Unz评论•另类媒体选择$
美国主流媒体大都排除了有趣,重要和有争议的观点
 LaurentGuyénot档案
记住肯尼迪人!
来自法国人的爱尔兰音乐讯息
通过电子邮件将此页面发送给其他人

 记住我的信息



=>

书签 全部切换总目录添加到图书馆从图书馆中删除 • B
显示评论下一个新评论下一个新回复了解更多
回复同意/不同意/等等 更多... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
同意不同意谢谢LOL轮唱
这些按钮可将您的公开协议,异议,感谢,LOL或巨魔与所选注释一起注册。 仅对最近使用“记住我的信息”复选框保存姓名和电子邮件的频繁评论者可用,并且在任何八个小时的时间内也只能使用三次。
忽略评论者 关注评论者
搜寻文字 区分大小写  确切的词  包括评论
列表 书签

我承认:我喜欢肯尼迪人。 实际上,我爱肯尼迪家族。 虔诚地。 我认为他们值得英雄崇拜。 刘易斯·法内尔(Lewis Farnell)表示:“希腊宗教意义上的英雄是一个人,其美德,影响力或性格在他的一生或死后的特殊情况下是如此强大,以致死后他的精神被视为超自然的权力,声称得到崇敬和支持。”[1]刘易斯·理查德·法内尔 希腊英雄崇拜与不朽观念 (1921)Adamant Media Co.,2005年,第343页。 XNUMX。 简而言之,英雄是被崇拜的死者。 英雄是半神,因为他们比个人灵魂更能体现自己。 换句话说,对英雄的宗教狂热是这座城市的灵魂。

肯尼迪家族是希腊悲剧中的一员。 鲍比明白了。 哥哥死后,他在 伊迪丝·汉密尔顿(Edith Hamilton)的经典作品, 希腊方式,其中杰基给了他一个副本。 她的《埃斯库洛斯》译本中的一些句子深深地沉入了他的内心,他多次引用其中的一句话:“在我们的睡眠中,无法忘记的痛苦滴落在心上,直到我们出于绝望而违背我们的意愿,上帝可怕的恩典带来智慧。”[2]最著名的是4年1968月XNUMX日马丁·路德·金(Martin Luther King)逝世那天的自发演讲,他在印第安纳波利斯的一个非洲裔美国人面前。

我在一部刚翻译成英文的电影中向肯尼迪人致敬, “以色列与肯尼迪兄弟的暗杀”, 由。。。生产 ERTV 并根据我的Unz文章 “以色列杀了肯尼迪人吗?” 这是我的总结发言(原谅法国口音):

“在肯尼迪悲剧中有天意。 这就是为什么暗杀事件将标志着犹太复国主义运动对美国和整个西方实行精神控制的终结的开始的原因。 希望有一天,肯尼迪兄弟会在美国获得他们在对抗全球以色列黑手党的斗争中应有的英雄和烈士的全国认可。”

乔姆斯基 不同意:“谁在乎谁杀了肯尼迪? 我的意思是,很多人一直死!” 不奇怪。 相反,我认为,重要的是教育我们自己和其他人关于在肯尼迪遇刺事件中导致以色列及其st强强奸的罪魁祸首的证据。 真相现已释放,不可阻挡:以色列杀害了肯尼迪人! 不是“深国”-除非这是对犹太强权的委婉说法。 在里面 电影,我们试图联系并综合最重要的间接证据,以便做出令人信服的判决。 迈克尔·琼斯 关于此事:“我认为,这是对约翰和罗伯特·肯尼迪遇刺的最好分析。” 我真的很荣幸。

我借此机会,与大家分享关于这个故事对美国和当今世界以及未来世界的意义的更多想法。

吉尔斯·科里(Giles Corey)最近 指出了重点 特朗普很重要,不是因为他是什么,而是对于他在敌人眼中的代表:美国白人。 肯尼迪人也很重要,因为他们在刺客眼中所代表的是:阻碍以色列野心勃勃的野心和腐败影响的障碍。 肯尼迪家族很重要,因为对他们的谋杀案的公正分析揭示了犹太人的力量,当美国人知道这一点时,它将激怒他们。 他们的故事有可能成为新的创立神话。 想一想数百万美国人对肯尼迪人的持久热爱,这是美国最接近皇室的事情。 称自己为QAnon的宣传专家通过散布谣言说他们知道自己在做什么。 他们 是肯尼迪(JFK Jr.)。我们可能会笑,但是,从人类学的角度来看,它显示出肯尼迪人所吸引的普遍的宗教热情。 大多数美国人都知道,肯尼迪的谋杀是一场政变,从他们那里偷走了他们的国家,而且他们开始了解是谁偷走了它。

肯尼迪家族有些克里斯蒂克。 当然不是圣徒,而是烈士。 冒着生命危险抗拒犹太人的权力难道不是“模仿基督”的本质吗? 它应该是。

大约十二年前,我开始了我的肯尼迪探索之旅。 我一直在研究9/11,对于我来说,搜索Kennedy-truth与搜索9 / 11-truth截然不同。 9/11的故事中肯定有英雄,但它被邪恶的角色,黑暗的马基雅维利人灵魂所统治。 肯尼迪就是光明! 当然,相对而言:肯尼迪家族有其黑暗的一面,但与隐秘的犹太人约翰逊相比,这是反对黑暗的光明。

在照片上:约翰逊总统于1968年XNUMX月在以色列对自由党号袭击XNUMX个月后在白宫接受以色列总理列维·埃什科尔(Levi Eshkol)的接待
在照片上:约翰逊总统于1968年XNUMX月在以色列对自由党号袭击XNUMX个月后在白宫接受以色列总理列维·埃什科尔(Levi Eshkol)的接待

我对肯尼迪的第一次认真阅读是 詹姆斯·道格拉斯(James Douglass) 肯尼迪和无法言说:他为什么去世以及为什么如此重要 (2008). 我非常喜欢它,我说服了 黛米·鲁恩(Demi-Lune) 将其翻译成法语。 我现在认为那本书在暗杀方面有严重的误导,在我与道格拉斯交流时,因为我越来越了解该案,我对他不愿考虑针对约翰逊的证据而不是以色列感到不安。[3]我还访问了法国网站www.reopen911.info/的Douglass。 道格拉斯(Douglas)以出色的才能突显了肯尼迪(Kennedy)废除大规模杀伤性武器的决心,但他甚至没有暗示他与本·古里安(Ben-Gurion)在迪莫纳(Dimona)上的对峙。 从这个角度来看,书名中的“难以言说”具有讽刺意味。 尽管如此,我仍然认为道格拉斯的书很好地描绘了JKF的性格,远见和为和平而奋斗-只有一个巨大的盲点。

当我终于要阅读时 迈克尔·柯林斯·派珀(Michael Collins Piper)的书 最终判决:肯尼迪遇刺案阴谋中的缺失环节 (1993年第一版),我已经了解到9/11是 不能 一个内部工作,但一个莫萨德工作。 基于最近关于肯尼迪坚决反对以色列的秘密核野心的启示(从 参孙选项 由西摩·赫什(Seymour Hersh)于1991年提出),派珀可以确定以色列的主要动机。 他结交了许多门徒。 其中一位是利比亚领导人穆阿迈尔·卡扎菲(Muammar Gaddafi),他曾公开宣布(此序列在 电影):

肯尼迪决定对迪莫纳核电站进行监测。 他坚持这样做,以便确定它是否生产核武器。 以色列人拒绝了,但他坚持了。 本·古里安(Ben-Gurion)辞职解决了这场危机。 他辞职了,这样他就不必同意对Dimona工厂的监视,并且为杀害肯尼迪开了绿灯。 肯尼迪被杀害,因为他坚持对迪莫纳工厂进行监测。”

23年2009月XNUMX日,卡扎菲有胆量要求在联合国阿森布比将军面前对肯尼迪进行新的调查。[4]https://libyanfreepress.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/eve...tions/ 两年后,他被杀(并拍摄了他的杀戮,这是以色列的签名),他的国家被摧毁。

迪莫纳不是唯一的动机。 肯尼迪人还决心在它变得过于强大以至于无法被阻止之前,停止被委婉的“以色列大厅”。 1960年,约翰·肯尼迪(John Kennedy)作为候选人参加了约翰逊(Johnson)赞助商和迪莫纳(Dimona)金融教父的亚伯拉罕·芬伯格(Abraham Feinberg)的访问。 肯尼迪就是这样总结费恩伯格对他的朋友查尔斯·巴特利特(Charles Bartlett)的要求的:“我们知道您的竞选陷入困境。 如果您让我们控制您的中东政策,我们愿意支付您的账单。” 巴特利特回忆道,肯尼迪深感不安,并决定:“如果他当上总统,他将为此做些事情。”[5]西摩·赫什, 参孙的选择:以色列的核武库和美国的外交政策,《兰登书屋》,1991年,第94-97页。 他做到了。 与参议员威廉·富布赖特(William Fulbright) 参议院外交关系委员会, 肯尼迪人强迫 美国犹太复国主义理事会 (及其游说部门AIPAC)注册为“外国代理”,这将大大降低其效率。 约翰被暗杀后,鲍比的继任者尼古拉斯·卡岑巴赫(Nicholas Katzenbach)放弃了这一程序,而AIPAC成为美国最腐败的力量。

15年1963月XNUMX日,国会议员唐纳德·拉姆斯菲尔德(Donald Rumsfeld)给总检察长罗伯特·肯尼迪(Robert Kennedy)的信
15年1963月XNUMX日,国会议员唐纳德·拉姆斯菲尔德(Donald Rumsfeld)给总检察长罗伯特·肯尼迪(Robert Kennedy)的信

犹太至上主义者看到肯尼迪家族已经走了很长一段路。 在杰克和鲍比,他们看到了他们的父亲。 众所周知,乔·肯尼迪(Joe Kennedy)在第二次世界大战期间曾批评犹太人的影响力。 直到1940年,他担任伦敦大使期间一直支持内维尔·张伯伦(Neville Chamberlain)的ill靖政策,反对丘吉尔(Churchill)的使人热情的政策。 他在罗斯福参战之前辞职,并于1945年私下表达了“犹太人赢得了战争”的观点。[6]艾伦·哈特(Alan Hart) 犹太复国主义,犹太人的真正敌人,卷 2: 大卫成为巨人, 清晰度出版社,2013年,第252页。 XNUMX。 因此,对于罗纳德·凯斯勒(Ronald Kessler),《 父亲的罪,乔·肯尼迪(Joe Kennedy)的主要罪行是“他的有据可查的反犹太主义[以及他为安抚阿道夫·希特勒(Adolf Hitler)而做出的努力”。[7]罗纳德·凯斯勒, 父亲的罪孽:约瑟夫·肯尼迪和他建立的王朝, 《华纳图书》,1996年,第2页。 XNUMX。 尽管犹太复国主义者可能直到最近才知道这一点,但1945年,肯尼迪(JFK)撰写了《 以下几行 在他的日记中:

“您可以很容易地理解,希特勒将在几年之内从他周围的仇恨中脱颖而出,因为他是有史以来最重要的人物之一。 […]他的生活方式和死亡方式对他都有着神秘感,他将在他之后生活并成长。 他身上藏着一些传奇人物。”[8]阿比盖尔·艾布拉姆斯(Abigail Abrams),“拍卖稀有日记凸显了约翰·肯尼迪(John F. Kennedy)对希特勒的真正想法”, 时间, 23年2017月4711687日,在https://time.com/XNUMX/john-f-kennedy-diary-hitler/

肯尼迪一获得民主党提名便成为攻击目标。 由费恩伯格(Feinberg)领导的犹太权力综合体(Jewish Power Complex)勒索了他,要求其刺客成为副总统。 他对他的朋友肯尼思·奥唐纳(Kenneth O'Donnell)轻描淡写了此事:“我今年XNUMX岁,[...]我不会死在办公室。 因此,副总统没有任何意义。”[9]菲利普·尼尔森(Phillip Nelson), LBJ:肯尼迪遇刺案的策划者, XLibris,2010年,第318页。 320-XNUMX。

立即订购

肯尼迪总统无法控制。 我从Unz评论评论员获悉,11年1962月XNUMX日,约翰和杰基邀请 查尔斯·林德伯格(Charles Lindbergh)和他的妻子在白宫。 这是象征性的姿态,没有任何政治利益。 我可以想象,对犹太复国主义者来说,它证实了他们的担心,约瑟夫·肯尼迪确实“在他的孩子们的脑海里注入了一些有毒的反犹太主义药水”(如 赫鲁特 Menachem Begin的聚会)。[10]艾伦·哈特(Alan Hart) 犹太复国主义:犹太人的真正敌人,卷 2: 大卫成为巨人, 清晰度出版社,2013年,第252页。 XNUMX。 如果肯尼迪生活,二战修正主义可能不会像今天这样被定为刑事犯罪。 在约翰逊的领导下,以色列的扩张和大屠杀的黑暗崇拜开始了。

考虑到肯尼迪家族代表以色列的意义,具有讽刺意味的是,在主流叙事中,罗伯特·肯尼迪(Robert Kennedy)因对以色列的热爱而被巴勒斯坦刺客杀害。 正如电影所显示的,那只是另一个深深的假象。 具有讽刺意味的是,有十一个孩子的虔诚天主教徒鲍比(Bobby)曾协助乔·麦卡锡(Joe McCarthy)七个月(并参加了他的葬礼),现在被誉为“一个自由的图标”,作者是Larry Tye。 如果反对越南的精神错乱意味着要成为一个自由主义者,那么我们需要重新定义“自由主义者”。 罗伯特杀手的主要嫌疑人塔恩·尤金·塞萨尔(Thane Eugene Cesar)曾经说过,肯尼迪家族已经“把这个国家推向了通缉令,”这并不可笑。[11]在Shane O'Sullivan的2007年调查纪录片中 RFK必须死:鲍比·肯尼迪遇刺。 当约翰在他著名的著作中把共产主义说成是“大块无情的阴谋”时 27年1961月XNUMX日在美国报纸出版商协会的演讲 (通常是出于上下文引用)。

犹太人的力量是谎言的力量,必须与真理抗争。 这就是为什么肯尼迪暗杀是一个重要的战场。 您能想到比“魔术子弹”理论的发明者和“犹太国家坚定不移的捍卫者”阿伦•斯佩特更好地说明以色列的双重性吗?[12]娜塔莎·莫兹戈维亚(Natasha Mozgovaya),“著名的犹太裔美国政治家阿兰·斯佩克特(Arlan Specter)去世,享年82岁” 哈雷斯 14年2012月XNUMX日,在www.haaretz.com上。 给他的自传取名 对真理的热情? 谎言还在继续:以色列不仅在物理上暗杀肯尼迪人,而且继续在自己的坟墓中扔出无尽的垃圾,以暗杀他们的记忆。

当然,肯尼迪家族并不完美。 他们不是白人民族主义者。 然而,他们像其他美国总统大家庭一样代表美国白人。 他们实际上是非常注重种族的。 约翰带了他的几十个爱尔兰朋友到白宫,他说:“总统职位不是结交新朋友的好地方。 我要保留我的老朋友。”[13]泰德·索伦森 肯尼迪 (1965),《 Harper Perennial》,2009年,第36页。 XNUMX。 爱尔兰的亲属关系异常强大,这对某些犹太人来说很麻烦。 肯尼迪对爱尔兰的依恋不是政治上的:美国是他们的国家,但爱尔兰仍然是祖国。 想象一下:“肯尼迪国际机场的四个祖父母都是爱尔兰移民的孩子,他们在19世纪中期离开家乡th 世纪重新来临”,正如我在网页上所读到的 “约翰·肯尼迪(John F. Kennedy)有多爱尔兰,” 1963年XNUMX月,我在这里拍摄了肯尼迪(JFK)访问都柏林的顶级照片。现在,这就是Gumplowicz所称的“同心制”![14]路德维希·冈普洛维奇(Ludwig Gumplowicz)认为“同生共生的感觉”主要基于血缘关系,但也基于教育,语言,宗教,习俗和法律,是建立社会的主要纽带:路德维希·冈普洛维奇(Ludwig Gumplowicz) La Lutte des races。 研究社会学, Guillaumin,1893年(archive.org),第242-261页。 如果“根”有任何含义,那么它就适用于杰基(Jackie),因为缺乏适当的爱尔兰语称呼,称为“卡米洛特”。 如果我们从元历史的角度来思考,那么肯尼迪家族的爱尔兰人意义重大。 成为爱尔兰人与成为天主教徒相伴。 即使在杰克(Jack)和鲍比(Bobby)的那一代人中,嫁给天主教徒也是规则(埃塞尔(Ethel)也是爱尔兰人)。 爱尔兰人像其他任何人一样流血,继续信奉天主教,所以他们不要轻易放弃。 因此,您会听到我在电影中说的话:“肯尼迪王朝体现了爱尔兰天主教徒在美国人民中的根源和分支,在对抗英国清教主义(基督教最犹太化的分支)方面,它代表了一切。”

小罗伯特·肯尼迪(Robert Kennedy Jr.)的开幕页面,《美国价值观:我从我的家人那里学到的教训》,2018年
小罗伯特·肯尼迪(Robert Kennedy Jr.)的开幕页面, 美国价值观:我从我的家庭中学到的教训, 2018

但是,所有这些仍然是次要的。 肯尼迪兄弟需要美国爱国者的珍惜,因为他们受到犹太力量的诅咒,正如爱德华·克莱因(Edward Klein)隐秘地指出。 肯尼迪诅咒.[15]爱德华·克莱恩 肯尼迪诅咒:为什么悲剧困扰了美国第一家庭150年, 圣马丁格里芬,2004年,第15页。 XNUMX 有趣的是,正如我在我的详细资料中 《雨伞人》文章22年1963月1938日那个晴天,在肯尼迪被枪杀的确切时间和地点,站着一个戴着黑伞的人,他后来声称他想对肯尼迪就父亲的亲纳粹政策policy之以鼻。 黑色雨伞是张伯伦的著名标志,以至于他在XNUMX年从慕尼黑回来时,“老太太建议把张伯伦的雨伞弄碎,并作为神圣的遗物出售,”帕特·布坎南(Pat Buchanan)说。[16]帕特里克·布坎南(Patrick J. 丘吉尔,希特勒和“不必要的战争”:英国如何失去帝国,西方如何失去世界, 皇冠,2008年,第208页。 XNUMX。 正如我对这篇文章的一位评论者写道(这么多好评论!):““伞人”的故事,张伯伦和约瑟夫·肯尼迪就像是在沙皇尼古拉斯二世和他的家人被谋杀的伊帕蒂耶夫故居中海涅拼写错误的墙壁上的文字一样。 。” 想一想罗曼诺夫派的邪教今天对俄罗斯的影响:他们现在被封为“神圣的烈士”, 他们自己的教堂 建在犹太布尔什维克屠杀现场。 这就是肯尼迪的真相对美国来说多么重要。 那些爱肯尼迪人的人喜欢真理。 对真理的热爱来自对正义的热爱。 从正义的热爱中就产生了勇气。

阅读我以前的肯尼迪文章:

LaurentGuyénot拥有工程师学位和中世纪研究博士学位。 他是的作者 从耶和华到锡安:嫉妒的上帝,被选的人,应许之地……文明的冲突“我们的上帝也是你的上帝,但他选择了我们”:关于犹太权力的散文 (Unz Review早期文章的集合)。 他还写了 JFK-9 / 11:深度状态的50年 (现已从亚马逊禁止使用),并且是该电影的合著者 以色列和肯尼迪兄弟的暗杀。

说明

[1] 刘易斯·理查德·法内尔 希腊英雄崇拜与不朽观念 (1921)Adamant Media Co.,2005年,第343页。 XNUMX。

[2] 最著名的是4年1968月XNUMX日马丁·路德·金(Martin Luther King)去世那天的自发演讲,他在印第安纳波利斯的一个非洲裔美国人面前(阅读 此处).

[3] 我还访问了法国网站的道格拉斯(Douglass) www.reopen911.info/

[4] https://libyanfreepress.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/ever-green-muammar-gaddafi-at-the-general-assembly-of-the-united-nations/

[5] 西摩·赫什, 参孙的选择:以色列的核武库和美国的外交政策,《兰登书屋》,1991年,第94-97页。

[6] 艾伦·哈特(Alan Hart) 犹太复国主义,犹太人的真正敌人,卷 2: 大卫成为巨人, 清晰度出版社,2013年,第252页。 XNUMX。

[7] 罗纳德·凯斯勒, 父亲的罪孽:约瑟夫·肯尼迪和他建立的王朝, 《华纳图书》,1996年,第2页。 XNUMX。

[8] 阿比盖尔·艾布拉姆斯(Abigail Abrams),“拍卖稀有日记凸显了约翰·肯尼迪(John F. Kennedy)对希特勒的真正想法”, 时间, 23年2017月XNUMX日, https://time.com/4711687/john-f-kennedy-diary-hitler/

[9] 菲利普·尼尔森(Phillip Nelson), LBJ:肯尼迪遇刺案的策划者, XLibris,2010年,第318页。 320-XNUMX。

[10] 艾伦·哈特(Alan Hart) 犹太复国主义:犹太人的真正敌人,卷 2: 大卫成为巨人, 清晰度出版社,2013年,第252页。 XNUMX。

[11] 在Shane O'Sullivan的2007年调查纪录片中 RFK必须死:鲍比·肯尼迪遇刺。

[12] 娜塔莎·莫兹戈维亚(Natasha Mozgovaya),“著名的犹太裔美国政治家阿兰·斯佩克特(Arlan Specter)去世,享年82岁” 哈雷斯 14年2012月XNUMX日, www.haaretz.com。

[13] 泰德·索伦森 肯尼迪 (1965),《 Harper Perennial》,2009年,第36页。 XNUMX。

[14] 路德维希·冈普洛维奇(Ludwig Gumplowicz)认为“同生共生的感觉”主要基于血缘关系,但也基于教育,语言,宗教,习俗和法律,是建立社会的主要纽带:路德维希·冈普洛维奇(Ludwig Gumplowicz) La Lutte des races。 研究社会学, Guillaumin,1893年(archive.org),第242-261页。

[15] 爱德华·克莱恩 肯尼迪诅咒:为什么悲剧困扰了美国第一家庭150年, 圣马丁格里芬,2004年,第15页。 XNUMX

[16] 帕特里克·布坎南(Patrick J. 丘吉尔,希特勒和“不必要的战争”:英国如何失去帝国,西方如何失去世界, 皇冠,2008年,第208页。 XNUMX。

 
隐藏852条评论发表评论
忽略评论者...跟随Endorsed Only
修剪评论?
    []
  1. fredtard 说:

    我会说 RFK Jr. 是一个当之无愧的继任者。 我写信给他竞选总统。 他的(主要是反vaxx,或者最好是支持知情同意)网站儿童健康防御,这些天发布了很多真相。 Unz 评论者中的一些人可能不同意他强烈的环保主义立场,但我认为更多关于我们所有人都面临的融合生态灾难的背景信息,迟早会打开许多​​眼睛和思想。

    如果您仍然认为我们当前的儿童疫苗接种计划是“安全有效的”,请查看以下内容:
    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/support-dr-paul-thomas/

    • 同意: Syd Walker, Iris
    • 谢谢: Ugetit
  2. gay troll 说:

    肯尼迪遇刺事件与 9/11 事件相似,因为关于“以色列”或“深层国家”是否有罪存在争议。 不提及以色列就讨论这些阴谋是不诚实的,但让中央情报局摆脱困境也是错误的。 事实是,以色列和美国的深层国家是共生的。 深层政府的典型代表是布什家族的影响力,事实上,正是普雷斯科特·布什向肯尼迪施压,让他让 LBJ 成为他的副总统。 布什家族的朋友艾伦杜勒斯负责中央情报局; 肯尼迪解雇了杜勒斯并威胁要解散该组织。 取而代之的是肯尼迪被风吹散了,中央情报局离开了,试图用“阴谋论”的标签掩盖罪行。 普雷斯科特布什的儿子后来将指挥中央情报局,并建立了一个直接导致 9/11 的总统王朝。 责备以色列是不够的; 无论他们在哪里,我们都必须责怪犹太复国主义纳粹分子,包括美国的深层政府。

  3. Druide 说:

    马克·格伦(Mark Glenn)让我们注意到了这样一个事实,即胡说八道的书“LBJ:肯尼迪暗杀的策划者”的作者菲利普·纳尔逊(来自上面的参考书目)实际上是一个指责美国的骗子和虚假信息小贩和LBJ对USS Liberty的袭击,使以色列在这次袭击和随后的掩饰中只不过是LBJ和美国的棋子。

    HAARETZ:“但是先生,这是一艘美国船”“没关系,打她! 当以色列袭击自由号航空母舰时,菲利普·F·纳尔逊
    “作者的底线是,当时的美国总统林登·B·约翰逊是这次袭击的幕后黑手,企图指责当时的埃及总统贾迈勒·阿卜杜勒·纳赛尔——这是一个让美国能够加入六日战争的借口。”

    MARK GLENN 的评论:关于整个问题,真正令人作呕的是,那些合作写这本书的自由党人已经给予了他们的认可,这最终将导致他们的凶手逍遥法外。 并非巧合的是,这本书的作者还写了一部作品*,其中暗杀肯尼迪(JFK)——在他的书《最终审判》中,无可替代的迈克尔·柯林斯·派珀(Michael Collins Piper)从上到下证明了灌篮是以色列的一次行动——实际上是——请打鼓——同样的林登·贝恩斯·约翰逊现在被指责为对自由的袭击。(MG)

    • 谢谢: Iris
    • 巨魔: Twodees Partain
    • 回复: @sarz
    , @Laurent Guyénot
  4. anon[112]• 免责声明 说:

    你的电影是否解释了以色列如何关闭美国的调查机构? 政变后立即? 从国家指挥机构到海关和移民警察以及当地警察? 那将是非常有趣的。 以色列是否像中央情报局那样通过秘密联络点渗透到所有相关的政府部门? 以色列联络员是如何胜过中央情报局联络员的?

    你的电影是否解释了为什么中央情报局会介意向以色列扩散核武器? 中央情报局喜欢那个狗屎。 他们用核武器贿赂每个人和他们的兄弟在联合国投票。

    你的电影是否解释了为什么中央情报局帮助以色列在每一个转折点上杀死肯尼迪,甚至用他们的飞机将奥斯瓦尔德双体机飞出城外? 你的电影是否解释了为什么兰斯代尔的商店从来没有注意到以色列人正在做他们所做的事情? 以色列人是如何诱骗兰斯代尔与流浪汉合影的,从而向外界发出明确信号,表明这次政变得到了中央情报局的支持? 兰斯代尔一定觉得自己很愚蠢。

    你不需要奥卡姆剃刀来拒绝这个明显的中央情报局谷壳,你可以用奥卡姆的黄油刀来做到这一点。 我们确切地知道中央情报局是如何统治美国的。 如果你希望通过笑声测试,你需要解释以色列是如何接管中央情报局的。

    • 谢谢: gay troll
    • 巨魔: the grand wazoo
  5. @fredtard

    RFK 在很多方面都让我感到惊讶,因为他是一个优秀的人。 他关于斯卡克尔事件的书非常有趣,我发现它很有说服力。 读完之后,我查看了这本书的评论,我很惊讶它被普遍淘汰。 当时我想知道是否有一些被淹没的权力仍然为肯尼迪家族提供服务。

    如果他竞选高级职位,我想知道飞机失事是否会对他的未来产生影响。 外面有一个邪恶的实体不遵守基督教的宽恕概念。

    干杯-

    • 同意: Tom
    • 回复: @Hibernian
  6. Franz 说:

    想想今天罗曼诺夫家族对俄罗斯的崇拜:他们现在被封为“神圣的帝国烈士”,他们自己的教堂建在犹太布尔什维克屠杀他们的地方。 这就是关于肯尼迪的真相对美国的重要性.

    极好的比较:美国人是如此乏味的吹毛求疵者,唯一打破瓶颈的可能就是把它变成一个神圣的神话。

    澄清我的观点:阅读了尼古拉斯二世的几部历史和三本传记,唯一可能的结论是他是一个软弱的沙皇和一个糟糕的统治者。 但尼克,作为杰克,不是重点。 关键是有些人对国家神话的价值比历史赋予他们的价值更大

    我的爸爸不是新经销商,但他来自民主党。 他认为肯尼迪是叛徒,就像那个时代的许多人一样,他们认为肯尼迪对共产主义不管是国外还是国内都软弱。

    “但我希望看到他被选民击败,而不是被疯子打败,”他补充道,并非不合逻辑。 他认为肯尼迪应该受到被选下台的羞辱。 肯尼迪的暗杀使他的敌人看到他被打包带走。

    从这次删除中,我们可以看到肯尼迪就像他的父亲一样:一个朴实无华的美国优先。 在珍珠港事件之前搬到约翰·T·弗林的美国优先圈的人没有一个没有受到“惩罚”。 从莉莲·吉什(Lillian Gish)到戈尔·维达尔(Gore Vidal),再到艾恩·兰德(Ayn Rand)以及旁边的许多政客,可以用来对付他们的都是。 无论他们看起来爬得有多高,他们都面临着骚扰和丑陋的谣言。 有时是死亡。

    像老乔·肯尼迪一样,他们阻碍了耶和华的圣战。 没有宽恕是可能的。

    • 谢谢: chris
    • 哈哈: Pheasant
    • 回复: @Iris
    , @Observator
  7. Franz 说:
    @anon

    中央情报局统治美国,以色列统治两者。

    至少以色列人对此是诚实的。 “我们控制着美国,美国人知道这一点”。 记住?

    • 同意: Iris, noname27, JimmyGee, Robjil
    • 回复: @sally
    , @Reg Cæsar
  8. sarz 说:
    @Druide

    为什么马克格伦不为自己说话? 无论如何,迈克尔·柯林斯·派珀关于肯尼迪被以色列人杀害的结论与 LBJ 所为之间并没有太大的差距。 该链接由“Salvador Astucia”在他的《鸦片领主》一书中给出。 Astucia 通过发现 LBJ 的犹太人身份来完成 Piper 的论文。 这是一个很好的阅读。 亚马逊假装它不存在并引导你找到香水。 可在 Z-Library 免费下载 (http://b-ok.cc).

  9. Alden 说:
    @gay troll

    普雷斯科特布什是一位强大的华尔街机构金融家。 但他甚至不是民主党人。 那么他是如何影响肯尼迪选择 LBJ 担任副总裁的呢? 为什么他想要或能够。 ?

    这是一支标准的团队,东海岸和西方候选人,如拜登和哈里斯,尼克松和阿格纽,罗斯福和俄克拉荷马印第安人。

    • 回复: @Hibernian
  10. Alden 说:

    就像自 1948 年杜鲁门整合军队以来的每一位总统一样,约翰肯尼迪反对白人。

    肯尼迪就任总统大约 7 周后,他为联邦承包商和机构发布了第一个平权行动令。 6 年 1961 月 10925 日,第 XNUMX 号行政命令。

    在 10925 号行政命令中,肯尼迪设立了总统平等就业机会委员会。 它很快就变成了可怕的 EEOC,它当时和现在监视着该国的每个雇主和组织,以确保没有白人被雇用。

    然后肯尼迪制定了一项计划,从外国引进原始的非白人,以取代由纳税人建立并支付的公立大学的美国白人学生。

    奥巴马总统的父亲就是其中一名学生。 哈里斯的父母都被带到美国,结了婚,并通过肯尼迪的学生计划制作了哈里斯

    公立大学 美国纳税人为整个项目买单,美国学生被拒绝录取

    该计划的总裁和副总裁。

    约翰肯尼迪反对白人。 他创建了平权行动和平等就业机会委员会。

    • 谢谢: Tom
    • 回复: @Iris
    , @Art
  11. Alden 说:
    @fredtard

    如果您的孩子死于百日咳猩红热结核小儿麻痹症,那也没关系。 但是让他们远离我们的孩子。 如果你有孩子,我怀疑

    反疫苗接种只是另一种自由主义时尚,被原本无法就业的自由主义者,尤其是妇女和少数族裔用来谋生。 创建一个事业,建立一个基金会聘请佣金筹款人。 然后坐下来,在你的余生中赚取 150K,作为另一个 BS 基金会的首席执行官。

    就像异性恋艾滋病、自闭症、变性主义、大学橄榄球的女孩、女权主义、纹身一样,反疫苗接种既是一种愚蠢的自由主义时尚,也是自由主义者通过经营基金会赚取巨额薪水的一种方式。

    反疫苗接种与最新流行的用“出生时指定的性别”代替男孩女孩男人女人没有什么不同。 以及为想要追随最新时尚的自由父母的孩子开设的性别改变诊所。

    您可能知道 102 年 1620 月将 40 名乘客带到普利茅斯马的五月花号船。您可能知道在接下来的 3 个月中幸存下来的人不到 33 人。 数字从低至 45 到 XNUMX 名幸存者不等。

    你不知道的是为什么60-70,大多数乘客死亡。 他们留在了船上。 这些人上岸建造小屋、狩猎和对付印第安人。 但大部分时间都睡在船上。

    白喉爆发了。 船很拥挤,2/3的乘客死亡。

    任何相信反疫苗接种废话的保守派男人都和这些鼓励孩子服用激素、不可逆转的青春期阻滞剂、被肢解以改变性别的白痴一样愚蠢和时髦。

    反疫苗接种只是另一种自由主义时尚。

    • 不同意: Andy Horton
    • 回复: @Johnny Walker Read
  12. Dan Hayes 说:

    肯尼迪和他目前的直系政治后裔乔·拜登一样是个江湖骗子,尤其是在他们共同的假天主教方面!

    • 同意: Hibernian, Johnny Walker Read
  13. DOUBTFUL 说:

    仅仅 3 名肯尼迪被他们谋杀的事实就证明了他们对他们来说是多么危险。 他们还勒索泰德遵守规定。 现在,RFK Jr. 是唯一一个仍在坚持反大型制药公司英雄主义的人。 为他的安全祈祷!

  14. 与部落相比,盎格鲁人是业余爱好者。

  15. Anonymousy 说:

    肯尼迪家族现在似乎有犹太配偶。 大政治家族似乎倾向于被犹太人吸收。 想想看,拜登、卡马拉、特朗普、克林顿等等,他们都通过家庭与部落联系在一起,这很了不起。 本身没有问题,但似乎他们不喜欢白人外邦人担任权力职位,除非他们证明他们是 100% 对犹太人友好的

  16. bmx357 说:

    在符号学方面,耶路撒冷的肯尼迪纪念馆颇具启发意义。 一棵可怕的钢树,它的底部被锯掉了 51 根柱子。 哎呀,我想知道那能象征什么? 他们还不如竖起一个巨大的混凝土hamantash。 当然,美国人允许在他们自己的国家建造一个巨大的 9-11 纪念馆,其形状为新月形,带有高耸的尖塔。 我们有点值得嘲笑。

    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/05/us/05memorial.html

  17. @anon

    流浪汉,像奥斯瓦尔德的人……你真的掉进了每一个陷阱。
    中央情报局,中央情报局,中央情报局……他们控制着一切,不是吗? 你为什么认为中央情报局杀死了肯尼迪家族? 因为每本犹太书籍都这样告诉你? 你知道美国还有 16 个其他情报机构吗? 当时谁在领导中央情报局? John McCone,肯尼迪人!是奥斯瓦尔德中央情报局吗? 不,他是ONI。 为什么中央情报局要杀死肯尼迪? 杜勒斯的复仇? 荒谬的! 入侵古巴并开始第三次世界大战? 那么,约翰逊入侵古巴并开始了第三次世界大战吗? 哦,但那是因为好约翰逊阻止了他们! 哈哈!
    当然,中央情报局的成员也参与其中。 特别是有足够的证据反对耶稣詹姆斯安格尔顿。 他是约翰逊搬入白宫的以色列办公室的负责人; 他是以色列的鼹鼠,在他去世时在以色列获得了正式的荣誉。
    我确实在电影中追踪了中央情报局的踪迹,在我的书 JFK-9/11 中有更详细的信息。 看电影看书。 你的肯尼迪有点生疏了。 你需要赶上最近的研究。

  18. @gay troll

    是普雷斯科特·布什首先向肯尼迪施压,让他让 LBJ 成为他的副总统

    请给个来源! 但不是(((约翰·汉基)))! 我已经和他浪费了足够多的时间了!

    • 回复: @gay troll
    , @Ringer WInger
  19. Iris 说:
    @gay troll

    事实是,以色列和美国的深层国家是共生的。

    也许吧,但中央情报局总是因为每一个阴谋而受到指责,而犹太复国主义游说团甚至从未被提及。

    9/11 在这方面极具启发性,中央情报局成为批评的中心公众对象,其主管乔治特内特几乎没有保住工作,而犹太复国主义者唐纳德拉姆斯菲尔德无视他们对迫在眉睫的“攻击”的情报,完全摆脱了困境。

    此外,9/11 真相运动本身就是犹太复国主义强大力量的一个惊人例子,几乎没有真相者敢于指责以色列,而犹太复国主义策划的证据却是压倒性的。

    谁还敢说上帝的诚实真理:以色列做了 9/11 ?

    • 同意: Robjil, JWalters
  20. 您在乔姆斯基(Chomsky)失去了我,他认为乔·拜登(Joe Biden)是总统选举。 你可以把一个犹太人带出以色列,但你不能反其道而行之。 我不在乎遗产和所有这些,他是一个不可引用的工具

    • 回复: @Laurent Guyénot
  21. @Druide

    我同意。 尼尔森就像道格拉斯:有很多很好的信息,但在以色列却是一个可疑的巨大盲点。 然而,我认为最近对约翰逊的进攻(也是罗杰斯通)让我们更接近真相,因为约翰逊的亲以色列(和亲迪莫纳)政策(到了叛国罪的地步,与美国自由号)现在很好- 为以色列作家所熟知甚至承认。

  22. Iris 说:
    @Franz

    从这次删除中,我们可以看到肯尼迪就像他的父亲一样:一个朴实无华的美国优先.

    如此完美的总结,值得重复。

    肯尼迪确实是一位朴实无华的美国优先者,其深厚的伦理道德和崇高的理想也使他将这种对共同利益的责任感扩展到了全人类。

    肯尼迪总统的去世对美国乃至整个世界都是毁灭性的损失。 这也是他在世界范围内受到尊敬的原因。

    • 同意: JWalters
    • 谢谢: Franz
  23. 犹太人的力量是谎言的力量,必须与真理作斗争。

    尽可能真实。

  24. @anon

    重新控制中央情报局,就像罗斯柴尔德犹太人接管军情五处、军情六处和英国广播公司一样。 也许你应该看看中央情报局的历史。

  25. utu 说:

    我从 Unz Review 的一位评论者那里得知,11 年 1962 月 XNUMX 日,约翰和杰基邀请查尔斯·林德伯格和他的妻子到白宫。 这是一个象征性的姿态,没有任何政治利益。

    这是我:

    https://www.unz.com/article/the-umbrella-man-the-sins-of-the-father-and-the-kennedy-curse/?showcomments#comment-3570519

    这是给你的另一点。 我最近才知道它。

    JFK 邀请到白宫著名的纳粹试飞员 Hanna Reitsch(4 年 1961 月 XNUMX 日)。

    https://www.jfklibrary.org/asset-viewer/archives/JFKWHP/1961/Month%2005/Day%2004/JFKWHP-1961-05-04-B

    190 年 96 月,她驾驶最后一架飞机 (Focke Wulf 1945) 往返柏林 (Arado Ar XNUMX)。

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanna_Reitsch
    在战争的最后几天,希特勒解除了赫尔曼·戈林的德国空军司令职务,并任命雷奇的情人冯·格雷姆接替他的位置。 冯·格莱姆和赖奇从加托机场飞往四面楚歌的柏林,在元首地堡与希特勒会面,并于 26 月 XNUMX 日抵达,当时红军部队已经在柏林市中心地区。 Reitsch 和 von Greim 从 Rechlin-Lärz 飞来

    乘坐 Focke Wulf 190 到 Gatow 机场,由来自 Jagdgeschwader 190 的其他 26 架 Fw XNUMX 护航,由 Hauptmann Hans Dortenmann 指挥。 在柏林,Reitsch 降落在勃兰登堡门附近蒂尔加滕的临时简易机场上。 希特勒给了雷奇两粒毒药给自己和冯·格莱姆。 她接受了胶囊。

    28 月 96 日晚上,Reitsch 乘坐 Arado Ar 36 从同一个临时简易机场飞出柏林。 这是离开柏林的最后一架飞机。 [XNUMX]

    在上一次采访中,1970 年代

    我们现在在德国有什么? 一个银行家和汽车制造商的国家。 就连我们伟大的军队也软化了。 士兵们留着胡须并询问命令。 我并不羞于说我相信国家社会主义。 我仍然戴着带有希特勒给我的钻石的铁十字勋章。 但是今天在整个德国,你找不到一个投票支持阿道夫·希特勒掌权的人……许多德国人对战争感到内疚。 但他们没有解释我们共同的真正内疚——我们失去了。

    她于 1979 年死于心脏病发作,但英国试飞员推测她是用希特勒给她的胶囊自杀的,据说她在死前几周写信给他:“它从掩体开始,它会在那里结束。”

    毫无疑问,她仍然忠于事业和希特勒的记忆。

    Hanna Reitsch 在 1961 年和 Charles A. Lindbergh 在 1962 年成为可能,这对我们来说现在是无法理解的。 肯尼迪似乎并没有改变他在 1945 年的信念,即世界将继续前进,并将希特勒和二战纳入历史,仿佛仍是 1939 年或 1945 年,保持信念的连续性。 犹太人的角色虽然令人讨厌,但任何暗示二战是对犹太人的战争的暗示都将被消除。 肯尼迪可能和 1945 年的托马斯·J·多德一样天真和短视,认为美国人将继续对犹太人施以仁慈的力量,并在他们属于他们的情况下保留他们:

    Thomas J. Dodd 是纽伦堡审判中的检察官(也是未来参议员 Christopher J. Dodd 的父亲)。 25 年 1945 月 XNUMX 日,他在家里给妻子格蕾丝写了一封信:

    “你知道我多么鄙视反犹太主义。 你知道我对那些宣扬任何形式的不宽容的人有多么强烈的感受。 有了这些知识——当我告诉你这个员工大约有 XNUMX% 是犹太人时,你就会明白。 现在我的观点是犹太人应该远离这场审判——为了他们自己。

    “因为——记住这一点——‘为犹太人开战’的指控仍在进行中,在战后的几年里,这种指控将一次又一次地发生。

    “这里过大比例的犹太男女将被引用作为这项指控的证据。 有时,犹太人似乎永远不会了解这些事情。 他们似乎有意给自己带来新的困难。 我不喜欢写这件事——这让我很反感——但我对此感到不安。 他们互相推挤,互相竞争,也与其他所有人竞争。”

    肯尼迪可能认为天主教徒是美国和世界的上升力量。 1963 年 XNUMX 月的 Terris 通谕 Pacem 给所有人留下了深刻印象,甚至连犹太不可知论者理查德·费曼 (Richard Feynman) 也印象深刻

    因此,我认为我读过的教皇约翰二十三世的通谕, 成为我们这个时代最引人注目的事件之一,也是迈向未来的重要一步。 我找不到比那篇通谕更好地表达我的道德信念、人类的义务和责任、人对他人的信仰了。 我不同意支持某些观点的某些机制,它们可能来自上帝,我个人不相信,或者这些观点中的一些是早期教皇观点的自然结果,自然地和完全明智的方式。 我不同意,我不会嘲笑它,我不会争论它”(Richard P. Feynman, The Meaning of It All. Thoughts of a Citizen Scientist, Perseus Books, Reading 1998,

    肯尼迪可能会误导肯尼迪相信他的时代已经到来,他有责任阻止以色列为地球上的和平、Terris 中的 Pacem 开展核努力。

    YT 有几部关于 Hanna Reitsch 的电影。

  26. 不幸的是,罗马天主教一直是爱尔兰人的阿喀琉斯之踵,除非他们摆脱了撒旦的诅咒,否则他们永远不会自由。

    同样,犹太人与新教/清教徒英格兰。 正如您应该已经知道的那样,克伦威尔完全由荷兰犹太人资助。

    • 回复: @Laurent Guyénot
  27. JimmyGee 说:

    近年来,伊朗几位主要科学家被暗杀——包括不到两周前的 Fakhrizadeh 教授——进一步证明暗杀是犹太复国主义者在面对他们认为的“问题​​”时很容易转向的事情。 西方世界的其他地方都回避这种“黑帮主义”——正如帕特里克·科克伯恩所说的那样。 揭露以色列在谋杀肯尼迪家族中所扮演的角色可能会给美国带来它所需要的“重置”。 谢谢你的努力,Guyenot 先生。

  28. utu 说:

    正如我的文章的一位评论者所写(这么多很棒的评论!):“伞人关于张伯伦和约瑟夫肯尼迪的故事就像是在伊帕季耶夫宫中海涅的拼写错误的台词墙上的文字,沙皇尼古拉斯二世和他的家人被谋杀了。”

    https://www.unz.com/article/the-umbrella-man-the-sins-of-the-father-and-the-kennedy-curse/?showcomments#comment-3575612

  29. robwin 说:

    哦,我不知道。 我不确定一个吸毒成瘾并常年被贪欲所困扰的男人是否真的值得所有这些奉承。

    • 回复: @Alden
  30. utu 说:
    @fredtard

    RFK Jr 反vaxxism 是他保持无关紧要和不威胁的方式。 类似于爱德华肯尼迪在阿拉斯加飞行时的滑稽动作。 小丑和傻瓜具有很高的生存能力。

    https://www.gq.com/story/kennedy-ted-senator-profile
    1969 年 XNUMX 月,从国会考察阿拉斯加贫困印第安人生活状况的国会之旅返回时,酗酒的肯尼迪向助手和记者扔枕头,在过道上走来走去,高呼“Es-ki-mo power”,然后漫步对鲍比的暗杀语无伦次地说,“他们会像射杀鲍比一样射杀我的屁股……”

    • 同意: James N. Kennett
    • 不同意: GazaPlanet
  31. utu 说:

    “当然,肯尼迪家族并不完美。 他们不是白人民族主义者。” - 你真的相信白人民族主义者是完美的象征吗? 我还没有遇到没有严重性格或认知缺陷的白人民族主义者。

    • 同意: James N. Kennett
    • 回复: @Laurent Guyénot
    , @Alden
  32. Anonymous[661]• 免责声明 说:

    好文章!

    期待看到这部电影。

  33. 詹姆斯耶稣安格尔顿应该被命名为詹姆斯犹大安格尔顿。 以色列为他在肯尼迪遇刺中所扮演的角色立了一座纪念碑。

    • 回复: @anon
  34. Iris 说:
    @Alden

    就像自 1948 年杜鲁门整合军队以来的每一位总统一样,约翰肯尼迪反对白人

    肯尼迪反对 WASP 至高无上,而不是反对白人。

    他反对 1924 年的原籍移民法,该法旨在使来自北欧和西欧的移民永久化,并排斥大多数其他移民,如希腊人、意大利人、波兰人和其他东欧人。

    肯尼迪只建议适度增加年度移民配额,当时为 156,700 人。 他写了:” 当然,对移民进行一些限制是有正当理由的。 我们不再需要处女地的定居者,我们的经济扩张速度比 19 世纪和 20 世纪初慢设立的区域办事处外,我们在美国也开设了办事处,以便我们为当地客户提供更多的支持。“

    • 回复: @Jake
    , @Alden
  35. @noname27

    我不反对,但在这个世界上,一切都是相对的:JFK 比 LBJ 好。 天主教比加尔文主义清教更好(不那么犹太人)。

    • 同意: Pheasant
    • 回复: @Sin City Milla
    , @noname27
  36. @utu

    不,我没有,而且我可能不是典型的白人民族主义者(我的妻子,我三个孩子的母亲,是日本人)。

  37. @Laurent Guyénot

    和你一样,我从 肯尼迪和无法形容 通过詹姆斯道格拉斯。 中央情报局杀死了肯尼迪,因为他在去年变成了和平主义者,他想结束冷战。 对美国深州来说,这是叛国罪。

    虽然有令人信服的证据表明以色列有杀害肯尼迪的动机,但他们实际上这样做的证据并不充分。 这是一架中央情报局的飞机,把奥斯瓦尔德的样子从达拉斯带走了。

    前中央情报局人员昌西霍尔特和 E.霍华德亨特承认参与其中。 亨特的供词牵连了 LBJ,但控制行动的人是中央情报局的科德·迈耶。 肯尼迪与迈耶的妻子玛丽有染,玛丽在 1964 年被杀。

    最有趣的理论之一是中央情报局计划在达拉斯发生事件,也许是一次虚假的暗杀企图,这将归咎于古巴人并阻止肯尼迪走向和平。 另一群人听说了这个计划并安排了真正的暗杀,知道中央情报局别无选择,只能掩盖这两个阴谋。 这一理论提供了一种可能性,即尽管有证据指向中央情报局,但其他人射杀了肯尼迪。 这意味着没有必要驳回对中央情报局不利的证据。

    • 谢谢: Pheasant
    • 回复: @Laurent Guyénot
    , @Iris
  38. @utu

    谢谢。 我注意到你对我的“雨伞人”文章的评论,但忘记了链接和你的伪。 我正确地注意了这一点!

