I'd like to keep track of news and events related to the big anniversary this year. While I'm as cynical as ever, the heightened awareness and attention surrounding this anniversary do represent one of the biggest opportunities we've had in a long time. I intend to do at least some small action to support truth seeking.
TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum
JFK Assassination 50th Anniversary (56 posts)
-
Posted 11 years ago #
-
There's lots of parallels between the 9/11 truth and JFK truth movements. Both are of primary importance, but both were also sabotaged with deliberate disinformation and the useful idiots who sought public attention for their half-baked theories. www.oilempire.us/jfktruth.html
It's interesting the Wall Street Journal profiled John Judge and "occupy grassy knoll." It suggests the topic will get a lot of attention.
I have highest recommendations for Jim Douglass, "JFK and the Unspeakable." Its value is not its focus on Dealey Plaza, but the policy changes JFK was pushing, which were the motive for his removal from office.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I'd like to see Truthers pushing knowledge of Operation Northwoods, which is of course supported by irreproachable journalists such as James Bamford.
One of the projects I wish I had time for is a video "Three Speeches" which starts with Eisenhower's warnings about the military-industrial conflicts, introduces Operation Northwoods's plan to pony up a profitable war, proceeds to JFK's speech at American University in June of 1963 in which he pledges that America "will never start a war", and then goes on to Martin Luther King's denunciation of the military economy at the Riverside Church.
Posted 11 years ago # -
JFK nephew backs conspiracy theory
http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/world-news...
Robert F Kennedy Jr is convinced that a lone gunman was not solely responsible for the assassination of his uncle, president John F Kennedy, and said his father believed the Warren Commission report was a "shoddy piece of workmanship".
Mr Kennedy and his sister, Rory, were interviewed in front of an audience in Dallas as a year of observances begins for the 50th anniversary of the president's death.
Their uncle was killed on November 22, 1963. Five years later, their father was assassinated in a Los Angeles hotel during his primary victory celebration.
Robert Kennedy said his father spent a year trying to come to grips with his brother's death. He said he read writings by Greek philosophers, Catholic scholars, poets and Henry David Thoreau "trying to figure out kind of the existential implications of why a just God would allow injustice to happen of the magnitude he was seeing".
Posted 11 years ago # -
"After the American University address, John Kennedy and Nikita Krushchev began to act like competitors in peace. They were both turning. However, Kennedy's rejection of Cold War politics was considered treasonous by forces in his own government. In that context, which Kennedy knew well, the American University address was a profile in courage with lethal consequences. President Kennedy's June 10, 1963 call for an end to the Cold War, five and one-half months before his assassination, anticipates Dr. King's courage in his April 4, 1967, Riverside Church address calling for an end to the Vietnam War, exactly one year before his assassination. Each of those transforming speeches was a prophetic statement provoking the reward a prophet traditionally receives. John Kennedy's American University address was to his death in Dallas as Martin Luther King's Riverside Church address was to his death in Memphis."
-- James Douglass, "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why he died and why it matters" (2008: Orbis Books) p. 46
Posted 11 years ago # -
I hope that RFK Jr. will clarify if he understands it was the military industrial complex that killed his uncle (and dad), or if he buys the "mafia" limited hang out or the "oswald had help" disinformation.
David Talbott's book BROTHERS points out that RFK never bought the official story but was afraid to say it in public (for obvious reasons). Jim Garrison warned that he needed to be public with his skepticism to protect himself, a warning that sadly came true.
JFK and the Unspeakable also mentions this at the end of that book, pointing out how the Kennedy family told their Soviet counterparts what the truth of the coup really was.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Thanks for that excellent quote from Douglas, Mark. I've been meaning to read him, though I'm reluctant to get involved in JFK conspiracism.
