must certainly serve him in good stead as they did his predecessor, John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

Additionally, throughout the Kennedy administration, then Vice-President Lyndon Johnson, now President Lyndon Johnson served the president of the United States in many capacities that gave him an intimate knowledge and insight into the duties of the office that he now assumes. He was on the National Security Council and the National Security Council Executive Committee. He served in every possible way, and had every possible experience that a man could have [known] intimately the workings of our government. He is eminently qualified certainly in terms of experience to assume the terrible duties that await him now.

And now we are informed that the mechanical obstruction to hearing the words of the Senate leaders has been removed, and we hear now first from Senator Mansfield of Montana, the majority leader, then from the Republican minority--[cut to video]

[film and voice of Senator Mike Mansfield]

The passing of John Fitzgerald Kennedy is not only a tragedy for a nation which he so ably represented, but is I think also a mark upon the respectability and the responsibility of some of our citizens. This good, this decent, this kindly man, this harassed man who had so much on his shoulders and received from some people, so little in the way of support in return; this man has now gone to his reward. And I will miss him as a personal friend, the nation will miss him as a great president, and the world will miss him as a great leader.

[film and voice of Senator Everett Dirksen, sitting beside Mansfield]

There are some things that are simply incredible, and leave one absolutely speechless. This is one of them.

[film and voice of Senator Wayne Morse]

In this dark, tragic hour, all I can say is what I said on the floor of the Senate. This is the time for every American to pray. Pray for the president, and pray for the country.

[back to Agronsky]

So the leaders of the Senate of the United States demonstrated in these words the traditional and the central unity that goes beyond party in this particular moment of national tragedy. There can be no doubt that the Congress of the United States will unite, and unite firmly, and will help in every possible way, their new president, Lyndon Baines Johnson. He is their close friend, as his predecessor was; and there is every certainty that the new president of the United States will receive every possible help that he possibly can, that can be afforded to him by the Congress of the United States, regardless of party.

The words you have just heard from Mr. Mansfield, the majority leader; from Senator Everett Dirksen, the minority leader; from Wayne Morse of Oregon, all indicate what is truly a feeling that permeates the entire Congress of the United States today, and demonstrates the kind of essential unity that exists now in the Congress as it rallies behind the new president.

And now, back to New York.

(As it Happened, NBC coverage of the Kennedy assassination)

Agronsky’s fourth commentary was even more dramatic. At this point, the world had learned of Kennedy’s death slightly less than three hours earlier. Agronsky opened his fourth commentary by mentioning that Kennedy’s cabinet had been on a jet to Japan during the assassination, and had subsequently turned around to return home. Amazingly, Agronsky stated that it was traditional for cabinet members of a dead president to automatically submit their resignations to the new president. One has to ask, Where did Mr. Agronsky find such a piece of trivia? After all, presidents don’t die in office that frequently. I doubt that a standard protocol had been established. Agronsky was apparently using his power as an opinion leader to allow Johnson to fire some of Kennedy’s cabinet members without creating a public controversy. In reality, Johnson kept some of Kennedy’s cabinet members and other advisors, but Agronsky’s spin surely made it easier for a new government to be assembled.

Agronsky then proceeded to heap more praise onto President Johnson, stating that Kennedy’s cabinet members would surely rally around the highly qualified and respected Johnson. Here is the transcript:

Agronsky:

The chief members of the cabinet of the United States, that is the Secretary of State, Dean Rusk; the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Macnamara; the Secretary of Commerce, Mr. Hodges; and the Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Udall; are all on the plane [to Japan], that Frank [McGee] has just mentioned, that has turned around and is trying to get back now to Washington. It is the custom, it is the tradition when a president dies that each member of the cabinet submits automatically his resignation. The incoming president then either accepts the resignation or instructs the cabinet officer to remain at his post. Automatically those resignations, we can assume, will be submitted at this time, and President Johnson will then have to make up his mind whom he wishes to keep and whom he wishes to have go. …

[Agronsky then describes the pending funeral plans for JFK.]