  39. sally 说:
    @Franz

    我觉得你们错了.. ? 以色列不控制中央情报局; 中央情报局不控制美国。这两个团体是有偿刺客,松散的雇佣军,但都无法控制民族国家体系。全球民族国家体系是 256 个领土定义的监禁中心的特许集合<=民族国家加盟商。 这些牢房由指定的政治家管理。 以及中央情报局和以色列以及其他几个团体审核并消除那些不遵守规定路线的人。
    诱饵是中央情报局和以色列,但决定将高调的人带出去或入侵一个民族国家或......无论<=是从上面做出的(它是控制堆栈第1层的决定(不是控制状态,层2 决策 一旦第一层做出决策,下层就会执行它。
    在只有两层使用的九层社会和政治控制中是公开的。
    控制堆栈(层)描述了私人财富如何控制公共权力的使用。

    [更多]

    私有层1:全球民族国家特许人设定规则; 建立地方民族国家目标
    ________这里是银行家及其准政府官僚机构,非政府组织,已建立
    ________发挥国家政府的作用,与政府的需求进行互动合作
    _______全球公司列出了主要市场和交易所。

    私有层2:寡头<=国民(华尔街受益人,他们利用自己的财富来遵守
    ________与全球大国一致的国家结果)。 国家(即本地银行
    _______,由垄断企业控制的公司受到可悲的被统治者的控制
    _______机会..(机会是对少数人开放的特权)军官vs.征募。
    _______伪选举产生的总统。 还有公路和桥梁建筑,卡车,轮船和
    _______飞机承包商和运输提供商..他们有执照的特权,
    _______获得资金和与政府做生意的资格。 中央情报局和以色列。

    私有层3:版权和专利垄断权(市场交易资产的90%
    _______法人是垄断权(例如无形资产。相对较新的这一层
    _______拥有私有所有技术的法律特权,并且
    _______处于现代封建制度的核心。 5克无人驾驶车辆,太空旅行

    私人第4层:由官僚机构监管的智囊团和其他私人组织,为其提供资金
    _______并直接。 数百万甚至数十亿美元的私人资金流向都与之匹配
    _______政府资金。 这是秘密服务机构,本地骗子和
    ________大学系统官僚制存在。

    公众层5:选举产生的527人政府,负责规范公众

    私有第6层:政府间官僚机构限制民选权力并将其直接指向全球目标。
    _______这是为官僚机构购买和支付的庞大政府。

    公共层 7:340,000,000 亿高度公共成员。

    私有层 8:刺激抑制经济系统控制

    私有层9:媒体通过用于控制叙述,限制的内容提供商多样性来解决多样性
    _______ 信息对目标群体可见,并保持被治理的可悲者的高度不同的思想
    _______个人_安抚。 (内容提供商可以获得大量资金和经过验证的技术。
    ________ 科学; w\ 使 CP 能够将心理与宣传相协调; 保持人群,头脑,
    ________ 政治和思想控制 (CMPT) 控制。 Layer 为媒体提供大量资金支持,
    ________ 因为每个市场可见的公司每年都贡献数万亿美元的免税广告
    ________ 支持媒体上的 CMPT 内容,用于控制被治理的可悲。

  40. dimples 说:

    我真的很喜欢Guyenot 先生的电影和他精彩的旁白(我猜是他)。 尽管我认为这部电影并没有真正证明以色列是罪魁祸首,但它清楚地表明,它对核武器的渴望以及与美国安全国家更大程度的融合必须加入到许多希望肯尼迪死去并让开的派系中.

    美国深州和犹太人不是密不可分吗? 是摩萨德自己完成所有枪击事件并掩盖真相,还是美国犹太复国主义犹太人在命令下或在他们认为有必要时尽其所能推动情节发展? Guyenot 先生并没有说清楚。 他似乎是在说以色列自己炮制了这个阴谋,并利用美国的犹太人(例如 LBJ,一个加密犹太人)来影响政府机构和媒体进行暗杀,然后掩盖它。 一方面,他似乎在说中央情报局与此无关,另一方面他暗示中央情报局反情报部门负责人、以色列的可靠朋友詹姆斯·耶稣·安格尔顿是策划者。 我会说,以色列的利益只是另一个动机,它与其他有毒的啤酒相吻合,Guyenot 先生并没有证明不是这样。

    在 45.07 分钟,声明如下:

    “事实上,中央情报局的阴谋论存在严重的矛盾。 据报道,杀死肯尼迪的目的是为入侵古巴制造借口,而肯尼迪一直拒绝这样做。 根据中央情报局的理论,奥斯瓦尔德被培养成亲卡斯特罗的共产主义者,达拉斯枪击案被上演为假旗袭击,归咎于古巴。 但是为什么肯尼迪遇刺后没有入侵古巴呢? 我们被告知,这是因为约翰逊挫败了情节的最终目标,即开始第三次世界大战。”

    这似乎是对“中央情报局阴谋论”的一种非常混乱的解释。 据我了解,该阴谋的伪共产主义元素,即奥斯瓦尔德明显的亲卡斯特罗共产主义,以及他据称在枪杀肯尼迪后试图获得签证通过古巴逃往俄罗斯的企图,是由中央情报局积极设置的为了欺骗LBJ,迫使沃伦委员会追求“孤独的坚果”结论,排除所有其他人。 如果委员会不这样做,那么根据中央情报局及其受骗者 LBJ 的说法,另一种选择是,暗杀肯尼迪将被揭露为俄罗斯的阴谋,从而煽动美国公众与俄罗斯进行毁灭性的战争。 LBJ 告诉沃伦,必须不惜一切代价阻止这种情况,因此他的委员会必须得出一个政治上可接受的结论,而不管实际情况如何。

    在 13.5 分钟时,声明:

    “加里森被允许观看亚伯拉罕·扎普鲁德 (Abraham Zapruder) 的 8 毫米胶片,该胶片在暗杀当天被联邦调查局没收”

    这是不正确的。 Zapruder 是一个狡猾的犹太人,他知道他的电影值多少钱,他拒绝了达拉斯警方没收的企图。 由于 Zapruder 是当地著名的商人,正如 M Guyenot 所指出的,与达拉斯公民委员会(一个犹太人的飞地)有着密切的联系,所以警方没有强调这个问题。 这部电影第二天以 150,000 万美元的价格卖给了《生活》杂志,随后被他们压制了几年,直到加里森的调查传唤它。

  41. utu 说:
    @dimples

    Zapruder 继承人将获得 16 万美元的电影(1999 年)
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/aug99/zap03.htm

    仲裁员今天宣布,政府必须向亚伯拉罕·扎普鲁德的继承人支付 16 万美元,以购买扎普鲁德拍摄的暗杀肯尼迪总统的电影

    然而,一些肯尼迪暗杀研究人员认为政府不应该向扎普鲁德家族支付一分钱。 “这是刑事案件中的证据,”暗杀档案和研究中心主席吉姆·莱萨尔在仲裁员决定赔偿问题时说。

    • 回复: @Insouciant
  42. Jake 说:
    @sarz

    在这一切中不应该忘记的是,那些负责的人(美国深层国家,盎格鲁-犹太复国主义帝国的深层国家)知道在整个保守的白人中很容易逃脱,因为WASP 文化以蔑视爱尔兰天主教的一切事物为特征,从滑稽到可能摧毁 WASP(盎格鲁-犹太复国主义)帝国荣耀的邪恶。

    想法有后果,固有的后果。 盎格鲁-撒克逊清教主义的犹太化异端具有内在的后果。 它们带有 WASP 文化。

    • 回复: @The Soft Parade
  43. Jake 说:
    @Iris

    因为 WASP 的至高无上总是与绝大多数白人的最大利益背道而驰,而对犹太人来说却是笨拙的海豹或暴徒。

    盎格鲁-犹太复国主义帝国。

    • 谢谢: Iris
    • 回复: @Old and Grumpy
  44. Richard B 说:
    @sarz

    乔姆斯基不同意:“谁在乎谁杀了肯尼迪?

    生活在外的人 黑暗三合会 喜欢问问题,好像没有答案。 但是,当然,正如文章所表明的那样,他提出这个问题是有原因的。 他的问题只是更多地被伪装成进攻性的防守。

    我的意思是,总是有很多人死去!”

    自然地,他用黑暗三合会闻名的苦涩、驼背的仇恨来回答自己的问题,从而在这个过程中暴露出黏糊糊的精神病态。

    当然,在提出和回答自己的问题时,乔姆斯基认为他在做其他事情。 因为精神病态和自我意识不能并存。

    • 谢谢: John Fisher
  45. @James N. Kennett

    我记得道格拉斯很长一段时间都在模仿奥斯瓦尔德。 我将不得不再次阅读它,但我现在倾向于认为这是一个谣言。 无论如何,专注于奥斯瓦尔德几乎是在浪费时间,因为他只是个懦夫。 正如我发现的那样,他甚至没有为中央情报局工作,而是为 ONI 工作,海军情报局(我在电影中提到过),考虑到约翰逊与海军的关系,这非常重要。
    关于被劫持的假暗杀理论,派珀很好地解释了,我在我的书中进行了讨论,但在电影中没有空间。 我认为这是相当可信的,事实上,我相信这也是 9/11 摩萨德的作案手法:利用“演习”(甚至参与他们的准备),然后将其转化为真实的东西。

    • 谢谢: Pheasant
    • 回复: @Skeptikal
    , @James N. Kennett
  46. ANONymous[110]• 免责声明 说:
    @sarz

    优秀的文章Guyénot先生

    正如我所说:
    希特勒没有输掉战争,盟军也没有赢得它。
    犹太人赢得了战争,而人类却输了。

    需要证据的人吗?
    看看你周围今天发生的事情,不仅在美国,而且在整个世界

    • 同意: Old and Grumpy, Druid
    • 回复: @Gulnare
  47. Emslander 说:

    肯尼迪有一些超自然的东西。 我从未亲自见过他,但与我交谈过的人在他们得到的印象中是普遍的。 不管政治倾向如何,他们都说他们觉得自己处于一种精神本质的面前。 在他的一生中,记者们谈到了“魅力”,这只是精神的一个词。

    我在肯尼迪时代就很清楚了。 作为一名天主教徒,虽然不是爱尔兰人,但我认为他是我在这个国家接受的确认。 我记得,他的政治没有任何不舒服的地方。 他和任何人一样反左派,他的种族政策只继承了艾森豪威尔的政策。 他和艾森豪威尔似乎是战后代际过渡的完美结合。 我爸和肯尼迪同岁,对老将军都有一种敬意,这让大家对火炬的传递感到很自在。

    我父亲几乎在肯尼迪遇刺前一年就去世了,所以哀悼一位权威人物对我来说并不陌生。 就像是成长的痛苦的延续。

    • 谢谢: Pheasant
  48. @dimples

    我不认为我歪曲了中央情报局和五角大楼的理论,至少正如道格拉斯所解释的那样,他完全免除了约翰逊的罪名:他确实相信中央情报局和五角大楼的鹰派想要二战。
    你认为“亲卡斯特罗”的奥斯瓦尔德并不是为了发动第三次世界大战(正如道格拉斯所认为的那样),而是为约翰逊提供了一个借口来阻止任何调查,因为担心一场核战争可能会导致“40万美国人在一次战争中丧生”天”,正如他不断重复的那样,我认为是正确的(我无法在电影中详细介绍,但我在书中有)。 不同的是,我不像你一样相信约翰逊被中央情报局欺骗了。 他在一切之上。 我认为约翰逊的核心角色是今天此案最无可争议的方面之一。 将约翰逊的角色贬低为支持孤儿理论只是为了拯救美国免遭核破坏是严重缺陷的。 你应该读几本关于约翰逊的书。 这里有一些建议:
    https://postimg.cc/QKQ6Ky6d

    • 回复: @Skeptikal
  49. Mefobills 说:

    正如我在“约翰·肯尼迪是怎样的爱尔兰人”网页上读到的那样,f

    约翰·F·肯尼迪是怎样的克罗马侬人?

    非克罗:

  50. @Jake

    作为一个英国凯尔特人和盎格鲁撒克逊人,我必须用这段被屠杀的历史来保护我的窥视者。 罗马人强迫我们信奉天主教。 也许这很好。 但当你回顾威尼斯暴徒的历史时,它完善了高利贷和早期教皇的池子,我不得不怀疑。 尽管耶稣是一个解放者的反叛者,但以他的名义的教会只是一个古老的腓尼基人吗?

    诺曼底入侵是一场加密的犹太人入侵。 征服者威廉是犹太人的私生子。 随着时间的推移,犹太人通过承诺提供急需的嫁妆,开始了将女儿嫁给岛上贵族的过程。 最终威廉(二世?)想把犹太人赶出去,但他被杀了。 圣辊奥利弗克伦威尔保留了他们,基本上将耶稣制度化为犹太人。 从那以后,我在池塘两边的人一直被占领。 当你需要时,德鲁伊和他们的祭祀烧伤笼子在哪里? 哦,是的,该死的罗马人和天主教徒废除了他们。

    • 谢谢: Druid
    • 回复: @Rocha
    , @Hibernian
  51. @dimples

    又是关于 LBJ 的书籍:

    还有一些澄清:当我说“以色列杀死了肯尼迪家族”时,我所说的以色列是“忠于以色列的犹太精英国际社会”,换句话说就是全世界的sayanim。 例如,新保守主义者是以色列。 你称他们为“美国的犹太人”,我称他们为“以色列”,只是词汇问题。 请注意,我没有说“摩萨德”,因为我认为这类工作涉及的内容远远超过摩萨德。 正如卡扎菲所说,这可能是本古里安的直接指挥。
    关于中央情报局; 中央情报局有足够的东西隐藏起来,不得不像其他人(达拉斯警察等)一样被迫接受孤儿理论。 但中央情报局作为一个以约翰·麦康尼为首的组织,肯定与暗杀无关。 中央情报局的成员是同谋; 那是完全不同的事情。 也许忠于杜勒斯的分子合作了,但没有证据。 例如,没有证据反对理查德赫尔姆斯,当他在 1975 年被问及奥斯瓦尔德与中央情报局的联系时,他正确回答:不如问 ONI! 奥斯瓦尔德是一名海军陆战队员,记住!
    关于 Zapruder 电影,我相信 FBI 确实没收了这部电影,并在几天后将其归还给 Zapruder,只是它不再是同一部电影,而且 Life 杂志被禁止展示超过几张幻灯片。 我将不得不检查详细信息。 无论如何,您必须了解,要制作一部 90 分钟的电影,您必须走一些捷径,并专注于连接主要点。 我完全意识到缺少很多细节。

    • 回复: @gay troll
  52. Iris 说:
    @dimples

    这是不正确的。 Zapruder 是一个狡猾的犹太人,他知道他的电影值多少钱,他拒绝了达拉斯警方没收的企图。

    恐怕这个寓言是作为掩饰的一部分向公众讲述的。

    关于 Zapruder 电影主题的最有趣的工作是由 AARB 研究员 Doug Horne 完成的。

    Z 电影共有四 (4) 份副本,原版加上 3 份副本在暗杀后立即存在。
    其中两份被交给美国情报部门,并被带到国家摄影解说中心 (NPIC) 的不同实验室,彼此不知情。

    这可能是最明显的改变:
    – 移除肯尼迪豪华轿车错误转向 Elm Stree
    - 肯尼迪的豪华轿车完全停在草丘前,包括警察在内的 50 多名目击者报告。

    Doug Horne 成功地对 NPIC 专家图像分析师 Dino Brugioni 进行了一次非同寻常的拍摄采访。 他是已知的唯一一位观看过真实的、未经改动的 Zapruder 电影并公开作证的人。

    祝福他的布鲁乔尼先生在镜头前陈述了原版电影与向公众展示的版本有何不同。 特别是,这部电影被修改以移除带有大量血迹、血液、脑物质和头骨部分的框架。

    这种改动当然是为了隐藏 易碎的公牛t 从 Grassy Knoll 击中 JFK。

    肖恩·奥沙利文(Shaun O'Sullivan)制作了一部关于该主题的必看纪录片,布鲁乔尼先生的采访从 25:00 开始: Zapruder 电影之谜

    毫无疑问,《生活》杂志只是从修改后的 NPIC 版本中获得了二次副本。

    至于剩下的两份 Z 电影原件,可以做出有根据的猜测:一份会被送到 Ben Gourion,另一份则由达拉斯的 B'nai Brith 成员保存,用于自慰目的。

    • 回复: @Peripatetic Itch
  53. anon[275]• 免责声明 说:

    Re 52,酒窝是正确的,“俄罗斯刺客”是粉饰的借口,而不是战争的借口。 约翰逊当然是机智的,并且全力以赴。 他女朋友的证词表明了这一点。 毫无疑问,他在达拉斯协调了很多行政事务。 没有人在没有为中央情报局跑腿的情况下接近白宫,约翰斯顿也不例外。 他在叛国罪中的同谋将是中央情报局最有效的kompromat。

    关于奥斯瓦尔德中央情报局诉 ONI,鉴于中央情报局使用联络点,这是没有区别的区别。 冲绳的所有幽灵都知道他以及他在做什么。

    Re 18,我们都知道流浪汉没有射杀任何人。 重点是兰斯代尔和他的强行推翻商店。 McCone 是 CIA 的头饰,他没有控制该机构。

    所以以色列接管了中央情报局,让他们做他们擅长的事情,他们帮了很多忙……当然,很好,随便。 兰利得到了中子弹,特拉维夫得到了 50 公吨的空爆。 无论如何,中央情报局有能力。 以色列没有。

    • 回复: @Laurent Guyénot
  54. Reg Cæsar 说:
    @Franz

    至少以色列人对此是诚实的。 “我们控制着美国,美国人知道这一点”。 记住?

    即使在这里,也没有人敢建议推翻 阿宾顿、默里、格里斯沃尔德、爱普森、 鱼子 决定。 这一时期的所有产品。

    公立学校的日子曾经以基督教祈祷开始。 现在他们没有。 从那以后就一直走下坡路。

    • 回复: @Franz
    , @Druid
  55. God's Fool 说:

    在他死于飞机失事的前几天,我在纽约苏荷区看到小约翰有机会和他握手……他带着真诚的微笑,认真地问我最近过得怎么样。 太糟糕了,因为在我看来,他也被一个未知的实体“带走”了。

    • 谢谢: Iris
  56. Art 说:
    @Alden

    约翰肯尼迪反对白人。

    TROLL!

    • 回复: @Alden
  57. Wyatt 说:

    我承认:我喜欢肯尼迪。 事实上,我喜欢肯尼迪。

    这是一个愚蠢的立场。 您给出的口头舌头浴忽略了几个问题:

    -肯尼迪增加了对越南战争的准备,这是他在政治上与苏联对抗时未能表现出实力的一部分。

    - 他试图将精神卫生医院联邦化,因为他的父亲是一个无礼的傻瓜,为了方便而对他的女儿进行了脑叶切除术。 里根在 20 年后完成了对心理健康的彻底检查。

    - 他选择了那只恶心的猪 LBJ 作为他的竞选伙伴来获得选票,而 JFK 获得“轰隆隆,爆头”让那个丑陋的混蛋负责一切,包括与以色列成为好朋友,情绪波动使他无法执行越南战争。

    - 完全没有支持或反对猪湾入侵。 很快召开了维也纳峰会,部分原因是为了应对他的矛盾决定。

    -他自己承认,他对在维也纳与尼基塔赫鲁晓夫的对抗毫无准备,这反过来又鼓励苏联人在古巴投放导弹。

    你知道谁在面对 lil' Niki 时没有像个婊子一样翻身吗? 理查德·米尔豪斯·尼克松。 混蛋把手指伸进赫鲁晓夫的胸口,给了那个共产主义者大便。 我想那个在录音中被抓到说“犹太人是天生的间谍”的人可能会看穿对自由号航空母舰的袭击,而不是像爱尔兰人的头骨一样立即折叠起来。 如果他是总统而不是你吹嘘的肯尼迪,我们就不会得到 LBJ。 肯尼迪夫妇都没有在 FARA 注册 AIPAC,也没有阻碍以色列。 两者都没有用,事实上它们使一切变得更糟。

    青蛙先生,我会提醒您在提倡对像肯尼迪这样有缺陷和无能的人进行邪教崇拜时,要表现出更多的勤奋。 这个人是个不称职的花花公子,只是靠不择手段和爸爸的私酒钱才能进入他的位置。 如果乔没有被杀,我想他会是一位优越得多的总统。 他的早年生活表明他具有良好的观察能力和对世界的敏锐洞察力,尤其是在 1930 年代。

    正是一位优秀的肯尼迪,他的名字是莱昂斯科特。 他是个糟糕的警察,但却是一名出色的联邦雇员。 与肯尼迪家族的其他成员相比,对美利坚合众国的破坏要小得多。

    • 回复: @Rufus Clyde
    , @STARS
  58. HL-93:KEVIN CLINESMITH 量刑备忘录解释 – VIVA & BARNES HIGHLIGHT



    视频链接

  59. Gulnare 说:
    @ANONymous

    @sars

    “犹太人赢得了战争,而人类却输了。”

    如果犹太人对人类发动战争,这意味着他们为非人道而战。
    那些讨厌非犹太人为“牲畜种子”的 ENVIOUS 并不奇怪。
    正如 Laurent Guyénot 很好地证明的那样,Yahwism 确实是不人道的。
    奴役人类不是一个神圣的项目,而是一个奴隶和亚人类的项目。
    一切都是颠倒的:谎言是真理,恶是善,丑是美,撒旦是上帝,黑暗是光明。
    嫉妒产生仇恨。

    • 回复: @Gulnare
  60. anon[297]• 免责声明 说:

    随着澄清的增多(#55),这个故事真的开始闻起来像吉娜的俗气排放物。 我们又回到了好莱坞的“坏苹果”谣言。 只有 Laurent 的坏苹果没有具体说明,直到今天仍然是秘密。

    看看这条消息的不可约核心。 是以色列,我的意思是控制中央情报局的犹太贵宾,我的意思是中央情报局的一部分在继续,我的意思是中央情报局的一部分在参与……劳伦特的最后一个堡垒是赦免中央情报局的机构。 这就是中央情报局的切身利益。

    为了他妈的,他引用了专业的伪证者赫尔姆斯的话。 这是贯穿始终的 CIA 样板。

    去金库里抚摸你的星星。

  61. Rocha 说:
    @Old and Grumpy

    我认为在批评英格兰的天主教之前,您应该阅读新教徒威廉科贝特(William Cobbett)撰写的《英格兰和爱尔兰的新教改革史》。
    《大宪章》是天主教英格兰的产物,驱逐犹太人也是如此。
    随着英格兰银行的建立,新教改革导致了工作室、高利贷合法化和以债务为基础的金融体系。
    你对德鲁伊的浪漫观念太幼稚了。

    • 同意: Alden
    • 回复: @Mefobills
    , @Curmudgeon
  62. gay troll 说:
    @Laurent Guyénot

    让我们回顾一些间接事实。 1960 年之前,肯尼迪、LBJ 和普雷斯科特·布什都一起在参议院任职。 来自 LBJ 库:

    布什和约翰逊家族有着悠久的历史和友谊,始于 1950 年代林登·约翰逊与乔治·H·W·布什的父亲普雷斯科特·布什一起在美国参议院任职。 虽然来自不同的政党,但两人享有富有成效的工作关系,相互尊重。

    Bush embraced the spirit of bipartisanship when he was elected to Congress as the first Republican representing the Houston area. 尽管这在政治上伤害了他,但他投票支持 1968 年由约翰逊总统于 11 年 1968 月 XNUMX 日签署的《民权法案》。布什在投票后不久在休斯敦的一次演讲中解释了他的决定背后的动机。 “我投票……因为我内心深处有一种感觉,这对我来说是正确的事情。 这对美国来说是正确的事情。”

    因此,不应低估布什和 LBJ 之间的友好关系。 至于向肯尼迪施压让LBJ上票,这个选择让许多观察家感到惊讶。 肯尼迪刚刚在提名中击败了 KBJ。 根据维基百科:

    Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. 和 Seymour Hersh 引用了罗伯特肯尼迪的事件版本,写道约翰肯尼迪“会更喜欢斯图尔特赛明顿作为他的竞选伙伴”,并且约翰逊与众议院议长萨姆雷伯恩合作“向肯尼迪施压以提供提名”。 Hersh 继续展示事件的另一种版本。 他写道,肯尼迪实质上是被勒索让约翰逊担任副总统。 同样的故事最初是由安东尼萨默斯在他的联邦调查局局长埃德加胡佛的传记中提出的。 肯尼迪的私人秘书伊芙琳·林肯在一次采访中告诉萨默斯,她在 1960 年中期确信 J. Edgar Hoover 和约翰逊密谋。

    还有一个事实是艾伦杜勒斯在沃伦委员会中占有一席之地,该委员会发表了一份对暗杀事件的粗心大意的掩饰。

    将这一切作为以色列的替罪羊是一个心理医生,旨在为中央情报局开脱罪责。 正如我之前所说,犹太复国主义的联系是最重要的。 但不是以色列对美国做这些事情,而是美国政府在为以色列做这些事情(或者至少,允许并无视以色列的罪行,这将使他们有同样的罪行)。

    • 回复: @Pincher Martin
    , @Alden
  63. gay troll 说:
    @Laurent Guyénot

    美国政府无权推定无罪,因为他们掌握了大量有关暗杀的机密信息。 你建议中央情报局隐瞒事情,因为他们“被迫”隐瞒,因为他们“有足够的”隐瞒。 这有点诡辩的味道。 他们是否也被迫在 1967 年普及“阴谋论者”一词,并指导媒体如何使用它来对抗沃伦委员会的批评者? 如果这些纳粹混蛋是无辜的,那就让他们解密他们的秘密。

  64. 非常好的纪录片,但在风格上它存在一些问题。 旁白连绵不绝,喘不过气来,听着很累。

  65. Mefobills 说:
    @Rocha

    虽然可能不会回到德鲁伊,但有一条前进的道路:

    所有的基督徒表面上都遵循基督的话,不是吗?

    如果基督的话被错误地解释了怎么办? 语言确实塑造了现实,不是吗?

    我建议的是一部新的斯科菲尔德式圣经,其中对“罪”的正确解释以及耶稣实际所说的内容在新的脚注中可供读者使用。 正如哈德森向我们展示的那样,罪与债务有关。 基督教神学家最好注意一下。

    转身是公平的竞争。 犹太人玩游戏颠倒现实,我们可以用同样的战术反击。 在大多数基督徒耳中的显然是歪曲的圣经,而这种歪曲有利于犹太人和其他高利贷者。

    https://crushlimbraw.blogspot.com/2018/11/vox-popoli-forgive-us-our-debts.html
    https://crushlimbraw.blogspot.com/2018/11/everything-you-thought-you-knew-about.html

    [更多]

    说迈克尔哈德森的新书并免除他们的债务:从青铜时代金融到禧年的贷款、止赎和赎回(ISLET 2018)是对说马里亚纳海沟很深的轻描淡写。 理解他的中心论点与我们现代思考文明和野蛮的方式是如此格格不入,以至于哈德森实际上同意我的观点,即这本书在某种程度上是“惊天动地”的意图和效果。 在过去的三十年里,(在哈佛皮博迪博物馆的赞助下)收集并综合了美国和英国、法国和德国和苏联的亚述学家的学术成果(用小写字母 ato 表示所有研究古代各种文明的人)美索不达米亚,包括苏美尔、阿卡德帝国、埃布拉、巴比伦等国,以及首都为 A) 的亚述。 哈德森表明,我们这些 XNUMX 世纪的全球主义者在道德上被大约 XNUMX 世纪去语境化历史的黑暗遗产蒙蔽了双眼。 出于所有实际目的,这使我们完全不知道纠正文明模式所需的,以使我们免于步入黯淡的新封建野蛮状态。

    耶稣鞭打货币兑换商。 耶稣传教始于禧年。 试图进行债权人接管的小组内成员? 法利赛人。

    法利赛人是一个债权人阶级,他们希望他们的人口永远欠他们的债。

    Hillel 的 Prozbul 条款是法利赛人论点的核心,直到今天仍然适用于犹太人。

    https://michael-hudson.com/2019/04/the-delphic-oracle-as-their-davos/

    JS:在摩西免除债务的诫命中,我们是否可以推断出在流亡后的耶路撒冷已经制定了某种免除债务的计划?

    MH:是的,但它以 Rabbi Hillel 和 Prozbul 条款结束。 债务人必须在债务合同结束时签署此条款,表示他们放弃了在禧年下的权利以获得贷款。 这就是为什么耶稣与法利赛人和拉比领袖作战。 这就是路加福音 4 章的全部内容[并且有先知以赛亚的书交给他。 当他打开这本书时,他找到了上面写着的地方,“主的灵在我身上,因为他膏了我向穷人传福音; 他差遣我医治伤心的人,宣讲释放被掳的,使瞎眼的重见光明,释放被压伤的,宣讲主悦纳的年”=禧年。] 路加指出 法利赛人爱钱!

  66. @gay troll

    因此,不应低估布什和 LBJ 之间的友好关系。

    看看乔治 HW 布什对 1968 年民权法案的投票*,这有点荒谬,该法案在众议院和参议院均以超过三比一的优势通过,作为他对约翰逊“友好”的一个例子。

    首先,在众议院,像乔治·H·W·布什这样的共和党人以 161 票对 25 票通过了该法案。在参议院,有 29 名共和党人投票支持该法案,而反对该法案的只有 XNUMX 人(XNUMX 人未投票)。

    是的,投票反对该法案的 25 名众议院共和党人中的大多数来自南方,但布什是北方人的移植者,而不是真正的南方人。 所以有人可能会争辩说,这只是布什对他的国家党保持信任的一种方式, 压倒性地支持该法案.

    其次,LBJ 不需要布什的投票。 众议院的投票结果是 327 票对 93 票反对。 LBJ 是一位完美的政治家,他会完全理解布什需要投票反对该法案(无论如何都会获胜)以保住他在休斯顿的席位。 而且由于 LBJ 不需要布什的投票,你很难用这个作为一些友好安排的例子,表明他们在肯尼迪暗杀案中合作过。

    至于普雷斯科特布什与LBJ的关系,他们一起担任了八年的参议员。 但他们是对立的政党,来自不同的地区,而LBJ的权力要大得多。 因此,当在 LBJ 图书馆阅读他们的“友谊”和“富有成效的工作关系”时,我不会把它当作礼貌的样板。

    * 不是普雷斯科特布什的投票。 从您的块引用中不清楚您是否理解其中的区别。

    • 回复: @Alden
    , @gay troll
  67. Alden 说:
    @Iris

    7 年,肯尼迪 1924 岁。他怎么可能在 7 岁时就任何法律争论不休?

    你显然不明白肯尼迪创造了第一个平权法案。 你所说的 WASP 至高无上(我们在肯尼迪约翰逊平权行动之前拥有的功绩制度)实际上使天主教徒受益远远超过新教 WASP。

    因为几乎所有的 WASPS 都在公立学校上学,而天主教徒拥有自己的优越得多的私立学校系统。

    犹太人和新教徒如此热衷于实施平权行动歧视的一个主要原因是歧视在每次就业考试、大学入学 SAT 和专业认证考试、州律师考试、护士医师学校教师电工等中得分如此之高的天主教徒。优秀的私立宗教学校

    是的,路德教会确实开办了几所私立学校。 有一些世俗的私立学校,但这些学校很少,99%的新教徒就读于劣质的公立学校。 天主教徒就读于每个社区的高级学校,并在每一项公务员、专业认证、大学入学和就业考试中都取得了优异的成绩。

    白人天主教徒约翰肯尼迪背叛了美国的每一位白人天主教徒,因为他发明了平权行动来歧视包括天主教徒在内的白人。

    尤其是天主教徒,因为他们广泛传播的天主教学校系统帮助他们在 6 年 1961 月 XNUMX 日之前盛行的成绩考试制度中脱颖而出。

    具有讽刺意味的是,择优考试制度是 1880 年代善政进步运动的新教上层 WASP 的产物。

    有一些英国新教徒,而不是苏格兰或爱尔兰后裔,他们是贵族机构的一部分。 但是许多贵族新教徒不是英国后裔,而是德国爱尔兰苏格兰人等。例如最富有的朝代,洛克菲勒福特,梅隆。 福特和梅隆是爱尔兰新教徒洛克菲勒的德国后裔范德比尔特是荷兰人,而不是英国人。 罗斯福是荷兰人。 罗斯福的父母是荷兰和法国血统

    长期以来,新教徒一直是美国最贫穷的宗教团体,因为大多数黑人都是新教徒。 尽管随着西班牙裔移民,天主教徒可能很快就会像新教徒一样贫穷。

    美国一些最贫穷、受教育程度最低的人是英国血统的白人新教徒。 W 弗吉尼亚州 N 卡罗来纳州 S 卡罗来纳州 乔治亚州 肯塔基州 密苏里州 弗吉尼亚州 特拉华州 马里兰州 俄亥俄州 印第安纳州 伊利诺伊州 佛罗里达州是贫困且未受过教育的 WASP 居住的地方。

    他们的数量比亿万富翁安多弗埃克塞特圣蒂姆的查宾福克斯克罗夫特哈佛耶鲁普林斯顿太平洋高地普雷西迪奥高地希尔斯伯勒,格林威治湖格林威治汉普顿贝德福德山波希米亚俱乐部联盟联盟俱乐部黄蜂的人数要多得多。

    从来没有 WASP 至高无上。 除了新英格兰以外,19 世纪早期 20 世纪最富有的族群都是德国人。

    肯尼迪 1961 年的平权行动 10925 号行政命令与 1968 年的约翰逊平权行动法没有区别。

    平权法案破坏了有利于私立宗教学校毕业生而不是公立学校毕业生的客观笔试就业和认证。

    平权行动确实导致了新教的至高无上。 在每次招聘和大学录取决定中,黑人而不是白人新教徒的偏好。

    平权行动摧毁了白人新教徒,就像它摧毁了白人天主教徒一样。

    • 回复: @JM
    , @utu
  68. 除了我之外,这里有没有人真正阅读过 Ron Unz 关于以色列对肯尼迪遇刺事件的看法的完整参考书目?

    参考书目基于罗恩的“美国真理报”文章“肯尼迪遇刺,第 1 部分——发生了什么?” 和“肯尼迪遇刺案,第 2 部分——是谁干的?” 以及“摩萨德暗杀”。

    _______

    公民的异议:马克·莱恩对沃伦报告的捍卫者的回应——马克·莱恩 (1968)

    中央情报局和情报崇拜——维克多·马尔凯蒂和约翰·马克斯 (1974)

    袭击自由:以色列袭击美国情报船的真实故事——詹姆斯·恩内斯 (James Ennes) (1979)

    选边站:美国与好战的以色列的秘密关系——迈克尔·格林 (1984)

    欺骗方式:摩萨德军官的成败——维克多·奥斯特洛夫斯基和克莱尔·霍伊 (1990)

    似是而非的否认:中央情报局是否参与了肯尼迪的暗杀? ——马克·莱恩(1991)

    参孙选项:以色列的核武库和美国外交政策——西摩·赫什 (Seymour Hersh) (1991)

    欺骗的另一面:一个流氓特工揭露了摩萨德的秘密议程——维克多·奥斯特洛夫斯基 (Victor Ostrovsky) (1994)

    Camelot 的黑暗面——Seymour Hersh (1997)

    兄弟:肯尼迪时代不为人知的历史——大卫·塔尔博特 (2007)

    肯尼迪和不可言说的:他为什么死以及为什么重要——詹姆斯·道格拉斯 (2008)

    美国的阴谋论——Lance deHaven-Smith (2013)

    杀死肯尼迪的人:反对 LBJ 的群众——罗杰·斯通 (2014)

    魔鬼的棋盘:艾伦·杜勒斯、中央情报局和美国秘密政府的崛起——大卫·塔尔博特 (2015)

    最终判决——肯尼迪暗杀阴谋中缺失的一环——迈克尔·柯林斯·派珀(2017)

    崛起并首先杀戮:以色列有针对性暗杀的秘史——罗南·伯格曼(2018)*

    * 上次我阅读 Unz 的文章时,他声称他还没有真正阅读过“Rise and Kill First”。

    _______

    除了派珀的书一团糟之外,这些书都没有接近支持以色列愿意并且有能力杀死肯尼迪的论点。 事实上,我从伯格曼和奥斯特洛夫斯基的著作中走出来,相信以色列人没有能力或意愿将他们的杀戮力量投射到美国,更不用说在美国领土上实施复杂的阴谋了。

  69. Alden 说:
    @Art

    肯尼迪写了第一部亲黑人、反白人的平权法案。 10925 年 6 月 1961 日第 XNUMX 号行政命令。

    如果你喜欢针对白人的平权行动歧视,你只需要喜欢肯尼迪总统和约翰逊总统。
    如果你是一个黑人同性恋西班牙裔印度人或任何神秘的肉类移民,你一定因为你的平权行动工作而爱肯尼迪和约翰逊。

    如果您是白人并且受到平权行动的不利影响,并且您爱并钦佩肯尼迪和约翰逊,那么您就是个白痴。 不是白痴,而是白痴。

    • 回复: @Art
  70. Alden 说:
    @Pincher Martin

    肯尼迪遇刺事件大约 40 年后,有人将一名身穿灰色西装的普通白人男子的照片放入德克萨斯图书存放处正面的照片中,并声称该男子是乔治 HW 布什,负责监督暗杀行动。 再过十年,一些肯尼迪理论家将声称这个人是青少年时期的特朗普或拜登。

    有数以千计的关于肯尼迪遇刺的书籍和电影,每个人都有不同的理论。

    • 回复: @Pincher Martin
  71. Skeptikal 说:
    @Laurent Guyénot

    “利用‘演习’(甚至参与他们的准备),然后将它们变成真实的东西。 ”

    这也符合犹太人的幽默感,即使它是自嘲的,它实际上总是围绕着“得到”另一个人,并最终通过一种刻薄的语言或其他类型的伎俩脱颖而出。

  72. @Alden

    有数以千计的关于肯尼迪遇刺的书籍和电影,每个人都有不同的理论。

    我完全同意你的观点。 肯尼迪遇刺是坚果的家庭手工业。 这个行业的目的不是要解决一个 57 年前就已经发现的 57 年谋杀案,而是用更古怪的理论来维持自己。 对于那些被古怪事物吸引的人来说,这就像一个金字塔计划。

    被指控密谋杀害肯尼迪的一些人是亚伯拉罕·扎普鲁德、弗兰克·辛纳屈的鼓手(富兰克林·弗利)、乔治·华莱士、阿德莱·史蒂文森、沃纳·冯·布劳恩、JD Tippit(是的,那个 Tippit)、Kim Philby、Nhu 夫人、和亚里士多德奥纳西斯。

    这太疯狂了。 它像癌症或麻风病一样生长。

    • 回复: @Alden
  73. Walter 说:

    根据著名的黑帮杀手弗兰克·希兰的说法,黑帮深受打击。 说暴徒正在工作,一项任务。 暴徒有家庭。 他们是犹太暴徒、意大利暴徒等等,他们在“各种事务”上与 FBI 和 CIA 协调得相当好。 很多人说鲍比和杰克双双穿越了暴徒——从而提供了动力。 中央情报局/联邦调查局和林登的帮派做了掩饰……而且如此草率,以至于成年人会认为这次袭击是对其他人的警告……这似乎奏效了。 Sheeran 似乎在说,真正的打击是由 Big Easy 中的意大利暴徒完成的。

    当然,犹太复国主义者也有动机——有能力勒索 LBJ 的参与(还记得 67 年的自由袭击事件——LBJ 帮助掩盖了这一点……为什么?)……当然,一旦他们有炸弹就勒索每个人……

    • 回复: @Pincher Martin
    , @Skeptikal
  74. Skeptikal 说:
    @Laurent Guyénot

    我对道格拉斯书的回忆是,他竭尽全力避免指责任何一方,但只是提出了他能够以新的眼光看待的证据,并加以扩展。 这可能与他从马利诺基金会获得的简报有关,该基金会资助了道格拉斯对暗杀事件的重新审查,即向美国人提供所有已知证据比四肢走出来说出“罪魁祸首”更为重要。” 副标题是“他为什么被杀以及为什么重要”。 所以,我认为这本书的前提是美国人掌握的“为什么”比“谁”更重要。 因为我们仍然面临着同样的强权,他们想要一种永久冲突的状态,而肯尼迪被淘汰是因为他想果断地改变方向。 1961 年夏天,他与苏联签署了核武器协议。他是认真的。 错误的业务,到了战党的各个派别。

    在我的回忆中,道格拉斯对肯尼迪 6 月在美国大学的演讲以及道格拉斯提供的其他材料的关注(我可能在 7 或 XNUMX 年前读过这本书,这是一本图书馆的书,所以我没有在这里)强烈暗示中央情报局不喜欢肯尼迪宣布的与苏联寻求一种权宜之计的意图。 与古巴没有直接关系。

    道格拉斯的叙述和背景清楚地表明,肯尼迪有很多敌人,包括 MIC 的“工业”部分。 当肯尼迪和 RFK 认为钢铁生产商能够推动 JFK 前进时,他们已经对钢铁生产商进行了压制,或者,只是绕过关于(不)工会成员加薪的法律。 显然,他们与美国军方做了很多生意。 他们不想让 DC 里的一个小屁孩告诉他们该做什么。

    然后有些人对肯尼迪(亨利卡博特洛奇)撒谎,以让他在越南战争中加倍努力。

    还有LBJ,他在去往山顶的路上已经在德克萨斯州留下了几具尸体,对他不得不在一个新来的金童身上扮演副手感到非常不满。 约翰逊掌握着权力的杠杆,在达拉斯和得克萨斯州的其他地方把事情做好。 LBJ 的情妇提供的关于达拉斯前夜默奇森牧场聚会的长篇采访可能不被视为官方证据,但值得一看 IMO。 除了我认为它已被 Youtube 删除。 . .

    它开始看起来像东方快车谋杀案。 IMO 有点像。 如此多的派系有兴趣推翻肯尼迪,所有派系都在我们现在所谓的深州和/或 MIC 和/或“情报社区”中盘旋在一起。 所有人都拥有并且仍然拥有持续的冲突和使用(或被)以色列使用的经济和/或意识形态和/或权力(全球控制)利益——谁在放大谁? 这并不意味着他们都积极参与了特定的情节,但可能是许多玩家以他们当时没有想到的方式做出了贡献。

    我读过 Cord Meyer 是主要的拉线者——可以说是制片人/导演,但不是编剧——他手下有两个变调夹,其中一个负责技术(安排路线;安排控制权)尸体和尸检;那种事)和另一个人进行了接触,以带来所需的射手。 从制作电影的角度分析事件可能是值得的,因为目标肯定是创造一个令人信服的替代现实,就像一部动作片。 在这种情况下,约翰逊将成为控制当地地面部队的人。

    这是一个复杂的操作。 必须有指挥链。

    • 回复: @Pincher Martin
    , @Skeptikal
  75. Curmudgeon 说:
    @Rocha

    我想这是什么是“改革”,以及什么是“新教”的问题。 约翰威克利夫比路德早 50 年就完全支持“改革”RC 教会,他也多次提出抗议。 亨利八世“抗议” RC 教会没有废除他的婚姻,并成立了英国国教教会。 改革,抗议,亨利随后抢劫了富有的修道院,但仍然严格控制高利贷。 贵格会和其他新教团体,包括诺克斯的长老会,将高利贷视为邪恶。 清教徒对高利贷没有意见。 虽然 RC 教会对所有“新教徒”不屑一顾,认为他们不是真正的基督徒,但许多新教教派认为清教徒不是基督徒。 清教主义是今天伊斯兰教的 17 世纪版本。 它是一种宗教、政治理论和一套法律,它们合而为一,归根结底,对犹太狂热分子最有利。 一旦克伦威尔弑君,他的船员接手,英国真正的新教徒就完蛋了。 还有其他新教教派,例如阿米什人、门诺派、哈特派和 Doukhobors,他们仍然不放高利贷,比 RC 教会在过去 250 年所做的还要多。

    • 回复: @Rocha
  76. @Pincher Martin

    很久以前,我对 Ron Unz 的文章发表了评论,一般来说是错误的。 诚然,我没有读过他的参考文献(我有一个更有趣的阅读清单,我在任何可预见的将来都无法完成),但他的前提以及 Guyenot 的前提是如此错误,以至于与 Unz 的坚持一样荒谬假设在中世纪基督教儿童的犹太仪式献祭。

    如果我们尝试权衡,赞成和反对,以色列参与肯尼迪暗杀的可能性,它在 2-5% 的范围内。

    但是,详细地写这件事是浪费时间和精力。 人们可以更快地让道金斯相信上帝存在,或者让这些人相信他们的瑞贝只是一个普通人:

    • 回复: @Pincher Martin
    , @Druid
  77. Insouciant 说:
    @utu

    亚历山德拉·扎普鲁德
    b。 1969

    电影剪辑师亚伯拉罕的孙女

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandra_Zapruder

    “打捞页面的作者和编辑:青年作家的大屠杀日记。 它在 2002 年获得了大屠杀类别的全国犹太图书奖。这本书收集了 15 篇生活在大屠杀期间的年轻作家的日记。 2005 年,扎普鲁德与 MTV 导演劳伦·拉津根据她的书编写并共同制作了一部纪录片。 “我还在这里:大屠杀期间的青少年真实日记”于 2005 年在 MTV 首播,并获得两项艾美奖提名。 ”

    • 回复: @Druid
  78. cranc 说:

    以色列作为唯一/主要煽动者角度的问题是(i)掩盖的程度,以及(ii)指向中央情报局参与的线索数量。
    我想知道这到底有多少二分法?
    一方面,将犹太复国主义和精英 WASP 的世界联系起来的是共济会小屋等团体。 试图通过试图将肯尼迪描绘成“共产主义走狗”来从情报圈内招募同谋者的肇事者将面临艰难的推销。 或者,让人们注意到他的家人对国家社会主义的隐含绥靖(当然关闭了旅馆)可能效果更好,尤其是在混入一些夸张的谣言的情况下。
    如果我从派珀的书中没记错的话,安格尔顿经常会见一个阴暗的人物(兰花种植者?)。 知道他是谁以及他们关系的真实性质是什么会很有趣。 是什么促使像安格尔顿这样的外邦人对外国政府和他最终被排除在外的特殊宗教团体如此忠诚? 它只是贿赂和敲诈,还是有更深层次的东西? 也许如果我们能回答这个问题,那么我可能会理解像他这样的其他人是否/如何参与杀死他们自己的领袖。

    • 回复: @lysias
    , @Ringer Winger
  79. @Walter

    1963 年的每个团体都有一些杀死肯尼迪的动机。 这就是为什么动机根本不是这个案子的关键。

    我们有犯罪现场和证据。 工作,你会发现李哈维奥斯瓦尔德是凶手。

    看动机只是一种愚蠢的转移。 甚至马克莱恩也说他只在法庭案件中使用动机为陪审团勾勒出合理的故事。 确定动机并不是证明某人或某个团体犯罪的必要条件,而对于像肯尼迪这样的世界人物来说,它只会妨碍理解发生的事情,因为在 1963 年确实有数以千万计的人有过犯罪行为。刺杀总统的合理动机。

    • 回复: @Timur The Lame
    , @lysias
  80. Petermx 说:
    @utu

    这是一篇关于 Hanna Reitsch 的文章。 文章底部有一张她与一群其他女飞行员的合影,与肯尼迪总统合影。 汉娜是左起第四位。 还有一张汉娜在美国访问 Wernher von Braun 的照片。

    https://www.hethuisvanoranje.nl/10%20Bastaard%20Kinderen/HannaReitsch.html

    “许多德国人对战争感到内疚。 但他们没有解释我们共同的真正内疚——我们失去了。” 我喜欢那条线。 我的父母从未感到内疚。 他们对失去感到遗憾,而我母亲的家人失去的最多,他们拥有的一切,包括战后成为 3 个独立国家(立陶宛、波兰和俄罗斯)的一部分的 3 个独立房屋,以及自 13 世纪以来一直是德国的土地。 在犹太人开始宣传所谓的“大屠杀”并在 1970 年代初重新升级对德国人的仇恨之前,他们对犹太人的互动或想法很少。 犹太人不超过德国人口的 1%,因此许多德国人与犹太人几乎没有互动。 就个人而言,我认为犹太人是圣经中的民族,直到我 13 或 14 岁时才考虑过他们,我在学校结识了一些人,主流媒体开始不停地谈论他们。

    我在某处读到汉娜·赖奇飞往柏林,为希特勒提供离开柏林的航班,但他拒绝了。 我相信这就是那次飞行的目的。

    这是一张肯尼迪与 Wernher von Braun 的合影。

    https://www.pinterest.com/pin/321937073342676265/

    我最生动的早期记忆之一是肯尼迪的葬礼。 我当时 6 岁,我记得我和妈妈躺在地毯上时看到了他们的孩子和杰基。 相信大家都非常难过。 在那个年龄,我不认识共和党和民主党,但我的父母在 1960 年投票支持尼克松。我认为我的父母都会对过去几年肯尼迪发生的事情着迷,并对肯尼迪有非常积极的看法今天。

    这是一篇非常有趣的文章。 我没有这样想过,但媒体经常报道肯尼迪和肯尼迪的婚外情以及杰基随后与奥纳西斯的婚姻,从而抹黑了肯尼迪的名字。 我记得在肯尼迪遇刺后的几年里,我母亲对杰基的评价并不高。 当人们意识到他们对某人的想法可能已被作家操纵时,他们以后可能会修改自己的观点。

    • 谢谢: utu
  81. @Bardon Kaldian

    如果我们尝试权衡,赞成和反对,以色列参与肯尼迪暗杀的可能性,它在 2-5% 的范围内。

    你很慷慨。 我认为任何阴谋杀死肯尼迪的可能性都在 XNUMX% 到 XNUMX% 左右。 任何可能的阴谋都必须让李·哈维·奥斯瓦尔德(Lee Harvey Oswald)处于中心地位,因为他的参与是毫无疑问的。

    我认为以色列人对暗杀的可能性很低,甚至不值得考虑。

    • 回复: @Bardon Kaldian
  82. Druide 说:

    罗杰·斯通(Roger Stone)是另一位深州信息散布者,他的书名非常明确:他的论点是 LBJ 是杀害肯尼迪的幕后黑手。

    你还需要看看这样的“参考书目”有多大缺陷?