Commemorating the anniversary of MLK's assassination (April 4) might be a great opportunity to draw the nexus between MLK's Riverside speech, JFK, Northwoods, and the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Security-Media complex . Note the convergence with the Media Reform conference in Denver.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Two JFK-based Hollywood movies coming this year:
"Parkland"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2345112/"Dallas in Wonderland"
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/sns-20...Look Out Tom Hanks, Rival JFK Assassination Pic 'Dallas In Wonderland' Also On The Way
http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/look-out-to...As sure as day follows night and night follows day, if there’s a project developing in Hollywood, you can bet that there’s a project elsewhere being developed based on similar subject material. For a few months now we’ve known about the Tom Hanks produced JFK assassination drama, “Parkland,†which already boasts a cast including Paul Giamatti, Billy Bob Thornton, Jacki Weaver, Marcia Gay Harden and Zac Efron. That film will dramatize the events that occurred at Dallas’ Parkland Hospital on the day President Kennedy was assassinated on November 22nd, 1963. Maybe it’s because the 50th anniversary of that event is fast approaching, but now there’s another film based around the assassination on its way from “Queens of Country†writer-director Ryan Page.
Page will write (alongside Adam Parfrey) and direct a conspiracy thriller going by the name of “Dallas In Wonderland," which will center around a documentary filmmaker and his producer who are hired by a TV network to do a puff piece for their planned motorcade reenactment that will take place during a televised memorial ceremony. Finding themselves “wrapped up in the network’s plot†to prove that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman, the pair close in on the central narrative surrounding JFK’s assassination, leading to the climax of the event playing out once more on the nation’s television screens.
Posted 11 years ago # -
re: Media Reform conference in Denver
That conference has pictures of Amy Goodman on its page about the schedule, so it's unlikely there will be any mention of the reason why MLK was assassinated. One of the staff people at Democracy Now tried to get his friend James Douglass onto the show but Amy Goodman vetoed it. Douglass has been a peace activist for about a half century but impeccable peace credentials mean nothing if you discuss the assassinations of progressive leaders in the 1960s.
I'd be surprised if there is any intelligent discussion of April 4, 1968 (or November 22, 1963) at this event. If there is it probably won't be during a keynote presentation.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I'm currently reading "JFK and the Unspeakable." I'm only a few chapters in, but I'm noticing how unequivocal James Douglass is about the clarity of the evidence. He doesn't apologize or hedge his statements at all; he states them as facts and gives the impression that the case for CIA/government complicity is rock solid (which it is). He says we can know what happened. This seems to be a response to the ideas of Martin Schotz--an attempt to get past the phase of believing something to actually knowing it.
I've got a long way to go in the book, but I hope he addresses some of the disinformation and perhaps debunks some of the supposed debunkers.
I believe the prevalent impression among the public is that the JFK case is complex and that there was probably a conspiracy, but that it's just too complicated to really know anything for sure.
The masterminds behind all of this have been practicing a form of voodoo on us for a long time. They want you to doubt your ability to know anything for yourself. They want you to defer to the authorities on TV.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Also recommended: "False Mystery" by Vince Salandria.
Posted 11 years ago # -
ABC News report on RFK Jr's skepticism about the lone gunman...
Posted 11 years ago # -
Also recommended: "False Mystery" by Vince Salandria.
http://www.amazon.com/False-Mystery-Essays-Assassi...
I thought the 50th anniversary called for re-acquainting myself with the evidence. James Douglass is painting a pretty clear picture so far.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Jim Douglass breaks it down in this 57 minute video. Heavy.
Posted 11 years ago # -
http://www.salon.com/2013/02/01/oreillys_jfk_assas...
Bill O’Reilly’s bestselling book on the JFK assassination, “Killing Kennedy,†partly follows the travails of O’Reilly himself as a young reporter trying to uncover the truth behind the president’s death. As author and former Salon politics editor Jefferson Morley highlighted this week, however, O’Reilly’s firsthand accounts appear lacking in the truth department.