The members of the cabinet of course must rally around the new president, will, fully intend to, will offer all of the advice that they possibly can. This is a government that under John Fitzgerald Kennedy worked very closely together, not in the sense of holding frequent cabinet meetings, they didn’t; but everyone else always knew what the other was doing. And Vice-President Lyndon Johnson, or President Lyndon Johnson—fortunately—throughout the Kennedy term of office was included in all of the meetings with the cabinet, participated fully in many of the major decisions—the state decisions, was a contributing member of the National Security Council, the chief advisory council which dealt with all of the great problems of state, and sat at the President’s right hand throughout all the moments of crisis, such as the Cuban emergency. He is fully familiar with all of the duties that he is called upon to assume, and of course will get every kind of help that he possibly can get from the members of the cabinet.

It is much too soon to speculate. No one wishes to, no one is in the mood to speculate as to which members of the cabinet President Johnson will keep, which he will ask to go. This is a matter that will be decided much later I’m sure when the first shock of this terrible tragedy has warn off, and when President Johnson begins to function in his new office.

These are the primary developments that have occurred so far here in Washington. It’s a question now of waiting the arrival of President Lyndon Johnson who will make a statement to the nation when he arrives at the airport which will be in approximately fifty minutes or so from now if all goes according to schedule. We will hear then the reaction of the new president to the terrible tragedy and to the enormous responsibility that has fallen upon his shoulders. He has not been quoted yet as having said anything and apparently will be trying to compose his thoughts as he makes this tragic flight back from Dallas here to the Capitol of the United States and from where he will now assume the duties of the presidency as he has already been sworn in as the president of the United States.

And that’s the story as it has developed so far here in the Capitol. Now, back to you Frank [McGee] in New York.

(As it Happened, NBC coverage of the Kennedy assassination)

Transcript of Elie Abel’s Commentary

Another Jewish correspondent from Washington, Elie Abel, delivered a commentary about the impact that President Kennedy’s death would have on US relations with the Soviet Union. Here is the transcript:

Bill Ryan:

… One of the changes will take place in the area of foreign policy. How much? Reported now by NBC state department correspondent, Elie Abel, in Washington.

Elie Abel:

All we can be sure about at the moment is the great shock wave felt around the world, not only among friends and allies, and neutrals; but also, I suspect, in the Communist ruled countries. The controlled Soviet press has much of the time been sharply and automatically critical of US policy; but the person of John F. Kennedy was treated with respect.

Just a week ago, the Soviet people were told that [name unclear], arrested as a spy, was being released because of the President’s concern over the case. He had met Soviet Premier Khrushchev in Vienna in 1961, resisted Soviet encroachments on Berlin, played and won that deadly game of nuclear poker with Khrushchev over Cuba.

He was also the man who agreed to a limited test ban treaty and persuaded the US Senate to ratify that step. The guess here is that President Lyndon Johnson will carry on much the same policy. He was certainly very much directly involved in that policy. He showed the flag in many distant parts of the world as President Kennedy’s personal emissary.

But just as the Western allies may hesitate while pledging full support to the new president, the Soviets presumably are not sure at the moment what to expect out of Washington. They have tended to place a certain faith in John Kennedy personally as a man they disagreed with, but a man who wanted peace. He was trying to defuse some of the explosive situations around the world, who favored in the long run a policy based on mutual recognition that nuclear war is no rational option for mankind in this day and age.

The Russians know less about Lyndon Johnson, and they may well play a waiting game until they have a surer feel of his reactions and attitudes. Elie Abel, NBC News, reporting.

(As it Happened, NBC coverage of the Kennedy assassination)

Elie Abel has an interesting background. Like Sam Bronfman and Louis Bloomfield, Abel was a Canadian born Jew. He was a graduate of McGill University and began his career in journalism at the Montreal Gazette in 1941.