  83. Alden 说:
    @Pincher Martin

    我不看电视。 我喜欢阅读。 我最喜欢的作家是 Len Deighton 和 John LeCarre,他们写了那些没完没了的俄罗斯与英国冷战书籍。 我也喜欢真实的而非传统的历史,例如法国大革命中王位第五顺位继承人的角色。

    所以我非常喜欢谁杀了肯尼迪的类型。 他们非常有趣。

    在肯尼迪被枪杀后不久,DPD 警官蒂比特被一名 20 多岁、中等身高、黑发、尖下巴的白人男子枪杀。 一些作者声称蒂比特是一名 KKK 成员,他的职责是射杀奥斯瓦尔德,但奥斯瓦尔德首先射杀了他。 其他人声称奥斯瓦尔德被中央情报局、三K党、新纳粹分子、联邦调查局、特勤局、达拉斯警察、县治安官、州警察带走。 市议会成员和达拉斯市长。 射杀蒂比特的那个人是那天在城里跑来跑去的许多奥斯瓦尔德替补之一。

    Tibbitt 的指控是一种可怕的诽谤和诽谤。 寡妇应该起诉诽谤和诽谤。 那天,蒂比特和达拉斯的每一位执法人员都在寻找一个中等身高、黑发、尖下巴的白人,20 多岁。 蒂比特看见了一个,停下来问他。 并在工作中被谋杀。

    自由派指责蒂比特受暗杀中央委员会的委托,在刺客被捕并受到讯问之前杀死刺客。

    我注意到关于肯尼迪风格的一件事。 这些书都倾向于写书的年份,而不是 1963 年。

    1965年自由党支持卡斯特罗反美。 因此,右翼法西斯古巴难民杀死了肯尼迪,以报复没有入侵古巴杀死卡斯特罗并归还难民的财产。

    1968年,自由主义者反对越南战争。 因此中央情报局国务院和军方杀死了肯尼迪,因为肯尼迪计划从越南撤军

    1972年自由党反对尼克松总统。 因此尼克松的各种同伙杀死了肯尼迪。

    1980 年,年轻演员伍迪·哈里森 (Woody Harrelson) 出名。 原来他的父母都是罪犯,并且在德克萨斯州被定罪,肯尼迪在同一个州被杀。 因此哈里森的父母至少是他的父亲杀死了肯尼迪。

    1988 George H Bush, Regean's VP, a Republican is elected president. 自由主义者讨厌布什总统 1
    因此,一位自由派摄影师在德克萨斯图书存放处前购买了一张穿着灰色西装的普通白人的照片。 他是一个从未出现在 1963 年拍摄的照片中的人。
    但突然间,每个轻信的白痴都相信布什总统 1 号在外面监督行动。

    理论不断发展。 很快就会出版一本书,声称肯尼迪将把鸡奸、同性婚姻和对同性恋者的平权行动合法化。 通常的原教旨主义基督教偏执者杀死了他。

    尤其令人愉快的是,作者在肯尼迪遇害时想象跟踪奥斯瓦尔德在图书存放处的下落。 人们相信他同时在这里和无处不在的故事。

    这是一个理论。 肯尼迪(Kennedy)被非常薄的边缘选举产生。 经济很好。 但是由于猪湾和柏林墙肯尼迪的民意调查正在下降。 肯尼迪组织安排暗杀行动是为了在 1964 年的选举中获得同情票。 但刺客误杀了肯尼迪。

    我读了肯尼迪夫人和亚里士多德奥纳西斯杀了肯尼迪这样他们就可以结婚了,而不用让那个好天主教女人去拿离婚书。 非常有趣。

    我仍然喜欢阅读所有这些书。 就像我喜欢阅读一本好的 LeCarre 或 Deighton 书一样。

    • 回复: @Pincher Martin
  84. Anon[240]• 免责声明 说:

    1968 年,在新英格兰的一所精英大学,在尤金·麦卡锡(Eugene McCarthy)参选的强烈热情中,我成为了 RFK 的支持者。 那是什么感觉? 克里夫·罗伯逊在伟大的电影《神鹰的三天》中对反对中央情报局的罗伯特·雷德福的台词:“你即将成为一个非常孤独的人。”

  85. Iris 说:
    @James N. Kennett

    虽然有令人信服的证据表明以色列有杀害肯尼迪的动机,但他们实际上这样做的证据并不充分。

    唯一一个我们 100% 肯定积极和蓄意参与肯尼迪暗杀的人肯定是杰克鲁宾斯坦。 所以他的背景和行为非常重要。

    肯尼迪暗杀行动是一项复杂的行动,涉及大量的烟雾和镜子,以及几个付费的杀手。
    它因两个不可抗力事件而出轨:
    – 在 Grassy Knoll 前面的一次匆忙而显眼的爆头,以弥补从后面错过的爆头。
    – Oswald 很早就意识到他已经被设置为一个堕落的家伙,这使他逃离了他的集合点,并计划被蒂皮特警官处决。

    奥斯瓦尔德不应该让达拉斯警察局活着,但他做到了。
    有人不得不做 牺牲自己 通过杀死奥斯瓦尔德并接受打击,因此策划者保持匿名。 这个人就是杰克鲁宾斯坦。

    暗杀后的晚上,他去了犹太教堂,然后在两个“以色列记者“ 谁是 从未调查过 或由沃伦委员会命名。 晚上晚些时候,有人看到一个情绪激动的鲁比在一场“反犹太人”的极右翼集会上嘲笑。

    第二天,鲁比在一次精心执行的行动中夺走了奥斯瓦尔德的生命,时间由民主党内部的官员提供。
    仔细的准备包括自我保护和信号,例如在全国哀悼中,拿着奥斯瓦尔德并穿着白色西装的军官代替了醒目的夹克。

    鲁宾斯坦故意牺牲自己的生命不太可能是为了钱。
    当他的拉比在监狱里问他为什么杀死奥斯瓦尔德时,鲁宾斯坦回答说: 我为犹太人做的“。

    https://www.jta.org/2013/11/11/united-states/my-history-with-the-family-of-lee-harvey-oswalds-jewish-killer

    • 同意: Laurent Guyénot
    • 回复: @gay troll
    , @James N. Kennett
  86. @Skeptikal

    道格拉斯的书是荒谬的。 它基于这样的虚构,即肯尼迪不仅不是冷战战士,而且是一个致力于结束冷战的人。

    这是道格拉斯:

    肯尼迪拒绝“美国的战争武器强加给世界的美国和平”是对艾森豪威尔总统在他的告别演说中所确定的军工联合体的抵制行为。 艾森豪威尔在肯尼迪就职前三天警告说:“庞大的军事机构和大型军火工业的结合在美国的经验中是新的。 每个城市、每个州议会大厦、每个联邦政府办公室都感受到了经济、政治甚至精神上的全部影响……”

    据说一位总统即使在发现没有导弹缺口后仍然在 1961 年召开紧急国情咨文,要求国会提供补充资金,以资助美国和平时期从未见过的创纪录水平的国防预算.

    在 1960 年代后期越南大爆发之前,您是否看到了那个小大? 那就是肯尼迪的颠簸。 它是在和平时期完成的。

    肯尼迪是一位温和的政治家,以热情的冷战士的身份上任。 有大量证据表明,随着公职责任压在他身上,他开始缓和对苏联的立场,但没有可靠的证据表明他已经大转弯并着手结束冷战。

    但这就是道格拉斯要我们相信的杀死他的动机。

  87. Alden 说:
    @gay troll

    你把普雷斯科特·布什和他的儿子乔治·H·布什混淆了。

    • 回复: @Father O'Hara
  88. @Pincher Martin

    我知道你认为官方版本是真的,但是,我持怀疑态度。

    太多“可疑”的事情,有两个突出:灵丹妙药和 100 到 200 起非常、非常有争议的死亡(“自杀”、“车祸”、“心脏病发作”……及时)。

    我不相信孤独的枪手故事。

    谁杀了肯尼迪?

    谁没有?

    候选人太多。

    • 同意: Skeptikal
    • 回复: @Pincher Martin
  89. @Bardon Kaldian

    我相信它。 沃伦委员会的结论是正确的,即使它也有很多细节是错误的。

    这个案子也不是什么难事。 正如文森特·布格里奥西(Vincent Bugliosi)所指出的那样,许多人被判犯有谋杀罪并被关进死囚牢房,所依据的证据远远少于李·哈维·奥斯瓦尔德(Lee Harvey Oswald)是肯尼迪的刺客。 而且我什至不包括奥斯瓦尔德射杀蒂皮特的证据。

    至于蒂皮特警官的谋杀案,这是一个针对奥斯瓦尔德的公开案件,这就是为什么一些阴谋论者不得不编造一个奥斯瓦尔德分身在肯尼迪遇刺后跟随李的愚蠢故事。 我认为道格拉斯或塔尔博特——我忘了​​哪个——甚至在奥斯瓦尔德被捕时把分身放在电影院里。

    这些想法是聪明的、多疑的孩子不会相信的。

    • 同意: Dave Archer
    • 回复: @Bardon Kaldian
  90. Rocha 说:
    @Curmudgeon

    是新教徒将高利贷合法化并将货币问题私有化,他们必须篡夺合法的国王才能这样做。

    [更多]
    在他们建立英格兰银行的同一天,他们建立了有限的民主制度,这样公民就不能背弃所谓的代议制政府以他们的名义签订的债务。
    公民只是债务的抵押品。
    他们还引入了所得税,以便政府总是有钱连息偿还债务。
    公民投票支持他们对基于债务的金融体系的金融奴役。
    我建议你阅读科贝特的《英格兰和爱尔兰的新教改革史》,以了解英国人在宗教改革之前更富有、更健康。 它在 Kindle 上可用。

    • 回复: @Curmudgeon
  91. “与参议院外交关系委员会的参议员威廉·富布赖特一起,肯尼迪家族迫使美国犹太复国主义委员会(及其游说部门 AIPAC)注册为‘外国代理人’,这将大大降低其效率。”

    顺便说一句:考虑一下富布赖特参议员的“富布赖特基金会”发生了什么,这是为数不多的非常有价值的美国外交政策倡议之一。 如果今天复活,参议员富布赖特将很快再次因深州对他的国际和平计划所做的一切而绝望而死。

  92. @Alden

    是的,这太愚蠢了。 但我没有像你那样从中得到快乐。 谎言毁了生活。 看看因为加里森的调查,可怜的克莱肖发生了什么事? 加里森应该因为调查肖的渎职行为而被吊死。 这是邪恶的。

    相反,加里森被阴谋论者誉为英雄,直到他的运气耗尽,媒体和新奥尔良知道加里森和他真正发现的东西的人开始用他的废话来称呼他。 然后,甚至一些更负责任的阴谋论者也开始认为加里森可能走得太远了。

    但不是全部。 例如,马克·莱恩一直在加里森呆到最后。 几十年后,奥利弗·斯通(Oliver Stone)用一些神奇的好莱坞仙尘重振了加里森的声誉。

    • 回复: @Alden
  93. @Pincher Martin

    巧合的是,几天前我刚刚完成了对 Pravda 1000 JFK 文章的 2 多条评论,并惊讶地发现有几个聪明人订阅了“孤儿理论”。

    我不想重新点燃这个话题,但我总是想到,奥斯瓦尔德是唯一一个参与其中的人(否则必然会有阴谋),有很多事情没有加起来。

    没有特别的顺序:

    1) 杰克鲁比 (Jakob Rubenstein) 成为最爱国的美国人。

    2)奥斯瓦尔德死后影响了沃伦委员会。

    3)奥斯瓦尔德死后将媒体转向他自己是唯一的。

    4) \$20 邮购步枪,当摩萨德的“专家”用最好的步枪无法重复时。

    5)奥斯瓦尔德很容易成为前苏联的叛逃者,用于下意识的公共消费(本拉登)

    6) 尽管是“孤儿”,但政府仍然持有 50,000 份文件。

    7) “我只是个懦夫..”(前 Ruby 评论由被指控的罪犯本人)。

    8) 再次像本拉登一样立即认定为凶手。

    等等。 我不是肯尼迪专家,但多年来我已经阅读了 20 多本关于该主题的书籍,这些书籍大多是虚假的,但确实为批判性思维提供了素材。

    因此,如果有人能把我提出的几个不同的观点联系起来(还有更多),不要断定是谁干的,但这表明这只能是奥斯瓦尔德自己杀死肯尼迪,我还没有看到。

    干杯-

    • 回复: @Pincher Martin
  94. Art 说:
    @Alden

    如果您是白人并且受到平权行动的不利影响,并且您爱并钦佩肯尼迪和约翰逊,那么您就是个白痴。 不是白痴,而是白痴。

    是的——我既是白痴又是白痴——但不是尼安德特人!

    ps 只爱肯尼迪。

    ps 我们同意约翰逊。

  95. gay troll 说:
    @Pincher Martin

    实际上,我确实了解其中的区别; 这是无法区分的报价。 Consider this: in 1953, when his daddy was first elected to the Senate (from Connecticut), HW began drilling oil in Texas and moved his company to Houston in 1959. The Bush family had very strong Texas connections to Texas just like LBJ. 1988 年, 民族 发表了一篇文章,声称 HW Bush 在 1960 年代为中央情报局工作。 这是在他于 1967 年成为德克萨斯州的国会议员、后来的中央情报局局长、后来的副总统、后来的总统,最后是另一位总统的父亲之前。 当然,肯尼迪在德克萨斯州被暗杀,这是 LBJ 和 HW 的后院,而布什家族以及他们在中央情报局和以色列本身的知心好友一直是他去世的最大政治受益者。

    • 同意: annamaria
    • 回复: @Pincher Martin
  96. Ron Unz 说:
    @Pincher Martin

    * 上次我阅读 Unz 的文章时,他声称他还没有真正阅读过“Rise and Kill First”。

    好吧,你的记忆似乎在欺骗你。 毕竟,您参考了我将近一年前发表的 27,000 字(!)“摩萨德暗杀”文章,而 700 页的伯格曼书是我分析的绝对核心,封面甚至提供了主要图片。 事实上,在读完这本书后,我将摩萨德在肯尼迪暗杀案中扮演核心角色的可能性从一个可靠的可能性提高到了一个很大的可能性。

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-mossad-assassinations/

    作为一个小花絮,请考虑以下摘录:

    大卫·塔尔伯​​特(David Talbot)2007年极具影响力的书 兄弟 据透露,罗伯特·肯尼迪几乎从一开始就确信他的兄弟是在一场阴谋中被击倒的,但他保持沉默,告诉他的朋友圈他几乎没有机会追查和惩罚有罪的当事人,直到他自己到了白宫。 到 1968 年 XNUMX 月,他似乎即将实现这一目标,但在赢得关键的加州总统初选后不久就被刺客的子弹击倒。 合乎逻辑的假设是,他的死是由与他哥哥相同的因素策划的,他们现在正在采取行动保护自己免受先前罪行的后果。

    一个名叫 Sirhan Sirhan 的年轻巴勒斯坦人在现场开枪,很快被捕并被判犯有谋杀罪。 但塔尔博特强调,验尸官的报告显示致命子弹来自一个完全不同的方向,而声学记录证明发射的子弹数量远远超过所谓杀手的枪的容量。 如此确凿的证据似乎证明了一个阴谋。

    Sirhan 本人看起来很茫然和困惑,后来声称对事件没有任何记忆,Talbot 提到各种暗杀研究人员长期以来一直认为他只是情节中的一个方便的小人,也许是在某种形式的催眠或条件下行动。 几乎所有这些作家通常都不愿意注意到,选择一名巴勒斯坦人作为杀戮中的替罪羊似乎指向了某个明显的方向,但伯格曼最近的书也包含了一个重大的新启示。 就在 Sirhan 被摔倒在洛杉矶大使酒店宴会厅的地板上的同一时刻,另一名年轻的巴勒斯坦人正在以色列的摩萨德手中接受密集的催眠调节,计划暗杀巴解组织领导人亚西尔·阿拉法特; 尽管这一努力最终失败了,但这种巧合似乎超出了合理性的界限。

    • 回复: @Pincher Martin
  97. @Anonymousy

    富有的犹太人以强大的异教徒家庭为目标进行通婚,即特朗普的家庭。 这不是偶然的,而是在整个欧洲、西班牙、英国上演了一个世纪之久的计划。

  98. gay troll 说:
    @Iris

    Ruby 还询问了 FBI 线人是否想在 11 年 22 月 63 日在迪利广场“看烟花”。

    • 回复: @Iris
  99. 现在几乎不是这种 BS 的合适时机。 Guyenot 应该闭嘴到 20 月 XNUMX 日之后

  100. @Pincher Martin

    我明白了,我已经浏览了 Bugliosi(和其他人),他的案子对我来说仍然没有说服力。

    尽管如此,以色列的阴谋似乎极其微弱。 它取决于一件事——迪莫纳和肯尼迪对以色列领导人的强硬言论。 但是,肯尼迪的立场是真正反对扩散,大规模扩散核武器,这意味着苏联; 我并不是说他对以色列可能获得核武器无动于衷,但我认为,他知道其他人迟早也会得到它(印度、中国、巴基斯坦……)。 Unz & Guyenot 似乎认为他决心在迪莫纳镇压或制服以色列政府; 对我来说,他是一个经验丰富的政治家的职位——施加压力,看看它是否有效,如果是的话——好; 如果没有,那就试试别的吧。

    简单地说- Dimona & Israel 不是肯尼迪的“存在或不存在”。

    此外,虽然我没有对此进行广泛的研究,但在我看来,美国犹太人(以及大多数以色列人)实际上“爱上了”他,他的魅力、青春和魅力。 在最初的不安全感之后,艾森豪威尔、麦克阿瑟和其他开始欣赏他的技能和快速学习的人也是如此。

  101. @Timur The Lame

    你的八分真的不值一提。 它们是阴谋论者多年来传播的神话。

    1) Ruby 不爱国。 他是一个心烦意乱、智商低的人——对于一个犹太人来说是令人惊讶的——一旦有机会,他就会冲动行事。

    2)???

    3)???

    4) 所有发现的子弹碎片都明确指向奥斯瓦尔德的步枪,不包括所有其他武器。 所以除非你认为有人偷了奥斯瓦尔德的步枪并用它来杀死肯尼迪,你在说什么?

    5) 你是说任何有缺陷的人都不应该被判犯有政治暗杀罪,即使证据压倒性地指向他,因为这太“方便”了? 基于这个逻辑,我们是否要断然排除奥斯瓦尔德,无论证据表明他与犯罪的接近程度、机会、物证、拍摄角度、缺乏严重的不在场证明等,只是因为你觉得太方便了?

    6) 毫无意义。 我们有大量证据表明奥斯瓦尔德是凶手。 每次我们得到这些大量以前机密的信息时,阴谋论者都会兴奋一段时间,然后才发现现在有确凿的证据。

    7) 他要说什么? “我做的”? 他的兄弟和他的妻子在他被监禁时看到了李,他死后不久就说他们认为是他干的。 他的妻子说,如果李被不公正地关押在那个监狱里,她知道他会掀起一场抗议风暴。 相反,她说,他似乎奇怪地辞职了。 正是这种态度使她确信她的丈夫是有罪的。 多年后,在马克·莱恩的影响下,她改变了主意,但当时她认为自己的丈夫有罪。

    8) 不是那一刻,他们有一个目击者,一名男子手持步枪站在德克萨斯州存款大楼,他描述了李的样子。

    我不是肯尼迪专家,但多年来我已经阅读了 20 多本关于该主题的书籍,这些书籍大多是虚假的,但确实为批判性思维提供了素材。

    是的? 你读过哪些支持孤儿理论的书?

    那些相信阴谋论的人几乎从不读另一面。 他们的阅读习惯完全是争论的阴谋方面。

  102. @Laurent Guyénot

    富有的犹太人以强大的异教徒家庭为目标进行通婚,即特朗普的家庭。 这不是偶然的,而是在整个欧洲、西班牙、英国上演了一个世纪之久的计划。

    • 同意: JWalters
  103. @Laurent Guyénot

    Laurent, anon 以拖钓这个网站为生。 他应该被忽视。

  104. gay troll 说:

    Guyenot 先生,您如何为 LBJ 的清白辩护:

    根据法律,肯尼迪总统的尸检应该由达拉斯的法医进行,因为在法律上,根据德克萨斯州的法律,这起罪行是谋杀(暗杀总统不是 1963 年的联邦罪行)。 当肯尼迪的遗体仍在帕克兰医院时,当地官员通知在场的联邦官员,后者无法占有肯尼迪的尸体,直到已经在医院的达拉斯法医完成尸检。 尽管如此,在副总统的指示下,特勤局特工运送了一个棺材,在帕克兰医院的医生和工作人员试图阻止他们的时候,控制了肯尼迪的尸体(一些报道说是用枪指着的),将尸体放入棺材,将其放入救护车,并让救护车送往机场。 [...] 大约下午 2 点 15 分,枪击事件发生后不到两个小时,棺材被拖上空军一号的楼梯,挤过狭窄的飞机门,放在总统专机的后部,那里有座位必须拆除以腾出空间。 副总统约翰逊随后立即登机,但是,尽管杰奎琳·肯尼迪在飞机上,他还是将飞机的起飞时间推迟了近一个小时,直到一名联邦法官到达那里,他选择了一名联邦法官来主持就职宣誓。 然后他坚持让肯尼迪夫人从飞机的卧室出来,站在他旁边,因为他宣誓就职并拍照。”

    -兰斯·德黑文-史密斯, 美国的阴谋论, 德克萨斯大学出版社

    还有一个事实是,LBJ 的联邦随行人员“清洗了总统的豪华轿车,清除了豪华轿车座椅和地毯上的所有血迹,更换了所有弹痕累累的挡风玻璃和内部镀铬,从而摧毁了至关重要的证据。 […] 清洗是在公共场所和光天化日之下开始的,而豪华轿车仍在帕克兰医院。 暗杀当晚晚上 8:00,豪华轿车被货机运往华盛顿特区。”

    德哈文史密斯总结道:“约翰逊的参与可以被解释为有罪的间接证据,因为它暗示知道正面射击; 这也构成了妨碍司法公正和破坏死罪中的证据。”

    • 回复: @Walter
    , @Laurent Guyénot
  105. Skeptikal 说:
    @Skeptikal

    “只要绕过关于(不)工会成员加薪的法律。”

    抱歉,不,实际上,我认为是钢铁行业宣布的价格上涨,而不是工资上涨,RFK 然后让他们退缩了。

    长期罢工 IIR 的解决方案要求在两年或类似时间内既不增加价格也不增加工资。

  106. Observator 说:
    @Franz

    肯尼迪是 1940 年美国第一委员会的成员,与他的兄弟小乔、施莱弗中士、杰拉尔德福特、波特斯图尔特等人一起。 反对罗斯福将美国卷入与德国冲突的阴谋的中心是耶鲁大学和哈佛。 在第一次世界大战的惨败之后成长起来的那一代知识分子拒绝让他们的政府像他们的父亲一样牺牲自己的生命,以实现华盛顿对全球霸权的不懈追求。

    这样一来,该运动与下一代的反越学生运动非常相似。 美国第一学生活动家和后来的哥伦比亚广播公司记者埃里克·塞瓦雷德这样总结道:“我们开始厌恶‘爱国主义’这个词,我们认为它是贬义的,是一种廉价的奖章,可以用来装饰和证明一具尸体的正当性。” 1940 年,成千上万的学生在全国各地的校园里示威,支持不干涉欧洲最新的血腥权力斗争。 他们说,既然英国如此草率地选择宣战第二次欧洲战争,那么她必须为自己的愚蠢承担责任。 未来的美国大使、时任《耶鲁日报》主席的金曼布鲁斯特在一篇题为“我们站在这里”的社论中写道,美国人将“在大西洋的这一边抓住我们的机会……因为至少它为维护我们在美国关心的所有事情。”

    作为一名爱尔兰裔美国人,老约瑟夫·肯尼迪对英国毫无感情,并认为德国应该给她一个很好的打击,因为她在 1939 年以最脆弱的借口发动了一场新的欧洲战争。 就在敌对行动爆发前一周,张伯伦最亲密的顾问霍拉斯威尔逊爵士前往肯尼迪大使,向罗斯福总统发出紧急呼吁。 遗憾的是,在发生战争的情况下,英国明确地对波兰承担了义务,张伯伦现在绝望地转向罗斯福作为和平的最后希望。 他希望美国总统“向波兰人施加压力”,让他们重返与他们退出的德国的谈判。 但面对这个可能拯救欧洲和平的非凡机会,罗斯福拒绝利用他对波兰政权的影响力。 肯尼迪报告说,在那之后,首相失去了所有希望。 “这一切都是徒劳的,”张伯伦告诉肯尼迪,“这是令人恐惧的事情。 [W]e 无法拯救波兰人。 我们只能进行一场复仇战争,这将意味着整个欧洲的毁灭。”

    • 谢谢: Iris, Franz, Laurent Guyénot
    • 回复: @Franz
  107. 你是你父亲的魔鬼,你会按照你父亲的愿望去做。 他从一开始就是一个杀人犯,他不相信真理; 因为真理不在他里面。 当他说谎时,他是在说他自己的:因为他是一个骗子,也是他的父亲。 约翰福音 8:44

    通过欺骗,我们将发动战争

  108. Miro23 说:
    @utu

    许多德国人对战争感到内疚。 但他们没有解释我们共同的真正内疚——我们失去了。

    新的世界大战不同。 以色列 Zio-Reich (NWO) 已经入侵(并且现在主宰)盎格鲁世界(美国/加拿大/英国/澳大利亚),并且对西欧拥有维希式的控制。 而且他们现在在东方也有自己的战争(齐奥帝国与俄罗斯和中国)以及这场赌博如何运作的问题。

  109. 您可能希望将 Howie Carr 的“肯尼迪巴比伦:丑闻与堕落的世纪”添加到您的阅读列表中。 卡尔是波士顿人,对这些人有着深刻的理解。

  110. @gay troll

    Consider this: in 1953, when his daddy was first elected to the Senate (from Connecticut), HW began drilling oil in Texas and moved his company to Houston in 1959. The Bush family had very strong Texas connections to Texas just like LBJ. 1988 年,《国家报》发表了一篇文章,声称 HW Bush 在 1960 年代为中央情报局工作。 这是在他于 1967 年成为德克萨斯州的国会议员、后来的中央情报局局长、后来的副总统、后来的总统,最后是另一位总统的父亲之前。 当然,肯尼迪是在德克萨斯州被暗杀的,LBJ 和 HW 的后院

    所以呢?

    其中大部分是几十年前任何熟悉 LBJ 和布什的人所知道的最薄的传记背景信息。 它没有提供动机 *任何* 犯罪,更不用说证明LBJ和布什家族在世纪犯罪上相互勾结。 这甚至不能证明他们有过认真的关系。

    10,000,000 年,近 1963 名美国人居住在得克萨斯州。其中许多人在石油行业工作。 许多其他人在国防相关行业工作。 这很常见。 所以没有理由相信布什和约翰逊之间有任何认真的工作关系。

    布什家族一直是他去世的最大政治受益者,还有他们在中央情报局和以色列本身的知心朋友。

    那是胡说八道。 甚至没有任何证据表明布什家族从肯尼迪的死中受益。 要将布什家族称为“最大的单一政治受益者”,我不得不怀疑你的头在哪里。

    在肯尼迪去世后的十年里,中央情报局发现自己承受着越来越大的公众压力。 那么他们是如何受益的呢? 你是否幻想肯尼迪在猪湾事件后关于粉碎中央情报局的沮丧评论代表了严肃的政策? 如果他说这句话,他肯定做的很慢。

    至于以色列,它比 1963 年的肯尼迪还要担心大约一万件其他事情。

    • 回复: @gay troll
  111. Skeptikal 说:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    “简单地说,迪莫纳和以色列不是肯尼迪的“成或不成”的人。”

    当然。 但他们很可能是以色列的。

    本古里安的行为表明他们确实如此。

    • 回复: @Bardon Kaldian
  112. Skeptikal 说:
    @Walter

    我对希兰的书的回忆只是他推断暴徒提供了一种或多种所需的武器。

    事实上,如果希兰所说的是真的——他后来才意识到一定是为达拉斯而交付的武器——它会提供证据,或者它会暗示,行动是以某种方式协调的,以至于玩家不知道他们被招募执行一小部分的戏剧的大情节。

    • 回复: @Walter
  113. 几个街区外的仓库在顶层发生了一次致命的罢工——奥斯瓦尔德本应参加 1964 年奥运会——射击项目的纯金奖。 有趣的是——山丘上的那些人——为什么德克萨斯州州长康纳利在宣誓仪式上对 LB 约翰逊“眨眼”? 也许答案在于 Diamond Dallas Page 或 JR Ewing 或古巴午餐?

    • 回复: @dimples
  114. Anonymous[328]• 免责声明 说:

    例如,没有证据反对理查德赫尔姆斯,当他在 1975 年被问及奥斯瓦尔德与中央情报局的联系时,他正确回答:不如问 ONI!

    赫尔姆斯曾经是可靠来源的想法 在任何东西上 简直可笑。 正如中央情报局内部文件中的文件所记录的那样,联邦调查局正在向奥斯瓦尔德付款,中央情报局一直在密切关注他。

  115. gay troll 说:
    @Pincher Martin

    让政府解密他们的肯尼迪文件。 否则滚蛋。

    数以千计的肯尼迪文件仍然保密。 根据国家档案馆的最新数据,共有 15,834 份 JFK 文件完全或部分保密,其中大部分由中央情报局和联邦调查局持有。 由于特朗普总统 2017 年 2021 月的命令,这些文件最早要到 XNUMX 年 XNUMX 月才会公开。

    https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/11/22/jfk-what-the-cia-hides/

    当然,特朗普(或拜登)会像一个好傀儡一样再次抨击解密。

    • 回复: @Pincher Martin
    , @Niebelheim
  116. anon[105]• 免责声明 说:

    Re 103 及其有趣的一点是,以色列还试图对刺客进行催眠编程。 中央情报局告诉道格拉斯·瓦伦丁,推诿是他们进行秘密行动的两个绝对先决条件之一。 对中央情报局来说,推诿意味着能够责怪别人。

    在 911 上,您看到以色列的镂空在屋顶上竖立,倾倒发动机短舱,并在建筑物上空蜂拥而至,只是为了偷偷回家并穿着滑稽的 911 服装嘲笑您。 这是否证明以色列做到了? 不,但事实证明他们有帮助。

    所以我们了解了以色列的超级双重秘密超编程项目。 但我们没有看到任何证据表明他们真的可以成功。 巧合? 当然不是。 你可以看到这是以色列做的!!1! 或者,您可以将其视为 CIA 签名否认在行动。 亚伯拉罕·博尔登的证词可以帮助你做出决定。 问问自己,以色列如何能够在全国范围内传播替代肯尼迪家族的热门歌曲,并将一名注意到这一点的特勤局特工制度化。 我们知道中央情报局在需要时是如何做到的——以色列是如何做到的? 他们如何愚弄中央情报局以实现它?

  117. @Skeptikal

    我怀疑肯尼迪是否会将 Dimona 的争议视为成败的事情。 我认为,他对伊朗的态度会比奥巴马和克里更加和解,尤其是在第二任期内。 Max,他会将以色列的核计划延长至 2-3 年。

    • 同意: Pincher Martin
    • 不同意: Iris
    • 回复: @Skeptikal
  118. Iris 说:
    @gay troll

    Ruby 还曾询问 FBI 线人是否想在 11 年 22 月 63 日在迪利广场“看烟花”

    的确。 尽管总统于 22 年 1963 月 XNUMX 日被暗杀,但 Ruby 和 FBI 线人 Bob Vanderslice 之间的互动并未正式转达给 FBI 直到三月1977。

    红宝石也 在调查员之前知道s 假的亲卡斯特罗组织的名称(古巴公平竞争) Oswald 参与了新奥尔良的活动,并在深夜的肯尼迪会议上被拍到在电视上纠正并向达拉斯 DA 亨利韦德提供这个名字。

    心灵感应 魔术子弹 据称受伤的肯尼迪,然后是康诺利,没有从后者身上恢复。 在造成了如此多的伤口和骨折之后,它被发现在一个 原本状态不久,在繁忙的帕克兰医院的担架上,没有丢失任何金属颗粒 在杰克鲁比经过之后. 他后来被 WH 记者塞思·坎托(Seth Kantor)认出。

    入狱几个月后, 杰克鲁比被拍摄直接指责“现在在办公室的人”(LBJ) 是对肯尼迪遇刺负责的人。

    • 谢谢: gay troll
    • 回复: @Alden
    , @Pincher Martin
  119. @Pincher Martin

    事实上,我从伯格曼和奥斯特洛夫斯基的著作中走出来,相信以色列人没有能力或意愿将他们的杀戮力量投射到美国,更不用说在美国领土上实施复杂的阴谋了。

    然而李·哈维·奥斯瓦尔德做到了? 也许你不是在争论沃伦委员会的解释,不过……

    以色列并不是单独行动。 摩萨德的组织精干而卑鄙,比中央情报局小几个数量级。 但这并不是因为它们在某种程度上更有效或更高效。 他们只是有一个由有影响力的当地犹太人组成的全球网络可以合作。 奥斯特洛夫斯基称摩萨德的犹太帮手为“sayanim”。 然而,指出这种明显的利益冲突是“反犹太主义”。

    Ron Unz 谈到了肯尼迪在谋杀摩萨德和有组织犯罪中所扮演的角色。 杰克鲁比(又名鲁宾斯坦)是个黑帮。 20 世纪的有组织犯罪主要由意大利人和犹太人(例如 Lucky Luciano、Meyer Lansky)主导。 没有其他种族暴徒接近。 这些犹太暴徒资助了早期的色情产业(例如深喉由暴徒资助)并建造了拉斯维加斯,他们与以色列有着密切的联系(这一趋势一直持续到今天,尤其是在苏联解体之后)。 无论您是黑手党还是儿童掠夺者,回归权都是逃避法律的简单方法。 查一下。

    我不相信以色列曾经考虑过让一些人飞来杀死肯尼迪。 但罗恩指出的是中央情报局关键人物(((有组织的犯罪世界)))和以色列国之间的可疑利益重叠,正如解释的那样,几乎可以肯定,以色列国与上述两个团体有很多联系早些时候。

    • 回复: @Pincher Martin
  120. @Ron Unz

    罗恩——

    好吧,你的记忆似乎在欺骗你。 毕竟,你引用了我将近一年前发表的 27,000 字(!)“摩萨德暗杀”文章,而 700 页的伯格曼书是我分析的绝对核心,封面甚至提供了主要图片。 事实上,在读完这本书之后,我将摩萨德在肯尼迪暗杀案中扮演核心角色的可能性从一个可靠的可能性提高到了一个很大的可能性。

    我在去年 XNUMX 月读到了你的文章,当时我最后一次接触到肯尼迪遇刺这个话题。 您当时在其中一篇文章中粗略地提到了“Rise and Kill First”。 我相信你写了一个朋友向你提到了这本书,但你还没有读过。 我浏览了你的文章,并写下了你提到的所有书籍的清单。 你一月份的文章发表时,我显然没有看到。

    无论如何,我很高兴看到你读过它。 因为它在任何细节上都不支持你在这里提出的关于以色列与肯尼迪暗杀事件有关的论点——你一月份的评论似乎很欣赏这一点。

    阅读伯格曼的书,发现以色列多年来的暗杀事件数量众多,但质量却不多。 我在那本书中读到的暗杀事件中,没有一个能比得上以色列在 1963 年在得克萨斯州完成暗杀肯尼迪所需的行动细节。甚至没有一个能接近。 伯格曼和奥斯特洛夫斯基都表示,以色列不喜欢在美国领土上开展业务,并尽可能避免杀害美国公民,例如让阿拉法特飞往中东目的地的美国飞行员。

    奥斯特洛夫斯基的两本书比伯格曼的书要黑暗得多,伯格曼的书通常读起来像一本长长的摩萨德招募小册子。 但在奥斯特洛夫斯基的著作中,他没有暗示摩萨德杀死了肯尼迪。 事实上,他甚至提到摩萨德教它的新兵关于肯尼迪遇刺事件(带有地图和图纸),他们的说法是一个阴谋杀死了他,如果他们是幕后黑手的话,这将是一个下一级的狗屎。

    奥斯特洛夫斯基确实与以色列有关的一次美国总统暗杀未遂事件是乔治·H·W·布什(George HW Bush),但他所描述的并不复杂。 根据奥斯特洛夫斯基的说法,摩萨德训练了一小撮阿拉伯人来做这种肮脏的行为,但摩萨德内部的派系主义(奥斯特洛夫斯基是其中的主要部分)在进行尝试之前就暴露了它,因此阿拉伯人被以色列人带入了沙漠,射击并掩埋。 鉴于摩萨德在欧洲的影响力更大,该计划还要求在西班牙而不是美国暗杀布什。

    因此,即使我们相信奥斯特洛夫斯基的话,他也没有描述在美国土地上进行的复杂行动,而是描述了一个相当简单的任务,即阿拉伯人被训练去欧洲执行任务——甚至未能将其付诸实施。

    奥斯特洛夫斯基关于摩萨德的书比较黑暗,但它们也表明它是一个派系分裂的组织,它搞砸了无数次行动,并且在执行比要求它在 1963 年在德克萨斯州暗杀肯尼迪肯尼迪的任务更简单的任务时遇到了麻烦。

    罗恩,这些书根本没有向读者展示你声称它们应该展示的东西。

    • 回复: @Ron Unz
  121. @Wyatt

    尼克松在镍草行动期间负责,这使以色列能够保留 1967 年被盗的土地。你会说镍草“阻碍”了以色列人吗?

    • 回复: @GeneralRipper
  122. Walter 说:
    @Skeptikal

    这也是我在书中读到的。 然而还有很多书里没有的。 希兰在书中所说的和没有在书中所说的与许多其他来源相吻合。 他还谈到了霍法和施里兰的导师之间的达拉斯,在其他地方他描述了动机和能力以及既定的方法。 包括如果你不做你必须做的事情会发生什么……发生在你和你的家人身上……挂在臀部的肉钩上,慢慢地被折磨致死,然后把它绑在鲍比身上。 这是有争议的,但是从虚假信息中筛选出整个历史语料库,这很清楚——吉姆·道格拉斯增加了很多,LBJ 的女朋友(LBJ,她说,谋杀了他们的儿子)增加了她 2 美分的价值……真正的成功是一份意大利工作。 犹太暴徒当然也参与其中——一切都被划分得如此之大,以至于没人能说出来。 在那些日子里,沃尔特有一个朋友听到了 1965-66 框架为犹太暴徒工作的事情——一切都与意大利人有关。 但这不是他们的主意,只是他们想要并擅长的工作。

    然而这真的不重要——他们得到了他们该死的炸弹,现在可以勒索任何人。 “喂,伙计,你怎么会遭受恐怖袭击?” 这是旧的安检程序……就像 911。就像底特律的旧时光……只是更大。

    当然,杰弗里也做了他的部分,讨厌的照片! 我想知道杰夫整容后会是什么样子。 他没有自杀,他突然出现了。

    我的朋友,Best 2 U & Peace,这是一段神秘的历史。 在这里,我们坐在难以言喻的悬崖上。 知道我们是如何到达这里的很好,但不能改变我们自己之外的任何事情。 这取决于命运,取决于傻瓜和圣徒,骗子和变态者,以及完全妄想的意识形态的真正信徒。

  123. anon[314]• 免责声明 说:

    Pincher Martin 来这里是为了执行 CIA 备忘录 1035-960,为 Gina 下垂的屁股拯救一天! 请注意他对坚果的调用,根据中央情报局的指示对异议进行病态化。 阴谋的几率为 3-5%,即¶ 4(c)! 家庭手工业产生了很多理论,那就是¶ 3(b/5)! 屈从于可笑的沃伦委员会,那是¶ 4(a)! 这一切都是作为没有支持的口号为dimbulbs完成的,对于政府工作来说已经足够好了。

    CIA 的核心能力是将犯罪例行公事化,因此即使是像 Pincher Martin 这样的 ASVAB 豁免人员也可以帮助揭发家族的珍宝。 可悲的是,对于初级间谍学员平彻和他在手淫方面的功绩徽章,实际称职的安全部门已经更新了中央情报局的综合起诉书并准备好了。 俄罗斯。 中国。 伊朗。 马来西亚。 古巴。 火鸡。 南非。 巴基斯坦。 现在他们都有 CTOC 来起诉它。 他们让 SCO 有一个真正的导弹差距来执行它。

    中央情报局将成为一个闷烧的熔岩天坑。 美国将是自由的。

    • 同意: Peripatetic Itch
    • 回复: @Alden
  124. JWalters 说:
    @sarz

    完全同意。 而且这部纪录片很棒。 它侧重于一些最不可否认、最令人信服的证据,这些证据彻底摧毁了官方故事,并且以相对紧凑、易于消化的形式做到了这一点。

    对于可能对肯尼迪遇刺事件不熟悉的年轻读者,对证据进行更广泛的调查,包括许多链接,在
    “战争奸商和肯尼迪暗杀”
    https://warprofiteerstory.blogspot.com/p/war-profiteers-and-jfk-assassination.html

  125. Gulnare 说:
    @Gulnare

    以色列沙米尔:

    (……)“当犹太人长期从事这件事时,以色列国已经将暗杀变成了大规模生产。 全世界有成千上万的名字,成千上万的被杀、被诽谤、被毁的人。 这是一个犹太国家的固有问题:它不可能不同。 “犹太传统是猖獗的民族中心主义和 非人化 外人的热情几乎无法超越”,——埃德赫尔曼在他的《市场的胜利》中写道。

    https://www.unz.com/ishamir/the-assassins-are-back/

  126. Walter 说:
    @gay troll

    好吧,每个人都知道,故意破坏谋杀证据本身就是重罪,事后从犯。 LBJ提前知道的证据……

    • 谢谢: gay troll
    • 回复: @Dave Archer
  127. Alden 说:
    @Pincher Martin

    哦,是的,是的。 克莱肖被毁了。 他被捕后被指控破产并因这些指控而彻底破产。 我忘了他。

    Clay Shaw 是一个 60 多岁的高个子、白发苍苍的白人男子。 加里森声称,在他从俄罗斯回来后的某个时间,在他杀死肯尼迪之前,有人看到奥斯瓦尔德在密西西比州与一个高大的白发白人老人交谈。 这是对奥斯瓦尔德的指控。 陪审团花了大约 30 分钟裁定他无罪。 然后加里森再次向他发起进攻。

    还不如指控我祖父在某个地方与奥斯瓦尔德或任何中等身高、瘦黑头发的年轻白人交谈。

    好吧,加里森是一个自由主义者,而自由主义者本身就是邪恶的。 这部电影很糟糕。 有几句台词抱怨你的妻子角色总是很糟糕。 应该完全消除她的部分。

    最糟糕的是驻军总和。 关于暗杀的幕后黑手是谁或什么以及是谁干的,没有一个连贯的陈述。

    20 分钟的“有一个阴谋,但我们不知道谁在其中” “ Clay Shaw 是一个有罪的阴谋者 证明他住在奥斯瓦尔德长大的新奥尔良。 进一步的证据是,Shaw 是一个高大的白发老人,而且有人看到奥斯瓦尔德在密西西比州与一位高大的白发老人交谈。”

    Mark Levin aka Lane 是 1950 年代 60 年代标准的 commie 犹太律师,来自 Noo Yawk 的一个犹太移民社区。 布鲁克林学院,当时它是美国青年共产主义联盟的总部。 加入共产主义全国律师联盟。

    从 1966 年的 Rush to Judgment 到他去世,Levin aka Lane 只是另一个犹太共产主义骗子,转移人们对冷战者 JFK 被一名自称共产主义叛逃到俄罗斯的人杀害的事实,他的妻子是一名俄罗斯妻子,他的家人住在佩恩斯的家。 Paynes 是共产主义的托洛茨基贵格会,与共产主义贵格会组织有关,该组织养育了安吉拉·戴维斯并支付了她的大学教育和博士学位。

    整个谁杀了肯尼迪的流派开始于像马克莱文(又名莱恩)这样的共产主义者,他将注意力从奥斯瓦尔德 11 岁时自称的共产主义转移到俄罗斯。

    正如奥斯瓦尔德本人告诉人们的那样; 当他住在共产主义的犹太移民布鲁克林时,正是“老犹太女士”在他的布鲁克林地铁站分发了关于释放罗森伯格和托洛茨基与斯大林的传单,这使他转变为共产主义。

    但是因为莱文又名莱恩,容易上当的白痴仍然相信美国政府的每个机构,包括邮政服务联合起来杀死肯尼迪。

    肯尼迪遇害的那天,我的一位共产主义大学教授在肯尼迪去世前宣布,肯尼迪叛逃者奥斯瓦尔德并没有真正杀死肯尼迪。 大约上午 11 点,课程开始 PST。 肯尼迪去世时中部标准时间下午 1 点。 掩饰奥斯瓦尔德是共产主义者并指责每个美国政府机构的行为始于肯尼迪去世的那一刻。 我和其他大学的学生交谈过。 同样的事情,尽管大多数共产主义教授等到谋杀案发生后的一周。

    我的两个人生指导是谁受益,不要听他说什么,看他做什么。

    这是从肯尼迪之死中受益的人。 LBJ 美国犹太人、自由主义者、黑人、廉价劳动力的资本主义养猪进口商和整个反白人联盟。

    看看年表。 63 年 64 月,LBJ 成为总裁。 65 年春天,除白人外,所有人都享有公民权利。 1968、资本主义猪版天堂,无限非白人移民行为。 XNUMX年平权行动凶猛强制执行的平权行动法获得通过。

    另一方面,肯尼迪以 10925 年 6 月 1961 日的第 XNUMX 号行政命令通过了第一个平权行动令。这是肯尼迪与 LBJ、尼克松和卡特一样反对白人的积极明确和现有证据。 哪位总统主持了美国白人的毁灭并不重要。 肯尼迪遇害根本没有影响国内事务。 外交事务,杀戮确实使以色列受益。 还有卡斯特罗。 既没有帮助也没有阻碍俄罗斯或中国。

    特朗普也赞成平权行动。 他在 2015 年被问及。​​他的第一句话是“我喜欢平权行动”,他接着解释了为什么他喜欢平权行动。

    自 1948 年杜鲁门整合军队以来,每一位总统都是美国白人的激进主义敌人。

  128. Hibernian 说:
    @Timur The Lame

    为肯尼迪家族感到难过就像为洛克菲勒家族感到难过一样。

  129. Hibernian 说:
    @Alden

    罗斯福和那个俄克拉荷马印第安人。

    查尔斯·柯蒂斯(Charles Curtis)是堪萨斯人,他是 胡佛的 副总裁。

    • 谢谢: Alden
  130. JWalters 说:
    @gay troll

    有压倒性的证据表明,伦敦金融家集团(主要是犹太人)从 1800 年代开始控制了美国的主要银行、商业、媒体和政治活动,并在今天保持这种控制。 通过控制政客,他们控制了中央情报局和军队。 以色列是他们的项目之一,还有所谓的“反恐战争”和 9/11 作为启动器。 证据被列出,有许多参考资料和链接,在
    “战争奸商和以色列银行”
    https://warprofiteerstory.blogspot.com/p/war-profiteers-and-israels-bank.html

    我特别建议查看
    “大红龙或伦敦金融大国”
    https://ia801200.us.archive.org/17/items/LondonMoneyPowerGreatRedDragonWoolfolk1890/London%20Money%20Power%20Great%20Red%20Dragon%20Woolfolk%201890.pdf

    • 谢谢: gay troll
  131. 那么,谁让 JFK 看起来不是从正面开枪,谁让 RFK 看起来像是从后面射中头部 [15 发子弹中的 8 发子弹]?