Posted 11 years ago # -
http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2013.html
Show #615 Original airdate: January 31, 2013 Guest: Jim DiEugenio
Topics: RFK Jr. / Listener Questions / Destiny Betrayed
Play Jim DiEugenio (53:27) Real Media or MP3 download
RFK Jr. interview with Charlie Rose, no Kennedy has gone on record against the WC
The show was taped but has not yet aired, it has created a mini media sensation
Brothers (Talbot 2008), One Hell of a Gamble (Fursenko/Naftali 1998)
Bobby was interested in the Garrison investigation, he doubted the WC
Rose started in Dallas, an establishment figure, he leaned toward a mob hit
No transcript, audio or video of this interview, still under Dallas auspices
RFK Jr. called Jim Douglass and thanked him for JFK and the Unspeakable (2010)
Posted 11 years ago # -
The event was put on by The AT&T Performing Arts Center and ViewPoint Bank.
http://www.attpac.org/index.cfm?PAGEPATH=&BLOG...
This is the press contact in their press release PDF:
Media contact: Chris Heinbaugh
External Affairs Director
AT&T Performing Arts Center
214.978.2877
Chris.Heinbaugh@attpac.orgPosted 11 years ago # -
JFK assassination artifacts to get first public viewing
http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2013/02/...
An off-white jacket. A casual long-sleeve shirt. A turquoise- and-orange wool blanket. A wallet that contains a Social Security card and family snapshots.
While these relics from the early '60s sound like everyday items, they are priceless pieces of history tied to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
Beginning April 12, visitors to the Newseum in the nation's capital will have the rare chance to view these never-before-displayed artifacts belonging to Lee Harvey Oswald, the presumed gunman, as part of an exhibit marking the 50th anniversary of JFK's death. Oswald, who wore the shirt and carried the wallet when he was arrested on Nov. 22, 1963, in Dallas, was himself shot and killed two days later by Dallas nightclub owner Jack Ruby, a crime that was caught live on TV.
The jacket was found at a gas station near the Texas Theater, where Oswald was captured. Oswald's rifle, which was kept wrapped in the blanket in a friend's garage, was found at the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas shortly after JFK was shot.
"This is a pretty incredible opportunity to work with the National Archives and be able to display these pieces," says Carrie Christoffersen, Newseum curator and director of collections.
Christoffersen says the purpose of "Three Shots Were Fired," an exhibit of more than 100 artifacts, including the first UPI report about the attack on the presidential motorcade, "is to tell the story of how news media responded and how it fulfilled its responsibility to the public. It was a unique time in American and journalism history. The shooting led to unprecedented TV coverage over four days on the networks commercial-free. This was at a time when nightly newscasts had only just expanded from 15 minutes to a half-hour."
Posted 11 years ago # -
Rigorous Intuition Forum thread
countdown to 11/22/13: JFK disinfo in multi-media
http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?f...
For the past couple of months I have been involved in a lot of work outdoors, and this gives me little time to surf the web. What I have had plenty of time to do is listen to podcasts.
I mostly listen to comedy oriented podcasts.
I have noticed that there is a fair amount of seemingly offhand references to JFK that speak of him disparagingly, comments full of disinfo, spoken in a mocking tone. These are comedy podcasts, so that might seem par for the course, but then what is also cropping up is the insistence that LHO was a lone gunman, and this is not said mockingly, but seriously, as in you would have to be a fool to think there was any conspiracy involved in the assassination of JFK.
This is on the heels of Stephen King's latest novel "11/22/63" , which also espouses the lone gunman meme.
It is starting to annoy me.