Another NBC Jewish correspondent, Irving R. Levine, also had an interesting background. Levine covered the violence that marked independence of the Islamic nation of Algeria.2 As previously stated, Senator John F. Kennedy made a controversial speech in 1957 denouncing France for its occupation of Algeria. To put it bluntly, Kennedy’s Algerian speech was not only a criticism of French policy, it was also a slap in the face to Israel and an endorsement of the Islamic states.

Martin Agronsky’s conduct was by far the most aggressive of the Jewish correspondents at NBC, but it was merely the tip of the iceberg. As previously stated, immediately after Kennedy’s assassination, an Oswald cover story was put out by the Dallas Police—and propagated by the Associated Press wire service—to confuse the public about the true nature of the crime. The cover story portrayed Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin, that he was a known Communist, was pro-Castro, had lived in the Soviet Union, and was married to a Russian woman. NBC’s televised coverage of the assassination actually broadcast all of these details less than two hours after announcing Kennedy’s death. Within that timespan, they also mentioned that Oswald had applied for Soviet citizenship on November 1, 1959. That was quite impressive detective work indeed.

Transcript of Charles Murphy’s Coverage of Oswald

Charles Murphy of WBAP-TV, Dallas/Fort Worth was the first reporter to mention Oswald by name during NBC’s live coverage of the assassination. Here is the transcript:

Charles Murphy:

Late word just in from Dallas. Homocide detective Levelle told WBAP news man James Curr in Dallas a few minutes ago, they have little doubt that 24-year-old Lee Oswald of Dallas is the man who shot and killed Dallas Police Officer J. D. Tippit shortly after President Kennedy was shot to death this afternoon. Oswald was pulled screaming and shouting from a Texas theater by officers who had gone there on a tip that Oswald was there. He brandished a pistol which officers took away from him after a struggle. Oswald was quoted as saying, "It’s all over now."

A large crowd had congregated around the theater and police had to hold back the crowd because they were of the impression that the man was the president’s assassin.

Officer Tippit had been killed by a man answering the description of Oswald in the neighborhood a short time before. A coincidence in the case is that Oswald worked as a stock man at the Texas Book Depository, the building from which the sniper shot President Kennedy. Dallas police have declined to say whether they think Oswald is connected with the assassination.

This other late word in, a 24-year-old man who said two years ago he wanted Russian citizenship was questioned today to see whether he had any connection with the assassination of President Kennedy. He was identified as Lee Harvey Oswald of Fort Worth. He was pulled screaming and yelling from a Texas theater in the … section of Dallas shortly after a Dallas policeman was shot to death.

As more late film arrive, we will show them instantly, unedited, unscreened. This is Charles Murphy reporting from WBAP-TV, Fort Worth/Dallas.

[A few minutes later, Murphy gave more information about Oswald.]

Here is more information about the suspect, Oswald. On November 1st, 1959, Oswald told the United States embassy in Moscow he had applied for Soviet citizenship. He said he had been a tourist in Russia since October 13th of that year. Oswald was reported to have a Russian wife.

The Fort Worth Star Telegram confirmed that the man held in Dallas was the same Oswald and said his mother was being taken to Dallas police headquarters to see him. Oswald put up a wild fight in the theater. Charles Murphy reporting from WBAP-TV, Fort Worth/Dallas.

(As it Happened, NBC coverage of the Kennedy assassination)

The cover story about Oswald was broadcast over the major radio and television stations and printed in the major newspapers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Astucia is an anti-semite and well self publicised nut case who was banned from this forum for his rancid outpourings some time ago.

I would treat his opinions and theories with extreme caution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a 'minor' point: Judaism, Zionism, Israel, Jewry

Lee, this is not an attack on you personally, whom I know to be a man of integrity and with a penchant for uncovering the often missed and interesting. (I wish there was no need for disclaimers of any sort, however..)

The grouping of Jews as a group responsible: why don't we take the fact that most of the people of interest as being white men as a condemnation of aryans?, oh that's right we already do that, the fascists.

Or maybe gays.. ahh done already..hmmm..white christian men who vote republican?

There is a grouping that could possibly be identified as having a group modus that may be relevant: the zionist. As this is a political force and not a religion, ok maybe.