    60 年过去了,所有的罪犯要么死了,要么仍在我们中间行走……

    为什么没有人去追求 Bliar 或 Buhs……?

    [没有错别字]

    哦,等等……,TPTB……

  132. @Bardon Kaldian

    我明白了,我已经浏览了 Bugliosi(和其他人),他的案子对我来说仍然没有说服力。

    脱脂? Bugliosi 的书是我们所拥有的关于 JFK 暗杀的最全面的书籍。 它是由一位在审理刑事案件方面拥有丰富经验的律师撰写的,他还碰巧在 1980 年代在英国审理了一个针对奥斯瓦尔德的精心模拟案件,这仍然是我们对 LHO 的审判可能看起来像的唯一严肃的例子.

    他的书值得略读。 它值得仔细阅读。

    尽管如此,以色列的阴谋似乎极其微弱。 它取决于一件事——迪莫纳和肯尼迪对以色列领导人的强硬言论。 但是,肯尼迪的立场是真正反对扩散,大规模扩散核武器,这意味着苏联; 我并不是说他对以色列可能获得核武器无动于衷,但我认为,他知道其他人迟早也会得到它(印度、中国、巴基斯坦……)。 Unz & Guyenot 似乎认为他决心在迪莫纳镇压或制服以色列政府; 对我来说,他是一个经验丰富的政治家的职位——施加压力,看看它是否有效,如果是的话——好; 如果没有,那就试试别的吧。

    我认为肯尼迪关心核扩散,不想看到以色列拥有核武器。 不仅仅是苏联。 肯尼迪甚至不希望法国拥有核武器。 他觉得,在我看来,如果像以色列这样的小国拥有核武器,那么防扩散精灵可能会被从瓶子里释放出来。

    我还认为本古里安担心美国在这个问题上的压力。

    但是,从这些常见的日常政治问题跳到暗杀,就是跳过本古里安除了暗杀之外的一千个不同的步骤,以挫败肯尼迪的意愿。

    一方面,1960 年美国犹太人投票支持肯尼迪的比例高于罗马天主教徒(80% 对 73%)。 肯尼迪也知道这一点。 他告诉本·古里翁(Ben-Gurion),他欠美国犹太人,他这样做了。 因此存在潜在的国内压力。 那是戈尔达·梅厄当时的建议。 只要告诉肯尼迪,我们犹太人并没有损害我们的安全,并敢于让他为此做点什么。

    以色列人还可以通过监管和官僚方式逃避肯尼迪的意愿。 肯尼迪经常对自己的官僚作风感到惊讶。 他的目的经常被挫败。 为什么假设这种情况不会再发生?

    只要以色列对他们追求核武器保持沉默,肯尼迪会做什么? 当时美国对以色列的军事援助很少。

  133. Hibernian 说:
    @Old and Grumpy

    基本上制度化了耶稣是犹太人的东西。

    有点像教皇是天主教徒。

  134. @gay troll

    让政府解密他们的肯尼迪文件。 否则滚蛋。

    正如我已经告诉过你的,这无关紧要。 即使他们解密了所有内容,你仍然会相信同样愚蠢的东西。

    • 回复: @gay troll
  135. Alden 说:
    @Iris

    杰克·鲁比 (Jack Ruby) 十几岁时就是一名罪犯,是一名黑手党有组织的犯罪同伙,他在全球电视上谋杀了奥斯瓦尔德。他不是我们所说的可靠证人。 他是黑手党有组织的犯罪逃税者,皮条客,枪手,毒贩,敲诈勒索,卑鄙的黑手党罪犯。

    杀死奥斯瓦尔德是一种政治罪行。 但 Ruby 不是 Vera Figner* 或 John Wilkes Booth 的政治杀手。 他是一个不被相信的普通罪犯

    *投掷炸死沙皇的炸弹。 沙皇高级官员的女儿。 嬉皮士改革者上了大学就成了自由主义者。 一个进步的

  136. JWalters 说:
    @anon

    伦敦的一群金融家是一只拥有许多触角的强大金融章鱼的头目。 请在此线程中查看我的评论 #140
    https://www.unz.com/article/remember-the-kennedys/#comment-4329378

  137. @Iris

    据称伤害肯尼迪,然后是康诺利的心灵感应魔法子弹没有从后者身上恢复。 在造成了如此多的伤口和骨折后,在杰克鲁比经过后不久,在繁忙的帕克兰医院的担架上发现它处于原始状态,没有丢失任何金属颗粒。 他后来被 WH 记者塞思·坎托(Seth Kantor)认出。

    不对。 停止使用 Oliver Stone 电影作为您的资源。

    “原始子弹”是阴谋迷信者之间传播的又一个谎言。 一个人可以亲自去看看子弹,看看它是不是一个谎言。 子弹显然是从两个角度压扁的。 子弹只有一个角度看起来很原始。 毫不奇怪,这是阴谋论在兜售他们的废话时喜欢展示的角度。

    这颗子弹的枪托对你来说看起来很原始吗?

    https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwhokilledjfk.net%2Fmagic_bullet_files%2Fimage002.gif&f=1&nofb=1

    子弹没有被严重破坏,只是因为它的速度首先被肯尼迪喉咙的软组织减慢,然后导致它翻滚,从而以一个侧面角度进入康纳利的背部,然后它击中了他的肋骨(进一步减慢了它的速度),然后离开他的身体并击中康纳利的手腕。

    如果子弹首先以初速击中康纳利的手腕,坚硬的骨头就会将子弹击碎。 碰巧的是,子弹被压扁了,因为它只是在开始翻滚后才击中康纳利。

    你的其他主张同样是胡扯。

    • 回复: @Iris
    , @gay troll
  138. Alden 说:
    @Father O'Hara

    哈哈

    英俊的墨西哥人乔治·布什是乔治·布什总统 1 世的孙子、布什总统 2 世的侄子和参议员普雷斯科特·布什的曾孙。 真正的美国贵族,与筹集资金并实际建造第一条美国铁路、巴尔的摩和俄亥俄州的家庭有联系,并拥有大量的美国运通和肯珀保险。 在其他连接中。

  139. gay troll 说:
    @Pincher Martin

    这对你来说是一个巨大的假设。 如果你说的是真的,那为什么不解密呢? 中央情报局对肯尼迪之死隐瞒了什么? 是什么赋予他们隐藏它的权利? 如果他们真的想结束很多阴谋论,他们可以简单地解密。 但是,当然,我们可能会留下一个阴谋真相。

    我不“相信愚蠢的东西”,我努力理解我的政府禁止我理解的事情。 这是一件完全理性的事情。

    现在就像我说的,滚开,你这个可悲的恐怖辩护者。

    • 回复: @Pincher Martin
  140. Ron Unz 说:
    @Pincher Martin

    我在去年 XNUMX 月读了你的文章,当时我最后一次接触到肯尼迪遇刺这个话题……当你一月份的文章出来时,我显然没有看到。

    好吧,考虑到您在最早的评论中特别提到了我的“摩萨德暗杀”文章,我错误地认为您实际上已经意识到了这一点。

    奥斯特洛夫斯基的两本书比伯格曼的书要黑暗得多,伯格曼的书通常读起来像一本长长的摩萨德招募小册子。 但在奥斯特洛夫斯基的著作中,他没有暗示摩萨德杀死了肯尼迪。

    我无法相信你是多么荒谬的天真。 你真的认为摩萨德教官经常向他们的新兵吹嘘“我们杀了肯尼迪!” 如果奥斯特洛夫斯基以某种方式怀疑这一点,你真的认为他会把它包括在他的书中吗? 还是美国出版商会发行它? 根据伯格曼的说法,摩萨德领导层决定杀死奥斯特洛夫斯基,但被他们的政治上级否决了。 他们获得了奥斯特洛夫斯基手稿的副本,如果他向全世界宣布摩萨德杀死了肯尼迪(和 RFK),也许会做出不同的决定。

    奥斯特洛夫斯基确实与以色列有关的一次美国总统暗杀未遂事件是乔治·H·W·布什(George HW Bush),但他所描述的并不复杂。

    令人着迷的是,您显然接受了以色列/摩萨德计划因反对贷款担保而杀死布什总统的说法,但无法想象他们可能会因为肯尼迪坚决拒绝以色列发展核武器而杀死他。 就个人而言,核武器似乎比贷款担保更重要。

    有人读过伯格曼的书,发现以色列多年来的暗杀事件数量很多,但质量却不多……伯格曼和奥斯特洛夫斯基都表示,以色列不喜欢在美国领土上行动,避免杀害美国公民

    正如我在很长的文章中指出的那样,伯格曼的众多漏洞和他非凡的沉默对我来说似乎非常可疑。 你知道他特别解释说他的 700pp 书是在严格的以色列审查下写成的吗? 你真的相信以色列政府审查员会很乐意让他写关于摩萨德暗杀美国人和西欧人,包括高级政府官员,甚至美国总统的文章? 你看起来是个特别容易上当受骗的家伙。

    既然你现在说你从来没有读过我一年前关于这个主题的长篇文章,我强烈建议你应该这样做:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-mossad-assassinations/

    • 回复: @Pincher Martin
  141. Guyenot 先生的《从耶和华到锡安》是一位伟大的历史学家的著作。 但他关于肯尼迪和 9/11 的书不在同一个班级。 我都拥有,我都读过,事实上我又在读前者。 我曾希望作者能在肯尼迪和特朗普之间画出一些相似之处,但我没有找到类似的东西。 为什么两党有这么多负责任的人无视选举的明显舞弊行为? 我的猜测是特朗普知道的太多了,但他不能被杀,因为后果太大了。 也许他知道的太多了,如果他不保持沉默,他可能会破坏双头垄断。 例如,也许他知道杰弗里·爱泼斯坦是怎么死的,谁可能对此负责……比如说,比尔·克林顿。 我只是推测,但有很多事情没有被告知。 自然。

    • 回复: @Skeptikal
    , @Laurent Guyénot
  142. @Fallingwater

    然而李·哈维·奥斯瓦尔德做到了?

    两者远非相似。

    1)他没有逃脱。

    2) 他单独行动。

    3)他不需要制造证据来指向另一方,这样即使是大规模的调查也不会发现它。

    以色列人阴谋杀害肯尼迪,这三点都必须是真实的。 对于李·哈维·奥斯瓦尔德(Lee Harvey Oswald)自己完成这项工作来说,这些都不是真的。

    现在很难理解一个成功的阴谋犯下历史上最引人注目的谋杀案,在你自己的国家之外这样做,然后把责任归咎于别人,这比一个人犯下谋杀案要付出更多的努力当机会出现时,将他的武器从他的工作场所中拿出来?

    以色列并不是单独行动。 摩萨德的组织精干而卑鄙,比中央情报局小几个数量级。 但这并不是因为它们在某种程度上更有效或更高效。 他们只是有一个由有影响力的当地犹太人组成的全球网络可以合作。 奥斯特洛夫斯基称摩萨德的犹太帮手为“sayanim”。 然而,指出这种明显的利益冲突是“反犹太主义”。

    是的,我读过这些书,他们所做的一切都比他们在 1963 年德克萨斯州杀死肯尼迪并成功地将其归咎于其他人所需要做的事情更复杂。

    Ron Unz 谈到了肯尼迪在谋杀摩萨德和有组织犯罪中所扮演的角色。

    好吧,他当然喜欢,因为如果罗恩喜欢一件事,那就是不必要的复杂性。

    多多益善。 这就像奥卡姆剃刀的反面。 你们似乎认为,阴谋中的当事方越多,同谋者就可以制造出更隐秘或更有效的阴谋。

  143. Kapyong 说:

    他们留下明显的线索吗?

    这是鲍里斯·雅罗(Boris Yaro)拍摄的一张来自洛杉矶时报官方网站的垂死 RFK 的照片:

    [更多]

    从他们的故事来看:
    https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-na-robert-f-kennedy/

    请注意左侧前景中高举 RFK 头部的人。
    看(或者更确切地说 提供) 他的手。

    在历史照片和视频中还有其他明显造假的例子。

    嘲笑人民的轻信?

    • 回复: @gay troll
    , @Laurent Guyénot
  144. Iris 说:
    @Pincher Martin

    一般巨魔警报; 每次某些关键字出现在文章标题中时都会发生这种情况。

    让我看看:
    肯尼迪,肯尼迪,9/11,世贸中心,双子塔,WTC7,炭疽病例,假旗,伊斯兰教,真主党,伊朗,伊拉克,叙利亚,乌克兰,大厅,五角大楼,跳舞的以色列人,9/11 飞机,以色列艺术学生,奥迪哥..

    我想知道将这些热门话题明显联系起来的共同点是什么?

  145. gay troll 说:
    @Pincher Martin

    魔法子弹:

    事实证明,总统衬衫前部的洞在领扣下方不到 1 英寸,而衬衫后部的洞在衣领顶部下方 5 3/4 英寸处。 这意味着后面的孔比前面的孔略低。 然而,很明显,如果肯尼迪从六层楼的高度被击中背部,子弹的弹道就会向下,他衬衫后面的洞会比前面的洞高。 孔的位置强烈表明,肯尼迪颈部受伤的枪击来自总统面前的位置,略高于街道水平。

    1997 多年后的 30 年,《纽约时报》报道称,最近解密的文件显示,杰拉尔德·福特帮助沃伦委员会对肯尼迪背部子弹伤的描述改为说伤口不在他的背部,而是在“他脖子后面的底部”。 福特是沃伦委员会的成员。 […] 沃伦委员会还试图解释衬衫破洞的证据,与照片记录相反,假设总统在被击中时身体一直向前倾斜。 […]

    据称这颗子弹从肯尼迪的喉咙射出后,沃伦委员会认为这颗子弹击中了康纳利州长的背部,从康纳利的胸口射出,穿过他的右手腕,最终落入他的左大腿,然后从他的大腿上掉到了他的大腿上。医院的担架,它被发现的地方。

    -兰斯·德黑文-史密斯, 美国的阴谋论

    • 回复: @Pincher Martin
  146. @Petermx

    这很有趣。 我从 16 岁起就被犹太人包围,当然他们在纽约市无处不在。 HOLOCAUSTICS(约瑟夫·海勒)到处尖叫。 多年来,我就像几乎其他人一样接受了它。

    这些年来,我遇到了一些德国人,我注意到他们也没有为此感到内疚。

    但是你写的最有趣的是你 知道 这么少。

    这对我来说听起来很神奇,一个来自南方的英裔美国人,镇上有一个犹太家庭,所以基本上没有: 许多德国人与犹太人几乎没有互动。 就个人而言,我认为犹太人是圣经中的民族,直到我 13 或 14 岁时才考虑过他们,我在学校结识了一些人,主流媒体开始不停地谈论他们。

    在这里的这些年里,我认为我已经“和他们中的一些人交上了朋友”,甚至认为他们很有异国情调,而且在音乐学院,大部分教职员工和学生都是犹太人(我认为他们通常打得不好)或者,也不喜欢犹太作曲家的音乐。)

    没多少年之后,我在各种办公室做临时工作来养活自己,而且经常在我是唯一的外邦人的办公室里。 我想这就像在 KKK 乡村长大(我认为一些镇上的人是 KKK,虽然他们没有这么说,而且 KKK 曾经游行穿过城镇——无论如何他们都在附近)并且,没有调整,移动直接到美国-以色列城市之一——这个,洛杉矶似乎是另一个。 我现在几乎是纽约本地人了,不知何故,这对我来说已经解决了,但我确实注意到,随着我变得更加清醒和不那么害怕(这里的犹太人数量!),我逐渐结束了犹太朋友,看了看——大多数都是天主教徒。

    并不是说这有什么特别的意义,但奇怪的是,尽管犹太人在 KKK 国家并不普遍(我什至不知道 KKK 是反犹太人,只是反黑人),但我是来自某个地方的人与这种大屠杀现象无关,你和我遇到的其他德国人有时甚至没有见过一个犹太人——除非他们在这里至少呆了一两天! 我曾经与之聊天的一位澳大利亚人从未见过面,我 1997 年在洛桑和一位瑞士朋友住在一起,他在瑞士没有遇到过犹太人,只是在他在纽约的一两年内。 我是说从南方腹地来到这里是为了经常和犹太人成群结队,现在仍然如此,但只是我与一两个人是友好的熟人,而不再有亲密的犹太朋友。 当然,我从来没有能够与这里的“系统”合作,它在艺术中根深蒂固。 我认为有一种“犹太人的样子”(一些犹太人同意我的观点),它对我从来没有吸引力,尽管我不应该这么说。

    这些只是你激发的杂散想法,另一个是来自南方的几个 WASP 类型与犹太男人结婚,在大多数情况下必须皈依和抚养犹太孩子。

    我的兄弟是南方一所主要大学的教授/院长,他谈到他与犹太人的一两次遭遇足以了解他们的一些情况。 他们不是。 我一定把时间做得足够好才能住在这里(它确实有它的优势,即使是那些声称讨厌它的人也知道),但我更喜欢意大利人、希腊人、英国人、爱尔兰人和远射其他欧洲人,现在我不那么害怕了 *犹太人数量*.

    • 回复: @Petermx
  147. @Alden

    Mark Levin aka Lane 是 1950 年代 60 年代标准的 commie 犹太律师,来自 Noo Yawk 的一个犹太移民社区。 布鲁克林学院,当时它是美国青年共产主义联盟的总部。 加入共产主义全国律师联盟。

    从 1966 年的 Rush to Judgment 到他去世,Levin aka Lane 只是另一个犹太共产主义骗子,转移人们对冷战者 JFK 被一名自称共产主义叛逃到俄罗斯的人杀害的事实,他的妻子是一名俄罗斯妻子,他的家人住在佩恩斯的家。 Paynes 是共产主义的托洛茨基贵格会,与共产主义贵格会组织有关,该组织养育了安吉拉·戴维斯并支付了她的大学教育和博士学位。

    整个谁杀了肯尼迪的流派都始于像马克·莱文(又名莱恩)这样的共产主义者,他将注意力从奥斯瓦尔德 11 岁时自称的共产主义转移到俄罗斯。

    没错。

    莱恩以最不诚实的方式这样做。 例如,莱恩对蒂皮特警官枪击案的目击者马克姆夫人的质询是如此不诚实,以至于布格里奥西过去常常用令人难以忍受的细节引用它,只是为了让他在两人在不同大学举行的辩论中感到尴尬。 莱恩最后威胁说,如果他坚持下去,就要起诉他,我觉得这很搞笑。

    这是 Bugliosi 对它的描述:

    后来,在问答环节,我说, “归根结底是可信度。 谁有信誉,沃伦委员会还是莱恩先生? 「 于是,莱恩打断了他,说:“如果你卷入这件事,我会起诉。 这是诽谤,”并补充说没有人问过我这个问题,因此,我只是自己提出这个问题,他说我没有权利这样做。 当然,他的立场是完全站不住脚的,但他很生气,我没有费心去深究这件事。 莱恩提出的这种威胁性诉讼将确立新的法律依据。 真相不仅是对诽谤的完全辩护,而且我正要读莱恩自己的话,但诽谤是指有人对你做出虚假和有害的陈述。 在这里,莱恩实际上是在争辩说他自己的话诽谤了他,因此他不想让任何人重复这些话。 我不了解你,但我觉得这很有趣。 [我的重点是粗体。]

    Bugliosi 还提到了关于 Lane 的其他事情,除了他的书中,我从未在其他任何地方看到过:

    Within a few months after the assassination, Lane, who had been elected to the New York State Assembly in 1960, served one year, then lost in the Democratic primary for Congress in 1962, founded his Citizens' Committee of Inquiry on the assassination, which总部设在纽约市第五大道的一个小办公室,并由学生志愿者组成。 几个月来,他每天晚上都在他租用的曼哈顿小剧院发表关于暗杀的激动人心的演讲,西五街的第四剧院。6巷是早期左翼作家群体中最狡猾、最健谈的一个, 克格勃(每份 1992 年克格勃叛逃者从俄罗斯偷走的克格勃文件中的文件副本)甚至通过一个与克格勃莱恩可能不知道的中间人为莱恩的努力提供了 XNUMX 美元。 其中 1964 美元用于他在 7 年初前往欧洲传播他的阴谋福音,XNUMX 与美国不同,由阴谋而非孤独枪手造成的政治暗杀是常规而非例外。 [我的重点是粗体。]

    因此,克格勃通过中间人向马克·莱恩支付了费用,以表彰他为宣传他的肯尼迪阴谋论所做的努力。

    Bugliosi 淡化了这个问题,但想象一下鞋子是否在另一只脚上。 马克·莱恩会淡化这种联想吗? 当然不是。 他会把它吹到天上,作为最该死的证据。

  148. @gay troll

    这对你来说是一个巨大的假设。 如果你说的是真的,那为什么不解密呢?

    原因很明显。 除了肯尼迪遇刺案外,这些文件可能还涉及其他情报问题。 这不像肯尼迪生活在真空中,他的死是当时中央情报局和其他情报机构处理的唯一情报问题。

    话虽如此,我希望他们早日发布所有文件。 你不会找到任何东西。 我们之前在压力下遇到过这些纸质垃圾,它们从未改变过基本情况。

    如果他们真的想结束很多阴谋论,他们可以简单地解密。

    他们最终会解密,这不会改变任何事情。 你的一方无法提供证据。

    我不“相信愚蠢的东西”,我努力理解我的政府禁止我理解的事情。 这是一件完全理性的事情。

    我看到了你的证据的例子。 这根本不是证据。 如果你认为仅仅因为乔治·H·W·布什从事石油行业并且住在德克萨斯州,并且在民权法案上的投票方式与 LBJ 相同,那么他一定是在肯尼迪之死中与约翰逊勾结,那么你就是从事愚蠢的联想,而不是理性地检查证据。

    • 回复: @gay troll
  149. Niebelheim 说:
    @gay troll

    在所谓的 JFK 文件被解密之前,任何证明它是内部工作的东西都将被清除或篡改。 9-11 的证据将以类似的方式被破坏。

    • 回复: @Alden
  150. lysias 说:
    @cranc

    我们对安格尔顿的墨西哥母亲了解多少? 她可能是一个加密犹太人吗? 我不确定安格尔顿的中间名是否反对。 耶稣最终是一个犹太人的名字。

    • 回复: @gay troll
    , @Alden
  151. lysias 说:
    @Pincher Martin

    犯罪现场和证据? 证据(石蜡测试)显示奥斯瓦尔德那天没有开枪。

    • 回复: @Pincher Martin
  152. @Walter

    玛德琳·布朗完全是个骗子,她的故事在几十年前就被揭穿了。没有证据表明她曾见过林登·约翰逊,也没有证据表明他在暗杀前一天晚上参加了达拉斯的派对。

    • 回复: @lysias
    , @Iris
  153. @Iris

    Doug Horne 成功地对 NPIC 专家图像分析师 Dino Brugioni 进行了一次非同寻常的拍摄采访。

    非常有趣的视频。 谢谢你。 令我印象深刻的是布鲁乔尼和霍恩对肯尼迪头部爆炸碎片的描述方式以及霍恩后来对布鲁乔尼描述的解释方式的不同。 我从 Jim Fetzer 那里找到了这份 Brugioni 陈述的抄本。 我已经强调了它表示肯尼迪头顶上方的部分。 面试官问他是不是直截了当,布鲁乔尼似乎点头(36:00):

    “……我记得我们所有人都很震惊……它是直截了当的 [高高举起自己的头顶]……在天空中……应该不止一帧……我以为喷雾是,比方说, 离他的头三四英尺......我看到的不止这些 [比今天电影中的第 313 帧]......它并不低 [如第 313 帧],它很高......在原版中还有更多......它离他的头很远……我无法想象只有一帧。 我看到的比你看到的要多 [在第 313 帧中]。” [17]

    https://jamesfetzer.org/2015/09/two-npic-zapruder-film-events-pointing-to-its-alteration/

    相比之下,霍恩在讲述布鲁乔尼所说的内容时,虽然最初接受了这一描述,但他也两次挥手表示碎片从肯尼迪的头皮出口伤口或多或少地直接向后移动到后方。 这种差异不是学术上的,因为当粉红色的云出现时,肯尼迪的头似乎是向前弯曲的。

    预计碎片会沿着子弹的方向移动。 如果你知道碎片的方向,你不也知道子弹的方向吗? 劳伦特,你说什么?

    • 回复: @Laurent Guyénot
  154. gay troll 说:
    @Kapyong

    好吧,如果那不是一个即将死去的人的脸。 感谢您推荐 Richard Carrier 的书,尽管我发现他的某些含义存在问题,但它非常有帮助。

    多么奇怪的照片。

  155. JamesinNM 说:

    在最后的审判中,天台上将宣扬真理,所有邪恶将遭受第二次死亡并被永远燃烧。 上帝不能被欺骗。

    [更多]

    浪漫2:28 29
    詹姆斯国王版

    28因为他不是犹太人,而是外在的犹太人。 包皮环切术在肉体上也不是:

    29但他是个犹太人,是一个内向的犹太人。 割礼是心灵的,是精神的,而不是文字的。 赞美不是人,而是神。

    启示录2:9
    詹姆斯国王版

    9 我知道你的作为、患难和贫穷,(但你是富有的),我知道他们亵渎神明,他们说自己是犹太人,其实不是,而是撒旦的会堂。

    启示录3:9
    詹姆斯国王版

    9看哪,我要使他们成为撒但的会堂,说他们是犹太人,不是犹太人,而是说谎。 看哪,我要使他们来你的脚前拜,并知道我爱你。

  156. gay troll 说:
    @lysias

    嗯……“耶稣”是一个犹太人名字的希腊语翻译,同一个名字在英语中也被翻译为“约书亚”:Yehoshua,the Salvation of Yah。 关于希腊名字 Iesous(耶稣)的一个非常奇特的事情是它可以缩写为 IES。 这个绰号是 已在使用中 异教徒指的是巴克斯的救世主形象。

    http://www.yahuah-yahusha.info/uploads/5/8/3/6/5836053/origin_jesus.pdf

  157. 面对现实的人——只是奥斯瓦尔德独自行动。

    • 同意: Pincher Martin, Alden
    • 回复: @gay troll
  158. Skeptikal 说:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    “我怀疑肯尼迪是否会将 Dimona 的争议视为成败的事情。 ”

    我猜你在评论之前没有阅读我的评论。

  159. lysias 说:
    @Dave Archer

    玛德琳布朗不可能参加达拉斯的派对吗? 如果你依赖于 LBJ 那天晚上在休斯顿的一家酒店的照片证据,你应该知道菲利普尼尔森的书显示 LBJ 有一个相似的堂兄,他把他用作替身。

    • 回复: @Dave Archer
  160. Skeptikal 说:
    @phillip sawicki

    好点。

    别忘了 9/11。

    特朗普是一门松散的大炮,但不是出于“上层世界”的原因。

  161. aandrews 说:

    在“一位加密犹太复国主义总统?”部分中包含“我们知道您的竞选活动陷入困境”的摘录是从哪里摘录的? 很棒的纪录片,顺便说一句。

    • 回复: @Laurent Guyénot
  162. @lysias

    更多疯狂的阴谋废话。克林特默奇森当时也不住在达拉斯。

    • 同意: Alden
    • 回复: @lysias
  163. @Ron Unz

    好吧,考虑到您在最早的评论中特别提到了我的“摩萨德暗杀”文章,我错误地认为您实际上已经意识到了这一点。

    我不是。 但这是一个重要的问题吗? 我有什么理由撒谎吗? 我编造这样一个故事有什么目的?

    显然,对你来说,去年我决定通过阅读你关于 JFK 暗杀的众多资料来加强这个问题,这样我可能会更好地让你的一方参与辩论。 您现在需要一个参考书目,其详细介绍比您所写的任何内容都准确得多。

    我随心所欲地进出这里。 所以我错过了你一月份强调“崛起并再次杀戮”的文章,直到今天我才读到。 有可能当我最近回去查找我去年 XNUMX 月创建你推荐的关于 JFK 暗杀的书籍列表的文章时,其中包括我的笔记,你还没有读过“Rise and Kill Again”,那我草率地写下了你的一篇我没读过的文章的名字。 如果真是这样,那是我的一个诚实的错误。

    你满意吗? 还是你需要继续把这个问题搞得一团糟?

    我无法相信你是多么荒谬的天真。 你真的认为摩萨德教官经常向他们的新兵吹嘘“我们杀了肯尼迪!”

    不,但是有诸如机构记忆、办公室谣言和对 MO 的认可,这些东西会导致组织内的人们建立联系,即使他们根本不参与操作。

    奥斯特洛夫斯基没有提到这些事情。 例如,他并没有说,当摩萨德将肯尼迪暗杀作为新兵训练的案例研究时,他后来认识到,如果他们对暗杀负责,这正是摩萨德计划暗杀的方式。

    他也没有提到任何关于摩萨德特工之间说这些话的办公室谣言。

    没有这样的。

    相当了不起的壮举,罗恩,当你考虑到如此广泛的阴谋需要多个层次的多人才能成功实施时。 然而,以色列或摩萨德显然没有人悄悄地向不在其中的同事吹嘘。

    根据伯格曼的说法,摩萨德领导层决定杀死奥斯特洛夫斯基,但被他们的政治上级否决了。 他们获得了奥斯特洛夫斯基手稿的副本,如果他向全世界宣布摩萨德杀死了肯尼迪(和 RFK),也许会做出不同的决定。

    为什么? 由于奥斯特洛夫斯基不可能对此类罪行有任何操作知识——暗杀发生在他被摩萨德招募前 XNUMX 年——在他的书中,细节将被描述为不过是小题大做。 奥斯特洛夫斯基说,如果摩萨德策划了肯尼迪的谋杀案,他们会完全按照达拉斯发生的事情来计划,这是否是一种可杀的罪行?

    他对布什说得更糟。 据说他对那次暗杀企图有操作知识。 然而,摩萨德并没有杀死他们的前特工。

    他对以色列和肯尼迪一无所知。 与其说是谣言的耳语。

    顺便说一句,如果我读到奥斯特洛夫斯基第二本书的结尾 欺骗的另一面 正确地,以色列机构确实计划在欧洲杀死他,但他感觉到了陷阱并避开了它。 但他的结论有点含糊,所以我不能确定。

    令人着迷的是,您显然接受了以色列/摩萨德计划因反对贷款担保而杀死布什总统的说法,但无法想象他们可能会因为肯尼迪坚决拒绝允许以色列发展核武器而杀死他。 就个人而言,核武器似乎比贷款担保更重要。

    我没买,但这对我来说没关系。 即使你相信奥斯特洛夫斯基的话,这次行动仍然没有显示出近 XNUMX 年前在得克萨斯州杀死肯尼迪所需的那种复杂性。

    正如我在很长的文章中指出的那样,伯格曼的众多漏洞和他非凡的沉默对我来说似乎非常可疑。 你知道他特别解释说他的 700pp 书是在严格的以色列审查下写成的吗? 你真的相信以色列政府审查员会很乐意让他写关于摩萨德暗杀美国人和西欧人,包括高级政府官员,甚至美国总统的文章? 你看起来是个特别容易上当受骗的家伙。

    不仅仅是伯格曼。 奥斯特洛夫斯基说了很多同样的话。 他没有说摩萨德永远不会做这样的行动。 他只是说,与在欧洲和中东相比,他们在美国开展业务时要谨慎得多。

    即使是欧洲和中东最复杂的行动也没有表现出杀死肯尼迪所需的那种复杂性。

    这些是你的消息来源,罗恩,不是我的。 如果这是你得到的最好的,那么你什么都没有。

    • 回复: @Ron Unz
  164. Espinoza 说:

    因此,美国总统被外国特工杀害。 联邦调查局和中央情报局是做什么的? 没有什么。 如果中国总统或日本天皇被外国间谍杀害,他们将寻求一百年的报复。
    这表明美国不是一个真正的国家。 它的凝聚力很小。 它像大公司或流放地一样运作。
    肯尼迪死了,所有的记者、政治家都收到了他们的行军命令并掩盖了它。 没有因为他们的总统被杀而生气。 没有愤慨。 没有报复。 没有正义感。 只有金钱和服从。
    美国人很可笑。

    • 同意: Robjil
    • 谢谢: Iris, Biff
  165. gay troll 说:
    @Dave Archer

    现实不需要叙事管理者大军。 肯尼迪遇刺事件和 9/11 事件确实如此。

    • 同意: Iris
  166. gay troll 说:
    @Pincher Martin

    嘿那里,如果你还没有搞砸,我想知道你是否也相信 WTC7 因火灾而倒塌成自己的脚印?

  167. @lysias

    犯罪现场和证据? 证据(石蜡测试)显示奥斯瓦尔德那天没有开枪。

    石蜡测试是出了名的不可靠。

    与神话相反,石蜡测试不是结论性的,原因很简单,实验室用来测试硝酸盐的两种化学物质——二苯胺和二苯联苯胺——会对大多数氧化剂产生反应,包括尿液、烟草、化妆品、药品、土壤、肥料、和许多其他人。 清单如此之大,以致硝酸盐结果呈阳性并不能排除原因可能是火药残留物以外的其他原因。843 此外,仅处理武器可能会在皮肤上留下硝酸盐,即使没有开火。 844 由于其不可靠,石蜡测试越来越受到美国执法机构的反对。

    当巴恩斯走进弗里茨上尉的办公室时,弗里茨告诉他,除了奥斯瓦尔德的手,他还希望巴恩斯在奥斯瓦尔德的右脸颊上做一个石膏模型。 Barnes 立即知道这是多么不寻常的请求。 自 1956 年他开始进行石蜡测试以来,这是唯一一次有人要求对嫌疑人的脸颊进行石蜡测试。 事实上,常识告诉一个有巴恩斯经验的人,任何人用步枪开火的机会都很少,粉末残留在他的脸颊上。 原因是弹药筒被封闭在其后面的步枪螺栓密封在腔室中。 发射时,弹壳在膛内膨胀得更远,完全填满弹壳,防止硝酸盐气体逸出到面部。 不过,巴恩斯并没有质疑弗里茨的判断。 他有一个命令,这对他来说已经足够了。845

    这是 Bugliosi 包括的注释之一:

    根本无法将这与达拉斯警方和联邦调查局在本案中的证词和经验相提并论。 WE Barnes 中士在奥斯瓦尔德的脸颊上进行了石蜡测试,如前所述,他作证说,这是九年来唯一一次要求他测试脸颊以确定此人是否开过步枪的测试。 . “我没想到测试会出现任何积极的报告,” 他说。 他在达拉斯犯罪实验室的上级 JC Day 中尉向沃伦委员会报告说,奥斯瓦尔德右脸颊的石蜡测试是阴性的,他作证说 他不会想到“一个人开枪的”会在脸颊上留下硝酸盐。 (7 H 281, 283, WCT WE Barnes; 4 H 276, WCT JC Day)这两位达拉斯官员到底为什么要就这样的事情宣誓? 既然在奥斯瓦尔德的右脸颊上没有发现任何硝酸盐,他们是不是在撒谎,因为他们试图陷害奥斯瓦尔德,所以预计不会发现任何硝酸盐? 他们有什么可以想象的理由来陷害奥斯瓦尔德? 此外,如果他们要陷害奥斯瓦尔德,他们会说的明显谎言不是在奥斯瓦尔德的右脸颊上发现了硝酸盐吗?

    联邦调查局专家科特兰特坎宁安也作证说 “我个人不希望在开枪后在一个人的右脸颊上发现任何残留物,因为...... . . 弹药筒本身通过封闭在其后面的螺栓密封在腔室中,并且在发射外壳时,弹药筒外壳膨胀到腔室中,将其充满并将其与气体隔离开,因此不会再出现在您的脸上,并且所以就其本质而言,我不希望在射手的右脸颊上找到残留物” (3 H 492)。 没有人会真正相信这是伪证,如果没有其他原因,没有专业人士会在他知道其他专家可以轻易反驳他的问题上宣誓。 并且,如文中所述, 联邦调查局还让一名特工向奥斯瓦尔德的卡尔卡诺步枪开了三枪,在对他的右脸颊进行石蜡铸模并随后检测硝酸盐后,发现与奥斯瓦尔德的达拉斯警察一样,他的右脸颊上没有硝酸盐残留物 (3 H 493–494,WCT Cortlandt Cunningham)。

    顺便说一句,奥斯瓦尔德的左轮手枪石蜡测试确实呈阳性。

  168. Petermx 说:
    @Lace the Artist Formerly Known as Race

    嗯,我不知道该说什么。 我们离开纽约到佛罗里达呆了两年,1970 年回来时我 13 岁。然后我遇到了很多犹太人,我们附近有很多犹太人,我在学校结识了一些人。 当我开始我的职业生涯时,我还遇到了犹太人。 是的,纽约有很多犹太人,但在 1960 年代,我不记得有任何我认识的孩子按种族来识别自己。 他们中的一些人知道我的父母来自德国,黑人很明显,但在我 13 或 14 岁之前,我不记得有人按种族来识别。 这似乎并不重要,但您似乎想要回应。

    您似乎还将 30 年代和 40 年代生活在德国的犹太人与生活在纽约的犹太人混为一谈。 当我写道“他们对犹太人的互动或想法很少,直到犹太人开始宣传所谓的“大屠杀”并在 1970 年代初重新升级对德国人的仇恨”时,我提到了两个不同的时期,当时我的父母住在德国,一个犹太人口非常少的国家(我认为很少有人知道这一点——从媒体上,人们可能会认为德国在 2 年代和 30 年代有大量的犹太人口),然后当他们移民到美国时。 后来我被告知我父母在美国的一些不愉快经历(还有一些优秀的犹太人),但直到我十几岁的时候,我认为我在我们家从未听说过犹太人这个词。 从 40 年代开始,您打开报纸或打开电视都会听到关于他们在德国人手中遭受苦难的故事以及他们讲述的通常令人难以置信的故事(因为它们不是真的)。 然后我知道什么是犹太人。

    不,在我 13 或 14 岁之前,我不知道犹太人是什么,或者至少对他们知之甚少。

    • 谢谢: utu
  169. @gay troll

    你没看我的帖子吗? 您没有看到我包含在其中的“原始子弹”枪托照片的链接吗?

    因为如果您阅读了我的帖子并研究了照片,您会发现我甚至在您提出论点之前就反驳了您的论点。

    Lance deHaven Smith 的论点是愚蠢和错误的。 我读过他的书。 你? 这样不好。

    • 巨魔: gay troll
    • 回复: @Timur The Lame
  170. Alden 说:
    @Niebelheim

    你是对的。 任何能证明中央情报局 FBI 将军和海军上将、特勤局达拉斯警察市议会和市长、县治安官州警察、所有通常的嫌疑人杀死肯尼迪的东西,这些文件都会在 1963 年被销毁 64。

    1966 年马克·莱文又名莱恩的书出版时,我还是个年轻人。这只是来自美国共产主义者的共产主义宣传。 他的意图是转移人们对伟大救世主亚瑟王英雄肯尼迪在反共战争最糟糕的年份被另一位美国共产党人杀害这一事实的注意力。

    许多白痴认为,中央情报局在高中时招募了奥斯瓦尔德,训练他,让他加入海军陆战队,安排他叛逃到俄罗斯,让他返回并暗杀肯尼迪。

    他们是同样的傻瓜,他们认为奥斯瓦尔德属于新奥尔良黑手党家族,而新奥尔良黑手党雇佣他杀死肯尼迪。 其他白痴认为那天在大楼里工作的奥斯瓦尔德替补射杀了肯尼迪。 并且没有其他员工注意到 2 或 3 个 Oswalds 潜伏在周围。

    蒂比特警官是阴谋的一部分。 他的工作是在奥斯瓦尔德杀死肯尼迪之后杀死奥斯瓦尔德。 但奥斯瓦尔德在几名目击者面前先杀了他。 但蒂比特的凶手并不是真正的奥斯瓦尔德。 是奥斯瓦尔德的替身设法离开了城镇,让奥斯瓦尔德被困在距离蒂比特被杀几个街区的剧院里。

    “蒂比特没有理由停下来质问奥斯瓦尔德” 事实上,他做到了。 整个城市和都会区都在寻找一个 20 多岁的中等身高、黑发、尖下巴的白人男子。 蒂比特看到一个符合描述的人,拦住了他。 那人向蒂比特开枪。

    我遇到了很多 Mark Levin aka Lanes。 跳上了无产阶级移民 commie Jew Noo Yawk 背景。 奥斯瓦尔德在那里遇到了“让他皈依共产主义的犹太老妇人”。

    这些跃升为低级移民的移民首先使用工会,然后是妇女权利,然后是黑人的公民权利,摧毁公立学校和我们的大城市黑人对白人的犯罪,校车和废除种族隔离,平权行动,再次妇女权利,然后是同性恋权利,帮助,教唆和鼓励黑人对白人犯罪同性恋权利和现在的变性主义。 接下来,将同意年龄降低到 12 岁、10 岁、8 岁、6 岁和 4 岁。

    我很了解他们,因为他们使用约翰逊尼克松卡特联邦资金入侵了该国的每个刑事法院。

    来自东欧的移民应该在 1870 年取缔并严格执行。但从 1880 年开始,共产主义犹太人掠夺性黄鼠狼从东欧涌出。他们摧毁了美国的每一个鸡舍或城市。 今年夏天,犹太自由组织领导了芬太尼的圣乔治暴动。 他们正计划下一次跳到中国。 您可以在线阅读犹太社区出版物。 15 年前 很明显,在摧毁了美国之后,他们希望下一步行动是中国。

  171. Ron Unz 说:
    @Pincher Martin

    我有什么理由撒谎吗? 我编造这样一个故事有什么目的?…我草率地写下了你的一篇我没读过的文章的名字。 如果真是这样,那是我的一个诚实的错误。

    我显然不是在暗示你在撒谎。 但是你最早的评论特别提到了我很长的“摩萨德暗杀”文章,然后在后来的评论中你声称从未听说过它。 这似乎有点“马虎”,在一件事情上“马虎”意味着其他事情可能“马虎”。

    Upthread 你强调,权威的 700 pp 伯格曼书表明摩萨德严格避免杀害美国人或其他西方人,因此他们不太可能杀死肯尼迪或 RFK。 但是,如果您费心阅读我的长篇 Mossad 文章,您会发现这正是我所说的他非常可疑的“沉默”的意思。

    例如,几乎可以肯定的是,以色列人试图暗杀美国驻黎巴嫩大使,而且很可能他们确实(意外地)杀死了美国驻巴基斯坦大使,同时消灭了整个亲美的巴基斯坦政府。 他们几乎肯定也暗杀了奥斯特洛夫斯基所描述的那位德国高级民选官员。 这些只是碰巧曝光的少数几个案例,还有许多其他案例可能仍然未知。 然而,这些事件中的任何一个都没有进入伯格曼的书中。 也没有提及所谓的暗杀布什总统的计划,也没有记录对杜鲁门总统的暗杀企图和计划杀死英国外交大臣的计划。

    正如我详细讨论的那样,我最初在接受奥斯特洛夫斯基的主张时非常谨慎,尤其是在他的第二本书中的主张。 但是在消化了伯格曼的工作和其他一些可靠的资料之后,奥斯特洛夫斯基的足够多的材料被检查出来,使其大部分都相当可信。 全部在我的长文中:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-mossad-assassinations/

    鉴于你认为沃伦委员会的报告有 95%-98% 的可能性是完全正确的,并且肯尼迪是被“孤独的枪手”奥斯瓦尔德杀死的,我怀疑你会发现我的论点有说服力。

    但只是出于好奇,如果西尔汗站在 RFK 前面几英尺处,为什么官方验尸官的报告说致命一枪是从 RFK 后面近距离近距离发射的?