So, I figured I would start a thread to keep track of these mentions in any of the various media I take in, and see if this trend snowballs as we approach the 50th anniversary of the events in Dallas.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Saw this great article posted by JackRiddler on the RI thread:
http://politicalassassinations.com/2012/11/1560/
Coalition on Political Assassinations
Notes on Lunch with Arlen Specter on January 4, 2012
November 8, 2012 By admin
This thoughtful and provocative piece comes from an early and brilliant Warren Commission critic and lawyer Vincent Salandria, author of False Mystery. He has taken the position for years that the visible facts in the case were transparent from the start, without ever being officially confirmed. In his view, we already know who killed President Kennedy and why, but to admit that to ourselves would lead to an imperative for action with unknown consequences. He continues these themes in this recent piece sent to us for public consumption. Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania passed away recently after a long battle with cancer and never recanted his conclusions about the single bullet theory he propounded for the Warren Commission to explain multiple wounds in President Kennedy and John Connally on November 22, 1963.
Vincent Salandria wrote:On January 4, 2012 at 11:25 a.m. I arrived at the Oyster House restaurant in Philadelphia for a meeting with former U.S. Senator Arlen Specter. He had called me a week or so earlier and suggested we have lunch.
We met, shook hands, and seated ourselves at a table. I thanked him for suggesting having lunch with me.
I told him that I viewed his work on the Kennedy assassination as very likely having saved my life. I also wanted him to know that if I had been given his Warren Commission assignment, and if I knew then what I know now about power and politics in our society, I would have done what he did. Of course, as a pacifist peace activist with socialist leanings, such as I was and am, I would never have been selected for Specter’s job with the Warren Commission. Arlen Specter was neither a pacifist nor a peace activist. He was a lawyer. I believe that Specter did not know that after the assassination of President Kennedy he was no longer a citizen of a republic but rather was a subject of the globally most powerful banana republic.
But if I had been chosen for his assignment, i.e. to frame Lee Harvey Oswald as Kennedy’s killer, I would have done what Specter did. As a lawyer I would have had been obligated to serve the best interests of my client, the U.S. government. My assignment would have been to cover up the state crime, the coup. I said that not to do that work and not to steer the society away from the ostensible pilot to kill President Kennedy, which plot had as its central theme a pro-Castro and pro-Soviet origin, would have resulted in terrible political consequences.
I told Specter that the American people could never have accepted my view of the assassination as a covert military-intelligence activity supported by the U.S. establishment – not then, and not now. They would have readily accepted as truth the leftist-plot script that the assassins employed. Even now, most Kennedy assassination critics will not accept my view of a U.S. national security state military-industrial killing. I explained that my very bright and rational wife could and would not completely accept my version of the meaning of the Kennedy assassination.
The U.S. national security state’s killing of Kennedy was cloaked in the Oswald myth. That myth included a supposed U.S. defector to the Soviet Union who headed up a Fair Play for Cuba Committee, and who before the assassination allegedly sought a Cuban passport. Therefore, the myth pointed an accusing finger at Fidel Castro and the Soviets.
If the U.S. public had been convinced that Castro and the Soviets were behind the killing of Kennedy, then the military would have considered the killing an act of war, and a military dictatorship in the U.S. would have probably resulted.
Oswald, a U.S. intelligence agent whose past had been molded by the C.I.A., could have been cast into whatever his intelligence masters chose. If the Oswald myth had completely unraveled and had exposed the joint chiefs to the U.S. public as the criminals behind the coup, they, the joint chiefs, would never have quietly surrendered their newly acquired power. I believe that instead, they would have sought to preserve and exploit their newly acquired status of possessing ultimate power over the U.S. arms budget and foreign policy. I believe that they would have proclaimed a national security emergency and imposed martial law. They would have declared a state of emergency, to a state of war, and would have designated the replacement for President Kennedy as a unitary president. We now have been made to understand that the unitary president is unhampered by constitutional separation of powers and the restraints of the bill of rights. In short, the unitary president is a euphemism for the correct political designation of a dictator.
Specter asked me what I thought was the reason for the assassination. In reply I asked whether he had read the correspondence between President Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev. He had not. I explained that my reading of the correspondence convinced me that Kennedy and Khrushchev had grown very fond of one another. I saw them as seeking to end the Cold War in the area of military confrontation. They were in my judgment seeking to change the Cold War into a peaceful competition on an economic rather than military basis, testing the relative merits of a free market and command economy. I saw the U.S. military intelligence and its civilian allies as being opposed to ending the Cold War.