This careless throwing together of totally different people into groups, as the writer of this article seems wanting to do, smacks, if not of ignorance, of an agenda to be wary of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andy and John.

Well noted - thanks. I had initially written a preamble with a warning as to the nature of the author's content, but as I was sticking to his material on Chapter One in the post, I thought it was a bit more objective, by way of the material he pulled together which [i assume] are real transcripts - and interesting relative to the spin on Johnson and the info on Oswald.

There are other pieces of his theory which I feel have merit, but will proceed with caution. I don't want to 'throw out the Bloomfield with the bathwater' - and Astucia covers him in more detail than I have seen elsewhere.

- lee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andy and John.

Well noted - thanks. I had initially written a preamble with a warning as to the nature of the author's content, but as I was sticking to his material on Chapter One in the post, I thought it was a bit more objective, by way of the material he pulled together which [i assume] are real transcripts - and interesting relative to the spin on Johnson and the info on Oswald.

There are other pieces of his theory which I feel have merit, but will proceed with caution. I don't want to 'throw out the Bloomfield with the bathwater' - and Astucia covers him in more detail than I have seen elsewhere.

- lee

Lee

The writer you are posting re-produced a photo of me and my bio on his website and now

I am painted as a Zionist for all his Nazi friends to take note of...

this is a little intimidating.

Astucia, posting under an alias, tried to paint LBJ as a Jewish cabalist -

and he also claimed that Isreal set off a nuclear weapon in the Indian Ocean to trigger the great Tsunami.

So he was banned from this group...................

shanet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got to proceed with some tact here but I feel it's quite important to respond.

I've never owned Astucia's book but, like Lee, I've read lengthy excerpts on the net before, including the material Lee posted. I agree that Astucia seems to have a bee in his bonnet about Israel but I also think that Lee's remark about not throwing out the baby with the bathwater is an extremely important comment to bear in mind.

Since joining the Forum, I've learned many things about the assassination and a great deal about US history as well. It's all a steep learning curve and I'm extremely grateful to be able to access the research of the many excellent researchers who post here (too numerous to name). John Simkin's recent comment about authors using the Forum in preparation for publishing their works didn't surprise me because the Forum is the best research tool available anywhere, IMO.

However, the one aspect which I've found surprising and disturbing is the inexplicable reluctance of the Forum to seriously investigate the possibility that the Israeli Government and, by extension, Mossad, were implicated in this crime. While Astucia, rightfully or wrongly, may be branded racist and anti-Semite, it is a poor investigator who subsequently dismisses his every utterance concerning this unsolved crime as the ravings of a madman.

Discussing the possible involvement of the Israeli Government is no more racist than discussing the involvement of the Cuban, Russian or American Governments. I've yet to read of Cubans or Americans complaining of racism. No aspersions are being cast on the people of these nations, the focus of investigation is on the behavior of these Governments, not the people. The absence of discussion concerning the Israeli Government is consistent with the inexplicable silence of Forum members on other matters concerning the Israeli Government, for example the sinking of the USS Liberty by Israeli forces in 1967, and the subsequent coverup of this tragedy by LBJ and the American media. The coverup seems to have been effective, as few seem to know of it. I knew nothing of it until visiting sites such as Astucia's because it doesn't rate a mention elsewhere. It's incredible to accept that people who rail (justifiably) with such unctuous zeal about the duplicity of politicians, agencies and Governments regarding other events can be stony silent about outrages such as this. It worries me. The possibility of agendas rears its ugly head.

If this is to be a genuine investigation into JFK's murder, I would have thought ALL possibilities need to be examined otherwise we're just a newer, more well informed version of the Warren Commission, aren't we?

Does Israel warrant scrutiny? IMO, they do:

1. JFK and Israeli PM Ben-Gurion had heated exchanges about JFK's insistence that Israel's nuclear facility at Dimona be subject to inernational inspections. JFK's policy was one of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons for all Middle Eastern countries, with no exceptions. Ben-Gurion was reported to have stated that JFK's policy was a "threat to the very survival of Israel". Under LBJ, military aid to Israel increased exponentially and it became the superpower of the region. The issue of inspections of their nuclear facility was quietly dropped.