  172. @Ron Unz

    我读了伯格曼的书大约 80 页。 我读过关于暗杀法鲁克国王的计划、击落一架载有埃及最高统帅部的飞机、谋杀一名一直为埃及人工作的德国科学家、招募奥托·斯科兹尼(Otto Skorzeny)等等。摩萨德似乎非常大胆在它的情节中,这是温和的。 认为摩萨德过去和现在都不是牵强附会
    能够刺杀美国总统。

    令人惊讶的是,美国媒体甚至不会提及摩萨德可能参与暗杀肯尼迪。 谈论受控新闻。

    • 回复: @Laurent Guyénot
  173. @Ron Unz

    我显然不是在暗示你在撒谎。 但是你最早的评论特别提到了我很长的“摩萨德暗杀”文章,然后在后来的评论中你声称从未听说过。 这似乎有点“马虎”,在一件事情上“马虎”意味着其他事情可能“马虎”。

    不是小事,这是小事。 这太不重要了,我没有费心回去弄清楚我到底做错了什么,如果我确实做错了什么。 我很高兴承认这一点并继续前进。

    这就是我所说的你的琐事,罗恩。 马克·莱恩会感到自豪。

    Upthread 你强调,权威的 700 pp 伯格曼书表明摩萨德严格避免杀害美国人或其他西方人,因此他们不太可能杀死肯尼迪或 RFK。 但是,如果您费心阅读我的长篇 Mossad 文章,您会发现这正是我所说的他非常可疑的“沉默”的意思。

    我不相信我使用了“一丝不苟”这个词,而且我的评论不仅限于伯格曼的书。

    这是我第一次使用的语言: “伯格曼和奥斯特洛夫斯基都表示,以色列不喜欢在美国领土上开展业务,并尽可能避免杀害美国公民,例如让阿拉法特飞往中东目的地的美国飞行员。”

    大约在你认为摩萨德密谋杀死肯尼迪的时候,根据伯格曼的说法,摩萨德正在努力杀死埃及和欧洲帮助开罗研制弹道导弹的阿拉伯和德国科学家。 挣扎,就像没有成功一样。

    摩萨德还利用他们的资源追踪潜逃到全球各地的纳粹分子。 然而,他们有时间和资源密谋反对一位美国总统,这位美国总统是美国犹太人的假定盟友,并且不敌视以色列的利益?

    但回到摩萨德不在美国本土运作的问题上。

    这是伯格曼在 XNUMX 世纪 XNUMX 年代关于以色列想要暗杀阿拉法特核心圈子的巴勒斯坦领导人(萨拉梅),同时也是中央情报局在中东的消息来源。

    Salameh 告诉他的中央情报局工作人员,他和他的妻子想去迪斯尼乐园和夏威夷:

    中情局组织了这次旅行,一位高级官员陪同这对夫妇去任何地方,包括加州主题公园的所有游乐设施。 Rizk [Salameh 的妻子] 玩得很开心。 Salameh 讨厌迪斯尼乐园,但对他从 CIA 行动官员艾伦·沃尔夫那里收到的礼物非常满意——一个用于手枪的精美皮革肩套。

    中央情报局的护送人员查尔斯韦弗利回忆了这次访问:“他[萨拉梅]真正想做的就是吃牡​​蛎。 他认为它们是壮阳药。 我在隔壁的酒店房间里——所以晚上我听到了结果。”

    由于以色列和美国情报界的关系以及以色列对美国的整体依赖, 摩萨德没有在美国领土上运作。 萨拉梅知道他在那里没有受到威胁。 这意味着这对夫妇可以度过一个真正的假期,而没有保镖的阻碍。

    然而,通常情况下,Salameh 几乎从不离开贝鲁特,而且他周围的安保非常严密。 他会在一辆满载武装保镖的车队中四处走动,一辆丰田皮卡车上安装着一挺 22 毫米的 Dushka 重机枪,从后方驶来。 [我的重点是粗体。]

    下面是伯格曼在书中后来关于沙龙想要在 XNUMX 世纪 XNUMX 年代初追随阿拉法特的故事:

    摩萨德告诉沙龙,在这种情况下,他们不可能到达阿拉法特。 充其量,他们可以报告他当天访问的任何国家或下一班航班的行踪。 阿曼告诉国防部长,阿拉法特经常使用沙特阿拉伯提供的公务机,两名飞行员都持有美国护照。 毫无疑问将其击落。 “没有人,”AMAN 的 Amos Gilad 说,“没有人能触动美国人。” 底线是,当时 AMAN 认为没有刺杀他的可能性。 “我们必须等到他在一个永久的地方安顿下来,”一位在金鱼论坛上的 AMAN 代表说,“然后才开始计划在那里开展行动。” [我的重点是粗体。]

    我是否相信以色列或摩萨德在避免杀害美国人或在美国领土上开展活动时一丝不苟。 不,我不。 读过自由号航空母舰的人怎么会相信这一点?

    但我也相信,摩萨德在欧洲杀死目标的自由度比在美国要高出几个数量级。 因此,如果我们在过去 1963 年中找不到摩萨德在欧洲所做的任何事情,类似于你声称 XNUMX 年在德克萨斯发生的事情的复杂性,那么原因很可能是因为它从未发生过。 摩萨德经常被抓到在欧洲开展业务。

    鉴于你认为沃伦委员会的报告有 95%-98% 的可能性是完全正确的,并且肯尼迪是被“孤独的枪手”奥斯瓦尔德杀死的,我怀疑你会发现我的论点有说服力。

    我去读书的麻烦,不是吗? 我发现他们对肯尼迪遇刺案没有说服力,因为他们实际上没有说服力。 他们根本没有解决它。

    我什至同意你的观点,伯格曼的书对摩萨德来说有点粉饰。 如果我是以色列人读那本书,我会为这本书的大部分细节感到自豪,而不是感到恶心。

    为了争论,我还假设奥斯特洛夫斯基在他关于暗杀布什未遂的细节中是正确的。 但是,正如奥斯特洛夫斯基解释的那样,1991 年行动的细节与 1963 年密谋杀害肯尼迪的说法相比,仍然显得粗糙。 例如,我注意到以色列想等到布什来到欧洲,然后用他们的满洲阿拉伯人暗杀他。 然而,他们愿意在 1963 年与同谋的美国同胞一起进入德克萨斯州的心脏地带,暗杀一位受欢迎的美国总统?

    我不认为如此。

    • 回复: @Skeptikal
  174. gsjackson 说:
    @Alden

    如果没有看到审判记录,我怀疑加里森将克莱肖描述为一个白发老人。 1962 年,肖 49 岁。11 年后,我在祖父的葬礼上见到了他,虽然他的头发已经变白,但他看起来并没有那么老。

    我不知道加里森对肖的指控是什么,但摩萨德的联系很有趣。 正如派珀所指出的那样,肖是一家犹太公司 Permindex 的董事会成员,他的辩护由新奥尔良著名的犹太家族斯特恩家族提供资金。 作为新奥尔良demimonde的习惯,谁知道他在进行什么样的敲诈活动,尽管即使在当时,作为法国区的同性恋者在新奥尔良也没什么大不了的。

    我不想进行毫无根据的猜测。 我父亲的家人非常了解肖 40 多年,喜欢他,甚至无法想象他参与了谋杀肯尼迪的阴谋。 但他是另一种猫。 他们都叫他的中间名,拉文,大概是根据他的喜好。

  175. @Alden

    喜欢你的帖子,奥尔登,但这是蒂皮特警官,而不是蒂比特警官。

    顺便说一句,这是关于警官 JD Tippit 的一个很酷的琐事。 全国对这名军官的枪击感到非常感动,以至于他的妻子和三个孩子得到了美国同胞的数十万美元。 这是在 GoFundMe 之前。

    在家庭中唯一的养家糊口者被谋杀后,最有可能帮助他们支付生活费用的做法最终使他们赚了很多钱。

  176. Alden 说:
    @anon

    俄罗斯、中国、伊朗、马来西亚、土耳其、古巴、巴基斯坦、南非没有资格对美国的“中央情报局”做任何事情。 他们可以拘留一名中央情报局雇员,并因他的邪恶行为而试图处决或监禁他。 他们的政府代表可以访问当地的中央情报局办公室,并威胁中央情报局的雇员,真正的人,越界将受到严厉的惩罚。

    只有选举和任命的县州和联邦检察官,真正的个人,才能在美国法院起诉、起诉和起诉一个人。 被告必须是一个真实的人,而不是“中央情报局”。

    我从来没有读过沃伦报告,也永远不会。 我当然不会为它辩护。 有人送了大约30本WKK书。 所以我对这个类型感兴趣,因为它是一种有趣的轻读。 每本书都比其他书更离奇和奇妙。 无需购买它们。 公共图书馆会购买每本 WKK 书籍。

    最新的理论是肯尼迪是被汽车的特勤司机开枪打死的。 他停下来向肯尼迪开了一枪,配合着从臭名昭著的草丘上的步枪射击。

    最荒谬的书是立顿的 800 页奇幻小说。 立顿声称,至少有一名,也许两名外科医生配备了他们的行业工具,登上了返回华盛顿的飞机。 在特勤局、肯尼迪助手、肯尼迪夫人、LBJ 和夫人在场的情况下,外科医生在肯尼迪的脖子上割下了新的伤口,并伪装了真实的伤口。 在肯尼迪停止流血数小时后,尸检外科医生从未注意到伤口被切开。

    1964 年到 1990 年的大部分书籍都声称,当地县的法医,就像达拉斯及其周边地区的每个市县和州雇员一样,是杀害肯尼迪的阴谋的一部分。 因为得克萨斯州法律规定,包括枪击在内的所有猝死都必须由发生死亡的县的官方验尸官办公室进行尸检。

    因此,每一位作者都为肯尼迪的助手们鼓掌,他们将法医推开,非法将尸体放在将尸体运出县城的飞机上。 那是犯罪,违反了德克萨斯州的法律。

    然后大约 2,000 人寻找新的角度,作者开始为试图遵守法律并在他被杀所在县对一名谋杀受害者进行尸检的法医进行辩护。 并指责助手特工和移走尸体的朋友是同谋。

    WKK 是一种历史小说类型,与关于中世纪早期现代皇室的小说没有什么不同。

    奥斯瓦尔德用步枪杀死了肯尼迪。 奥斯瓦尔德用手枪杀死了蒂比特。 鲁比用鲁比的手枪杀死了奥斯瓦尔德。

    这些是事实。 其他的都是历史小说。

    我完全相信任何政府档案中都没有新信息。 该死的信息永远不会进入这些文件。 任何不经意间滑过的东西早就被删除了。

    奥斯瓦尔德用奥斯瓦尔德自己的步枪从 6 楼的窗户射杀了肯尼迪。 鲁比在全球电视上用自己的手枪谋杀了奥斯瓦尔德。

    这是唯一重要的两个事实。

    • 同意: Pincher Martin, Dave Archer
  177. Alden 说:
    @Ron Unz

    1940年代后期,以色列人暗杀了英国总督埃及总督莫恩勋爵和联合国观察员伯纳多特伯爵和塞洛特上校,并企图暗杀英国外交大臣欧内斯特·贝文。 并计划在必要时暗杀英国首相艾德礼和其他内阁部长,以及从 1890 年开始的众多巴勒斯坦人和土耳其人。

    以色列人会毫不犹豫地杀死包括美国总统在内的任何总理或总统。

    杰克鲁比是犹太复国主义者、沙文主义犹太人和黑手党人。 所以他陷入了许多阴谋。
    鲁比因杀害奥斯瓦尔德而被判有罪。 鉴于鲁比杀死奥斯瓦尔德的电视画面,任何人都无法为他辩护。

    奥斯瓦尔德将被判谋杀肯尼迪和蒂比特。

    没有任何物理或间接证据表明任何检察官会接受起诉其他人帮助奥斯瓦尔德和鲁比在那周在达拉斯杀死 3 人的起诉。

    调查员会使用许多动机。 但 47 年来,没有调查人员发现任何检察官会接受的合法刑事证据。 如果找到任何可接受的证据,并且奥斯瓦尔德的附属物还活着,他们可能会被指控并被判犯有谋杀肯尼迪和蒂皮特的附属罪。

  178. Alden 说:
    @lysias

    安格尔顿的母亲不是墨西哥人。 她是美国人。 起源于 1600 年的西班牙定居者和阿帕奇印第安人。

    耶稣是一个非常常见的西班牙男人名字。 就像英语中的克里斯托弗,斯堪的纳维亚语言中的克里斯蒂安一样。 当安格尔顿出生时,耶稣而不是克里斯托弗在英语中听起来很奇怪。 合理的妥协。 爸爸的盎格鲁血统,妈妈的西班牙血统。

  179. Franz 说:
    @Reg Cæsar

    即使在这里,也没有人敢建议推翻 Abington、Murray、Griswold、Epperson 和 Roe 的决定。 这一时期的所有产品。

    如果“这个时期”是指战后/冷战的第一季度,我不建议这样做。 我认为这显然是完全正确的。

    这是我要狡辩的开始日期。 自从哈里·杜鲁门被贿赂以承认以色列以来,国家安全国家即使不归以色列所有,也肯定受到摩萨德的监督。 中央情报局的起源与以色列诞生的同一时期。 你所说的“时期”从那时开始,渗透和颠覆通常需要一两代人来完成。 尽管特别是颠覆开始得更早。

    许多人忘记的另一点是,20 世纪的两个战后大时代见证了全国范围内社会习俗的大量放松和社区生活的分裂。 什么都不会一下子发生,但我不能认为这是一个意外,因为好莱坞——大媒体的源头——是由少数看起来有血缘关系的人拥有和经营的,他们之前都侵犯了专利权,在并在伍德罗·威尔逊的战争结束后结束所有战争。

    战后两个时期的情况都是如此,离婚变得更容易,文化变得堕落,这些事情证明了马克思主义的格言:对于发动战争的国家来说,战争实际上是革命性的。

    最后一点对本世纪有一个直接而深刻的信息:几乎从一开始,美国就一直处于战争状态。 如果 Rip Van Winkle 在新千年开始时入睡并在 20 年后醒来,他将认不出这个地方。 而且由于他对大多数严厉的新的和加速的命令一无所知,所以他可能会在醒来的第一个小时就以恐怖分子的身份被捕。

    永久的对外战争等于永久的革命。 发动战争的同一个帮派监督着叛乱。 删除它们需要什么? 我真的不想要一场核内战。 但是美国有足够的炸弹来实现它。

    核电局势不稳定是不好的。 事实上,杰克·肯尼迪确实对这些炸弹充满热情,对它们进行测试,甚至制造它们。 我们也应该听听的。

  180. @gay troll

    Guyenot 先生,您如何为 LBJ 的清白辩护

    什么? 你读过我的文章吗?

  181. @Bardon Kaldian

    以色列的阴谋似乎极其微弱。 它取决于一件事——迪莫纳和肯尼迪对以色列领导人的强硬言论。

    它的作用远不止于此。 首先,阅读 Iris 的评论 n°91

    • 回复: @Bardon Kaldian
  182. @Petermx

    您似乎还将 30 年代和 40 年代居住在德国的犹太人与居住在纽约的犹太人混为一谈。 当我写道“他们对犹太人的互动或想法很少,直到犹太人在 1970 年代初开始宣传所谓的“大屠杀”并重新升级对德国人的仇恨”时,我提到了两个不同的时期,

    我将它们混为一谈,因为它们都是犹太人的群体或人口。 当然,体验不会一样。

    这似乎并不重要,但您似乎想要回应。

    因此,我会善意地忽略一些表面上的屈尊俯就。 我不在乎你有没有回应。 你提出了一些我感兴趣的东西,如果你认为它不重要,我当然不关心。 这不是不重要的,你写的也不是。

    我注意到这里的人似乎在谈论 *浩劫* 从 70 年代初开始,那时它肯定开始得更早。 我一生都意识到这一点,包括我在 KKK 国家长大的时候。 你比我年轻一点,但也不大。 它被教导了。 事实上,仅从伦纳德伯恩斯坦和芭芭拉史翠珊,我就在整个 60 年代就对犹太人了解了很多,而且所有好莱坞都是犹太人制作的(即使我当时不知道)。我只是不知道尸体成千上万的犹太人,直到我来到这里。

    • 回复: @Petermx
  183. @phillip sawicki

    感谢您的评论 从耶和华到锡安.
    我写了我的书 肯尼迪9/11 差不多十年前了,还没有更新,所以今天我会写很多不同的东西。 例如,我什至不会费心提及布什与肯尼迪遇刺案的联系(约翰汉基的 黑暗遗产)。 当我开始这本书(最初是为法国读者)时,我刚刚明白 9/11 是一个天大的谎言。 我不需要告诉你,我的整个世界观都被打破了。 然后,我把所有的精力都集中在学习更多东西上,带着贡献的想法(如果不做点什么,为什么要毁掉你的心理健康呢?)。 当然,一开始我不知道有任何反对以色列的证据(没有读过派珀,或者可能尝试过但放弃了),直到最后,在得出结论认为 9/11 是以色列的工作之后,我再次查看了关于肯尼迪的证据:进化反映在书本身中,并解释了我关于“回到肯尼迪”的结论部分。 正因为如此,我认为我的书对初学者仍然有用,引导他们逐步考虑以色列的证据。
    但我多年后写的两篇主要的 Unz Review 文章要好得多,我认为:
    https://www.unz.com/article/did-israel-kill-the-kennedies/
    https://www.unz.com/article/911-was-an-israeli-job/

  184. Iris 说:
    @Dave Archer

    你应该感谢沃尔特教育你了解肯尼迪暗杀事件中最引人注目的方面之一。

    肯尼迪研究员 Wim Dankbaar 编译 预先知道肯尼迪总统将被暗杀的人名单 在他正式访问期间在达拉斯。

    在这里,我们应该添加玛德琳布朗,感谢沃尔特:

    [更多]

    约瑟夫·米尔特尔
    玫瑰樱桃
    塞尔吉奥·阿卡查·史密斯
    大卫·费里
    盖伊·班尼斯特
    大卫·阿特利·菲利普斯
    E. 霍华德亨特
    弗兰克·斯特吉斯
    安东尼奥·韦恰纳
    奥兰多博世
    荷马埃切瓦里亚
    保利诺塞拉
    罗斯科·怀特
    JD提皮特
    卡洛斯·马塞洛
    交通圣地
    山姆·吉安卡纳(Sam Giancana)
    托尼·阿卡多(Tony Accardo)
    马歇尔·凯法诺
    罗伯特·马休
    威廉哈维
    奥尔顿奥克斯纳
    彼得·利卡沃利
    昌西霍尔特
    托什·普拉姆利
    塞尔吉奥
    约翰·马蒂诺
    查尔斯·罗杰斯
    菲利普·托姆布雷
    乔坎蒂
    里奥·莫切里
    吉姆·布雷登
    费利克斯·阿尔德里西奥
    理查德·凯恩
    詹姆斯档案
    查尔斯·尼科莱蒂
    约翰尼·罗塞利
    林登·约翰逊
    乔治·雷诺兹
    朱迪丝·贝克
    李·哈维·奥斯瓦尔德
    HL亨特
    克林特默奇森
    克里夫卡特
    约翰麦克洛伊
    理查德·尼克松
    艾伦·杜勒斯
    乔治老布什
    路易斯·波萨达·卡里尔斯
    吉列尔莫·诺沃
    伊格纳西奥·诺沃
    杰克·鲁比
    菲利克斯·罗德里格斯
    查尔斯·哈里森
    查尔斯·罗杰斯(又名卡洛斯·蒙托亚)
    爱德华·兰斯代尔
    查尔斯·卡贝尔
    德斯蒙德·菲茨杰拉德
    大卫士气
    克莱肖
    劳埃德·科布
    J. ·埃德加·胡佛

  185. JM 说:
    @Alden

    是的,是的,是的,但请不要破坏他们的幻想,他们需要这样的陈词滥调才能将他们的节目保持在一起。

  186. @Kapyong

    谢谢。 我从来没有注意到那只手不见了。 这可能意味着什么? 看起来,那只手不见了的人,简直就是被添加到了画面中。 Yaro 的另一张图片(也在您的链接上)建议了这一点,其中只有 Romero 在 RFK 旁边(顺便说一句,这很奇怪)。 在另一张照片中,我们看到了尤金塞萨尔领带,这是 RFK 在被他从背后射门时抓住的。 有趣的是,添加的人会踩在领带上。

    • 回复: @Kapyong
  187. @aandrews

    谢谢。 如脚注所示,来源是 Seymour Hersh,《参孙选项:以色列的核武库和美国外交政策》,兰登书屋,1991 年,第 97 页。 XNUMX:

  188. @anon

    无论如何,中央情报局有能力。 以色列没有。

    任何人都有能力向总统开枪。 真正的问题是:谁有能力掩盖真相,制造这么多虚假线索 50 年(包括由 Hollowood 和主流媒体推动的 CIA 线索)? 谁控制叙事? 谁控制媒体? 中央情报局? 让我休息一下。 不要引用科尔比的这句话,它既荒谬又荒谬:

    • 同意: Iris, Skeptikal
  189. @Pincher Martin

    感谢您在上游回复我的要点,只是为了满足我对您一无所有的怀疑。 此外,您似乎在以阅读理解为代价进行计件工作,因为您侮辱了我,当我的帖子明确指出我阅读的有关暗杀的 20 多本书中,我认为大多数是伪造的时,我相信我所读的一切。 然后,您不断将 Bugliosi 的书作为该问题的虚拟圣经来引用,因为(惊讶)它支持了您无法支持的立场。 干得好,打个比方,你总是在自己的脚上开枪,这样可以节省其他人为你的甜瓜准备的弹药。

    现在我注意到你通常给奥斯特洛夫斯基的书可信度,但随后混淆了摩萨德可能与肯尼迪暗杀有任何关系的可能性。 这很好,只是我从奥斯特洛夫斯基的第一本书中清楚地记得,在步枪训练期间,官方开玩笑说奥斯瓦尔德是唯一的刺客,他们最好的“专家”拥有最好的步枪、瞄准镜和弹药,无法在无数次尝试中复制“自发的” ,孤独的坚果”,他第一次尝试就拔出了便宜的邮购步枪。 所以,摩萨德不管他​​们有没有参与,都清楚地把奥斯瓦尔德当作一个孤独的刺客来看待,这是一个荒谬的提议。

    所以我必须推断,如果你是一个真诚的人,你在安静的时刻喝着一杯单一麦芽威士忌对自己得出结论,你在孤独中比世界上最重要的情报机构之一更聪明、更足智多谋。 我想你妈妈毕竟是对的。 你是一个崭露头角的天才,而不是一个开花的白痴。

    干杯-

    • 同意: Peripatetic Itch
    • 回复: @Pincher Martin
    , @Alden
  190. Franz 说:
    @Observator

    肯尼迪是 1940 年美国第一委员会的成员,与他的兄弟小乔、施莱弗中士、杰拉尔德福特、波特斯图尔特等人一起。

    是的,J Edgar Hoover 爱他们(或应该爱他们),因为它把他的小机构变成了一个大机构。 这些数字令人难以置信:

    1934 年,联邦调查局雇佣了 391 名特工和 451 名支持人员 并被拨款 2,589,500 美元…… 十一年后, 1945 年,联邦调查局有 4,370 名特工,7,422 名支持人员 和拨款 44,197,146 美元。”

    从书中: J. 埃德加胡佛和反干预主义者 道格拉斯·M·查尔斯 (Douglas M. Charles)。

    查尔斯教授给了他们整整九码。 从评论:

    https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/americas-surveillance-state/

    …凭借新鲜的数据和明确的界限,查尔斯继续证明 美国监视国家的诞生是为了扼杀政治讨论,而不是保护公众免受刑事伤害. 他对富兰克林·D·罗斯福的总统任期及其在秘密监视中的同谋和促进提供了不同的和诅咒的观点。

    当我阅读约翰·T·弗林的书时,这就像我第一次看到反干预主义者一样具有启发性, 罗斯福神话. 弗林完全了解罗斯福与胡佛偷偷会面的习惯,口头命令他以一种不会有任何犯罪记录的方式挖掘泥土。

    弗林是一位真正的美国爱国者的化身,就像斯隆棺材牧师和其他理性而受人尊敬的越南战争反对者一样,都是一代人之后的事。 可惜很少有人记得好人的名字。

    查尔斯教授的书于 2007 年出版。非常值得一读。

  191. utu 说:

    我厌倦了听到肯尼迪的讨论陷入困境,每当提出肯尼迪和以色列的假设时,似乎相同的演员都会通过相同的论点和红鲱鱼。 在我看来,肯尼迪被以色列和/或代表以色列暗杀的假设是最有力的假设。 这是我两年前在 Ron Unz 的文章下写的:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-jfk-assassination-part-i-what-happened/?showcomments#comment-2383361

    [T] 以色列游说团在美国的未来于 22 年 1963 月 XNUMX 日决定。RFK 试图强迫游说团注册为外国代理人的尝试在这一天永久脱轨。 肯尼迪阻止以色列获得核武器的企图被永久性地破坏了。 由于肯尼迪和 RFK 被暗杀,以色列游说团体变成了现在的样子。 以色列可以通过暗杀肯尼迪获得核武器。 以色列是肯尼迪遇刺的最大受益者。 不是古巴的共产主义者,不是古巴的反共主义者,不是苏联,不是黑手党,不是中央情报局,不是国大党,不是美联储,不是亚里士多德奥纳西斯,而是以色列和犹太复国主义者从肯尼迪遇刺中获得最大利益的游说团体。

    任何对 1963 年以色列对美国局势的严重性提出质疑和怀疑的人都应该阅读肯尼迪与本古里安及其继任者之间的所有信件,并关注肯尼迪关于犹太人/以色列游说团外国代理人身份的信件。 与迈克尔·柯林斯·派博 (Michael Collins Piper) 进行研究时相比,现在可用的文件更多。 几年前,我问过 Laurent Guyenot 他是否熟悉文档,但他没有回答。 有人应该只根据文档写一本书,这样我们就不必再听到像 Bardon Kaldian 角色这样无知的怀疑论者。

    • 回复: @Pincher Martin
    , @Alden
  192. @ChiefIlliniwek1982

    我相信本古里安下令暗杀肯尼迪的事实在消息灵通的犹太人圈子中是一个公开的秘密,也是大多数受过教育的以色列人的强烈怀疑。 我认为 Andrew Adler 的著名社论(《亚特兰大犹太时报》,13 年 2012 月 XNUMX 日)呼吁摩萨德暗杀总统,以由他对以色列友好的副总统(下图)取代他,这清楚地表明了这一点。 当以色列人和美国犹太人现在公开吹嘘他们对世界的影响以及他们有权消灭那些妨碍以色列宏伟命运的人时,如果有一天以色列记者公开称赞本古里安摆脱了以色列,我不会感到惊讶那个“危险的肯尼迪反犹分子”。

    • 回复: @Ron Unz
  193. utu 说:
    @Alden

    “平权行动确实导致了新教的至高无上。 在每次招聘和大学录取决定中都偏爱黑人,而不是白人新教徒。”

    你能证明一下吗? 新教徒怎么可能比天主教徒受益更多? 机制是什么?

    • 回复: @Alden
  194. Kapyong 说:
    @Laurent Guyénot

    谢谢。 我从来没有注意到那只手不见了。 这可能意味着什么?

    可能他们在丢失的手下方重新触摸了 RFK 的后脑勺,以消除塞萨尔近距离射击的血腥证据。 或许那只剩下的真手太少了? 比人手更容易伪造颗粒状的地板——背景地板上似乎有一条模糊的线条与缺失的手的边缘相匹配。 (在一张大步走的杜鲁门与阿尔杰·希斯握手的荒谬照片中,其中一个死去的赠品是愚蠢的假手。)

    看起来,那只手不见了的人,简直就是被添加到了画面中。

    也许——照片看起来很奇怪,而且不匹配——在服务员的照片中,RFK 的头是在地上,还是稍微抬起?

  195. @Peripatetic Itch

    劳伦特,你说什么?

    看完电影并阅读费泽的文章后,我说声谢谢,这阐明了 Zapruder 电影的故事。 那个故事中有几个人我想了解更多,比如约翰·希克斯(在电影中提到 55:30)或皮埃尔·桑兹。

    • 回复: @Peripatetic Itch
  196. 为了对 CIA(DeepState)与以色列问题的辩论做出贡献,并澄清我在之前的评论 (46) 中提到的内容,这里是我在肯尼迪一章中的摘录 从耶和华到锡安:

    已经提到的 Gary Wean 在他的书 There's a Fish in the Courthouse (1987) 中提供了一个解决问题的方法,Michael Piper 在他开创性的最终判决中引用了该书。 依靠达拉斯一位消息灵通的消息来源(在 1996 年的第二版中被确定为共和党参议员约翰·托尔),Wean 提出了达拉斯政变是“一场奇妙的双重打击”的可能性,其中一次失败的暗杀企图是由中央情报局被他称之为“家庭”的俄罗斯犹太黑手党 Mishpucka(希伯来语为“家庭”)劫持,其邪恶势力深入到 Wean 多年来一直在加利福尼亚调查的最高领域。 米什普卡人想要肯尼迪死,并将这次行动变成了一次成功的暗杀行动,然后躲在中央情报局的计划后面逃脱了调查。 肯尼迪研究员迪克·罗素通过采访相信自己被操纵的古巴流亡者独立地增加了这一理论的分量(知道太多的人,1992 年)。
    假设是中央情报局及其古巴流亡同伙打算饶肯尼迪一命,但迫使他对卡斯特罗进行报复。 这是一次假旗行动:小丑奥斯瓦尔德被塑造成亲卡斯特罗共产主义活动家的“传说”,在暗杀当天由新闻媒体出售给公众。 根据托尔告诉韦恩的说法,“将对肯尼迪总统的生命进行一次尝试,如此‘现实’,以至于它的失败将被视为一个奇迹。 脚印会直接通往卡斯特罗的家门口,这是最高级的业余爱好者不能错过的。”
    以色列对古巴没有兴趣,但希望肯尼迪死。 约翰逊也是。 所以他们劫持了这次行动,可能是通过在草地上提供真正的狙击手。 国安国卷入太深,无法抗议,只好按原计划指责奥斯瓦尔德,因为他们知道如果他们试图揭露以色列的政变,他们将是第一个被揭露的人。
    几位研究人员独立得出了相同的结论,即中央情报局领导的古巴流亡者的假暗杀企图变成了第三方的真正暗杀,但很少有人成功——或者更有可能是敢于——说出第三方的名字。 已故的迈克尔·柯林斯·派珀提到了他们。 其中之一是前中央情报局特工罗伯特·莫罗(Robert Morrow)在他 1976 年的小说版事件《背叛》中。 另一个是长期独立调查员斯科特汤普森,他声称霍华德亨特正在协调欺诈性暗杀企图,但指出“至今仍不清楚是谁干预了假暗杀设置并将其变成了真实的东西。” 肯尼迪资深调查员迪克·拉塞尔(Dick Russell)在《知道太多的人》中也思考过中央情报局与奥斯瓦尔德的关系被“另一个集团篡夺”的可能性,并指出:“中央情报局的许多人有理由掩盖自己的关系对奥斯瓦尔德来说,即使这与暗杀阴谋无关。 [...] 不容忽视的是,第三股势力意识到了 [围绕奥斯瓦尔德] 的反间谍网络,并抓住了它,为自己谋取利益。”
    毕竟,中情局是否卷入了对肯尼迪的假暗杀企图是次要的——因为一个人或一个组织对勒索的脆弱性与他或它想要保密的非法活动的数量成正比,没有任何组织有比中央情报局要隐藏更多的肮脏秘密。 凭借其对媒体的特权访问,犹太复国主义网络有很多手段使该机构处于守势。

    • 谢谢: Iris
  197. lysias 说:
    @Dave Archer

    小克林特默奇森当然可以在达拉斯豪宅举办派对,这座豪宅是为他父亲建造的,后来被他的兄弟约翰占领。 地址 23 Ash Bluff Lane。 在“clint murchison dallas mansion”上进行谷歌搜索。

    • 回复: @lysias
  198. @Laurent Guyénot

    我读过那条评论,这只是一种意识流。 它所指的文章基本上是 - 没有。

    例如,目前尚不清楚杰克鲁比/鲁宾斯坦是否真的参与了任何犯罪活动,或者他只是和智者闲逛,比如低级的弗兰克辛纳屈。 在肯尼迪遇刺之前,关于杰克鲁比的警方档案是否存在?

    然后,当他以某种方式向拉比“忏悔”时,他说了三件事:

    1. 他是为美国做的

    2.他这样做是因为他对右翼犹太人伯纳德的反肯尼迪行为感到愤怒

    3. 最后——他为犹太人做到了

    最后一个版本真的很有趣。 和拉比,而不是跳上它——终于,终于有大事了——什么都不问。 所以,要么拉比像一袋锤子一样愚蠢,要么他也是某个巨大阴谋的一部分——这是极不可能的。 然后,这位拉比讲述了 2-3 个其他故事,清楚地指出鲁比要么是偏执狂,要么是吸毒(一些犹太人受到酷刑的地窖等)。 整个拉比的故事听起来像是一个老年八卦:它暗示了一切,实际上什么也没说。

    然后,在所谓的 Ruby 事件中的无能程度令人震惊:两名犹太“记者”在犹太教堂拜访他(哇!); 鲁比疯了,与一些匿名的“反犹分子”发生争执。

    你能有多业余?

    在二战后的时期,暗杀已经进行了很多次。 这个 Ruby 的故事是如此笨拙且难以下咽,这几乎是不可能的。

    • 巨魔: Skeptikal
  199. lysias 说:
    @lysias

    我必须纠正自己。 1963 年,老克林特·默奇森 (Clint Murchison Sr.) 还活着,住在那栋豪宅里。 所以有两个可能的克林特默奇森可能会主持那个派对。

  200. Iris 说:

    之所以 肯尼迪总统被以色列杀害 需要快速题外话一下 1960 年代核武器是如何制造的。

    1-核武器是由什么制成的:
    建造核反应堆是为了燃烧天然放射性燃料(铀),这个过程需要几个月的时间。 然后, 核后处理 被携带在乏核燃料上,用于将未燃烧的铀和钚与其他裂变产物分离。 最后,钚可用于制造核武器。

    因此,反应堆的通电,然后是后处理设施的通电,是核武器制造的两个关键里程碑。

    最后,为了验证其真实用途,无论是民用还是军用,都必须检查反应堆 before 变得至关重要,因为之后某些部分变得 无法访问。

    2-肯尼迪遇刺前的简要时间表:
    ——从 1963 年 XNUMX 月到 XNUMX 月,肯尼迪机场收到令人震惊的美国情报报告,称以色列人违背承诺,正在建设军事核能力。

    – 1963 年 XNUMX 月至 XNUMX 月,肯尼迪与本古里安之间的激烈交流与肯尼迪向美国施加压力,要求美国对以色列核设施进行两年一次的检查。 Ben-Gurion 使用正在进行的 ME 事件(创建“威胁阿拉伯联邦”)作为回避 JFK 要求的借口。

    – 15 年 63 月 XNUMX 日,肯尼迪向 Ben-Gurion 发出了一封直截了当的最后通牒,要求美国 Dimona 检查 从1963年夏天开始 并声明“对以色列的承诺和支持可能会受到严重损害”如果拒绝。

    – 16 年 63 月 XNUMX 日, 本古里安震惊了以色列和世界 突然出人意料地辞职“私人原因“。

    – 4 年 63 月 10 日,在他被任命仅 XNUMX 天后,以色列新任总理埃什科尔收到了一封肯尼迪的信,信中采用了与本-古里安相同的强硬条款。

    – Eshkol 试图争取时间,提出了一年一次访问的不令人满意的建议,这不足以 验证反应堆的真实用途.

    – 19 月 XNUMX 日,Eshkol 做出了含糊的回应 同意在 1963 年底进行第一次访问。

    3-肯尼迪遇刺后发生了什么:
    – 18 年 1964 月 1962 日,美国原子能机构代表自 XNUMX 年秋季以来首次访问迪莫纳。

    – 美国代表团发现,根据东道主的说法,一个关键的里程碑在几周前跨越了 Dimona 反应堆(据称)于 26 年 1963 月 XNUMX 日投入使用.

    – 然而,以色列原子能委员会, 庆祝 1963 年 XNUMX 月 Dimona 反应堆投入使用。

    ——美国代表团温和地指出“团队的印象是 Dimona 站点和位于那里的设备代表了一个 一个具有以色列能力的国家的雄心勃勃的项目“。 并补充道:“以色列人正在建造 […] 设施远远超出正常研究堆所需的设施”。

    – 美国代表团简单地接受了 以色列声称“后处理设施已被推迟” 即简单地相信他们的话,据称他们还不能提取钚作为武器。

    4。结论:
    ——当时(15 年 1963 月 XNUMX 日)肯尼迪要求 Dimona 反应堆接受美国检查,这个反应堆实际上距离投入使用只有几天时间。 如果它在 63 年夏天按照肯尼迪国际机场的计划进行过检查,那么从它的可见特征中可以立即看出它是用于军事目的的。
    迫在眉睫的检查危险需要紧急转移: 本古里安辞职给以色列人时间,后者继续秘密为迪莫纳反应堆供电。

    – 肯尼迪没有放手,埃什科尔不得不同意推迟 63 月 XNUMX 日的检查。 但这只是延迟了清算。 如果这次检查是在肯尼迪的监督下进行的,肯尼迪会立即发现反应堆已经处于运行状态,并且出于明显的原因他被以色列人愚弄了。

    – 所以,总而言之, 以色列政府需要肯尼迪在 1963 年 XNUMX 月之前离开或死亡 以及对 Dimona 反应堆的计划检查,以隐藏其军事性质和已经取得进展的操作。

    – 他被杀了(((被一个孤独的枪手))) 就在这个可怕的截止日期前一个月 那会给犹太复国主义国家带来美国的地狱之火......再次从耶和华的步枪中直接发出奇迹......

    上帝保佑英勇的肯尼迪永恒的灵魂,他死了,所以我们不必生活在今天的反乌托邦地狱中。

    • 谢谢: Laurent Guyénot, Skeptikal
    • 回复: @gay troll
  201. @Laurent Guyénot

    更多关于加里·维恩:

    洛杉矶警察局前侦探警长加里·韦恩(Gary Wean)表示,与本·赫克特(Ben Hecht)一样,米奇·科恩(Mickey Cohen)与前伊尔贡(Irgun)局长梅纳赫姆·贝京(Menachem Begin)保持着联系,他甚至“花了很多时间”。 (顺便说一句,Wean 声称,专门为了勒索而对好莱坞明星进行性妥协的科恩负责将玛丽莲梦露推到肯尼迪的床上。)

  202. anon[333]• 免责声明 说:

    186 岁的奥尔登,感谢您提供的全面而有趣的妄想目录。

    我对你说一句话,年轻人。

    塑料。 我是说CTOC。

    不用等,这不是一个词,它是一个首字母缩略词。

    根据 CTOC,个别 CIA 特工可以因严重罪行(准确的艺术术语)而受到跨国起诉。 任何地方。 根据普遍管辖权法,可以在任何地方起诉或引渡个别中央情报局特工。 构成国际不法行为的中央情报局的行动会引起美国的国家责任,包括恢复原状、赔偿、补偿(连同利息)和满足——这可能包括起诉中央情报局的个别罪犯。 这是由国际法院审理的联邦和州普通法或等效的土地最高法律。 USG 提交国际法院的判决。 因为它必须。 所以你必须更新你的国家主义宣传板栗,Rip Van Winkle。 你在一个多极世界中醒来。 显然你从未听说过 Robert Lady 或 Sabrina de Souza。

    你的奥斯瓦尔德信条也很鼓舞人心。 自从我拍手并且小叮当并没有死时,我还没有因为我 XNUMX 岁那年的心甘情愿地停止怀疑而如此感动。

    • 回复: @Rufus Clyde
  203. @Laurent Guyénot

    是否应该假设摩萨德既组织了虚假的暗杀企图,也组织了真正的暗杀? 一旦中央情报局参与了假暗杀,它就受到了损害。 也许摩萨德的一种策略是损害中央情报局等可能挫败和/或揭露摩萨德阴谋的机构。

    • 回复: @Laurent Guyénot
    , @Iris
  204. 爱德华·特德·肯尼迪 很可能被致命注射, 谋杀,由 奥巴马帮, 为了打断预定的新闻发布会 Cindy Sheehan2009 年 XNUMX 月,他在玛莎葡萄园岛度过他的第一次总统假期时,曾领导反对布什/切尼的战争,并领导反对好战分子奥巴马的反战活动家。

    基本上,奥巴马被吓坏了,在他的营地附近的玛莎葡萄园岛有抗议者,以及一位曾鼓动全国反对战争的主要反战人物愿意挑战所有觊觎权力的人的前景。

    特德很方便地为球队打了一枪!

  205. @Iris

    唯一一个我们 100% 肯定积极和蓄意参与肯尼迪暗杀的人肯定是杰克鲁宾斯坦。 所以他的背景和行为非常重要。

    这是真实的。 鲁比,而不是奥斯瓦尔德,是暗杀肯尼迪的关键人物。

    但我们没有证据证明 Ruby 的动机。

    鲁比射杀奥斯瓦尔德的前一天晚上,有人给达拉斯警方打了一个匿名电话,警告他们如果奥斯瓦尔德按照他们计划的方式移动,他就会被杀。 接电话的警官认出是杰克鲁比的声音。 Ruby是一个不情愿的刺客。

    当他的拉比曾经在监狱里问他为什么杀死奥斯瓦尔德时,鲁宾斯坦回答说:“我这样做是为了犹太人”。

    我们不知道他的意思是什么。 也许他知道犹太暴徒在以色列人的要求下枪杀了肯尼迪; 或者他骗了比他更大的暴徒,他们向他提出了一个他无法拒绝的提议——射杀奥斯瓦尔德——他对拉比说了一个安慰性的谎言。 我们只是不知道。

    • 回复: @Skeptikal
  206. Ron Unz 说:
    @Laurent Guyénot

    我相信本古里安下令暗杀肯尼迪的事实在消息灵通的犹太人圈子中是一个公开的秘密,也是大多数受过教育的以色列人的强烈怀疑。 我认为 Andrew Adler 的著名社论(《亚特兰大犹太时报》,13 年 2012 月 XNUMX 日)呼吁摩萨德暗杀总统,以由他对以色列友好的副总统(下图)取代他,这清楚地表明了这一点。 当以色列人和美国犹太人现在公开吹嘘他们对世界的影响以及他们有权消灭那些妨碍以色列宏伟命运的人时,如果有一天以色列记者公开称赞本古里安摆脱了以色列,我不会感到惊讶那个“危险的肯尼迪反犹分子”。

    嗯,这不会让我完全惊讶。 一个类比可能是宗教犹太人之间正在进行的关于他们最终可以从圣地根除所有基督教痕迹的辩论:

    多年来,着名的以色列拉比有时公开辩论犹太人的力量现在是否已经变得足够强大,以至于耶路撒冷、伯利翰和其他附近地区的所有基督教教堂最终都可以被摧毁,整个圣地完全清除了所有基督教徒的痕迹。污染。 一些人采取了这一立场,但大多数人敦促谨慎行事,认为犹太人需要获得一些额外的力量才能采取如此冒险的步骤。

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-oddities-of-the-jewish-religion/

    • 谢谢: Iris
  207. anon[261]• 免责声明 说:

    206 是迄今为止最好、最疯狂的澄清。 中央情报局政变的压倒性证据实际上证明中央情报局打算假装炸毁肯尼迪的大脑,并且几乎做到了,但并不完全如此,所以肯尼迪会害怕并说:“哇! 那已经很接近了”,然后入侵古巴并开始了一场核战争并结束了地球上的生命,这几乎奏效了,但顽皮的伊兹“嘘!” 把奥斯瓦尔德吓了一跳,所以他没打中肯尼迪,大概打了 20 次,他就像“哦,该死,现在怎么办?” 然后“我知道,我会射杀警察!” 然后 Tsarnaevs 来自未来,就像终结者一样从他们的时间旅行 EMP 泡沫中扑出,并说:“不,不要那样做,射杀警察一点用都没有,只会让事情变得更糟!” 但他们为时已晚。

    现在你只是在取笑我们。

    • 同意: Alden
    • 哈哈: gay troll
  208. utu 说:
    @Laurent Guyénot

    在这里可以找到 Michael Collins Piper 对 Gary Wean 的看法。
    http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/Critical_Summaries/Books/Piper_responds.html

    IMO,创建多层暗杀场景,其中一个应该失败然后被劫持,这太离奇了。 有些人喜欢 patsies 被骗并相信他们参与了其他事情,但是您没有两个独立的控制器,一个操作具有不同的场景。

    • 回复: @Laurent Guyénot
  209. @anon

    你是否讽刺地提到了 Lady 和 de Souza? 因为这两个例子非常清楚地表明,中央情报局对它以外的任何机构绝对不负责任。

  210. gay troll 说:
    @Laurent Guyénot

    你的整个角度对我来说似乎相当不诚实。 如果美国副总统是同谋和直接受益者,为什么要指责以色列是主要犯罪者? 即使 LBJ 是政变的辅助,你坚持仅仅涉及中央情报局的“分子”(或者中央情报局只计划了一次“未遂”暗杀,而犹太黑帮介入以使其成为真正的暗杀)等于粉饰中央情报局. 考虑一下:中央情报局和以色列是在一年内成立的。 中央情报局的第一次秘密行动是推翻伊朗的民主。 伊朗仍然是以色列和深层国家的主要克星。 换句话说,中央情报局和以色列紧密相连,他们有着共同的目标。 您写作的目的似乎是让美国人感到无辜,减轻他们的内疚并将其投射到他们的国界之外。 抱歉,但我们不能这么简单地与犹太复国主义罪行脱钩。 你对布什参与的驳回也是轻而易举的。 还有哪个家庭与肯尼迪遇刺事件和 9/11 事件如此接近?

    • 回复: @Laurent Guyénot
  211. @Laurent Guyénot

    奥斯瓦尔德的过去提出了一个问题:想象没有阴谋,他是一个孤独的枪手。 在证人席上,他会讲述他为 3 个字母机构所做的工作,可能会将一些虚构与事实混在一起。 这对当局来说显然是非常尴尬的,所以他们必须在他作证之前杀了他。 因此,他的谋杀本身并不是他参与阴谋的证据——在别处寻找这一证据至关重要。

    I remember that Douglass got in great length into the Oswald lookalike. I would have to read it again, but I tend to now consider this as a canard.

    On the contrary, the Oswald lookalike is the clearest evidence of a conspiracy. Without this clue, it is possible to insist that Oswald was a lone nut, and Ruby too was either a lone nut or was employed to silence Oswald for the reasons given above.

    In any case, focusing on Oswald is almost a waste of time, since he is just a patsy. And as I found out, he was not even working for the CIA, but for the ONI, the Navy Intelligence (I mention it in the film), which is very significant, given Johnson’s connection in the Navy.

    It is possible he worked for both at different times. Declassified documents show that at the right time there was a CIA program to arrange “defections” of agents to the USSR. Oswald was probably part of this program. Oswald is also reputed to have worked for the FBI.

    IIRC Douglass writes that Jack Ruby and the Oswald double were in the theatre when Oswald was arrested. More evidence of a conspiracy. The double was arrested along with Oswald, but was soon released. He was then seen sitting in a car near the theatre, killing time; and later seen again on a CIA flight out of Dallas.

    Oswald was not told his real role in the plot. For a parallel with 9/11, this was also the unhappy fate of the “muscle men” among the 9/11 hijackers (i.e. the ones who were not trained pilots). They believed they were taking part in a conventional hijacking, not a suicide mission.

    • 回复: @Kapyong
    , @Laurent Guyénot
  212. gay troll 说:
    @Iris

    Israel is an important angle, so is the Apollo program. Apollo was the means to winning the space race against the Soviets, the only problem was that putting men on the moon was impossible, and after years of taxpayer money wasted on the boondoggle, Kennedy was ready to draw down the program in his second term. This is also consistent with his cooling Cold War enthusiasm. But after his assassination Apollo’s feasibility made a miraculous turnaround, and within six years Aldrin and Armstrong were scouting out the best golf locations on the Moon. Of course, the original Apollo crew were incinerated in an unfortunate mishap on Earth. And in the post Apollo 11 press conference, the astronauts act as if the sword of Damocles hangs over their heads. We may not have won in Vietnam, but we won the space race, by George. Because Americans are, you know, 例外的。

    • 回复: @Laurent Guyénot
  213. Chiefilliniwek1982 writes in post #182:

    I’m about 80 pages into Bergman’s book. I’ve read about plans to assassinate King Farouk, the shooting down of a plane carrying the Egyptian high command, the murder of a German scientist who had been working for the Egyptians, the recruitment of Otto Skorzeny, etc. The Mossad seems incredibly daring in its plots, and that’s putting it mildly. It’s certainly not far-fetched to think that the Mossad was and is capable of assassinating an American president.