I told him that I concluded that there was also a conflict between Kennedy and our military on the issue of escalation in Vietnam. In order to deter the efforts of Kennedy and Khrushchev to accomplish a winding down of the Cold War, the C.I.A, with the approval of the U.S. military, killed Kennedy.
I said that I believed the assassination was committed at the behest of the highest levels of U.S. power. I said that I did not use sophisticated thinking to arrive at my very early conclusion of a U.S. national-security state assassination. I told him that I think like the Italian peasant stock from which I came. We use intuition.
I explained that the day after the Kennedy assassination I met with my then brother-in-law, Harold Feldman. We decided that if Oswald was the killer, and if the U.S. government were innocent of any complicity in the assassination, Oswald would live through the weekend. But if he was killed, then we would know that the assassination was a consequence of a high level U.S. government plot.
Harold Feldman and I also concluded that if Oswald was killed by a Jew, it would indicate a high level WASP plot. We further decided that the killing of Oswald would signal that no government investigation could upturn the truth. In that event we as private citizens would have to investigate the assassination to arrive at the historical truth.
Specter uniformly maintained a courteous, serious and respectful demeanor, as did I. He asked me whether I had talked to Mark Lane frequently. I told him that I had spoken to him, and that I had spoken to essentially every assassination critic then active. I described meeting Mark Lane at a dinner in Philadelphia at a lawyer’s home. The dinner was in 1964. I could not recall the name of the lawyer host. I related that Spencer Coxe, the Executive leader of the Philadelphia branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, was also present.
At that dinner I informed Lane that I was interested in Oswald as a likely U.S. intelligence agent provocateur. Lane was not interested in the concept of Oswald as a possible U.S. intelligence asset. Specter asked me what Lane believed regarding the assassination. I said that at that time he believed there was a plot, but he did not name who the plotters were and did not discuss what he thought the reason was for the killing. I did say that later, Lane got a jury to decide for Lane’s client who had said that E. Howard Hunt was in Dallas on the date of the Kennedy assassination. Lane’s client had been sued for libel. He described the case in his 1991 book Plausible Denial.
In 1964, after his work with the Warren Commission was completed, Specter had been honored for this association at a meeting of the Philadelphia Bar Association. He asked me what I remembered about that event. I told him that I attended with my copy of the Warren Report and directed some questions at him regarding the shots, trajectories and wounds in the Kennedy assassination. After the meeting some of my colleagues at the bar asked me to write an article. That night I did so. I sent the article to Theodore Vorhees, the Chancellor of the Philadelphia Bar Association, and asked him to have it published. He sent it back and asked me to tone it down. I did so. He got it published in The Legal Intelligencer.
Specter recalled that in our confrontation I had accused him of corruption. He said that he had asked me at that time whether I would change the charge to incompetency. I had refused. I told him that I could not change it to incompetency because I knew then from his public record, as I know now, that he was not incompetent. My charge was reiterated in the Legal Intelligencer article, which described the Warren Commission’s work as speculation conforming to none of the evidence. I said the Warren Report did not have the slightest credibility, committing errors of logic and being contrary to the laws of physics and geometry.
Specter, during our 2012 lunch, asked me whether I thought that the Warren Commission was a set up. I answered that probably not all of the Commissioners knew it was a set up, but that Dulles and Warren knew. I also told him that I thought that McGeorge Bundy was privy to the plot. Specter did not respond to this.
I explained that I did not discuss with friends my view of the assassination and my conception of how controlled our society is. I said that I did not discuss with my friends matters such as we were discussing because people are just not ready to accept my view of the assassination and the tight control over our society. I said that I had nothing to offer to people in terms of solutions to the mess we are in. I related how last year, when I had a blood condition and thought I was going to die, my big regret was the mess of a society we were bequeathing to our children.