2. Yitzakh Rabin's memoirs fail to mention the assassination or even JFK. Rabin was highly placed in the Israeli military at the time. His presence in Dallas at the time of the assassination was only discovered when his wife mentioned it in her autobiography. Rabin's memoirs detail his great excitement at being in America at the time, his admiration for the US military and yet fails to mention a word about JFK or the assassination. Why?

3. The Israeli Government defied America during the Suez crisis in 1956, refusing to withdraw from territories acquired, unlike France and England who did withdraw, until Eisenhower cut off their aid, which was subsequently restored after Israel finally relented.

4. Mossad's efficiency as an agency has long been held in awe by the rest of the world. Their pursuit and execution of all the terrorists involved in the murder of their athletes in the 1972 Montreal Olympics shows their skill at breaching international borders. It's quite a story.

I can post links to various sites which expand on these matters but they can be googled and I prefer researchers to investigate for themselves rather than being directed to sites by me.

When investigating JFK's murder, which has remained unsolved for so long, I don't believe any area should be "off limits".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An intelligent post, Mark.

But I do agree with Shanet that the Astucia fellow is reprehensible.

Not just reprehensible but raving mad.

I cannot speak for JFK researchers or conspiracy theorists (I wouldn't want to). However I would hope that my weakest GCSE historian in school would be able to tell from the quoted text that Astucia aka David Sharp is a racist and anti semite. Google his false name futher and they would discover that the man is also off his trolley.

http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?q=salvador+astucia&hl=en

Intelligent researchers bear such factors in mind when evaluating the worth of a theory or hypothesis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An intelligent post, Mark.

But I do agree with Shanet that the Astucia fellow is reprehensible.

Tim,

Thanks for your comments. While Astucia may be a nut, others have supported his claims concerning Israel's possible involvement. So I guess he's not a "lone nut".

Many nuts have put forward ridiculous theories about the assassination. My favorite is the one blaming Jackie. All those nutbag theories collapse under the mildest scrutiny. However, the claims concerning Israel don't collapse. They hold firm. Lack of public discussion doesn't diminish the significance of the fact that Israel emerged from the assassination as a clear winner. The other two parties who recieved tangible benefits from the event were the MIC (Vietnam) and LBJ (a "get out of jail free and proceed straight to the White House" card.)

Others, such as Texas oil, big business, the intelligence agencies and the mob also benefitted but I see their main dividend as preservation of the status quo rather than tangible gain. While preservation of the status quo can't be ruled out as motive, I rank tangible gain as a more reliable indicator of complicity to induce change.

As such, I now believe the three aforementioned parties as the prime movers behind Kennedy's removal, with assistance from an amalgum of the lower ranked parties.

p.s. I don't believe Astucia (or anyone) should be banned from the Forum. Everyone has a right to an opinion and there's a nut or two on the Forum already, IMO. A more pressing concern is to find closure before we all go to that big Dealey Plaza in the sky. :blink:

Edited by Mark Stapleton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe Astucia should be banned from the Forum.

Everyone has a right to an opinion and there's a nut or two on the Forum already

My opinion is that I should not offer a platform to Nazis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe Astucia should be banned from the Forum.

Everyone has a right to an opinion and there's a nut or two on the Forum already

My opinion is that I should not offer a platform to Nazis.

I don't think there was ever any baby in that bathwater we threw out ..............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe Astucia should be banned from the Forum.

Everyone has a right to an opinion and there's a nut or two on the Forum already

My opinion is that I should not offer a platform to Nazis.

"....for a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people"

JFK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe Astucia should be banned from the Forum.

Everyone has a right to an opinion and there's a nut or two on the Forum already

My opinion is that I should not offer a platform to Nazis.

"....for a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people"

JFK

He was posting his insane ravings under an alias...........

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...