    … and Alden in post #187 writes:

    In the late 1940s, the Israelis assassinated British governor of Egypt Lord Moyne and United Nations observers Count Bernadotte and Colonel Serot And attempted to assassinate British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin. And planned to assassinate British Prime Minister Attlee and other cabinet ministers if necessary Plus numerous Palestinians and Turks from 1890 on.

    以色列人会毫不犹豫地杀死包括美国总统在内的任何总理或总统。

    1) These were all in the Middle East or Europe, with the most egregious killings typically in the Middle East (usually Israel).

    2) These operations required no sophistication for covering up the crime by blaming it on a “patsy.” Abundant fraudulent evidence was not manufactured that could convince a court or similar investigative body. If Israel did try to cover their killings up, they usually framed them as quite simple Arab-on-Arab killings.

    3) In some of the cases above, Israel (or the Jews) didn’t even try to hide its involvement.

    Let’s first take the example of Lord Moyne, the British Governor of Egypt, which Alden mentions.

    Two members of a Zionist paramilitary group by the name of Lehi, which both used and admitted to using terror, surprised Moyne outside his Cairo home in 1944, shot him and his driver to death, but left his aide-de-camp and secretary alive. They escaped the scene by bicycle, but were quickly apprehended by Egyptian police. Their group Lehi later put out a statement explaining their action.

    How does this operation show any of the conspiratorial sophistication that was supposedly involved in the killing of JFK? Keep in mind that this assassination took place less than twenty years before Kennedy was shot in Texas.

    Two Jews jumping out the bushes to shot their target and his driver? Leaving two witnesses? Escaping on bikes? Announcing their crime through what was an openly Jewish terrorist group?

    This is your comparison to the JFK assassination?

    Some sophistication. Yet less than twenty years later they are supposedly faking autopsy photos of a president, infiltrating the U.S. government, military, and police to thwart the murder investigation of a president, and carefully arranging evidence so that it obviously points to a “patsy” – and to the degree it doesn’t point to that “patsy,” Israel still escapes the blame.

    What about Chiefilliniwek1982’s comment about Mossad targeting King Farouk?

    Well, what about it? The year was 1951. Egypt and Israel were effectively in a state of war, the 1949 armistice notwithstanding. Why would it be a surprise that Mossad would target the leader of the country who had tried to overrun Israel less than three years earlier?

    And here is how Bergman describes it in his book:

    To this end, AMAN [Israel’s military intelliegnce] set up a unit called Intelligence Service 13 (which in Jewish tradition is considered a lucky number). Avraham Dar, now one of its prominent officers, went to Egypt in 1951 to set up a network of agents culled from local Zionist activists. On various pretexts, the recruits traveled to Europe, and then to Israel for training in espionage and sabotage. Outlining the goal of his network, Dar explained that “the central problem that made Egypt so antagonistic to Israel was the way King Farouk ran the government. If we could get rid of that obstacle many problems would be solved. In other words”—and here Dar turned to a Spanish proverb—“no dog, no rabies.”

    Getting rid of “the dog” proved to be unnecessary—Farouk soon was overthrown in a coup. And AMAN’s assumption that things would be better when he was gone turned out to be totally groundless. However, the idea that this already established Egyptian network could be employed to change the course of history in the region was simply too tempting for Israel’s leaders to let go. AMAN decided to use these local agents against the Free Officers Movement, which had just recently ousted Farouk, “aiming to undermine Western confidence in the [Egyptian] regime by causing public insecurity and provoking demonstrations, arrests, and retaliatory actions, with Israel’s role remaining unexposed.” But the whole operation ended in catastrophe.

    Despite intensive training, AMAN’s recruits were amateurish and sloppy, and all of their sabotage operations ended in failure. Eventually, eleven operatives were ferreted out by Egyptian authorities. Some were executed after short trials, and one killed himself after suffering gruesome torture. The lucky ones were sentenced to long prison terms and hard labor. [我的重点是粗体。]

    Yet just a little more than a decade later, you would have me believe that Mossad was killing an American president with such sophistication that no one has breathed a word of it outside of some crank circles for nearly sixty years?

    Is this really the best you guys can come up with?

    • 回复: @Alden
  214. @ChiefIlliniwek1982

    Could be. It’s all hypothetical anyway. But, as I said, it fits a modus operandi often used by Israel. I have suggested a similar scenario about 9/11: a small false flag attack on the Pentagon, for the sake of justifying the overthrow of the Talibans in Afghanistan, was turned, with the help of Silverstein and other super-sayanim, in a mega false flag leading to the invasion of Iraq and bullying Saudi Arabia:
    https://www.voltairenet.org/article178638.html
    In recent events in France, we see the same method: the Mossad (or whatever you want to call Israeli secret operation units) overbid on a real event and turn it into something to their advantage, with their control of the media, with Jewish children killed (the Mohamed Merah affair) or evil islamist beheading a teacher.

  215. Kapyong 说:
    @James N. Kennett

    On the contrary, the Oswald lookalike is the clearest evidence of a conspiracy.

    的确。
    Would Laurent or James or anyone like to comment on John Armstrong’s detailed theory of a secret project involving two Oswalds going as far back as childhood (including two Marguerites) ?

    He distinguishes them as Harvey the quiet Russian-speaking immigrant patsy and Lee the loud American manipulator.

    http://harveyandlee.net/

  216. @gay troll

    I understand your point, and I think it is mostly a question of vantage point: you say the dog wags the tail, and I suggest that the tail wags the dog. It links to the greater question of : does the US control Israel (as a bridge head to the Middle East, Chomsky’s position), or is it Israel which controls the US. Did Israel infiltrate the CIA, or did the CIA infiltrate Israel? If we look at recent events, for example, we know that the destruction of Iraq, Libya, Syria was not in the US interest in any way, and so the option US controls Israel is proven false.
    Another question of viewpoint: is Johnson a US president or an Israeli sayanim, handled by Feinberg? Both, of course, but I choose to look at it from the second viewpoint. Why? Very simply because there are already hundreds (thousands?) of book arguing that “CIA killed JFK”, and so little attention is paid to Israel.
    But still, some points of view are more informative than others. We must try to get the best perspective, look at it from a wide angle rather than a narrow one. And I think that in the JFK assassination as in 9/11, Israel (Ben-Gurion) was the prime mover. Without Ben-Gurion mobilizing Jewish criminal networks in the US, Johnson could never have done it, and JFK would not have been assassinated. In fact, without Israel and its capacity to blackmail Kennedy through the “华盛顿邮报” (Graham and Alsop’s visit), Johnson would not even have been vice-president.

    • 谢谢: gay troll
  217. @James N. Kennett

    so they (CIA) would have had to kill him before he testified. Therefore his murder is not itself evidence that he was part of a conspiracy

    At this point, we must ask: is there any evidence that Jack Ruby was a hired assassin for the CIA? No. But there is undisputable evidence that Jacob Rubinstein was a gangster connected to the Irgun.
    On Oswald, my main point is that Ruby is more important to investigate than Oswald. But I overstated my case when saying that investigating Oswald is a waste of time. You are right. And the lookalike is something I would have to check again in Douglass’ book to make a more cautious statement. From my memory, though, it rests on just a couple of testimonies: one by a taxi driver who ended up in a psychiatric hospital, and another one which I found somewhat hard to believe, by someone finding himself in the same plane as the Oswald lookalike: it could easily have been made up. In any case, I am trying to put the focus on Israel, so of course, I miss many details. I’m trying to tell people: come over here and look at it from this angle, this is an unusual angle that few people have been willing to show you. Do you see Israel’s hands now. After that, many questions remain to be asked and answered.
    Everything around Oswald points to a conspiracy, and that is why I think the solution that I mentionned in my comment 206 is quite plausible: a conspiracy within a conspiracy so to speak.

    • 回复: @James N. Kennett
  218. @Timur The Lame

    Thank you for replying to my bullet points upstream if only to satisfy my suspicion that you have nothing.

    Your list of bullet points was dumber than dogshit. I’m sorry that offends, but it’s true. Did you even read them again after you first wrote them out?

    Then you constantly reference Bugliosi’s book as the virtual bible of the issue because (surprise) it supports your unsupportable stance. Good work sport, you sort of keep shooting yourself in the foot which saves on the ammo others have destined for your melon, figuratively speaking.

    Have you actually read Bugliosi’s book?

    It was published in 2007 based on Bugliosi’s more than 20-year experience with the case dating back to a 1986 televised mock trial he participated in which was sponsored by a London television station. That mock trial included many of the witnesses who were still alive (such as Ruth Paine), exhibits of the evidence, and it followed Texas law. A group of Dallas citizens were flown in to act as jurors. Bugliosi was the prosecutor in the case and famous defense lawyer Gerry Spence took the defense.

    Bugliosi’s book is so large, so filled with details and footnotes about every aspect of the case, that it would’ve killed Kennedy if it had been dropped on his head from the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository building just as surely as Oswald’s bullets did.

    If you are really interested in this case, you owe it to yourself to read his book. It will improve the quality of your questions dramatically.

    But I suspect, given your list of bullet points, that you aren’t terribly interested in the case, but just like to chime in on the subject so you can get the equivalent of a participation ribbon.

    Well, your participation is noted. Carry on.

    现在我注意到你通常给奥斯特洛夫斯基的书可信度,但随后混淆了摩萨德可能与肯尼迪暗杀有任何关系的可能性。 这很好,只是我从奥斯特洛夫斯基的第一本书中清楚地记得,在步枪训练期间,官方开玩笑说奥斯瓦尔德是唯一的刺客,他们最好的“专家”拥有最好的步枪、瞄准镜和弹药,无法在无数次尝试中复制“自发的” ,孤独的坚果”,他第一次尝试就拔出了便宜的邮购步枪。 所以,摩萨德不管他​​们有没有参与,都清楚地把奥斯瓦尔德当作一个孤独的刺客来看待,这是一个荒谬的提议。

    I’ve already mentioned upthread that Ostrovsky says Mossad teaches the JFK assassination in Dallas as sort of a case study, complete with maps and drawings, and that their conclusion is that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy.

    My response is, so what?

    Here are some other people who believe JFK was killed by a conspiracy:

    LBJ。

    尼克松。

    夏尔·戴高乐。

    Kenny O’Donnell.

    Ted Sorenson.

    Pierre Salinger.

    Those are just the ones off the top of my head.

    Even Warren Report Commissioner Senator Richard Russell found it hard to believe his own report to which he attached his name. The Georgia senator might have been less skeptical if he had attended more meetings of the Commission. (Russell attended the fewest meetings of any of the members of the Warren Commission, probably because he hated Earl Warren so much.)

    It’s not uncommon for people who do not study the evidence closely to come to the conclusion of a conspiracy. Given the gravity of the crime, the initial impulse of most people is to assume a conspiracy.

    • 回复: @Timur The Lame
  219. @utu

    Clearly, the biggest beneficiary of JFK’s assassination was not Israel, but Lyndon Baines Johnson. There’s really not even a close second. LBJ, more than anyone, benefited from Kennedy’s death.

    But while “Cui bono?” might work as a point of departure for investigating a crime, it does not work in assigning guilt in a criminal case. You have to instead work through the evidence, a crime scene, witnesses, until you have more than just a supposition about who committed the crime.

    Anybody who questions and have doubts about the seriousness of situation of Israel vis a vis the US in 1963 should read all letters between JFK and Ben-Gurion…

    I’ve read Piper’s book and I’ve read Avnar Cohen’s book “Israel and the Bomb,” which has a long, detailed section on Kennedy and Ben-Gurion (and Eshkol), with a particular emphasis on their exchange of letters. It wasn’t that serious. You’re making too much of it.

    • 回复: @utu
  220. From Avner Cohen’s “Israel and the Bomb:”

    The exchange of letters [in August of 1963] between Kennedy and Eshkol was the most important nuclear correspondence to date between an American president and an Israeli prime minister. Eshkol’s decision was decisive for the Israeli nuclear program. Eshkol, like Ben Gurion before him, did not accept Meir’s hawkish advice to tell Kennedy “the truth and explain why,” and, if necessary, to confront the American president on this matter of survival, nor the dovish advice of Sapir, Aran, and Harman, which would have meant placing limits on Israel’s ability to complete its nuclear option.

    Why did Ben Gurion and Eshkol feel so uncomfortable with Golda Meir’s suggestion to tell “the truth and explain why”? Israel could have insisted, in its private dealings with Kennedy, that it had no less right to develop its independent nuclear deterrent option than Britain or France had. If anything, given Israel’s memory of the Holocaust and its lack of external security guarantees, it had a strong case for developing a nuclear option. Developing an option did not mean that Israel would introduce it later as a weapon. Eshkol could have even taken the position that while Israel insisted on its right to have a nuclear option, it was also committed not to be the first to introduce such weapons into the region, just as Peres told Kennedy in their brief White House meeting four months earlier. In 1963 there was no nonproliferation norm, and a number of European countries—Sweden, Switzerland, and Italy—maintained small nuclear programs directed at military applications.

    Meir was also correct on the issue of national sovereignty. There was no precedent for the United States to ask for verification of a friendly state’s declaratory policy, threatening that lack of compliance would “seriously jeopardize” their relations. It is more puzzling because at that time the United States hardly provided any military aid to Israel. Meir was probably correct to think that if Kennedy had been told the truth about Israel’s nuclear resolve, he would not have gone public to fight Israel and world Jewry on this matter of survival. Had Eshkol or Meir been invited to meet Kennedy in person, as Eshkol had contemplated in July, this path might have been taken.

    History, however, took another turn. Facing Kennedy’s pressure and Ben Gurion’s past commitments, the new prime minister decided not to put Dimona on the table, either by fighting for its legitimacy or by using the nuclear option as a direct bargaining chip. Instead, Eshkol followed the approach Ben Gurion had taken, that is, avoiding a showdown by maintaining that Dimona’s purpose was peaceful, agreeing to the principle of U.S. visits to Dimona to confirm its peaceful purposes, and doing so in a manner that would not undermine the nation’s commitment to its future nuclear option. This approach required that Israel be less than honest with the United States.

    In other words, the Israelis obfuscated on the issue, which they had been doing successfully for years. They would continue to obfuscate. Hell, in 1963 at the time of Kennedy’s death, Israel hadn’t even agreed to semi-annual visits to Dimona. So there’s no motive here for killing Kennedy because the Israelis didn’t need to kill Kennedy.

    If push came to shove, Golda Meir was correct. Israel could build the bomb and Kennedy could do nothing to prevent it. The U.S. could not cut off military ties because there were hardy any military ties between the two states in 1963. Direct U.S. government economic aid in the form of grants and loans at the time was also very small. Israel earned far more from American Jewish donors and they were unlikely to be dissuaded by the U.S. government.

    So Kennedy would have to rally world opinion against Israel in such a way as to alter their intentions with Dimona, Was he prepared to do that? Absolutely not. There’s no evidence he had even thought of such a step. The U.S. could threaten, but there was no substantive relationship to threaten. No leverage to use.

    • 回复: @Laurent Guyénot
  221. @Laurent Guyénot

    that clarifies the Zapruder film story.

    And more, it bumps the shenanigans/skullduggery going on with the Zapruder film up to one of the key clues in the assassination, IMHO. Doug Horne was an official part of the ARRB and had authority to investigate and follow up. Dino Brugioni was an expert image analyst for the NPIC and perhaps the first analyst to look at the film and but one day after the assassination. Brugioni’s highly credible story exposes the official story as peddled by Life Magazine and the Warren commission as a coverup. What the film really showed was something entirely different. Those peddling the official story on this thread are either useful idiots or sophisticated trolls.

    Horne, it seems, has established that Brugioni made one set of briefing boards from the original split film and then was cut out from further involvement, while his colleague Homer McMahon a day later, in the same facility, and without Brugioni’s knowledge, made an entirely different set of briefing boards from an altered, unsplit copy, and then was given the job of reporting and testifying about it. What Brugioni most remembers as being altered were frames about and including the head explosion (but perhaps also frames where the limo stopped momentarily and where Clint Hill pushed Mrs. Kennedy back to her seat).

    Some might argue that the alteration was simply to cut out the gore but that would clearly not preclude Brugioni from further involvement. Nor would it explain the to-do about his later retention of the briefing boards or their continued suppression even today. The same consideration would apply to changing the color of the brain-debris cloud from white, as Brugioni recalls it, to pink as in what we were allowed to see.

    More important was the size and location of the spray cloud. Brugioni insisted that “the head explosion he viewed multiple times on 11/23/63 was of such a great size, and duration (in terms of time), that there should be many more frames depicting that explosion than “just the one frame” ”

    Further the spray “wasn’t low [as in frame 313], it was high”. It was “way high off of his head”. It was “three or four feet from his head.”
    https://jamesfetzer.org/2015/09/two-npic-zapruder-film-events-pointing-to-its-alteration/

    If we had had that information to start we wouldn’t have been inferring shot direction from head jerks. Rather we would have assumed, at least to start, that the bullet direction followed the spray direction.

  222. TGD 说:

    I thought that the case implicating Sirhan Sirhan in RFK’s murder was open and shut. Then I watched the movie “Assassination Tango,” which was written, directed and produced by Robert Duvall. Duvall plays a hired killer who uses a small derringer concealed in the palm of his hand as his weapon. None of the witnesses in those killings are aware of what actually happened.

    Noguchi said that the fatal shot came from behind RFK’s ear and at close range.

  223. utu 说:
    @Pincher Martin

    “There’s really not even a close second. LBJ, more than anyone, benefited from Kennedy’s death.” – You are an annoying troll. LBJ was important and perhaps a necessary condition for the operation getting the green light. But LBJ on his own was nothing. While he probably often wished JFK dead he would never try anything. In the bipartisan America the cover up of president murder by his vice president would be impossible. LBJ would not last till 1964 reelection.

    More documents were made available on May 2, 2019:

    书信之战,1963年:约翰·肯尼迪,戴维·本·古里安,列维·埃斯科尔和美国迪莫纳视察
    https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/nuclear-vault/2019-05-02/battle-letters-1963-john-f-kennedy-david-ben-gurion-levi-eshkol-us-inspections-dimona

    • 回复: @Pincher Martin
  224. Alden 说:
    @utu

    Excellent point UTU.

    As attorney general, RFK was in the process of forcing AIPAC to register as a foreign lobbyist. The Jews removed the prestigious foreign affairs committee Senator William Fulbright and others because they wanted to force AIPAC to register as foreign lobbyists.

    Later AIPAC removed senator Percy and others because they approved selling some military planes to Saudi Arabia.

    There 2 entirely different processes in solving any crime. 2 entirely separate entities; investigation and prosecution.

    Who benefits, who could have been able to do it are investigative tools. Nothing to do with prosecution. When, and only when, the investigators find some legally admissible clear and present viable evidence do they speak with the prosecutor.

    It’s the prosecutor, a trial attorney who decides if the investigators have legally admissible, viable evidence. 3 things can happen at that meeting.

    1 The prosecutor accepts the case immediately because; based on the evidence he can prove the suspect committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt

    2 Case looks good more evidence is needed do this and that, we’ll meet again to develop the case for evidence provable beyond a reasonable doubt.

    3. Prosecutor informs investigator there’s not enough evidence to continue.

    Two completely different processes.

    Most people don’t know this. When say, a small business owner is murdered during what looks like an ordinary robbery, the investigation starts with the spouse, insurance benefits, business partners and employees, rejected lovers, heirs, neighborhood and business squabbles.

    Every WKK book is still stuck on who benefitted and not a bit of viable clear and present evidence provable beyond a reasonable doubt. Motive is not evidence.

    Here is some clear and present viable provable beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald killed Kennedy.

    1 Oswald owned rifle X .

    2 When his family moved to the Payne home, Oswald belongings were stored in the Payne garage. Both Mrs Oswald and Mrs Payne observes Oswald wrap rifle X in an army blanket and place it with his other belongings.

    3 The day of the murder, Oswald brought a long narrow rifle shaped package to the Book Depositary building where he worked. The man who gave him a ride saw Oswald bring the package and put it in the car. Driver asked Oswald what was in the package. Oswald replied curtain rods.

    4 Driver was surprised Oswald didn’t leave the package in the car. He asked why Oswald took the package into the building. Oswald didn’t answer.

    5 At 12/30 pm, when Kennedy was shot 3 book depository employees were looking out the fifth floor windows at the parade. 2 of these employees were directly under the window where rifle X was found.

    6 All 3 employees told investigators they heard the shots, felt the vibrations , and saw dust fall from ceiling shelves and heat ducts due to the vibrations. 2 were directly under the 6th floor window where both rifle X and the paper Oswald’s package was wrapped in were found.

    7 Oswald left the building minutes after the shots were fired. He was the only employee to leave.

    8 Oswald’s rifleX was found next to the 6 th floor window directly above the 5th floor window where 2 employees stood looking at the parade . They and a third man at the adjacent window heard the shits, felt the vibrations and saw the dust fall due to the vibrations.

    9 Investigators arrived at the Payne home looking for Oswald’s rifle X. It was not in the garage. The blanket in which it was wrapped was there.

    That was enough for a warrant to be issued for Oswald’s arrest.

    10 Oswald’s palm print was found on rifle X proof that it was Oswald’s rifle, not anyone else’s.

    There was no eyewitness, but all the evidence could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. That was the evidence the prosecutors found within minutes of the shooting.

    The evidence was proof Oswald killed Kennedy. There has never been any proof Oswald conspired with anyone else to kill Kennedy. No proof he had any help from anyone else. No proof anyone or any entity who had a motive to kill Kennedy contacted Oswald about killing Kennedy.

    Proof beyond a reasonable doubt Oswald killed Officer Tibbitt. Several eye witnesses who saw the killing and identified Oswald. Oswald was carrying the gun he used to kill Tibbitt when he was arrested.

    Proof beyond reasonable doubt Ruby killed Oswald. Numerous eye witnesses and it was all on film.

    Thousands of books speculating about the motive ms of every organization on earth but not one bit of real evidence a prosecutor would accept as provable at trial.

    • 同意: Pincher Martin
    • 回复: @Ron Unz
  225. Petermx 说:
    @Lace the Artist Formerly Known as Race

    I apologize if what I wrote sounded condescending. That was not intended.

    The so called “genocide” was a part of “allied” propaganda and was a major feature at the Nuremberg trials. There were movies made about it starting after the war but it got a huge boost starting in the year pinpointed as 1967, the year Israel defeated the Arab nations in a war. The Jewish author Norman Finkelstein wrote that before then, many American Jews were shy about their support for Israel but after then Jews felt emboldened and starting from then, there was an increased amount of publicity regarding the “genocide”. I noticed in starting in the early 1970’s when an endless stream of hatred began pouring out of Hollywood, newspapers and TV. A day did not pass without some new horror story. In high school my Jewish English instructor had us recite American poet Sylvia Plath poems about how the Germans (now just known as “the NAZIS”) made soap out of Jewish fat and lampshades out of Jewish skin, even suggesting this was done on an industrial scale. When I brought these poems home my mother said “this country gas changed”, just as Finkelstein says.

    The US began a new program (staffed by Jews) to hunt down so called “NAZIS” in the US, held trials and deported them to Germany and elsewhere. The Ukrainian John Demjanjuk was deported to Israel and tried as a war criminal, he was tried and convicted. Then his conviction was overturned when it was shown they had the wrong guy. Not satisfied, the Jews continued their attacks on Demjanjuk and tried again, this time deporting him to Germany where they wheeled the old man into court for his trial. I believe he was eventually convicted but not before he died. His trial would have been as fair as the show trials in 1945. Another victim was Arthur Rudolph. He was a top German rocket scientist the Americans brought over to the USA after the war and was a leading scientist that put the Americans on the moon. In the 1980’s the Jews said he was in charge of “slave labor” at a rocket facility during the war, stripped him of his US citizenship and deported him to Germany. The USA no longer needed him, There were many others smeared and deported.

    The word “Holocaust” was not used until the 1970’s to describe the so called genocide. There were so many films, books and newspaper articles on it that the word took on a new meaning. Its use now refers solely to the WW II “genocide”. Norman Finkelstein wrote a book called “The Holocaust Industry” where organized Jewry uses blackmail and extortion to squeeze additional billions of dollars from European governments (Switzerland – 1 billion dollars), major European firms, auto companies, insurance companies, art galleries and individuals.

    In the late 1980’s Germany made “Holocaust denial” illegal. There are about 10-15 European countries where “Holocaust denial” is illegal. This all came about as a result of the non stop propaganda about the “Holocaust” beginning roughly in the early 1970’s. Also, this led to many idiots believing today that the war was so the allies could save the Jews.

    • 回复: @Petermx
  226. anon[377]• 免责声明 说:

    Rufus Clyde, no really, ask Sabrina. She’s got her nose seriously out of joint. She’s all like, Why did you assholes hang me out to dry for so long? It’s because I’m a dot, isn’t it? It’s because I’m a chick. It’s because I didn’t blow D’Andrea that one time. But they did the best they could. You try to spring a convicted criminal from multiple cooperating OECD jurisdictions. It takes a while to bribe that many people.

    And ask Lady. Every time he leaves his B.M.D. for overseas TDY, some pissant country locks him up and the ambassador has to crawl to get him sprung. He lost his opulent Hannibal Lecter villa and its commercial human-flesh kitchen, and his collection of pegleg beer steins and pickled nun tits. Confiscated for restitution.

    It’s a significant drag on clandestine crime for DO timmies who are scared of the drizzly shits, much less getting locked up. They cope by delegating everything to more balls-out countries (or FBI dumbshits like Levinson) but the span of control makes for fuckups. It’s not textbook justice yet but it’s getting there.

  227. Alden 说:
    @Timur The Lame

    The great, wonderful thing about Bugliosi’s book is that he was a real district attorney who knew the difference between real viable clear and present evidence that can be proven at trial behind a reasonable doubt.

    And speculation about motives is absolutely not evidence provable beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.

    • 同意: Pincher Martin
  228. Iris 说:
    @ChiefIlliniwek1982

    Should it be assumed that the Mossad organized both the phony assassination attempt and the real assassination

    There was definitely a conspiracy within a conspiracy, but yours is a difficult question.

    There even exist actors of the Dallas tragedy who claimed that they took part in an “abort mission“, a mission to infiltrate and derail an assassination attempt on JFK.

    One of those was pilot Robert “Tosh” Plummlee, a long-time military and CIA associate who testified several times before Senate and Congress Committees for other matters.
    He attested to having flown a team of people to Dallas for an “abort mission”, a plausible justification considering that JFK and his family lived throughout his presidency under overt and violent death threats difficult to imagine today.

    Author Christopher Fulton, who published a striking posthumous confession by JFK’s WH Head of SS, stated that Bobby Kennedy himself was supervising the abort mission, which would futher explain his silence and disarray.

    Some people secretly decided to kill Kennedy, while tricking other people into believing that the assassination operation was a drill or an abort mission. As a consequence, everybody felt implicated and shut up. Including Oswald.

    We don’t have certainty about who coordinated the assassination, and know only the pawns.
    But if instead of looking at the ,我们看 机会, it become very obvious who organised the assassination. To succeed, this crime needed:
    – the power to divert JFK motorcade‘s route into the Elm Street death trap.
    – control over the main sniper nest, the place with the best line of site as identified in the initial police ballistics and where JFK was really shot from, the Dal-Tex Building.

    扎普鲁德, a Zionist and high-degree mason occupied offices in the 4th/5th floors of the Dal-Tex building. One co-owner was David Weisblat, a major financier for the ADL with ties to Israeli intelligence. The other was Morris D. 贾菲, a businessman of Jewish-Hispanic heritage with close ties to LBJ and controversial US army deals.

    Jaffe was the son-in-law of Sam Bloom, the influential Jewish member of the Dallas Citizen Council who was instrumental in defining the motorcade’s route. Bloom later exerted pressure onto the DPD to handle Oswald publicly in front of the press, thus enabling his execution by Jacob Leon 鲁宾斯坦.

    Finally, a Morty 弗里德曼, an active member of the Zionist community who was behind the Dallas Uranium & Oil Company, which was possibly helping Israel manufacture nuclear weapons, also had offices at the Dal-Tex.’ s 3rd floor, with unobstructed view onto the President’s limousine. Morty Freedman was the brother-in-law of Sam Bloom.

    The list of “opportunities” reads like a “Who is Who” of high-ranking Sayanim.

  229. @utu

    The title of your link reads: “Kennedy Warned Israeli Leaders in 1963 That U.S. “Commitment and Support” Could be “Seriously Jeopardized” Absent Inspection of Dimona Reactor.”

    How is this new or interesting? It’s all covered in Avner Cohen’s book. Just because the National Security Archive decides to publish the correspondence for the first time doesn’t mean it wasn’t covered before. Your link even puts Cohen’s book in its first footnote, saying Some of the documents in today’s posting, such as the Kennedy-Ben-Gurion-Eshkol correspondence, were declassified in U.S. or Israeli archives during the 1990s, but have not been widely available.”

    So there’s nothing new here, other than perhaps Kennedy’s comment to the French Foreign French Minister, which isn’t terribly interesting. Stop pretending that this is some significant new information.

    And what “U.S. commitment and support”? As I said, in 1963, the U.S. gave Israel no significant military or financial aid. So what exactly do you think Kennedy was threatening them with?

    You have no answer for that, do you? You are anachronistically projecting back into the past something that did not exist in the U.S.-Israeli relationship at that time.

    Smarten up. You don’t understand the politics of this issue nearly as well as you seem to think you do.

    LBJ was important and perhaps a necessary condition for the operation getting the green light. But LBJ on his own was nothing. While he probably often wished JFK dead he would never try anything. In the bipartisan America the cover up of president murder by his vice president would be impossible. LBJ would not last till 1964 reelection.

    I don’t think LBJ did it, either, but not for the silly reasons you give here.

    But that wasn’t your original point. You asked, who stood to benefit the most from Kennedy’s death? Clearly, that was LBJ. There’s no doubt of that.

    As for the Israelis, it’s not even clear they understood that Kennedy, rather than America, was the obstacle to their nuclear program, even if that would eventually become clear as the months and years went by during the Johnson administration.

    After Kennedy’s death, the U.S. government under Johnson continued to use Kennedy’s letter to Eshkol to remind the Israelis of what the U.S. believed was the Israeli responsibilities on openness to inspections at Dimona. But Johnson, unlike Kennedy, was less interested in pushing the issue.

    From Cohen’s book:

    There was a difference, however, between Kennedy’s plan to create a system of bilateral inspections of Israel’s nuclear program and the way the visitation arrangements were put into practice during the Johnson years. Their authority was not legally, but rather politically based. These visits were the result of a vague political understanding between two heads of state, not the result of compliance with an international agreement. Kennedy wanted the arrangement to “be as nearly as possible in accord with international standards,” but Eshkol never saw it that way. For Eshkol, the arrangement was a necessary evil: a way to avoid a confrontation with the president of the United States without simultaneously compromising the project. There was nothing legally binding about the arrangement with Kennedy, and it is not clear to what extent there was even an agreement between Kennedy and Eshkol. Israel never agreed to the four ground rules that Kennedy spelled out in his 5 July letter. In fact, Eshkol responded explicitly only to one, concerning the schedule of the first visit, and politely avoided the others.4

    Thus, while Kennedy insisted that visits to Dimona take place “at intervals of six months,” this never occurred. During the five-year Johnson-Eshkol period, the United States repeatedly reminded Israel that Kennedy’s letter asked specifically specifically for “bi-annual visits,” but Israel, which never agreed to that, always found reasons to deny such visits,5 and the intervals between visits were stretched to a year or longer.

    The differences in perspectives between the United States and Israel were also manifested in the terminology used. The United States talked of “inspections,” referring to those involved as “inspectors.” Israel objected to this terminology, referring instead to “scientific visits” and the “invited guests of Israel.” In January 1965 Secretary of State Dean Rusk wrote to Ambassador Walworth Barbour about these terminological differences: “We [are] not concerned as to whether team [members are called] ‘invited guests of Israel’ or ‘inspectors’ provided they are given right of access to all parts of Dimona site and to all relevant reports.”6 Rusk further wrote Barbour that the “team would normally bring small instruments which could be carried in [a] suit pocket for independent measurements and would hope [this is] acceptable to Israelis.”7 This was unacceptable to the Israelis, and the Johnson administration gave in. The transition from the Kennedy to Johnson administrations changed the character and function of the visits significantly.

    So the nature of the Israeli-US understanding of the inspections changed over the Johnson years, but not immediately. The demands remained the same. Kennedy would’ve fought harder than Johnson for those inspections, but he did not have enough leverage over the Israelis to prevail. In the end, the Israelis were determined to have nukes, and the outcome of this battle was always a less important issue for the U.S.

    Is this all you got, Utu? The Mossad killed Kennedy because he was pushing for biannual inspections at Dimona in a letter and threatened vague consequences? Is that really the best you have?

    • 回复: @utu
  230. Curmudgeon 说:
    @Rocha

    Henry VIII was a reformation. The English under Elizabeth I, and James VI were primarily “Protestant” and wealthier than today.
    I fully understand the consequences of the regicide and the Puritans who pushed for the Bank of England. The Puritans are not Christians, and therefore not Protestants in the true sense of the meaning of the Reformation. They believed they were persecuted by the Protestants in England. It is they who pressed for legalized usury and privatized the issue of currency. The Royal Charter creating the Bank of England was granted by King William III of Orange, the man the treasonous Puritans tasked with invading Britain to overthrow James II, and who was financed by (((Amsterdam Banks))).

  231. @Pincher Martin

    I would most certainly read Bugliosi’s book if I came across it at a book sale or some-such. I similarly picked up his book on The OJ trial and found it to be excellent and well reasoned. To date I have only read critiques of the book you reference on a site where people take the JFK assassination very seriously and I got the impression that the only merit it had was that he thoroughly dismissed that psychopathic mental case Judyth Vary Baker who claimed to have shagged Oswald (and met everyone of note) for a couple of months in New Orleans the summer before the assassination.

    All well and good but Bugliosi is not the final word, TV theatrics and all. You still dodged my question of how you could you possibly claim to have superior knowledge of whether LHO was a lone assassin or not when the mighty Mossad (involved or not) came to a different conclusion. I find that truly mind boggling. Added to which seeing that you are such a harsh taskmaster, can I assume that you read all 27 volumes of the Warren Commission? If not, hop to it. It shouldn’t take YOU too long. I’ll definitely give you a ribbon for that.

    干杯-

  232. @utu

    You have a good point. I’ve often said the same to people who argue that the JFK assassination was a conspiracy between many different entities who all hated him. There must be a central command with a very small number of people, and under them everyone is on a “need to know” basis.
    In that case, the main controller can only be Johnson. But he may have convinced some people (Dallas police, secret services, etc.) that there was going to be a fake assassination and not to worry, while organizing the real thing.
    Regarding your comment 201, where you say “Few year ago I asked Laurent Guyenot if he was familiar with the documentation but he did not to answer”: I must have missed your question. It happens (I probably respond to too many comments anyway). The answer is no, I have never read the whole JFK-Ben-Gurion correspondence, and neither studied the full record of RFK’s procedure for the American Zionist Organization. I am not an investigator, more a synthetizer. I specialize in connecting the dots that others have already found. But if you say that in these files I’ll find something that I haven’t yet found, I’m willing to try. Can you tell me where to start?

    • 回复: @Skeptikal
  233. @gay troll

    Very true. Apollo was Johnson’s project, and meant huge money for him and his Texas buddies:
    Alan Wasser wrote http://www.thespacereview.com/article/396/1: ; “Few people today realize or remember, but a single man, Lyndon Baines Johnson, ‘LBJ’, is primarily responsible for both starting and ending ‘The Space Race’”.
    Here is something I wrote some time ago, but never published:

    Johnson’s control over the NASA was achieved through James E. Webb, whom Johnson got nominated as administrator of the NASA. He played a decisive role in lobbying for the Apollo program. Webb was so closely tied to Johnson that he resigned when Johnson announced he wouldn’t run for reelection in 1968, thereby avoiding being in charge during the glorious Apollo moon landings.
    In his film 美国月亮, Massimo Mazzucco brings in key information that enrich our understanding of the relationship between Johnson and Kennedy, and may shed some light on Kennedy’s assassination. We learn that, although Kennedy left the Apollo project under Johnson’s supervision, on September 18, 1963, he summoned Webb in the Oval Office to share his doubts about the possibility and the value of sending men to the moon, which would cost “a hell of a lot of money,” suggesting that enough scientific knowledge could be gained by simply sending probes. “Putting a man on the moon isn’t worth that many billions,” he said during that recorded conversation. Webb insisted that it was too late to change plans.
    Two days after this meeting, in a speech to the United Nations, Kennedy publicly invited the Soviet Union to collaborate in space exploration, and in particular in “a joint expedition to the moon.” Khrushchev politely declined the Americans’ offer with this perhaps ironical statement:
    “At the present time we do not plan flights of cosmonauts to the Moon. I have read a report that the Americans wish to land on the moon by 1970. Well, let’s wish them success. And we will see how they fly there, and how they will land there, or to be more correct, ‘moon’ there. And most important—how they will get up and come back. We do not wish to compete in sending people to the Moon without thorough preparation.”
    Two days later, Kennedy was murdered in Dallas. The chronology is important because it reveals that Kennedy tried to neutralize one of the major arguments of the moon race, which was to make it a battleground of the Cold War. This attempt by Kennedy must be put in relation with what is otherwise known about Kennedy’s secret communications with Khrushchev and Castro in his efforts to end the Cold War, and with his now well-documented intention to withdraw American troops from Vietnam.

    • 谢谢: gay troll, Iris, Skeptikal
    • 回复: @Alden
  234. Alden 说:
    @Pincher Martin

    From what I remember about British foreign affairs secretary Ernest British security was very aware of Israeli attempts to kill Bevin. Several attempts were made by Israel to kill Bevin but were thwarted by British security.

    There were killings of Zionists by other Zionist factions in the 1920s in Palestine.

    Endless motives, but the only real, provable evidence is Oswald, his rifle and the gun he used to murder Officer Tibbitt. Some clever assassin, shoots a police officer 10 feet from witnesses. Rides to work with a co worker with a long narrow package, brings the package into the building, shoots the president with his own rifle, leaves the wrapping paper and rifle and flees the scene of the crime.

    Both killings were hasty stupid plans. No thought of anything but the killing, no means of getting away other than walking and a city bus.

    The stupidity and no means of getting away are not legal evidence. But they are excellent indications that Oswald had no help from anyone.

    The first bit of suspicion by police that Oswald killed Kennedy was within minutes they entered the building from which the shots were fired. Oswald had already fled the building. That’s why the police focused on Oswald even before the other employees informed the police they heard the shots coming from the 6 th floor window.

    The killings of Kennedy and Tibbitt by Oswald were on the level of a 75 IQ teen walking into a store, shooting the clerk for \$40 in the cash register and then shooting someone in the parking lot.

  235. anon[339]• 免责声明 说:

    226, in which Guyenot falls back to the fundamental crock of shit, which must be in the 1035-960 classified annex because Giraldi fixates on it too, without ever addressing the absurdity, no matter how you rub their nose in it.

    “[INSERT RATFUCK/CLUSTERFUCK] was not in the US interest in any way… so US controls Israel is proven false.”

    The willful obtuseness of this nonsense is proof they’re in the tank for CIA. Unperson Michael Parenti is good on this. This fallacy is a crucial tenet of CIA dogma.

    Of course it’s not in the interest of the US, it’s in the interest of CIA. As a criminal enterprise, CIA makes shitloads of money by running arms entrepots in countries they start wars in. CIA launders that money in anarchic destroyed economies. CIA grows drugs in them, or runs drugs through them and makes more money. CIA finds hot refugee tots and pimps them out, and films their johns to blackmail them. Chaos and state failure is good business.

    • 谢谢: gay troll
    • 回复: @Iris
  236. You still dodged my question of how you could you possibly claim to have superior knowledge of whether LHO was a lone assassin or not when the mighty Mossad (involved or not) came to a different conclusion. I find that truly mind boggling. Added to which seeing that you are such a harsh taskmaster, can I assume that you read all 27 volumes of the Warren Commission? If not, hop to it. It shouldn’t take YOU too long. I’ll definitely give you a ribbon for that.

    No, I have not read all 27 volumes of the Warren Commission, and I never will. Why would I? Sylvia Meagher probably knew more about those volumes than anyone in the world, and her judgement was severely flawed because she knew almost nothing else.

    But I have read the one-volume Warren Report, and based on what I see in this thread I have probably read more about the Kennedy administration and the politics of that time period than anyone here.

    That’s important, too. Too many conspiracists have a superficial understanding of the time period and its politics. So they choose to focus on things – such as Kennedy’s problems with some of his generals – which in context aren’t that remarkable. But because those conspiracists don’t know that context, they don’t understand how ordinary Kennedy’s problems with his generals were. Truman had them. Ike had them. LBJ had them.

    Or the conspiracists believe Kennedy was a far more radical leader than he was because they never read anything other than conspiracist books which tell them how radical he was. “Kennedy was just about to end the Cold War and pull out of Vietnam and ‘BANG, BANG, BANG!’ it was all over.”

    It would be laughable if it wasn’t so sad.

    Last year, when I was participating in a similar thread here at 乌兹网 about the Kennedy assassination, I realized that I didn’t know very much about Mossad and its operations. I felt comfortable talking about the Kennedys, JFK’s administration, U.S. military issues, foreign affairs, the politics of the sixties, and the Kennedy assassination, but I did not feel that comfortable discussing Israel’s or Mossad’s covert method of operation. So I decided to bone up by reading through Ron’s bibliography, which has several books on Israel and the Mossad.

    After reading those books, I feel more comfortable discussing Israel’s covert operations and Mossad. I was always confident Israel had nothing to do with JFK’s assassination, but now I’m confident explaining why that’s the case.

  237. gay troll 说:

    Mr. Unz, have you ever read Dave McGowan’s investigation into the Lincoln assassination, or written anything on the same topic?

    http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/lincoln/

  238. Iris 说:
    @anon

    Of course it’s not in the interest of the US, it’s in the interest of CIA

    The obvious flaw in your reasoning is that it does not explain the sustained, infaillible cover-up and the impunity it guarantees, which then drives to ever more insane crimes.

    “They” killed JFK, then RFK, then JFK Jr, then encouraged by the impunity, killed 3000 American civilians with nuclear weapons, all on American soil, then what next?…. Can you see the escalation, the power of the cover-up?

    Intelligence services are only ephemeral collections of humans with differing world views, and that includes patriotism. They may stick together forever about the abominations they commit abroad, but those committing unthinkable crimes on national soil would always risk being denounced once they retire, or die, or cross a colleague.

    But it the case of JFK, nothing, not a word, not an investigation has come out for over two generations.

    This is what it is like to have to face an intemporel, extra-American, organic collective entity that has been conspiring for a thousand years and think they have another thousand years ahead of them: the supremacist Talmudic tribe.

  239. Alden 说:
    @utu

    Affirmative action Preference is for blacks. Most blacks are Protestant. Most Catholics are White and therefore discriminated against by affirmative action. Therefore affirmative action benefits Protestants and discriminates against Catholics. In 1963 and 68 when affirmative action discrimination against Whites became law. Of course, some Catholics, Catholics with Spanish names are now affirmative action beneficiaries

    2 syllogism sapplicable in 1963 and 68 when affirmative action became law. Affirmative action ply applied to blacks at the time. Few Hispanic Catholics lived in the US at the time. Most Catholics were White European descent Most blacks were Protestants.

    Affirmative action benefits blacks
    Most blacks are Protestants
    Therefore, most AA beneficiaries are both black and Protestant

    Affirmative action discriminates against Whites.
    Most Catholics are White
    Therefore, AA discriminates against White Catholics.

  240. Ron Unz 说:
    @Alden

    Who benefits, who could have been able to do it are investigative tools. Nothing to do with prosecution. When, and only when, the investigators find some legally admissible clear and present viable evidence do they speak with the prosecutor.

    It’s the prosecutor, a trial attorney who decides if the investigators have legally admissible, viable evidence. 3 things can happen at that meeting….

    Thousands of books speculating about the motive ms of every organization on earth but not one bit of real evidence a prosecutor would accept as provable at trial.

    Well, I hardly regard myself as a huge JFK Assassination expert. As I’ve emphasized, until just a few years ago I never paid any attention to the topic, and assumed all the “conspiracy theories” were just nonsense. And even now, I doubt I’ve read more than about 15 of the JFK books.

    But since you’re so heavily focusing on the legal angle and seem to have read so many of the books over the decades, here’s a question for you…

    As I’m sure you know, in 1978 Victor Marchetti, a former well-placed CIA official, was told by one of his former colleagues that the CIA planned to pin the blame of the JFK assassination on E. Howard Hunt, who had been with the CIA at the time. Marchetti published the leak in an article and he and his publisher were sued for libel by Hunt, with the lengthy case dragging on for years, and eventually attracting Mark Lane as the defense lawyer, which allowed him to subpoena numerous witnesses, including former CIA assets and Cubans.

    When it finally came to trial in 1985, various witnesses testified under oath that they themselves had been (peripherally) involved in the JFK assassination conspiracy, and Hunt lost, though he still continued to claim that he had had nothing to do with the assassination.

    Then a few years ago, Hunt made a death-bed confession to his son that contrary to all his denials over the years, he had indeed been personally involved in the JFK assassination. The whole story is discussed in Lane’s 合理的拒绝 book and also the Talbot books.

    Offhand, wouldn’t such sworn testimony and Hunt’s confession (at the very least) strongly substantiate that there probably was some sort of JFK conspiracy, probably involving elements of the CIA? Also, why would the CIA have tried to make Hunt into a scapegoat for the JFK conspiracy if there *是* no JFK conspiracy.

    While it may be somewhat difficult to determine the precise details of a JFK conspiracy, establishing that there very likely was a JFK conspiracy seems considerably easier.

    The analysis presented in the Talbot books certainly seemed pretty persuasive to me….

    • 回复: @Alden
  241. @Alden

    From what I remember about British foreign affairs secretary Ernest British security was very aware of Israeli attempts to kill Bevin. Several attempts were made by Israel to kill Bevin but were thwarted by British security.

    Yes, but there was no doubt who was behind those attacks. And it was crystal clear what the attackers’ motives were. The Jewish groups often announced them. The attacks were bold and audacious, with little effort to disguise the attackers. This makes them a poor operational comparison with the JFK assassination.

    每个人似乎都同意,如果谋杀肯尼迪的阴谋确实发生,则需要相当多的行动隐秘和计划,与主要阴谋者可以信任的各种美国组织之间的联系,以及对李的生活和习惯的大量了解哈维·奥斯瓦尔德(Harvey Oswald)使框架可以固定。 即便如此,他们也无法确定,因此他们需要一个备用计划。

    As far as I know, the Israelis never did anything on that scale and complexity. In fact, with the exception of the Soviets, I’m not sure anyone ever has. The CIA certainly never did anything that competent. Mossad set some pretty amazing operations, but they were of a much simpler nature and designed to fool stupid Arabs and distracted Europeans. No one was going to be distracted after JFK was assassinated. Even so, the Israelis also screwed up some much simpler operations, too, like in Lillehammer.

    Endless motives, but the only real, provable evidence is Oswald, his rifle and the gun he used to murder Officer Tibbitt.

    This is absolutely spot-on.

    The people who always talk about motives in the JFK case bore the shit out of me. They are not serious people. As Bugliosi points out, there were countless people in November 1963 with a motive to kill the president. In Texas alone, I bet there were literally thousands of people who had said at one time or another to a neighbor, a friend or a relative that they wished the president was dead.

    We can’t get anywhere with motive. Intent? Yes. Motive? No.

    If someone wants to talk about motive after they look at the evidence and come up with some likely suspects, that’s fine. But that’s completely different than using motive as the sole criteria for picking your suspects, which is what most people do when looking at this case.

    • 谢谢: Alden
  242. Petermx 说:
    @Petermx

    LOL. What a misspelling. The sentence should say ““this country has changed”

  243. @Alden

    The stupidity and no means of getting away are not legal evidence. But they are excellent indications that Oswald had no help from anyone.

    The first bit of suspicion by police that Oswald killed Kennedy was within minutes they entered the building from which the shots were fired. Oswald had already fled the building. That’s why the police focused on Oswald even before the other employees informed the police they heard the shots coming from the 6 th floor window.