Specter commented: “Washington is in chaos.†I told him that I was deeply concerned about whether we are going to bomb Iran. Specter said, “We are not going to bomb Iran.â€
I offered an example of how out of control the society is. I pointed out that he had been against escalation in Afghanistan. While Obama was supposed to be meditating over whether or not to escalate the U.S. forces there, Generals McChrystal and Petraeus were speaking to the press telling the world that we were going to escalate. These statements by the generals were made while Vice President Biden was speaking publicly against escalation. I said that I thought McChrystal and Petraeus should have been court martialed for violating the chain of command. I then said that I don’t think Obama any longer has power over the military, despite the ostensible constitutional chain of command.
I told Specter that I knew there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy notwithstanding his single-bullet theory because the holes in the custom-made shirt and suit jacket of Kennedy could not have ridden up in such a fashion to explain how a shot from the southeast corner of the sixth floor of the Texas Book Depository Building, hitting Kennedy at a downward angle of roughly 17 degrees, and hitting no bone, could have exited from his necktie knot. I told him that Commission Exhibit 399 was a plant.
I admitted that I had coached Gaeton Fonzi before his interview with him on the questions that he should ask Specter. Specter asked me where Fonzi is. I told him that he lives in Florida, and that he is sick with Hodgkin’s disease. Specter said he was a good reporter. I told Specter that Fonzi was a great investigative reporter.
I told Specter that my very smart wife does not accept my political thinking regarding the nature of the power in control of the country and the world. Specter asked me about my wife. I told him that she is Jewish. She is a graduate of Swarthmore College. She studied at the University of Chicago and accomplished all but the dissertation in Russian Literature there. She owns and manages 41 apartments around Rittenhouse Square. Her father was a fellow traveler. He was subpoenaed before the House Un-American Activities Committee. He retained Abe Fortas as his lawyer. The hearing was cancelled. He was a philanthropist who financed the Youth Ruth Wing of the Jerusalem Museum and a college and high school in Israel.
I suggested to Specter that he was selected to perform the hardest assignment of the Warren Commission because he was a Jew. The government could have selected a right WASP lawyer for the job. I said that I had received less criticism for my work on the assassination than he had received for his work on the Commission and as Senator. He related how in Bucks County in a speaking engagement a man had risen and shouted at him that he should resign because he was too Jewish. I told him that I thought that he was a good Senator. He replied that being a Senator was a good and interesting job.
So how is it that Arlen Specter’s work on the Warren Commission saved my life? If I had been successful in arousing public opposition to the National Security State, whom I viewed at the President’s true killers, then the National Security State, possessing supreme power after its successful coup, would have liquidated any effective dissent. In 1966, after a public forum on the Warren Commission’s evidence, I was advised by Brandeis Professor Jacob Cohen that I would have to be killed. I viewed Professor Cohen as speaking for the assassins.
The Warren Report quieted the public. And as it developed, I was completely ineffective. There was no need to dispose of me. So, I consider my life was saved by the effectiveness of Arlen Specter’s work and the ineffectiveness of my own.
As we were leaving the Oyster House I gave Specter a copy of James W. Douglass’s book, JFK and the Unspeakable. I said it was the best book on the assassination, and that it was dedicated to a friend of mine and me.
Specter was smiling broadly as we left. I told him that he had a great smile, but that he did not sport it often in public. I asked him whether he was in good health. He said he was, and seemed optimistic about his well-being. I don’t know whether he was then aware of his illness. In dealing with his protracted struggle against very serious afflictions he displayed remarkable fight and courage.
Knowing what I know now, and being then, as now, committed to historical truth, I would have not changed my earliest statement that the Kennedy assassination was a crime of the U.S. warfare state. But I would not have endeavored to rally people to confront as I did the assassins. I know now that the U.S. public never did want to accept the U.S. warfare state as the criminal institutional structure that it is. I know now, that even if the U.S. public ever was ready to accept the true historical meaning of the Kennedy assassination, that there are and have been no institutional structures open to them with which they could hope to countervail successfully the Kennedy killers, the enormous power of the U.S. empire and its warfare state.
I know that my efforts to convince people to oppose Kennedy’s assassins were feckless. But was the effort of a small community of people to establish the historical truth of the Kennedy assassination valueless? I think not. I feel that historical truth is the polestar which guides humankind when we grope for an accurate diagnosis of a crisis. Without historical truth, an accurate diagnosis of the nature and cause of crisis, we would have no direction on how to move to solve societal disease.
Knowing what I know now, would I change my harsh criticisms of Arlen Specter? Yes, I would. Specter was a superior lawyer who enlisted his services to the U.S. government. The Warren Commission Report, through its lies, served to calm the U.S. public in a period of great crisis. If any serious domestic or foreign effort had been made to counter the coup, the weaponry commanded by the state criminals would have resulted in catastrophic loss of life. Therefore, in my judgment of Arlen Specter I defer to the wisdom of Sophocles, who said: “Truly, to tell lies is not honorable; but where truth entails tremendous ruin, to speak dishonorably is pardonable.â€
Posted 11 years ago # -
COPA really needs some help with their website. I know we have some associates with web skills...maybe you're interested in giving them some assistance.
All the main links on their front page go to page not found and their is no easily accessible info on their upcoming conference.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Vincent Salandria's speech to the Coalition on Political Assassinations, delivered in Dallas, Texas on November 20, 1998.
http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/2...
Highlights:
In providing us with a commitment to a sole assassin killing or an assassination by the Mafia, Castro, Soviet or low-level rogue U.S. group, while providing us with extensive evidence of a high-level conspiracy, the national security state seeks to paralyze our thinking processes. Through Orwellian doublethink the government successfully involved us in years of fruitless debate as to the microanalytic details of how the assassination was executed and what obscure meaning the assassination had on our lives. Through this Orwellian doublethink the government sends us clear signals. It instructs us that if bullets could remove a constitutionally-elected president, and the murderers go unpunished, then we should not take seriously U.S. politics. It instructs us that we should not entertain hopes of accomplishing a truthful explanation of the meaning of the killing.
..
For years, not satisfied with having merely killed President Kennedy, the U.S. media have been busy endeavoring to assassinate his character by publishing a series of books designed to demonstrate that he was a flawed and perverse person so that we might conclude that he deserved his fate. A man who had sacrificed his life for world peace was shot down and then pilloried with defamation for years by a contemptuous and arrogant U.S. establishment.
The assassination of President Kennedy and its handling by the government and its compliant media were designed to accomplish not only the firing by gunshots of a President, but also were aimed at mind-manipulation and paralysis of our people. The fact that we have been debating this assassination for thirty-five years demonstrates that the national security state has enjoyed considerable success in accomplishing its goal. By debating the meaning of the assassination of President Kennedy we have served the purpose of our military-intelligence complex to mystify the obvious.
...
By coming to understand the true answer to the historical question of who killed President Kennedy and why, we will have developed a delicate and precisely accurate prism through which we can examine how power works in this militarized country. By understanding the nature of this monumental crime, we will become equipped to organize the struggle through which we can make this country a civilian republic in more than name only. Until we understand the nature of the Kennedy assassination, and until we express the truth openly on this vital aspect of our history, we will continue to be guilty participants in the vast amount of state criminality involved in the killing of President Kennedy and its cover up.
...
We can no longer afford to shield ourselves by asserting that the murder of President Kennedy is a mystery. There is no mystery regarding how, by whom, and why President Kennedy was killed. Only when we strip away our privileged cloak of denial about the truth of the killing will we be able to free ourselves for the hard global work of changing our unfair and brutal society to one that is more equitable and less violent.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Is JFK Lancer considered the disinformation group in contrast to the honest and authentic COPA? That's how it seems. The graphic design on their website reminds me of other disinfo design.