    The killings of Kennedy and Tibbitt by Oswald were on the level of a 75 IQ teen walking into a store, shooting the clerk for \$40 in the cash register and then shooting someone in the parking lot.

    I’m not sure the killings were that dumb, but they certainly didn’t require sophisticated planning. There was also an impulsivity to Oswald’s shooting of JFK that contrasted even with Oswald’s earlier plan to kill General Walker. I’m not sure Oswald even knew he was going to do it for sure until the evening of the 21st or the morning of November 22nd.

    But once he packed up his rifle, placed his wedding ring and all his cash on his dresser for Marina, and headed to work that day, it’s clear what his intentions were.

    Flip the script and you immediately see how silly it is to believe anyone could use Oswald as an unwitting patsy. You would have to know Oswald’s habits and workplace so well that you could be certain no alibi could protect him. You would have to spend weeks casing the Texas School Book Depository, thereby making yourself conspicuous. You would need to set up the sniper’s nest on the 6th floor and place the evidence around it before JFK drove by – and you would need to do so without anyone who worked there noting your presence.

    If Oswald goes down to the 1st Floor for a Dr Pepper at the wrong time, then your entire frame is blown. If he happens to have a coworker hanging out with him as Kennedy drives by, then your frame is blown. If he decides for his own reasons that he wants to see Kennedy from the street, then the entire operation is blown. If he needs to take a piss around 12:30 and at the same time a colleague needs to piss, your frame is blown.

    All those months of planning go down the drain because of any simple and unpredictable action by Oswald. All those months of studying Oswald’s habits, stealing his rifle, firing rounds you can later use to frame him by placing them in the proximity of the Kennedy’s car/the victims are all wasted because Oswald got thirsty for his Dr Pepper five minutes before Kennedy drove past the building.

    Why would anyone in their right mind build such a complex conspiracy around the actions of someone they could not completely control in an environment they had no control over? The answer is obvious. No one with a brain would do it.

  244. anon[120]• 免责声明 说:

    Iris, Iris. That impunity is indeed important, and it is written inextricably into US law and regulation. Have you looked at any of it? It’s been there in black and white since 1947, accreting all the time. You’re trying to tell me the National Security Act, the Central Intelligence Agency Act, The Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the operational files exemption, the political questions doctrine, the state secrets privilege, the utmost deference doctrine, the deference upon deference doctrine, FASAB Standard 56, NSC 10/2, the Rogers-Huston memo et seq. only happened because Jews imposed it from outside? That’s a massive inductive-logic brain fart.

    CIA is chartered as a criminal organization. So what if someone denounces them – they have two dozen get-out-of-jail-free cards. No JFK smoking gun has come out because CIA runs your country. CIA runs your country because they can kill you or torture you and get away with it. You live in a totalitarian state. If you purge all the Jews you will still live in a totalitarian state. That’s the way your rulers want it, WASPs, Papists, Jews, atheists, all of them.

    • 同意: gay troll
    • 回复: @Robjil
    , @gsjackson
  245. Alden 说:
    @robwin

    Add severely physically handicapped to the point he could hardly walk, needed such strong painkillers he could hardly think and dying of Addison’s disease.

    The painkillers were so strong he needed the meth to wake him up for his appearances.

    JFK Poor crippled guy condemned to a life of severe pain and side effects of his medicine.

  246. Alden 说:
    @utu

    You must approve end heartily endorse affirmative action, black on White crime and the endless hatred and vilification heaped on Whites.

    Our numerous enemies don’t distinguish between good Whites like you and White Nationalists with serious character flaws like me.

    They’ll get you too.

  247. @洛朗·盖伊诺(LaurentGuyénot)

    Conspiracy theories do abound about the assassinations of JFK and RFK. I do appreciate your connection of Israel’s hand in their murders as well as the murders of 9/11.

    I do wonder, however, what the impact of JFK’s executive order 11110 was in all of this mix. That executive order seems like an incredibly important event that is hardly ever mentioned. What is your take on that?

    • 回复: @Laurent Guyénot
  248. Alden 说:
    @Laurent Guyénot

    Old French proverb “ don’t listen to what he says, watch what he does “.

    On the day Kennedy became President January 1961, America had 700 combat troops in Vietnam. On the day Kennedy was murdered, November 1963 America had 40,000 combat infantry troops fighting in Vietnam. Thousands of our guys already killed and injured, college enrollments of men booming to escape the draft and the anti war movement already pretty strong.

    That’s what Kennedy DID in 2 years and 10 months of his presidency, increased our combat troops from 709 to 40,000. What others SAID about it 15 years later is meaningless.

    I was 21 years old in 1963. I read the news papers daily. I was in college surrounded by draft age men and and the anti war movement. Spring of 1962 I went to a big meeting on campus about the Vietnam war. It was arranged by leftist professors. Seizing the university administration building was discussed. So was attending anti war demonstrations

    The Vietnam war was nothing in January 1961.
    It was Kennedy who increased our combat troops from 700 to 40,000 in a but less than 3 years.

    A few months before the Kennedy murder, the president of our ally S Vietnam Ngu? and his brother were murdered in a coup. Presidents widow, Mme. Ngu went all over the USA in a speaking tour about how they were betrayed by America. Kennedy was President when the coup took place.

    I was 19 , 20 and 21 during the Kennedy presidency. I read the news paper most days. I read Time News Week National Review The Republic, The Atlantic and The Nation often.

    There was not one word in those 3 years about Kennedy planning to withdraw from Vietnam. Instead, he sent more and more troops, drafted more and more men and boys and often spoke about saving the world from communist takeovers like E Europe Cuba and N Vietnam.

    The tall tales of Kennedy planning to withdraw from Vietnam appeared years later in the WKK historical fiction books. None of those books, not one reported anything Kennedy DID DID DID to withdraw from Vietnam.

    Every historical fiction tall tale claimed Kennedy SAID, SAID to someone that he planned to withdraw from Vietnam. Kennedy never SAID SAID in public he planned to withdraw from Vietnam. What he said in public was that American boys and men would keep fighting to keep the communist take over of S Vietnamese.

    Kennedy DID DID DID was increase our combat troops from 700 to 40,000 during his presidency. Doesn’t matter what someone wrote he said to someone in private 15 years later after the hearsay alleged conversation.

    You could ask everyone who lived in America when Kennedy was president and ask if they ever heard from any source if Kennedy planned to withdraw from Vietnam. You wouldn’t find one person who remembers talk of withdrawal.
    Kennedy spike if fighting communism wherever it was, especially keeping the N Vietnam communists from conquering S Vietnam

    All the books about Kennedy killed because he planned to withdraw from Vietnam are just lies.

    Look at what he does or DID, not what he says. He never said in public that he planned a Vietnam withdrawal.

    And definitely don’t believe what some author creates about some private conversation that never happened.

    Those stories that Kennedy told someone that an author heard from someone else 15 years later is known as hearsay. It is not admissible in court, depositions, contract disputes or is any evidence of anything.

  249. @Alden

    On the day Kennedy became President January 1961, America had 700 combat troops in Vietnam. On the day Kennedy was murdered, November 1963 America had 40,000 combat infantry troops fighting in Vietnam. Thousands of our guys already killed and injured, college enrollments of men booming to escape the draft and the anti war movement already pretty strong.

    Your logic is sound, but your numbers are a bit off. There were probably around 17,000 U.S. “advisors” in Vietnam under Kennedy in November of 1963 and the number of U.S. casualties was just over a hundred.

    The antiwar movement was still very small as well.

    What did happen under Kennedy in 1963 that would later destabilize South Vietnam was the overthrow of President Diem. South Vietnam was already unstable, and probably doomed to fall eventually, but that coup made the political instability even worse and hastened the U.S. decision under LBJ to add more troops to protect its client state.

    • 回复: @lysias
    , @Alden
  250. Robjil 说:
    @anon

    Jewish/Zion power is the power of silence.

    Any power that moves in silence is the most dangerous of all.

    All other powers let themselves be known.

    Silence is not golden. It is destroying our planet at record speed since 12 23 1913.

    Unz site is one brave site that is shining a bright light on this silent power ruling us for so long.

    • 同意: Alden
    • 谢谢: Iris
  251. gsjackson 说:
    @anon

    Iris may live in a totalitarian state — I guess we all do now — but it’s called France.

  252. Alden 说:
    @Ron Unz

    Ok I’m focused on what could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal trial. That’s what I looked for in all those books; not hearsay and numerous motives. My POV is that of a detective finding physical legally admissible evidence a district attorney would accept to charge and indict.

    So many books, so many theories, so much hearsay, so many changes over the years. I really don’t have any opinion.

    I can’t overcome my bias against all those lefty professors blaming KKK old Nazis anti Castro Cubans the Dallas population Dallas police Mayor city council, officer Tibbitt right wingers anti school integration parents, anyone and everyone but the man who brought his rifle to work, stood in the window, Killed the president left his rifle, ran off and was next seen murdering officer Tibbitt.

    But Ruby killed Oswald 2 days later. I do have an opinion about that. Ruby wasn’t an ordinary citizen all upset about the murder. Mafia Zionist associate life long criminal.

    Many assassinations and unsuccessful assassinations happen in public places like Dealey Plaza in Dallas because it’s easy for the assassin to reach the target. President in an open car. Murderer worked in a building over looking the street. Large warehouse, privacy, not a crowded office or factory Murder learned President would drive by his building. Brought his rifle to work. Found an empty floor no
    witnesses and shot the president

    Hinckley simply went to the hotel where Regean was speaking, loitered by the presidential cars and shot Regaen Georgia Governor Wallace was shot and seriously wounded at an out door speaking engagement. His assassin also followed Nixon around. The news papers announced Napoleon planned to go to the opera. Assassins set up an ambush and bombed his carriage. He was OK but a bystander was killed.

    Vera Figner just waited where the Czar’s carriage would pass by and threw the bomb that killed him. Around 1900 someone threw a bomb at the King of Spain’s carriage no one was hurt. Henry 4 king of France 1600 was killed on a city street. Assassin knew he’d be there waited and shot him. 1640s an English Duke of Buckingham, important advisor to the King was killed by someone who just walked up and stabbed him.

    152os 30s?? His gr gr grandfather another Duke of Buckingham planned to kill Henry 8 at a public event. He planned to exchange greetings with Henry and stab him in the abdomen and twist the dagger around. His friends would then proclaim Buckingham King. That was a conspiracy. Cesear was killed walking out of the Senate. That was a conspiracy. Killing the heir to Austria Hungary in 1914. Assassin just waited with his gun at the side of the street.

    A month before Kennedy was killed, there was a very similar attempt in Chicago. The assassin lay in wait with a rifle in a top floor window on the route from the airport to the event. Kennedy was in an open car.

    Oswald really fits the opportunist coincidence pattern of assassination. Had he not worked in the Book Depository he could have stood on the sidewalk and used the handgun he used to kill Officer Tibbitt.

    I was old enough to see how all the newspapers, TV news magazines totally covered up Oswald’s

    1loudly proclaimed communism,
    2defection to Russia,
    3 return with a Russian wife at a time when no Russians were allowed to leave
    4 his and wife’s association with the subversive radical Trotskyite American Friends Service Committee Quaker communist ACLU activist Payne family. At the time of Kennedy’s killing, Oswald’s lived with the Payne’s, another communist Quaker American Friends Service Committee ACLU activist was raising communist Angela Davis, she who presided over both the Campbell Hall UCLA and the Marin County shootout murders

    The first book claiming Oswald may have been a communist but it was KKK anti school White southerners , desegregation parents White supremacists police local government of Dallas and Texas, all the oil companies right wingers the Pentagon who really killed Kennedy was by communist radical Mark Lane.

    Rush to Judgement was nothing but a diversion effort. Like claiming Tessa Majors went to Morningside Park to buy drugs and have sex with the boys who murdered her. That institutional racism forced the boys to kill her as every magazine newspaper and TV news show has proclaimed Or Trayvon Martin and Mike Brown were innocent angels just walking home.

    Wrong place wrong time for Kennedy and Tibbitt. Right place right time for Oswald and any co conspirators he might have had

    Why has no one written about communist Oswald and the communist Paynes? Because all the books were written by liberals to distract from communist Oswald killing an an anti communist president. Or hard left anti White pro black Supreme Court justice Earl Warren shielding and protecting Russian wife handler Mrs Oswald? She was very very pretty. Pretty women can get away with a lot. But still. I’ve gathered that once Oswald was killed. Dallas police were ordered by the feds, FBI I believe to ignore the Paynes and Mrs Oswald.

    I don’t believe or disbelieve there was or was not a conspiracy. Israel because of threats to AIPAC and it’s nuclear program, Johnson to become president, Castro to kill Kennedy before Kennedy killed Castro, anti Castro Cubans angry because Bay of Pigs failed, CIA because CIA and Kennedy lost Bay of Pigs invasion make sense. The military didn’t kill Kennedy. He turned 700 troops into a full scale war.

    Too much distraction by the Mark Lanes and Liptons.

    • 回复: @lysias
    , @Ron Unz
  253. @Laurent Guyénot

    JFK or LBJ. Let’s see… that’s like trying to decide which is best, fire ants or scorpions. Both were profoundly destructive to the US. If only Nixon had challenged Kennedy’s election fraud in 1960. Or if Dewey had challenged Truman’s election fraud in 1948. Or if anyone had challenged FDR’s one party rule from 1932 to 1952 with its election frauds n Supreme Court packing… Everything could have been different.

    Now the 1% (((oligarchs))) are so powerful that they have not only crushed the American working class, silencing them with drugs n porn, but are replacing the entire middle class electorate with non English speakers who will work for peanuts n vote as they are told. Welcome to the two-headed Dem-ublican Party where every politician is bought n paid for n American voters are all disenfranchised ex-pats.

  254. lysias 说:
    @Pincher Martin

    And, at the time of the coup against the Ngos, the U.S. knew that the Ngos were casting out feelers to the North Vietnamese for a neutralization of South Vietnam, which was a perfect opportunity for the U.S. to get out of Vietnam. An opportunity which the U.S. government refused to take advantage of.

  255. Sparkon 说:
    @Alden

    On the day Kennedy became President January 1961, America had 700 combat troops in Vietnam. On the day Kennedy was murdered, November 1963 America had 40,000 combat infantry troops fighting in Vietnam.

    No, you’re wrong. If you bothered to check your facts, and provide citations, you wouldn’t make these kinds of errors.

    Pres. Kennedy had resisted all calls to send U.S. combat troops to Vietnam, and none served there during his presidency. According to 这张桌子 with U.S. DoD numbers, there were 16,000 U.S. “troops” in Vietnam in 1963, not 40,000. Most of these U.S. forces were supply and maintenance personnel supporting the ARVN, along with some Green Berets.

    The first U.S. combat formations did not land in Vietnam until March 8, 1965, when 3,500 Marines came ashore to guard Da Nang Air Base.

    But 18 months earlier in October 1963, Pres. Kennedy had decided to accept the recommendations of his Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and the Chairman JCS Gen. Maxwell Taylor after their fact-finding mission to Vietnam, and remove all U.S. troops from Vietnam by the end of 1965.

    * The precise instructions for withdrawal delivered by Maxwell Taylor, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to his fellow Chiefs on October 4, 1963, in a memorandum that remained classified until 1997.

    泰勒写道:

    “2 月 1965 日,总统批准了国防部长和参谋长联席会议主席报告中关于军事问题的建议。 从这些建议得出的以下行动是针对:……所有计划都将针对在 1965 日历年年底之前准备好 RVN 部队以撤出所有美国特别援助单位和人员。美国在越南的综合计划将被修订为使其与这些目标相一致,并将计划中的剩余(1,000 年后)MAAG 力量减少到大约叛乱前的水平……执行在 1963 年底之前撤出 XNUMX 名美国军事人员的计划……”

    https://whowhatwhy.org/2017/09/26/jfk-ordered-full-withdrawal-vietnam-solid-evidence/

    It is almost certain that Pres. Kennedy’s decision to pull out of Vietnam would not have played very well in certain far right-wing circles in the United States who were already angry with him because of the Bay of Pigs, where JFK had been set up to take the fall in a plan originally put together by then VP Richard Nixon, and E. Howard Hunt of the CIA.

    • 同意: Iris
    • 回复: @Pincher Martin
    , @Alden
  256. lysias 说:
    @Alden

    Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the level of proof required in a criminal trial. The level of proof required for historians is lower. Proof by clear and convincing evidence is almost always enough. Proof by preponderance of the evidence is often enough, and always worthy of consideration.

    • 回复: @Alden
    , @Pincher Martin
    , @Iris
  257. Ron Unz 说:
    @Alden

    Ok I’m focused on what could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal trial. That’s what I looked for in all those books; not hearsay and numerous motives.

    Well, unless I’m severely mistaken, that was the crucial point about the 1984 Florida trial. Lane was able to subpoena witnesses and government officials and get sworn testimony from one of the alleged participants in the JFK assassination conspiracy. So unless she was lying under oath, there was indeed a JFK assassination conspiracy, though her own role was merely peripheral. I believe that eyewitness testimony given under oath carries considerable weight in the courtroom.

    None of this was ever covered by the MSM at the time, so I only discovered it a few years ago. The MSM has a notorious tendency to avoid reporting things that might “confuse” the public.

    And evidence that came out at the same trial also indicated that the CIA had decided to pin the blame for its role in the JFK assassination on Hunt, claiming that he’d gone rogue. Why would the CIA try to blame Hunt for the CIA involvement in the JFK assassination conspiracy unless there actually was a “conspiracy”?

    One problem with reading 1,000 books on the JFK assassination is that 95% of them might be crazy or worthless. But that’s true about most other topics as well.

    For example, I think most of us would agree that something like 95% of the comments on this website are pretty worthless. But that doesn’t mean that all of them are…

    • 回复: @Alden
    , @Pincher Martin
    , @Alden
  258. Alden 说:
    @Pincher Martin

    I was in college. The anti war movement was very strong in west coast colleges and the Bay Area. That was president Diem who was killed? I thought his name was something like Ngu. One man I knew was going on missions to Laos 1961 62 . Then became a pilot not Air Force Maybe he was just bragging. He was at my house when he got a phone call. Went home right away and his dad drove him to Hamilton??? air base in Marin county that night. Didn’t hear from him for months.

    Kennedy was the first affirmative action president. He was anti White. All I need to know about him.

    • 回复: @Pincher Martin
  259. Alden 说:
    @Ron Unz

    I believe I’ve only read about 100. The 30 or so someone gave me and maybe 70 others. I googled it The book is Last Word: my indictment of the CIA no?? Article mentioned Mark Lane was buttinskying around Jim Jones and the Jonestown massacre. He involved himself in everything Book’s not in UCLA or city library. I’ll read as much about it as is on the internet.

    Yes, sworn testimony is admissible testimony. It has to be I did something. I saw something. I heard someone say something is admissible mostly not always depends on the judge.

    It’s very possible CIA helped kill Kennedy because each blamed the other for the Bay of Pigs debacle., excellent motive sworn testimony adds to the veracity of the theory. CIA employees wouldn’t risk a perjury charge. They aren’t a common criminals girl friend testifying he was with her at the time of the crime. But seldom is anyone charged with perjury. I assume they had attorneys advising them every step of the way.

    One thing about career government employees no matter what level or what job. Elected officials come and go. The civil service stays. Why not wait a year till the next election? Why not help the Republican candidate get rid of Kennedy? I’ll find out about as much as possible about Last Word. And try not to let my opinion of Mark Lane influence me.

    The transcript would be interesting.

    • 回复: @Ron Unz
  260. @Sparkon

    But 18 months earlier in October 1963, Pres. Kennedy had decided to accept the recommendations of his Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and the Chairman JCS Gen. Maxwell Taylor after their fact-finding mission to Vietnam, and remove all U.S. troops from Vietnam by the end of 1965.

    You’re wrong. There was no decision by Kennedy to pull out. That’s a common misrepresentation among conspiracy theorists. And I’ve noticed that this notion has lately slid into the serious discussions among modern liberals who want to find any excuse for the mistakes of JFK’s administration. These liberals – like James Galbraith, the author of the piece you link, who is also the son of John Kenneth Galbraith, an ambassador to India under Kennedy – encourage the idea of Kennedy withdrawing from Vietnam because they like the energy and idealism Kennedy brought to politics. Galbraith’s father had an excellent relationship with JFK.

    Many decades later, the idea of withdrawal was also given some vague support by men like Robert McNamara and McGeorge Bundy, both of whom also liked Kennedy but continued to work under Johnson. But these men at the end of the lives wanted to get back into the good graces of modern liberals. They also did not push the withdrawal idea forcefully. Like many ideas about Kennedy, their notion was expressed more as a hope than as a serious intended policy.

    If you read Maxwell Taylor’s 1972 autobiography 剑与犁. He discusses the 1963 mission you mention that he and McNamara took to Vietnam to encourage Diem to step up his game. You won’t find any mention in there that JFK was planning to withdraw. Kennedy, McNamara, and Taylor’s main focus was on Diem, not withdrawal.

    Taylor’s book was published nearly a decade after Kennedy’s death and three years after LBJ left the presidency. The Vietnam War was still on so perhaps Taylor decided to lie (or be evasive) so as to not demoralize the Americans still fighting there. But that doesn’t explain why Taylor later said in the nineteen-eighties that Kennedy was not planning to withdraw. He laughed at the idea, saying President Kennedy was not prepared to lose Vietnam.

    So what was going on? Well, Kennedy was frustrated with Diem. All throughout 1963, Kennedy was trying to find ways to get Diem to win the war or at least fight it with more competency. Nothing was working. So the Kennedy administration began making threats about withdrawing support. Diem, in return, started to make his own threats, hinting he would make his separate peace with North Vietnam. Some on the Kennedy team began speaking among themselves about overthrowing the South Vietnam president.

    James Galbraith buries the lede. The troop withdrawal in Vietnam was contingent upon military success. Well, we know how that story ended. A year after Diem’s coup, which happened because Kennedy was softly encouraging it (or at least not discouraging talk about it), South Vietnam began falling apart.

    BTW, here is how Stanley Karnow, who wrote a popular history of the Vietnam War and was a correspondent during the war, writes about the policy in 1983.

    Former members of Kennedy’s staff cite a Pentagon plan for a phased withdrawal of American advisers as proof that he would have disengaged from Vietnam. They point out that 1,000 advisers did in fact depart in late 1963. But as the anonymous authors of the “Pentagon Papers” note, the reduction was “essentially an accounting exercise,” partly calculated to demonstrate that progress was being made in the war. Many of the men were pulled out under routine rotation procedures, or for medical or administrative reasons. They were replaced by others, so that the force ceiling had hardly changed by the end of the year.

    So much for the Kennedy withdrawal.

    • 回复: @Franz
    , @dimples
  261. STARS 说:
    @Wyatt

    正是一位优秀的肯尼迪,他的名字是莱昂斯科特。 他是个糟糕的警察,但却是一名出色的联邦雇员。 与肯尼迪家族的其他成员相比,对美利坚合众国的破坏要小得多。

    他不是 bad of a cop. Too bad he won’t help carry on the Redfield line.

  262. Alden 说:
    @lysias

    Excellent points very true. I always get side tracked into convicting Oswald and Ruby and anyone who helped them. I really believe Oswald just took advantage of the fact that the president’s car would pass by his work place and he had a rifle. His only planning was going to the Paynes to get his rifle.

  263. @Ron Unz

    Well, unless I’m severely mistaken, that was the crucial point about the 1984 Florida trial. Lane was able to subpoena witnesses and government officials and get sworn testimony from one of the alleged participants in the JFK assassination conspiracy. So unless she was lying under oath, there was indeed a JFK assassination conspiracy, though her own role was merely peripheral. I believe that eyewitness testimony given under oath carries considerable weight in the courtroom.

    You’re mistaken. The Liberty Lobby trial had nothing to do with the assassination. Lane cites the one juror who claimed otherwise, but he ignores the other two who publicly claimed their decision was not based on it. Perhaps they knew it was a simple libel trial in which Hunt had the burden of proof to show he was not in Dallas on November 22nd, 1963.

    Bugliosi:

    Mark Lane, whose politics are as far away from that of Liberty Lobby as night is from day, was the defense attorney for Liberty Lobby and wrote a book about the case, Plausible Denial. The book in substantial part deals with matters totally unrelated to the trial, providing Lane with yet another opportunity to regurgitate all of his conspiracy theories and allegations about the Kennedy assassination. Plausible Denial is poorly written, very superficial (but then again, maybe it’s not, since Lane had nothing to write about), and even lacking in citations (a cardinal sin for any book on the assassination) to give the precise sources of Lane’s allegations. Remarkably, Lane doesn’t even tell his readers whether or not Marchetti was a defendant in the lawsuit (he was in the original complaint, but the case was dismissed against him prior to the trial), waits until page 129 to tell his readers what the Spotlight article says, and never finds the space in his 393 pages to inform his readers what Hunt’s formal complaint, the basis for the defamation lawsuit, trial, and Lane’s book, said. But it is inferable from the book that the main issue at the trial seemed to be the Spotlight article allegation that Hunt was in Dallas, not Washington, D.C., on the day of the assassination. Hunt, being the plaintiff, had the legal burden of proving a negative, that he wasn’t in Dallas on November 22, 1963, some twenty-two years before the trial, which was held in a U.S. district court in Miami in 1985.* He was unable to prove this to the satisfaction of the jury, something that millions of others might be unable to do also, and on February 6, 1985, the federal jury found “for the defendant, Liberty Lobby, and against the plaintiff, E. Howard Hunt.”

    Consistent with his MO, Lane led his readers to believe that the reason for the verdict against Hunt was that the Miami jury believed the CIA was responsible for Kennedy’s murder. But to support this, he only cites one juror, jury forewoman Leslie Armstrong, who said she believed this. But obviously, the issue of whether the CIA was behind the assassination was not for the jury to consider, and they apparently didn’t. The tireless and always industrious conspiracy researcher Harrison Edward Livingstone, in his book Killing the Truth, says that “UPI wrote that juror No. 11 (Cobb) ‘said the jury did not address the allegations brought out by Lane throughout the trial that Hunt was involved in a CIA conspiracy to kill Kennedy.’”32 And Newsweek reported that another juror, Suzanne Reach, told the Miami Herald (in support of what Cobb said) that what Armstrong said “wasn’t the reason for the verdict.”33

    In classic understatement, Lane announces to his readers in the opening pages of his book that “there is no legal precedent for Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby. More than two decades after the murder of John F. Kennedy in Dallas, the case against his killers was finally tried in a civil action suit brought in the federal courthouse in Miami.” And, of course, representing the people of this country in seeking justice was…Mark Lane.

    还有更多。

    • 回复: @Ron Unz
  264. @Alden

    I’m sure you saw anti-war protests, but they were not indicative of the country as a whole. The expansion of the military draft was the ignition that jump-started the anti-war movement, and the draft for the Vietnam War did not begin in earnest until the end of 1964.

    • 回复: @Alden
  265. Alden 说:
    @Sparkon

    I was an adult aware of what was going on. The lefty college professors were really against our involvement in Vietnam. Problem with citations if you were actually there.

    Many are wrong. For instance there was a recent discussion about Angela Davis and the Marin County shout out. I did check Wikipedia for dates on the Marin killings and the earlier UCLA shoot out between 2 black activist student factions which Davis was involved with. The UCLA shoot out was presented as 2 people died but it must have been racist FBI infiltrators or something A total whitewashing cover up. So was the Marin courthouse shoot out . The Wiki article even got the number of persons killed wrong.

    I just remember what was in the media at the time, Kennedy’s pro war Speeches and a friend who was already going in and out of Laos in 61 62. I’ve read the 40,000 troops in Vietnam in 1963 many many times. It was a big deal in the anti war propaganda. Of course I lived in a very very liberal area and was in college at the time.

    So I’ll post what I remember.

  266. Ron Unz 说:
    @Alden

    I googled it The book is Last Word: my indictment of the CIA no??…Book’s not in UCLA or city library. I’ll read as much about it as is on the internet.

    No, the book is 合理的拒绝发表在1991。

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_Denial

    Lane was acting as counsel for ultra-rightwing Liberty Lobby when it was threatened with bankruptcy because of a libel lawsuit by former CIA agent E. Howard Hunt. The book is so-so in organization, but contains the transcripts of the various depositions and sworn statements. Based upon the material presented, I find it extremely difficult to believe that there wasn’t some sort of “conspiracy.”

    Lane seems an ideologically-eccentric fellow, given that he was a leftwinger but spent the last thirty years of his life most closely associated with the “racist” rightwing such as Liberty Lobby. But I think most people in politics are either eccentrics or crooks, so it’s either one or the other.

    One thing about career government employees no matter what level or what job. Elected officials come and go. The civil service stays. Why not wait a year till the next election? Why not help the Republican candidate get rid of Kennedy?

    That’s a very important point that I made in my own article. Although it seems clear that elements of the CIA were involved in the JFK assassination, I think it’s very unlikely that they were the main force behind it since they could have just tried to help defeat JFK for reelection. By contrast, both LBJ and Israel had a desperate need to remove JFK immediately. I discussed all this in my 2018 article:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-jfk-assassination-part-ii-who-did-it/

    • 谢谢: Alden
    • 回复: @dimples
  267. Neoconned 说:
    @fredtard

    RFK Jr is of the opinion both his dad & uncle were taken out by a weird coalition of mafia & rogue highly competent right wing CIA/spook factions….

    LBJ was long suspected by Jackie of being involved but of anything he was chosen by the spooks because Kennedy was too much of a Cold Warrior….and the spooks couldnt have that…..

  268. Ron Unz 说:
    @Pincher Martin

    You’re mistaken. The Liberty Lobby trial had nothing to do with the assassination.

    No, I think Bugliosi is blowing smoke, raising my doubts about his general veracity. He’s correct about the book being disorganized and Lane being rather pompous, but that’s entirely immaterial.

    According to the book, Hunt sued Liberty Lobby for publishing the Marchetti article which suggested that Hunt had been involved in the JFK assassination. This gave Lane an opportunity to subpoena Hunt and various other CIA witnesses.

    Lane won the 1984 case, but it’s entirely irrelevant what particular factors swayed the individual jurors. The key point is that Lane got sworn testimony from CIA eyewitnesses who were (peripherally) involved in the JFK assassination conspiracy. Sworn testimony carries considerable weight. So unless they perjured themselves, there was a conspiracy.

    Also, it’s pretty clear that Hunt lied about not being in Dallas that day. And a couple of decades later, Hunt gave a death-bed confession that he had indeed been involved in the JFK assassination.

    I’m also puzzled about something else. Upthread you had listed the 15-odd JFK books in my “bibliography,” strongly implying that you’d actually read them all and found them unconvincing. The list included 合理的拒绝, but it really doesn’t sound like you actually read that book, just that you read Bugliosi’s rather misleading critique of it. Which of the books did you actually read?

    • 回复: @Pincher Martin
    , @dimples
  269. Druid 说:
    @Reg Cæsar

    I was born and raised in South Africa under apartheid. We lived segregated in an Indian community. Most were either Muslim or Hindu, few Christians. Each morning we had a 10 minute all-schools assembly. We recited the Lord’s Prayer in unison. Though not Christian, I still remember it, and cherish it!i m Muslim!

  270. Druid 说:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    The ram am was and is a joke! Only Jews (stupids) revere him. Claimed killing Christians ok, ok to have sex with 3 Yao’s. What scum!

  271. Druid 说:
    @Insouciant

    Does it include the lies of the Anne Frank scam!

  272. utu 说:
    @Pincher Martin

    Is this all you got, Utu? The Mossad killed Kennedy because he was pushing for biannual inspections at Dimona in a letter and threatened vague consequences? Is that really the best you have?

    Misdirection and misrepresentation. It was just about a routine inspection no different from standard OSHA inspection of employees lunchroom.

    JFK wanted to stop Israel nuclear program. JFK was committed to anti-proliferation of nuclear weapons.

    “We are concerned with the disturbing effects on world stability which would accompany the development of a nuclear weapons capability by Israel. I cannot imagine that the Arabs would refrain from turning to the Soviet Union for assistance if Israel were to develop a nuclear weapons capability–with all the consequences this would hold. But the problem is much larger than its impact on the Middle East. Development of a nuclear weapons capability by Israel would almost certainly lead other larger countries, that have so far refrained from such development, to feel that they must follow suit.” (Kennedy Letter to Ben-Gurion, May 18, 1963)

    Getting access to Dimona was the most important step.

    If Israel’s purposes are to be clear beyond reasonable doubt, I believe that the schedule which would best serve our common purposes would be a visit early this summer, another visit in June 1964, and thereafter at intervals of six months. I am sure that such a schedule should not cause you any more difficulty than that which Mr. Ben-Gurion proposed in his May 27 letter. It would be essential, and I understand that Mr. Ben-Gurion’s letter was in accord with this, that our scientists have access to all areas of the Dimona site and to any related part of the complex, such as fuel fabrication facilities or plutonium separation plant, and that sufficient time be allotted for a thorough examination. (Kennedy Letter to Eshkol, July 4, 1963)

    • 回复: @utu
    , @Pincher Martin
  273. Franz 说:
    @Pincher Martin

    There was no decision by Kennedy to pull out. That’s a common misrepresentation among conspiracy theorists.

    Well then US Government records are conspiracy theorists then.

    Here’s what they show:

    On 11 November 1963 JFK drafted National Security Action Memorandum 263 after saying “Vietnam is not worth another American life.” It called for the removal of 1000 troops by the end of 1963 and a well-defined list of withdrawal of the rest of the troops from the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

    On 24 November 1963 whilst Kennedy’s corpse was barely cold Lyndon Johnson signed National Security Action Memorandum 273, which not only cancelled Kennedy’s order but called on the US military to “take the war north” and otherwise get deeper into the Big Muddy.

    For search purposes these two documents are usually referred to as NSAM-263 and NSAM-273.

    JFK wanted out of Vietnam and there are documents and witnesses saying as much.

    • 谢谢: Iris, gay troll
    • 回复: @Pincher Martin
  274. @lysias

    Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the level of proof required in a criminal trial. The level of proof required for historians is lower. Proof by clear and convincing evidence is almost always enough. Proof by preponderance of the evidence is often enough, and always worthy of consideration.

    If only the critics of the Warren Commission also kept this in mind.

  275. @Ron Unz

    No, I think Bugliosi is blowing smoke, raising my doubts about his general veracity. He’s correct about the book being disorganized and Lane being rather pompous, but that’s entirely immaterial.

    I’ve read both books.

    One is heavily footnoted; One is not sourced at all.

    One is well-organized and straightforward; One is discursive and confusing.

    One finds faults with arguments on both sides, but has a strong point of view; One is partisan to a high degree.

    Guess which book is which, Ron?

    And if you are going to raise doubts about Bugloisi’s “general veracity,” I should publish the tape-recorded comments by Mark Lane in his phone interview of Mrs Helen Markharm, one of the witnesses who identified Oswald as the shooter of Officer Tippit.

    Lane’s testimony before the Warren Commission about his tape, which he had recorded on his own, was also incredibly evasive and dishonest. He desperately wanted to keep the tape out of the Commission’s hands and gave it over with great reluctance. Once you read the transcript, it’s quite clear why Lane didn’t want the Commission to listen to the tape.

    In one of my following posts, I will provide the transcript. It’s quite damaging to Lane to say the least.

    Then we can talk about whose “general veracity” we should trust, Ron. The only bigger liar than Mark Lane in the world of the JFK conspiracy is Jim Garrison.

    ******

    I’m also puzzled about something else. Upthread you had listed the 15-odd JFK books in my “bibliography,” strongly implying that you’d actually read them all and found them unconvincing. The list included Plausible Denial, but it really doesn’t sound like you actually read that book, just that you read Bugliosi’s rather misleading critique of it. Which of the books did you actually read?

    Oh, I’ve read it. It was confusing and discursive. I couldn’t follow the case at all, and I was glad to see Bugliosi’s explanation for why I had such a hard time following it. Lane doesn’t lay out what happened in anything approaching a straightforward manner. So it’s difficult to follow what’s he saying or its importance. It reads like it was written in a hurry.

    I have no idea what you saw in that book or why you recommend it to readers.

    According to the book, Hunt sued Liberty Lobby for publishing the Marchetti article which suggested that Hunt had been involved in the JFK assassination. This gave Lane an opportunity to subpoena Hunt and various other CIA witnesses.

    But it was immaterial to the outcome of the case.

    The key in Lane’s book, as he describes it, and as I also saw it, was Hunt’s description of the reaction of his children to the news that their father had some connection to JFK’s murder. Hunt claimed they were emotionally disturbed by the possibility.

    Lane milks this for all he can get out of it, but I could see it coming from the beginning of his book. Why do Hunt’s children care so much about a vague allegation made about their father concerning something they should know from personal experience can’t be true? If Hunt was home in Washington eating Chinese takeout, then his children (who were alive at the time) should know it.

    But what Lane doesn’t discuss (and neither does Bugliosi) is whether Hunt exaggerated or even made up his children’s reaction to the Liberty Lobby story in order to get higher damages for the libel. If that’s the case, and certainly many people have been known to exaggerate in court the harm done to them by something, in order to milk it for all it’s worth, then Lane put Hunt and potentially his children in the position of having to defend a lie under oath. That’s dangerous if one of the children doesn’t like his or her father or isn’t comfortable telling a lie in court.

    That was one of the first things that came to my mind. I thought Hunt must be exaggerating the harm to his reputation in order to increase the payout. I didn’t believe his children would be so broken up by some Liberty Lobby story. It sounded entirely made-up to me. But once said under oath, Hunt had to stick to it, and Lane twisted the knife.

    Is that what happened? I don’t know. Mark Lane was certainly not going to tell us the truth of it. He had another agenda.

    Also, it’s pretty clear that Hunt lied about not being in Dallas that day. And a couple of decades later, Hunt gave a death-bed confession that he had indeed been involved in the JFK assassination.

    The first is not clear at all, and the second is clearly on the level of de Morenschildt’s confession at the end of his life. It’s just old men losing their grip on reality through either dementia or general craziness. I find it sad when some of the children of these men badger their elderly dying fathers into some vague admission of complicity of the JFK assassination, as if that means anything. Over the last year of reading, I think I’ve read at least three cases of this happening.

    It’s shameful and shame on you, Ron, for using those admissions as evidence of anything.

    • 回复: @Iris
    , @Ron Unz
  276. gay troll 说:
    @Alden

    Well, 40,000 is a lot of troops, but after Kennedy was killed, we really went hog wild. Although according to internet sources, there were 只有16,000 American soldiers in Vietnam at the end of 1963. At any rate this number jumped to 184,000 in 1965 and 536,000 in 1968. There is no doubt that Kennedy entered office as a cold warrior. But it also seems clear that he was not as fervent as the CIA et al, that he came to support reconciliation with the USSR, and he was standing in the way of the “intelligence” community’s grand ambitions.

    https://www.americanwarlibrary.com/vietnam/vwatl.htm

  277. Here are Lane’s tape-recorded comments of his phone conversation with Mrs Helen Markham, witness to the shooting of Officer Tippit.

    Keep in mind as you read this that Mrs. Markham only had an eighth-grade education. Also keep in mind that this is the man who Ron Unz lionizes and questions Lane’s opponents’ “general veracity”.

    [更多]

    车道: “I read that you told some of the reporters that he [Oswald] was short, stocky and had bushy hair.”

    万锦: “No, no, I did not say this.”

    车道: “You did not say that?”

    万锦: “不,先生。”

    车道: “Well, would you say that he was stocky?”

    万锦: “Uh, he was short [the autopsy report on Oswald gives his height as five feet nine inches].”42

    车道: “He was short?”

    万锦: “是的。”

    车道: “And was he a little bit on the heavy side?”

    万锦: “Uh, not too heavy.”

    车道: “Not too heavy, but slightly heavy?”

    万锦: “Uh, well, he was, no, he wasn’t, didn’t look too heavy, uh-uh.”

    车道: “He wasn’t too heavy. And would you say that he had rather bushy…kind of hair?”

    万锦: “Uh, yeah, uh just a little bit bushy, uh huh.”

    Following a discussion of the police lineup in which she picked out Oswald as Tippit’s slayer, Lane once again focused on Mrs. Markham’s description of the gunman.

    车道: “Did they [the police] ever ask you anything else about Oswald, about whether he was tall or short?”

    万锦: “Uh, yes sir. They asked me that.”

    车道: “And you said he was short, uh?”

    万锦: “Yes sir, he is short. He was short.”

    车道: “He was short and they asked if he was thin or heavy, and you said he was a little on the heavy side?”

    万锦: “He was, uh, well, not too heavy. Uh, say around 100, maybe 150 [the autopsy report on Oswald states he weighed 150 pounds].”

    车道: “Well, did you say he wasn’t too heavy, but he was a little heavy?”

    万锦: “嗯。”

    车道: “You did say that?”

    万锦: “I did identify him in the lineup.”

    车道: “Yeah, and did you tell the officers that the man who shot Tippit had bushy hair?”

    万锦: “Uh, no, I did not.”

    车道: “But, but he did have bushy hair you said, just a little bushy?”

    万锦: “Well, you wouldn’t say it hadn’t been combed you know or anything.”

    车道: “是的。”

    万锦: “Of course, he probably had been through a lot, and it was kinda tore up a little.”43

    Bugliosi follows up with this comment:

    The reason for Lane’s reluctance to release the tape of the conversation [to the Warren Commission, which had asked and even begged for it] was now obvious. The tape had revealed his blatant attempt to improperly influence, almost force an uneducated and unsophisticated witness to say what he wanted her to say. Under oath, Lane quoted Mrs. Markham as having specifically told him that Officer Tippit’s slayer was “short, a little on the heavy side and his hair was somewhat bushy”—while the import of her words was something decidedly less than that.

    And if you don’t believe Lane said anything to be ashamed of here, look at how desperately he tried to avoid giving the tape the Warren Commission when Mrs Markham disputed Lane’s testimony of what she had told him about Oswald’s appearance.

    Rankin: “Do you have any writing from Mrs. Markham in connection with the interview that you referred to in your testimony?”

    车道: “Any document which Mrs. Markham wrote?…I have nothing that she signed or that she wrote.”

    Rankin: “Do you have anything that you made up yourself from any interview with her?”

    车道: “是的,我愿意。”

    Rankin: “Do you have that with you?”

    车道: “不,我不。”

    Rankin: “Will you describe that document? Is it a paper or a tape recording, or what form does it have?”

    车道: “It is a tape recording.”

    Rankin: “Was the tape recording made by you?”

    车道: “I think we are now moving into an area where I would prefer not to answer questions, quite frankly…I think that the Commission [is] aware of the fact that I have an attorney-client relationship existing.”37

    Bugliosi interjects:

    The legal theory Lane spun for the Commission was as exotic as some of the allegations of conspiracy he has promoted. As indicated, Lane had originally been retained by Marguerite Oswald to represent the interests of her son before the Warren Commission hearings, but since Oswald was not a defendant in a criminal proceeding, the Warren Commission declined to permit Lane to represent Oswald.38* Lane said that the interview of Mrs. Markham was made pursuant to his attorney-client relationship with Marguerite Oswald and that this relationship would prohibit him from turning over the tape to the Commission, even though he had already testified to the contents of the tape. Moreover, he argued, the tape was the equivalent of “working papers of an attorney,” and the U.S. Supreme Court had spoken of the sanctity of these papers, protecting them from being disclosed.

    Rankin: “Mr. Lane, could you tell us whether there was anyone else present at this interview with Helen Markham that you recorded?”

    车道: “I don’t believe that I said I recorded it.”

    Rankin: “Was it recorded by someone else?”

    车道: “I decline to answer any questions because the questions you are asking clearly are not for the purpose for which this Commission has been established.”

    Rankin: “Can you tell us who was present at the time of this tape recording of Helen Markham?”

    车道: “I am not going to discuss any working papers in my possession.”

    Representative Ford: “Did you know about the tape-recording being made?”

    车道: “I decline to answer that question.”

    Bugliosi concludes:

    The man who has railed for years about the Warren Commission’s refusal to be open and frank with the American public about the facts of the assassination couldn’t have been less open and more obstructionist himself when he appeared before the Commission; he was, in fact, far more uncooperative than any of the other 551 witnesses the Commission interviewed or took testimony from.

    There’s a lot more, Ron. I’m just giving you a taste of Lane’s “general veracity.” You do, after all, recommend this man’s books.

  278. 更正: I was just thumbing though my Kindle version of 合理的拒绝 and there are 30 endnotes. But given that there are over 300 pages of text in the book, that is very poorly sourced, indeed. One can go many pages without seeing a footnote, and many quotes and references in the book are made without reference to them.

    For all intents and purposes, the book is not sourced.

  279. dimples 说:
    @GomezAdddams

    “why did Texas Governor Connelly “wink” at LB Johnson during the swearing in ceremony? ”

    Well it couldn’t have been Governor Connally since he had been shot during the assassination and was in hospital having various operations to patch up the holes. The perpetrator of the wink was apparently Congressman Albert Thomas. I assume he winked at Johnson either because:

    1. He knew that Johnson’s plot had succeeded.

    2. He knew that Johnson had wanted the top job and that fate or a plot of some sort had given it to him.

    3. He and Johnson were homosexual buddies.

    4. Some other reason.

  280. dimples 说:
    @Ron Unz

    I don’t think Pincher Martin has read anything except Bugliosi, or perhaps Case Closed by Gerald Posner. These are usually the top picks.

    • 回复: @Pincher Martin
  281. dimples 说:
    @Ron Unz

    “I think it’s very unlikely that they were the main force behind it since they could have just tried to help defeat JFK for reelection.”

    I think this is a weak argument. Would the CIA have ‘owned’ or penetrated the media assets in the early 60’s that it does today? Apparently JFK wanted the CIA destroyed, so I would say that was a very good reason to bump him off. Trying to help defeat his re-election doesn’t really do the job.

  282. Iris 说:
    @lysias

    Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the level of proof required in a criminal trial. The level of proof required for historians is lower. Proof by clear and convincing evidence is almost always enough. Proof by preponderance of the evidence is often enough, and always worthy of consideration

    Any honest court of justice, upon receiving the testimonies of over 20 witnesses, a majority of them health professionals from the Parkland and Bethesda hospitals, and all indicating an 出口 wound the size of an egg at the 背部 of JFK’s head would have considered it be beyond any reasonable doubt that JFK was shot at least once from the front.

    The AARB, a review board set up by Congress, established that:
    – the Bethesda autopsy was in glaring contradiction with the initial medical reports from Parkland.
    – it was actually inconsistent with itself, as the only 3 doctors involved (Humes, Boswell, Finck) all presented contradictory testimonies of the brain examination
    – it suggest two different brain exams may have been conducted at Bethesda, raising questions about the authenticity of the brain examined.

    Add to this the hard-to-believe fact that JFK’s brain disappeared and is still officially missing to the day.

    Any honest court of justice would have concluded that it was impossible to determine beyond reasonable doubt the provenance and rounds of the shots aimed at JFK’s head.
    Oswald would have never been convicted in a public trial; he had to die.

    JFK received one head shot from the back a well as a quasi-simultaneous head shot from the Grassy Knoll. The latter was administered with a frangible (explosive) bullet, resulting in his brain and skull being shattered, a characteristic wound an ordinary bullet cannot achieve.

    The Zapruder film was altered, in part, to hide/colorise the white pieces of skull flying off.

    The brain has “gone missing” because there actually was very little left of it. The remainder contained incriminating traces of metal and mercury from the frangible bullet.

    • 谢谢: gay troll
  283. Iris 说:
    @Pincher Martin

    The only bigger liar than Mark Lane in the world of the JFK conspiracy is Jim Garrison.

    The 1979 House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) also concluded that President Kennedy’s death was the result of a probable conspiracy.

    So it is utterly pointless to call any individual a “liar” or a “conspiracy theorist” or “deluded” or any other name, considering that a state-sponsored collective also reached the same conclusions at some point in time.