Posted 11 years ago # -
JFK Conspiracy Theorist Robert Groden goes 81-0 with Latest Win Against City Censors
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2013/02...
Groden has a federal civil rights lawsuit in the works against the city. That suit has been in legal limbo for two years waiting for this appeals court shoe to fall. I'm not sure how that works. I will explain it in the paper next week. But he tells me this new verdict will open the door for the civil rights case finally to proceed.
Groden is a New York Times list best-selling author and in 1978 was the forensic photographic consultant to the Select Committee on Assassinations of the U.S. House of Representatives. The select committee was formed after Groden obtained a copy of the Zapruder film, which had been owned and suppressed by LIFE magazine.
...
Is there still somebody around who's got something big to hide on this? Because I can't come up with another explanation. Otherwise, Groden and all the other Warren Commission skeptics would be the best tourist attraction Dallas ever had.
Dealey Plaza continues to be our most popular tourist attraction. And Dallas keeps living up to everyone's stereotype by standing down there like some big old 1950s copper slapping his billy club against his leg saying, "Let's move it along now, folks, nothin' to see here, time you been gettin' on home now."
Why? Does the city actually want to look guilty? Does it not get that doing stuff like tossing Groden in the slammer over free speech makes the city look guilty? Amazing, really. So very strange.
Posted 11 years ago # -
PBS Frontline "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oswa...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmLqSP8SG68 (Part 1 of 3)This production was obviously meant to show that Oswald was a lone nut. It does contain a few pro-conspiracy tidbits, but they seem more meant to sew confusion than to demonstrate anything. The idea that Oswald acted alone is the implicit right way to think impressed upon us by this program. I wonder what we'll see from PBS this year. Hopefully something other than a re-run of this.
Strangely, Frontline repeatedly speculates that Oswald was a real communist infiltrating the right-wing, but doesn't seem very concerned that it could have been the other way around or that his real views might not even matter if he was being run by intelligence agencies.
Among the curious points i found were:
The claim that Oswald was interested in Marxism/communism as early as his teenage years. This doesn't necessarily refute the idea that he later could have been a double agent posing as pro-communist.
The General Edwin Walker assassination attempt is attributed to Oswald. I'm not sure how this holds up or if it is really evidence one way or another.
Frontline totally dismisses the idea that Oswald may have been impersonated in Mexico city. Testimony by Silvia Duran and the KGB agents seems to be suspect.
Gerald Posner is often given first and last word
No mention of George de Mohrenschildt's intelligence ties
The Paines appear as left-wing Quakers. No questions about "handlers" for Oswald.
Evidence that doesn't fit the lone-nut story is dismissed as possibly unreliable or questionable whereas evidence that supposedly accounts for the official story is presented as definitive.
The program's new evidence is a silly computer animation by "Failure Analysis Associates" and some irrelevant new fingerprint analysis.
HSCA's Robert Blakey appears to point toward a possible Oswald-Mafia plot. However, you can see how Blakey has had second thoughts about the integrity of CIA testimony/cooperation in his addendum on the Frontline website. Of course, millions have seen the TV program and probably a few thousand have seen the web page:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oswa...
I now no longer believe anything the Agency told the committee any further than I can obtain substantial corroboration for it from outside the Agency for its veracity. We now know that the Agency withheld from the Warren Commission the CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro. Had the commission known of the plots, it would have followed a different path in its investigation. The Agency unilaterally deprived the commission of a chance to obtain the full truth, which will now never be known.
Significantly, the Warren Commission's conclusion that the agencies of the government co-operated with it is, in retrospect, not the truth.
We also now know that the Agency set up a process that could only have been designed to frustrate the ability of the committee in 1976-79 to obtain any information that might adversely affect the Agency.
Many have told me that the culture of the Agency is one of prevarication and dissimulation and that you cannot trust it or its people. Period. End of story.
I am now in that camp.
Posted 11 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.