    The only way to progress in the discussion is rather to present your pro and con arguments. People being subpoenaed by the dreaded US courts and testifying under oath to a JFK conspiracy is as strong as it gets an argument.

    • 回复: @Pincher Martin
  284. robyt 说:

    I do not want to defend JFK, but this was all a demoncratic/jewish internal war, where the jews won by far. The Soviet Union (USSR), in fact, won nothing from it !

    Oswald was only a lonely commie fanatic and had commie-jew “friend” in USSR, but he already failed in the Walker killling mission; he was the useful idiot to let it seem to be some right wing activist of military background and Vietnam veteran of war, to have it all done by himself. This story of the lone wolf who killed the president by himslef was so fake that actually nobody could ever believe it, so they sent in Ruby to add a bit of kaos in it, by killing Oswald, before he could tell too much. Ruby was not a gangstern despite what the jew media wrote, he was only a jew “patriot”, who even said why he did kill Oswald: because he thought that Oswald would have let it seem that the jews were behind the killing of the president. Which is true: Oswald was killed just to hide the jews who were behind the killing of the president.

    As a result, the demoncratic party became all in with jewism, that is the end of the story.

  285. Again, I am humbled by the dozens of valuable comments in this thread. It has provided, like others before, a rich harvest of precious information. Criticism and counterarguments are also useful, but I am reassured that none, in my view, weakens the general thesis of the guilt of Israel (Israel in the broader sense of International Zionism). Kennedy research has been, from the beginning, a collective quest for truth, and I consider my own contribution as mostly an effort to formalize, synthetize and connect the dots that others have brought to the light, into a convincing verdict. I am fully aware that many here know more than me in this field. Although I rarely pay credit to my direct sources (Piper being an exception) in order to avoid cumbersome and useless footnotes, I take this opportunity to express my gratitude to all. For those interested, I will be interviewed in livestream by Fróði Midjord for his Guide to Kulture program tomorrow Thursday December 10 at 2 pm ET.
    https://entropystream.live/gtk
    http://dlive.tv/GuideToKulchur
    干杯!

    • 回复: @Skeptikal
  286. utu 说:
    @utu

    Very good comment by Anonymous (June 4, 2018) to other Laurent Guyenot’s article on JFK and Israel. The Anonymous makes a good point of historical context of pre-1967 Israel, of pre-nuclear Israel that is completely missed by those who now ahistorically claim that Dimona and its inspections were not such a big deal to give Israel a motive to assassinate JFK.

    https://www.unz.com/article/did-israel-kill-the-kennedies/?showcomments#comment-2358893
    Jewish lobbies and enablers for Israel in America always were a critical part of Isreal’s survival strategy from the pre-state days till this very day. Having an individual as president who ardently fought for them to register as foreign agents (which would neuter many of their influence gaining techniques) was (and still would be) considered by Israel as extremely critical to Israel’s prospects. This has nothing to do with post 67 expanded Israel and most of the issues discussed today.

    We are talking about a time when Ben-Gurion and Israeli leadership was most alarmed by Nasser’s rise (52) and constant threats to eliminate Israel. They correctly understood that Egypt, due to its overwhelming size, was the only army that presented an actual threat of rolling back the still small (and fearful) Jewish state’s hard (and ugly) fought independence. Hence the Lavon affair (54), Suez war (56) and most importantly, hence B-G utmost determination to achieve the bomb and to protect Israel (mainly) from Nasser. Ben-Gurion was absolutely convinced that w/o a bomb Israel may not survive and thus was resolutely determined (and we’re talking about a real strong minded guy here) to achieve it.

    But JFK, a Pacific theater WW2 vet, was an ardent anti-proliferationist and was just as adamant not to expand the nuclear club beyond the mid 1950’s members and steadfastly and actively stood in B-G’s way. Israel’s technical progress and JFK stance came to a head in 62-63. All B-G’s arguments and pleas to JFK to look the other way (“Mr President, Israel has a right to exist!”) were to no avail. These are the facts. They have long be available. Yet they prove nothing as to assassination(s) culpability and only testify as to the potential aspect of significant motive.

    That said, the basic analytical premise of this article is well founded: If one doesn’t except the (clearly problematic) Warren Commission’s conclusion, JFK’s killers -who ever they may be- could not allow the risk of exposure by a determined RFK with the tools and power of the US presidency.

    • 谢谢: Laurent Guyénot, gay troll
  287. @utu

    JFK wanted to stop Israel nuclear program. JFK was committed to anti-proliferation of nuclear weapons.

    JFK wanted to remove Castro from power without it looking like the U.S. was getting rid of Castro.

    JFK was committed to having Diem be a better leader for South Vietnam or to have him replaced by other more capable South Vietnamese leaders.

    How did those things turn out, Utu? (And those were policies Kennedy spent a helluva lot more time on than he ever did on Dimona.)

    Just because a U.S. president desires something out of another country – even a small country, even a small country which is considered an ally – doesn’t mean it will happen or that it’s even likely to happen.

    Kennedy had spent his entire administration – all 1,000+ days – trying to get Israel to open up Dimona for regular inspections that met international standards for such facilities. He met with Ben-Gurion; he exchanged letters with both Ben-Gurion and Eshkol; he directed his government to make nonproliferation the centerpiece of U.S. relations with Israel.

    And after those thousand days, Kennedy still had absolutely nothing to show for his policy other than a couple of feints by Israel at opening up Dimona for U.S. inspectors, some of whom had been fooled into thinking they actually performed a real inspection. Israel had stalled, lied, gave some meaningless assurances and made some meaningless gestures to assuage Kennedy, but it continued to develop a nuclear weapons capability.

    What could Kennedy do? Send another letter? He had no serious leverage. The U.S. still largely adhered at the time to the Tripartite Declaration, which prevented almost all U.S. military aid from going to the region. And U.S. foreign aid to Israel was miniscule. In the end, Tel Aviv was more committed to developing a nuclear weapons capability than Kennedy was to stopping it.

    Kennedy was also about to enter into another campaign for the presidency, and the situation in South Vietnam was about to get worse because of the loss of Diem. Managing the Cold War in 1963 didn’t leave a lot of time for U.S.-Israeli relations, and Tel Aviv had already shown it could successfully stall the U.S. president.

    Short of Kennedy going public about Dimona and internationalizing the problem of Israeli nonproliferation, and then working with the Soviets on a regional response that guaranteed the Jewish State’s security, I can’t think of anything that was going to stop Israel from getting the bomb. And how likely is it that Kennedy would’ve done all those things when he had just spent the last three years sending letters?

  288. @Franz

    JFK wanted out of Vietnam and there are documents and witnesses saying as much.

    You misread the two documents, which is common for conspiracy fetishists who don’t know much history. You also rely on Kennedy lovers to report on the President’s *真的* feelings about policy when they almost always report those true feelings only years later when opinions on various issues have settled out.

    It’s not surprising you would misread the documents, as you just misread my post which explained why both the one-thousand man withdrawal in 1963 and indeed the entire NSAM 263 were meaningless.

    And isn’t it funny that you would quote Kennedy as saying that “Vietnam is not worth another American life,” yet NSAM 263 which he signed guaranteed that Americans would keep dying in Vietnam until at least 1965.

    So, apparently, you think Kennedy believed that while Vietnam was not worth another American life, his re-election effort was worth at least another several hundred more dead Americans in Vietnam.

    Most of your misconceptions could be cleared up just by reading Wikipedia.

    • 同意: Alden
    • 回复: @Iris
  289. @Beautiful Evidence

    Sorry for the late reply. I believe this EO 11110 theory has been convincingly debunked here: https://www.corbettreport.com/jfkfed/

    • 回复: @Beautiful Evidence
  290. @Iris

    The 1979 House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) also concluded that President Kennedy’s death was the result of a probable conspiracy.

    The HSCA was about to come to the same conclusion as the Warren Commission – that Oswald acted alone – when the Dictabelt evidence came to its attention.

    A couple years later, the Dictabelt recording was determined to have not been anywhere near Dealey Plaza. Yet because of the rush to judgment about the significance of the Dictabelt by the HSCA committee – several members of whom disagreed with the committee’s conclusion – a flawed consensus judgment was reached.

    BTW, the HSCA also absolved the CIA, FBI, Secret Service, the USSR, Cuba, anti-Castro groups, etc., of any involvement in the conspiracy. And it commended the Warren Commission for doing a serious investigation of the assassination.

    I’m surprised you mention the HSCA, Iris. Most conspiracy theorists were quite unhappy with its findings. Lane doesn’t have a good word to say about it.

    So it is utterly pointless to call any individual a “liar” or a “conspiracy theorist” or “deluded” or any other name, considering that a state-sponsored collective also reached the same conclusions at some point in time.

    I gave proof of Mark Lane’s lies. What more do you need?

    As for Jim Garrison, he was far worse than a liar. Read False Witness: The Real Story of Jim Garrison’s Investigation and Oliver Stone’s Film JFK. In a just world, Garrison would’ve been locked up for what he did to Clay Shaw. He was also in all likelihood a pedophile.

    You conspiracy theorists really love to dish it out, but you can’t take it. You love to attack the lies and credibility of other people, but you don’t like your own credibility attacked.

    • 谢谢: Alden, David In TN
    • 回复: @Iris
  291. Iris 说:
    @Pincher Martin

    President Kennedy’s intentions regarding Vietnam were very clear.

    From his famous interview with Walter Cronkite, as well as his private comments reported by consistent testimonies, it is obvious that JFK was seeking a way out.

    On 11 June 1963, a Vietnamese Buddhist monk immolated himself to death. He was protesting against the persecution of Buddhists by the Diem government (Diem’s family were a type of fanatic Christians). The immolation was considered to be an act of defiance against a corrupt government and lead to massive protests and worldwide condemnation.

    On 2 September 1963, JFK gave a CBS interview to Walter Cronkite, who hated and disparaged the President. The interview caused unprecedented stir and a lot of outrage among the war party because of JFK’s declaration on US military involvement in Vietnam:

    MR. CRONKITE. Mr. President, the only hot war we’ve got running at the moment is of course the one in Viet-Nam, and we have our difficulties here, quite obviously.

    肯尼迪总统. I don’t think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government [越南] to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it—the people of Viet-Nam—against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don’t think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people.
    The repressions against the Buddhists, we felt, were very unwise. Now all we can do is to make it very clear that we don’t think this is the way to win. It is my hope that this will become increasingly obvious to the Government, that they will take steps to try to bring back popular support for this very essential struggle.

    From 1:12 in the video:

    • 谢谢: gay troll
    • 回复: @Pincher Martin
  292. @dimples

    Hey, goofball, here’s my partial bibliography. Now let’s see yours.

    [更多]

    General Works on JFK or his Presidency

    The Kennedy Imprisonment: A Meditation on Power – Garry Wills (1982)
    A Hero For Our Times: An Intimate Story of the Kennedy Years – Ralph Martin (1983)
    The Kennedys: An American Drama – Peter Collier & David Horowitz (1984)
    A Question of Character: A Life of John F Kennedy – Thomas Reeves (1991)
    JFK: Reckless Youth – Nigel Hamilton (1992)
    President Kennedy: Profile of Power – Richard Reeves (1994)
    Camelot 的黑暗面——Seymour Hersh (1997)
    An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917-1963 – Robert Dallek (2003)
    John F. Kennedy – Alan Brinkley (2012)
    JFK’s Last Hundred Days: The Transformation of a Man and the Emergence of a Great President – Thurston Clarke (2013)
    The Kennedy Half Century – Larry Sabato (2013)

    Specialized Books concerning JFK’s Presidency

    The Making of the President, 1960 – Theodore White (1961)
    The Best and the Brightest – David Halberstam (1972)
    A Bright Shining Lie: John Paul Vann and America in Vietnam – Neil Sheehan (1988)
    The Crisis Years: Kennedy and Khrushchev, 1960-1963 – Michael Beschloss (1991)
    Lessons in Disaster: McGeorge Bundy and the Path to War in Vietnam – Gordon Goldstein (2008)
    The Real Making of the President: Kennedy, Nixon, and the 1960 Election – W. J. Rorabaugh (2009)
    Berlin 1961: Kennedy, Khrushchev, and the Most Dangerous Place on Earth (2011)
    The Brilliant Disaster: JFK, Castro, and America’s Doomed Invasion of Cuba’s Bay of Pigs – Jim Rasenberger (2011)
    Camelot’s Court: Inside the Kennedy White House – Robert Dallek (2013)

    肯尼迪暗杀书(亲阴谋)

    Inquest: The Warren Commission and the Establishment of Truth – Edward Jay Epstein (1966)
    公民的异议:马克·莱恩对沃伦报告的捍卫者的回应——马克·莱恩 (1968)
    Legend: The Secret World of Lee Harvey Oswald – Edward Jay Epstein (1978)
    Act of Treason: The Role of J. Edgar Hoover in the Assassination of President Kennedy – Mark North (1991) partially read
    Plausible Denial: Was the CIA Involved in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy? – Mark Lane (1991)
    Flight From Dallas: New Evidence of CIA Involvement in the Murder of President John F. Kennedy – James P. Johnston (2003)
    兄弟:肯尼迪时代不为人知的历史——大卫·塔尔博特 (2007)
    肯尼迪和不可言说的:他为什么死以及为什么重要——詹姆斯·道格拉斯 (2008)
    The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ – Roger Stone (2013)
    魔鬼的棋盘:艾伦·杜勒斯、中央情报局和美国秘密政府的崛起——大卫·塔尔博特 (2015)
    Final Judgment: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy, Volume 2 (2017)

    JFK Assassination Books (Anti-Conspiracy)

    The Warren Report: The Official Report on the 1963 Assassination of President John F. Kennedy (1964)
    The Death of a President: November 20th – 25th, 1963 – William Manchester (1967)
    Counterplot – Edward Jay Epstein (1969)
    Conspiracy of One: The Definitive Book on the Kennedy Assassination – Jim Moore (1991)
    Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK – Gerald Posner (1993)
    Oswald’s Tale: An American Mystery – Norman Mailer (1995)
    False Witness: The Real Story of Jim Garrison’s Investigation and Oliver Stone’s Film JFK – Patricia Lambert (1999)
    Mrs. Paine’s Garage: and the Murder of John F. Kennedy – Thomas Mallon (2002)
    Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy – Vincent Bugliosi (2007)
    JFK Assassination Logic: How to Think about Claims of Conspiracy – John McAdams (2011)
    Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK (Reissued edition) – Gerald Posner (2013)

    Books by Kennedy Insiders

    Profiles in Courage – John F. Kennedy (1956)
    A Thousand Days: John F. Kennedy in the White House – Arthur Schlesinger (1965)
    Kennedy – Ted Sorensen (1965)
    The Pleasure of his Company – Paul B. Fay Jr. (1966)
    Robert Kennedy and His Times – Arthur Schlesinger (1978)
    One Brief Shining Moment: Remembering Kennedy – William Manchester (1983)
    In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam – Robert McNamara (1995)
    Counselor: A Life at the Edge of History – Ted Sorensen (2008)
    Once Upon A Secret: My Affair with President John F. Kennedy and Its Aftermath – Mimi Alford (2012)

    Biographies that Peripherally touch on JFK and his Administration

    Ike’s Spies: Eisenhower and the Espionage Establishment – Stephen Ambrose (1981)
    Robert Kennedy: His Life – Evan Thomas (2000)
    Dwight D. Eisenhower – Tom Wicker (2002)
    Khrushchev: The Man and His Era – William Taubman (2003)
    Lyndon. B. Johnson – Charles Peters (2010)
    Eisenhower: The White House Years – Jim Newton (2011)
    Ike’s Bluff – Evan Thomas (2012)
    The Brothers: John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles, and Their Secret World War – Stephen Kinzer (2013)
    The Passage of Power: The Years of Lyndon Johnson – Robert Caro (2013)
    Being Nixon: A Man Divided – Evan Thomas (2015)

    Books about Kennedy’s Generals & Military Issues of the ‘50s and ‘60s

    The Uncertain Trumpet – General Maxwell Taylor (1960)
    Swords and Ploughshares – General Maxwell Taylor (1972)
    LeMay: A Biography (Great Generals) – Barrett Tillman (2007)
    LeMay: The Life and Wars of General Curtis LeMay – Warren Kozak (2009)
    Admiral Arleigh (31-Knot) Burke: A Fighting Sailor – Ken Jones & Hubert Kelly (2011)
    15 Minutes: General Curtis LeMay and the Countdown to Nuclear Annihilation – L. Douglas Keeney (2011)
    Kennedy’s General: A Story of Uncommon Courage: The Remarkable Life of David M. Shoup – Frank Wallace (2013)
    Maxwell Taylor’s Cold War: From Berlin to Vietnam – Ingo Trauschweizer (2019)
    The Bomb: Presidents, Generals, and the Secret History of Nuclear War – Fred Kaplan (2020)

    Books on the NSA/CIA/FBI Involving Kennedy’s Presidency

    中央情报局和情报崇拜——维克多·马尔凯蒂和约翰·马克斯 (1974)
    The Very Best Men: The Early Years of the CIA – Evan Thomas (1996)
    Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency – James Bamford (2001)
    Legacy of Ashes: A History of the CIA – Tim Weiner (2007)
    Enemies: A History of the FBI – Tim Weiner (2012) partially read
    James Jesus Angleton: Was He Right? – Edward Jay Epstein (2013) Collection

    Books on Israel & Israel/US Relations & Mossad

    Assault on the Liberty: The True Story of the Israeli Attack on an American Intelligence Ship – James Ennes Jr. (1979)
    Taking Sides: America’s Secret Relations with a Militant Israel – Stephen Green (1984)
    欺骗方式:摩萨德军官的成败——维克多·奥斯特洛夫斯基和克莱尔·霍伊 (1990)
    The Samson Option: Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and U.S. Foreign Policy – Seymour Hersh (1991)
    欺骗的另一面:一个流氓特工揭露了摩萨德的秘密议程——维克多·奥斯特洛夫斯基 (Victor Ostrovsky) (1994)
    Israel and the Bomb – Avner Cohen (1998)
    The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy – John Mearsheimer & Stephen Walt (2007)
    崛起并首先杀戮:以色列有针对性暗杀的秘史——罗南·伯格曼(2018)

    Books on Conspiracy Theories

    A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America – Michael Barkun (2013) partially read
    美国的阴谋论——Lance deHaven-Smith (2013)

    *****

    Why don’t you prove I didn’t read these books. I dare you.

    • 回复: @Pincher Martin
  293. Iris 说:
    @Pincher Martin

    For many assassination researchers, the HSCA’s findings indeed suggested a “limited hangout” of a more disturbing reality.

    The later release of the HSCA’s internal files in the 1990’s confirmed this view, as it provided proof of HSCA cover-up in the areas of the medical evidence and of Oswald’s intelligence connections in particular.

    Nonetheless, the fact that a collective and rational investigation effort came up with a conclusion of likely conspiracy removes any credibility to the “conspiracy-theorist” name-calling.

    As for the Dictabelt, you are both misinformed and wrong.

    The Dictabelt was a genuine recording of the DP radio-transmission which had been deliberately neglected for 14 years by authorities, which is in itself an obvious sign of cover-up.

    In 1978, the HSCA hired James Barger, one of the country’s leading acoustical engineers, to analyze the recording. Barger’s report concluded that the sound of the gunshots that killed Kennedy had been captured by a open microphone of a nearby police motorcycle, and that the acoustic properties of the gunshots indicated Kennedy had been hit by gunfire from two directions. In June 1979, twenty-three members of Congress endorsed that finding.

    The authorities then found a more compliant “expert”, Norman Ramsay from Harvard, who falsified the recording and declared that the gunsghots were just random noises.

    Well, they also found experts who think that office fires can bring down sky-scrappers, and other risible fantasies…

    So, we are back to square one: YOUR conspiracy is no more credible than that of others, so bring arguments instead of name-calling.

    • 回复: @Pincher Martin
  294. Ron Unz 说:
    @Pincher Martin

    Oh, I’ve read it. It was confusing and discursive. I couldn’t follow the case at all..I have no idea what you saw in that book or why you recommend it to readers…

    Also keep in mind that this is the man who Ron Unz lionizes and questions Lane’s opponents’ “general veracity”…

    One is well-organized and straightforward; One is discursive and confusing.

    One finds faults with arguments on both sides, but has a strong point of view; One is partisan to a high degree….

    Then we can talk about whose “general veracity” we should trust, Ron. The only bigger liar than Mark Lane in the world of the JFK conspiracy is Jim Garrison.

    I think there’s an important point to make in this regard…

    Books written in support of the Establishment on almost any issue tend to be heavily resourced in both funding, staffing, and support, and naturally tend to look “polished,” while benefitting from the distribution of a large publishing house, excellent editing, and favorable MSM.

    Books strongly opposing the Establishment usually lack all of these things, and are often produced on a shoestring by a single eccentric or fanatic individual. These difficulties were especially important before the Internet came along to partially level the playing field of researching and distributing information.

    As a historical analogy, consider the old Soviet Samizdat, which often consisted of poor quality mimeographed copies distributed under haphazard conditions, and presumably lacking top-quality editing. By contrast, I’m sure official Soviet publications of that era were top-quality in color, pictures, and format, with their only flaw being their dishonest content.

    As I’ve emphasized, Lane’s book was only so-so in “literary quality” and organization. But it did contain the sworn testimony he had obtained during the trial of CIA assets who described their involvement in the JFK Assassination conspiracy. It seems to me that makes up for its stylistic failings. After all, Lane was an activist and an attorney, not a professional journalist or writer.

    Similarly, Lane seems to have had numerous unpleasant personal characteristics, and I’d hardly “lionize” him. But as far as I can tell, he was almost singlehandedly responsible for raising initial national doubts about the “lone gunman” verdict of the JFK Assassination soon promoted by the Warren Commission. So to the extent that many, many people now believe that a conspiracy was responsible, he played an extremely important historical role. In my article, I noted that the NYT had been extremely hostile to him during his entire career, portraying him as a crank and crackpot, but then gave him a rather laudatory obituary.

    Another good example is the Piper book, enormously long and very poor in the quality of its stylistic organization, having been produced by a single individual with minimal resources under difficult conditions and subject to an absolute media blackout. But it provided an enormous wealth of convincing evidence implicating the Israeli Mossad in the JFK Assassination, which I think makes up for those failings.

    我也强烈推荐 兄弟, the first Talbot book, which contains contains a huge amount of important information, including 150 personal interviews of key participants. And since Talbot is a longtime journalist and a professional writer, the style and organization is vastly superior to the works of Lane or Piper.

    Regarding the JFK issue, there seem to be hundreds of different pieces of evidence that seem to imply the existence of a conspiracy, and many of them seem pretty doubtful and unconvincing to me, so (as a non-expert) I certainly won’t defend them. But all you need is just a handful of very strong pieces of evidence to disprove the “Oswald as lone gunman theory” and you’ve established a conspiracy. Obviously, that’s entirely different from determining the nature or participants in the conspiracy.

    On a related matter, I had already pointed out that the official coroner’s report on RFK shows that he was shot from behind at very close range while everyone agrees that Sirhan was standing several feet in front of him. Moreover, tapes reveal that many more shots were fired than the capacity of Sirhan’s gun. All of this is discussed in Talbot’s book, and Talbot also reveals that RFK was 100% sure that his brother had been killed by a conspiracy and was planning to track down the guilty parties once he became president. It seems to me that RFK probably had a better idea of what had really happened to his brother than you or I or even Bugliosi. (RFK intensely disliked Lane.)

    You never replied to any of this, so do you therefore admit that presidential candidate RFK was killed in a conspiracy, but still argue that JFK was not?

    • 回复: @Pincher Martin
    , @Iris
  295. @Pincher Martin

    As for how I divided my reading of the conspiracy literature into pro- and anti-conspiracy books, if the book took even a slightly skeptical approach to the Warren Report, I put it into the pro-conspiracy camp, and if it took even a slightly skeptical approach to the conspiracy theorists, I put it in the anti-conspiracy camp.

    That’s why Epstein’s 询问, which is not a conspiracy book at all, but which does soberly illuminate flaws in how the Warren Commission was organized and approached its material, ended up in the pro-conspiracy camp. Ironically, it also explains why Epstein’s later book about Garrison’s investigation, 反图, ends up being placed in the anti-conspiracy camp.

    John McAdams’ book, 肯尼迪暗杀逻辑 also tries to be neutral, but I felt he wrote it because he was quietly horrified by the dumbass arguments being made by the conspiracy theorists and was trying to help them out by steering them into more productive lines of inquiry.

  296. @Laurent Guyénot

    There was a third witness who saw the Oswald lookalike waiting in a car.

    The witness who ended up in psychiatric hospital is a sad case. He stuck to his story about giving Oswald (with his “curtain rods”) a lift, but for whatever reason the day he remembered doing this did not fit the approved narrative. His (FBI?) interrogators told him he had convinced himself of the truth of an impossible story, and was therefore insane and should report immediately to the local psychiatric hospital. The poor guy did as he was told, and spent the rest of his life locked up.

    There was another sighting of “Oswald”, trying to hire a boat that would be capable of reaching Cuba.

    The CIA plane that carried “Oswald” from Dallas did not fly to its intended destination but to Roswell, New Mexico. Robin Ramsay of Lobster Magazine has speculated that the CIA wanted to discredit the lookalike stories, and chose to let a witness onto the flight, knowing that the mention of Roswell would make his account appear mad: the place had been notorious since 1947 for crazy stories about UFOs and coverups. However, the witness did not talk until many years later, and so his story adds to the intrigue.

    As an interesting contrast, 134 people have confessed to the murder of Olof Palme, and this fact must cast all witness testimony in all assassinations into doubt – especially the death-bed confession of E. Howard Hunt and late-life confession of Chauncey Holt that I have cited and which appear so compelling.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8405323/Sweden-reveal-results-1986-Olof-Palme-murder-investigation.html

    Robin Ramsay has also mentioned evidence that was ignored by the Warren Commission and even by many “conspiracy theorists” – a rifle found on the roof of the Texas School Book Depository before “Oswald’s rifle” was found inside on the 6th floor. The discovery is recorded in the last 15 seconds of a 16mm film “Kennedy’s Final Hour” produced in 1964 by “Dallas Cinema Associates” from amateur footage.

    Some copies of the film carry the caption “The Assassin’s Rifle” on the scene where the rifle is examined. I have read, but cannot confirm, that the size of the stock relative to the barrel is inconsistent with a Mannlicher-Carcano.

    https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/5866-the-dallas-cinema-associates-film/

    To make matters even more mysterious, the rifle found on the 6th floor was initially identified as a Mauser, not a Mannlicher-Carcano. The policeman who identified the rifle was Seymour Weitzman, who gave interesting testimony to the Warren Commission, both in connection with the rifle, and his slightly earlier activity watching the motorcade and in the railroad yard:

    https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/2543-seymour-weitzman/

    Weitzman is one of the key witnesses and was driven mad by paranoia – he knew too much. He heard three shots, but the second and third were almost simultaneous, an impossible feat for one shooter with a bolt-action rifle; he found a fragment of JFK’s skull close to the southern curb of Elm Street, a position that suggests a shot from the front.

    In his testimony to Warren, he is questioned about the maker of the rifle, but the obvious question is not asked: “Is this the rifle that you found on the 6th floor?”

    • 回复: @Iris
  297. Iris 说:
    @James N. Kennett

    The witness who ended up in psychiatric hospital is a sad case. He stuck to his story about giving Oswald (with his “curtain rods”) a lift, but for whatever reason the day he remembered doing this did not fit the approved narrative

    The witness who gave a lift to Oswald with his “curtain rods” was Wesley Frazier, a TSBD co-worker and neighbour of Oswald’s lodger Ruth Paine.

    Frazier was never sectioned in a psychiatric hospital. He gave a very early testimony featured in “The men who killed Kennedy” and never waved from his version, which exonerated Oswald

    Frazier remained adamant that Oswald maintained the said “curtain rods” between his hand and his armpit, meaning the wrapped object was too short and could not have been the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.

    • 回复: @James N. Kennett
  298. @Iris

    President Kennedy’s intentions regarding Vietnam were very clear.

    They were as clear as mud.

    In his final days, Kennedy’s dithering and muddled messaging allowed Diem’s coup and murder to take place. The South Vietnamese president’s removal increased Vietnam’s political instability, which would later force LBJ to send more troops into Vietnam.

    On 2 September 1963, JFK gave a CBS interview to Walter Cronkite, who hated and disparaged the President. The interview caused unprecedented stir and a lot of outrage among the war party because of JFK’s declaration on US military involvement in Vietnam.

    Just like Oliver Stone in his movie 《刺杀肯尼迪》, you leave out a critically important part of what JFK said in that Cronkite interview.

    在这里,它是:

    But I don’t agree with those who say we should withdraw. That would be a great mistake…This is a very important struggle even though it is far away. We took all this—made this effort to defend Europe. Now Europe is quite secure. We also have to participate—we may not like it, in the defense of Asia.”

    Now why did you leave that part out, Iris? Were you being dishonest, stupid, or are you just too limited in the sources you read?

    It has to be one of the three. So I’ll allow you, Iris, to pick which of the three it is – are you dishonest, stupid, or too limited in your reading sources? Those are your choices.

    BTW, a week after the Cronkite interview, President Kennedy reaffirmed his belief in the domino theory with NBC interviewer David Brinkley. He told Brinkley, “China is so large, looms so high…that if South Vietnam went, it would…give the impression that the wave of the future in Southeast Asia was China and the Communists.”

  299. As I’ve previously posted some wheres before, our Intel agencies, CIA, DIA and others, are a mere extension of Corporate America, originally fashioned or rather should I say hijacked by the Rockefeller brothers. President Eisenhower foresaw that a fork in the road was in view for humanity’s future. One direction went towards universal social democracy, beginning in the USA outwards towards South America and Europe- yes eventually the entire Western world. The other road, a corporatist, fascist, internationalist, power monopoly, not necessarily controlled by world Jewry, who’s collective conspiracy would eventually dissolve away any nationalism, or sovereign right(s). As fate would have it sixty individuals now presently own half the worlds wealth. This was accomplished by third world exploitation of cheap labor in (simultaneous) combination with first world, brutal union busting- one exception being Germany. Consequently, in the wake of WW II, every social democratic movement in Europe was met with a CIA/MI6 program often described as the Gladio Network of assassins, ditto for South American governments and again ditto, for our very own country the United States. This same network continues in the USA today with assassinations of JFK’s eldest son (plane crash) and Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone (2002) ASIDE: It’s an interesting note that the investigative team from the FBI left from the east coast to survey Wellstones’ crash site in Minnesota BEFORE the senators plane went down..hummm

    This global autocratic conspiracy began just prior to World War One. Please note that there were at least a dozen or so assassinations of prominent leaders and heads of state, all in quick succession, throughout the world at that time, circa 1880 thru 1920. This wealth and power consolidation continued beyond the Great War and each major war that followed. Only by murderous rampage was a greater consolidation of power and wealth into fewer and fewer hand made possible, a very old story indeed! Thus, the Federal Reserve Board Members, Bilderberg, the Council on Foreign Relations, associated individuals; such as Maurice Strong, Pascal Lamy, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Richard Haass, Morgan Freeman, all sang the same song and read from the same page. Their heirs espouse identical supra nationalist diatribes… Mockingly portrayed in a Hollywood movie back in 1976 with statements such as there is no America, there is no democracy!..there is only IBM, and ITT, and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide and Exxon–those are the nations of the world today. We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale..this, in an excerpt found at voxcantor.blogspot.com

  300. Skeptikal 说:
    @James N. Kennett

    ” I did it for the Jewish people“.”

    To me the obvious implication is that he did it protect higher-ups who led directly to the Israeli government. “The Jewish people” sounds to me like Israel, not the Jewish disapora.

    Of course, Zionists equate Israel with the diaspora. But in those days especially, most diaspora Jews did not identify as Zionists.

    • 同意: Iris
    • 回复: @Iris
  301. Skeptikal 说:
    @Laurent Guyénot

    “I probably respond to too many comments anyway”

    I think it is admirable that you take the time to respond to comments.

    It substantively advances the discussion.

    • 同意: Iris
  302. @Iris

    For many assassination researchers, the HSCA’s findings indeed suggested a “limited hangout” of a more disturbing reality.

    Iris, you’ve been at this “limited hangout” for the last forty-two years. When are you actually going to get somewhere?

    Do you realize we are now further away in time from the release of the movie 《刺杀肯尼迪》 than that movie was from the assassination itself?

    It’s shocking, but true. Do the math. Stone’s film was released twenty-eight years after JFK’s death and you and I, Iris, are conversing with each other twenty-nine years after the premiere of Stone’s film in 1991.

    We are now fifty-seven years away from the murder of JFK, and all you have are “limited hangouts,” distorted information on JFK’s Vietnam policy, and a reliance on frauds and liars for your most energetic sources of what happened on November 22nd.

    As for the Dictabelt evidence, it’s been studied with care and disproven.

    Here is Bugliosi, who you really need to read before you write another post here:

    The basis for this fourth-shot conclusion was an acoustical analysis of a police Dictabelt recording from Dallas police headquarters containing sounds, the HSCA believed, from a police motorcycle in Dealey Plaza whose radio transmitting switch was stuck in the “on” position. HSCA acoustic experts thought that the sounds heard on the tape were probably those of four gunshots. However, as is discussed in considerable depth in an endnote, this fourth-shot conclusion has been completely discredited and proved to be in error by subsequent analyses of the Dictabelt. In 1982, twelve of the most prominent experts in ballistic acoustics in the country were commissioned by the National Research Council to reexamine the Dictabelt. The panel found “conclusively” from other concurrent and identifiable background noise on the Dictabelt that the sound which the HSCA experts believed to be a fourth shot actually occurred “about one minute after the assassination,” when the presidential limousine was long gone down Stemmons Freeway on its way to Parkland Memorial Hospital. In fact, knowing I could rebut it, Gerry Spence did not even bother to introduce the fourth-shot Dictabelt evidence at the trial in London.

    When one removes the Dictabelt “fourth shot” from the HSCA findings, all that is really left is the HSCA’s conclusion that Oswald killed Kennedy, and the fact that the committee found no evidence of any person or group having conspired with Oswald, the identical findings of the Warren Commission.

  303. Skeptikal 说:
    @Petermx

    ” Starting in the 1970’s you couldn’t open a newspaper or turn on the TV without hearing a story about their suffering at the hands of the Germans ”

    I agree with your account. I had very little awareness of who was a Jew and who wasn’t, certainly not in the context of WW2—even though my mother was a Mischling who had had to flee Germany (my grandfather was an assimilated German Jew). Certainly we knew who were the longstanding Jews in our community, and my mother as a European was drawn to them, especially those who were 0 (zero) generation, like her. One refugee had indeed been in Auschwitz and married the daughter of a local Jewish businessman (they met in Europe). I never heard the word “holocaust.”

    What I am saying is that our familiy knew Jews and knew about the war and the Nazi genocide, but it was not a constant topic in the newspapers, in the mainstream culture, etc. The Jews who lived here were part of the community and no one thought that much about it. Not like now, where the constant Jewish navel gazing is effing inescapable, also in the local newspapers and in, say, library programming.

    The word “holocaust” was introduced into general vocabulary I believe in the seventies, around the time or shortly before the four-part miniseries titled “The Holocaust” was shown on TV. The principal stars were Meryl Streep, Michael Moriarity, and James Woods. Possibly Woods is Jewish; I doubt that the others are. Weird.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_(miniseries)

    What is one to make of the appearance of this miniseries and its promulgation of the this term? I don’t think the term was actually invented for the miniseries, but I think it is quite possible that the miniseries was invented partly to sear the term into the American consciousness. When one reads the plot sysnopsis (see the Wiki page) it is really a cherry-picked object, incorporating every cliche, but in what sounds to me like pretty adolescent/Hollywood fashion (even Elie Wiesel apparently thought it was trash!). Streep as a Jewess is a bad joke! Most of the rest of the casting looks like a bad joke. Yet this miniseries had an enormous impact in the USA and in Germany.

    And I believe it played a central role in inserting the term and all of the rest of the folderol into American and European culture.

    Per the Wiki entry the executive producer was a first-generation Russian Jew, Herbert Brodkin.

    • 回复: @lysias
    , @Petermx
  304. lysias 说:

    You just have to read the five volumes of Douglas Horne’s “Inside the Assassinations Records Review Board” to realize that JFK was shot from the front and the autopsy was fraudulent. From that it follows that there was a conspiracy and the Warren Commission’s Oswald-as-single-shooter story is a pack of lies.

    • 回复: @Pincher Martin
  305. Skeptikal 说:
    @Pincher Martin

    Mossad involvement or Zionist motivation to rub out JFK doesn’t mean that Mossad agents had to be on the scene/ground.

    Controlling the scene would be the purview of Johnson and the Jewish mob (providing weapons, shooters, and getaway).

    Mossad motivation also doesn’t mean that Mossad was the only actor. Experience conspiracists, whether in the CIA, the mob, or elsewhere, understand perfectly well the importance of (1) a clear chain of command and (2) establishing it on a need-to-know basis, so that actors in the chain of command only know whom they are getting orders from and whom they give orders to, but not the configuration of the whole chess board.

    Indeed this skill set practically seems to define the CIA, the Mob, and any competent intelligence agency.

    Indeed, the theme of a small cog in a big wheel gradually grasping what he or she has become entangled in (or what, say, the spouse has gotten the whole family entangled in) is a classic theme in many genres—detective, mystery, police, action/thriller—all kinds of fiction and film plots. Classic Hitchcock device.

    • 回复: @Pincher Martin
  306. @Ron Unz

    Books written in support of the Establishment on almost any issue tend to be heavily resourced in both funding, staffing, and support, and naturally tend to look “polished,” while benefitting from the distribution of a large publishing house, excellent editing, and favorable MSM.

    Are you really suggesting that Mark Lane had trouble finding a serious publisher in 1991 or couldn’t afford to hire a copy editor or didn’t know how to source his material properly?

    For the majority of conspiracy theorists, what you say might be true, but Mark Lane made a pretty decent living for over forty years fighting the establishment. He sold best-selling books, lectured frequently and widely (including overseas), and branched out into other anti-establishment areas. That’s not even mentioning whatever business he could scrounge up for his legal practice on the side (although I suppose some of his clients, like Marguerite and Marina Oswald, couldn’t pay well).

    He wasn’t some poor schlub working off his laptop in his mother’s basement, which is how I view most of the people working in this field.

    I have a more convincing theory for the slapdash quality of 合理的拒绝 based on my reading. Lane pushed the book out quickly in 1991 to take advantage of the release of Stone’s 《刺杀肯尼迪》. The Liberty Lobby trial, after all, had concluded six years earlier. So Lane had plenty of time to organize his material. He might’ve originally assumed he didn’t have a book. (He was right on that point if that is what he thought.) But Stone’s decision to make 《刺杀肯尼迪》 spurred Lane to put something out, which he managed to do just a few weeks before the movie premiere.

    I’d also highly recommend Brothers, the first Talbot book, which contains contains a huge amount of important information, including 150 personal interviews of key participants. And since Talbot is a longtime journalist and a professional writer, the style and organization is vastly superior to the works of Lane or Piper.

    Talbot is an excellent writer. He has a novelist’s flair for building suspense and creating vivid scenes.

    Unfortunately, Talbot also has a novelist’s flair for the historical truth. He creates bright manichaean worlds in which characters and groups are dramatically presented as belonging to one side or the other.

    He also deals a lot of what I call mood music. Mood music is what you hear during a film to create a mood that is supposed to match the story.

    Let me give you an example of how Talbot uses mood music in his book 兄弟:

    During that gray, wet weekend [immediately following Kennedy’s death], the tensions between the inner Kennedy circle and the national security team that had served the president continued to flare. Defense Secretary McNamara, who had convinced Jackie and Bobby Kennedy to lay the president to rest at Arlington National Cemetery across the Potomac from the capital, escorted groups of family and friends on four separate occasions to scout for a burial site in the cemetery. (O’Donnell and the Irish mafia, ever possessive of their fallen leader, were lobbying strenuously for Jack to be returned to the Boston soil from which he had sprung.) On his second trip, McNamara, unprotected by raincoat, hat, or umbrella, was soon soaked to the bone in a sudden downpour. None of the attending generals, safely bundled up in their own rain gear, made even a polite attempt to extend their civilian boss some cover. Artist and close family friend William Walton, who had been tapped by Jackie to help oversee the aesthetics of her husband’s funeral, was flabbergasted by the military retinue’s blatant show of disrespect for McNamara.

    This anecdote is reported by William Walton (by way of William Manchester’s very detailed book on that weekend’s events), the cultured gay man JFK liked to have hang out with his wife when he, the president, was hanging out with floozies.

    Is this anecdote meaningful even if we accept Walton’s version of the event? Is this evidence of “tensions” flaring? No, not at all. If we believe Walton, the generals there did not give SoD McNamara an umbrella when it was pouring rain.

    So what? It’s meaningless.

    But as mood music, it’s very effective. And Talbot is a good enough writer to know why it’s effective. It sets the scene for what he later wants to write about: the military undermining Kennedy’s presidency.

    • 回复: @Ron Unz
  307. lysias 说:
    @Skeptikal

    Speaking of executive producers, Israeli agent Arnon Milchan was executive producer of Oliver Stone’s “JFK”. No wonder the movie breathes not a word about any Israeli involvement in the JFK assassination, blaming only others like the CIA, the military, LBJ, and Cuban exiles. It can’t ignore Ruby, but it treats him sympathetically.

  308. Iris 说:
    @Skeptikal

    Of course, Zionists equate Israel with the diaspora. But in those days especially, most diaspora Jews did not identify as Zionists.

    That was the purpose of the timely-crafted and relentlessly-drummed “Holocauste” and “Shoah” propaganda, too. To scare and brainwash the regular Jewish diaspora to death and force them to walk the Israel line of crimes.

  309. lysias 说:

    When I was in the U.S. military (and I was in two branches, the Air Force and the Navy), carrying an umbrella was not allowed when you were in uniform.

  310. @lysias

    You just have to read the five volumes of Douglas Horne’s “Inside the Assassinations Records Review Board” to realize that JFK was shot from the front and the autopsy was fraudulent. From that it follows that there was a conspiracy and the Warren Commission’s Oswald-as-single-shooter story is a pack of lies.

    完整的垃圾。

    Seventeen expert forensic pathologists have been employed by various investigatory committees to study either Kennedy’s body or the autopsy photos over the last six decades, and of those only Cyril Wecht, who is a conspiracy theorist, thinks there is even a possibility of a shot coming from somewhere else other than the upper rear of the president. But even Wecht admits that the head shot on Kennedy was from the rear.

    What this means is that the three pathologists who conducted the autopsy [1963], the nine pathologists for the HSCA [1978-79], the three pathologists (and one radiologist) from the Clark Panel [1968], and the three pathologists, one of whom, Dr. Werner V. Spitz, was also on the HSCA medical panel from the Rockefeller Commission [1975]—that is, seventeen pathologists, even Dr. Wecht—all agreed that the wound to the back of the president’s head was an entrance wound.

    For all the shit the original three pathologists have been given for their work on the autopsy of the president’s body – almost none of which was their fault, by the way – their conclusion about the direction of the wounds has held up.

    • 回复: @lysias
  311. Iris 说:
    @Ron Unz

    It is very relevant and pertinent to remind the readers that the JFK assassination and the murder of his brother RFK are symbiotically linked, executed for similar reasons by the same powers.

    Robert Kennedy well knew he was going to be targeted too, and said shortly after his brother’s murder:

    “I thought they’d get one of us, but Jack, after all he’s been through, never worried about it. I thought it would be me.”

    The handling by the authorities of the RFK murder, to the day, is an insult to the intelligence of chimpanzees, let alone to human beings.

    Mr Kennedy was shot point blank, from behind the ear, in a back to front direction, and that was the fatal wound that killed him. But he also received 3 other gunshots at extremely close range and fired back to front (one did not exit), while Sirhan was standing 3 to 4 feet in front of him. The trajectories can be seen in this sketch:

    Details of the 4 wounds are provided in pathologist Dr Noguchi’s autopsy report. In his memoirs “King Coroner”, Noguchi stated:

    “I have never said that Sirhan Sirhan killed Robert Kennedy.”

    https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=31989#relPageId=5&tab=page

  312. @Skeptikal

    Mossad involvement or Zionist motivation to rub out JFK doesn’t mean that Mossad agents had to be on the scene/ground.

    Controlling the scene would be the purview of Johnson and the Jewish mob (providing weapons, shooters, and getaway).

    Why was Mossad needed at all for such mundane tasks? Couldn’t Johnson find another goy in Texas who had a gun and a car? He had to farm that work out in Dallas to Mossad and Israel via the Jewish mob? You know, because he could trust the Israeli Jews so much in an elaborate murder-for-hire scheme in Texas?

    Especially when the conspiracy is built on a frame of only one shooter, Lee Harvey Oswald, who has no obvious connection to Israel or Jews?

    My God, man, how do you believe this shit?

    Mossad motivation also doesn’t mean that Mossad was the only actor. Experience conspiracists, whether in the CIA, the mob, or elsewhere, understand perfectly well the importance of (1) a clear chain of command and (2) establishing it on a need-to-know basis, so that actors in the chain of command only know whom they are getting orders from and whom they give orders to, but not the configuration of the whole chess board.

    The problem with your theory is that there are far too many working parts that all have to go not just smoothly, but perfectly, in order for it to work. Yet the greater the number of parts, the higher the chance something goes wrong. Somebody will inevitably use the wrong gun, stand in the wrong place, fire at the wrong time, misunderstand the orders, go the wrong place after the shooting, or just blab.

    And let’s talk about your need-to-know basis. If all the actors involved are only being briefed on what they need to know, then there is a higher – not lower – likelihood that they will do something wrong because one of them will deviate from the script without even knowing he’s deviating from the script.

    Indeed this skill set practically seems to define the CIA, the Mob, and any competent intelligence agency.

    Only if you know nothing about them. There are so many free lancers in the CIA, for example, that there’s not a chance in hell that they could pull off something like this. Even the successful CIA operations in places like Guatemala and Iran were a mess when you study them closely. They’re not models of operational efficiency.

    Indeed, the theme of a small cog in a big wheel gradually grasping what he or she has become entangled in (or what, say, the spouse has gotten the whole family entangled in) is a classic theme in many genres—detective, mystery, police, action/thriller—all kinds of fiction and film plots. Classic Hitchcock device.

    I do agree with you on this: Your idea belongs in the movies.

    • 回复: @Skeptikal
  313. Ron Unz 说:
    @Pincher Martin

    Are you really suggesting that Mark Lane had trouble finding a serious publisher in 1991 or couldn’t afford to hire a copy editor or didn’t know how to source his material properly?

    Well, his 1991 book was released by a small fringe publisher, and the typeface used is quite odd. I suspect Lane would have preferred a mainstream publisher.

    Mark Lane made a pretty decent living for over forty years fighting the establishment. He sold best-selling books, lectured frequently and widely…

    His huge bestseller had been published in 1966. How many years (decades?) does the income from a bestseller last? And just how lucrative is the career of an anti-establishment public lecturer? I’m not saying he was impoverished, but I doubt he was too affluent.

    Talbot is an excellent writer. He has a novelist’s flair for building suspense and creating vivid scenes…He also deals a lot of what I call mood music…Let me give you an example of how Talbot uses mood music in his book 兄弟…But as mood music, it’s very effective. And Talbot is a good enough writer to know why it’s effective. It sets the scene for what he later wants to write about: the military undermining Kennedy’s presidency.

    Unlike myself, you seem heavily focused on stylistic issues, including Lane’s poor style and Talbot’s “mood music.” Personally, I’m more interested in the facts. In my article, I emphasized that I wasn’t at all persuaded by Talbot’s theory that the military and CIA were the main players in the JFK assassination. I also said I suspected that Talbot had totally ignored the most obvious suspect—LBJ—in order to get his book published and reviewed. However, I found Talbot’s evidence that there WAS a conspiracy to be overwhelmingly strong.

    Let me repeat another point I’ve now made twice before and you’ve twice ignored:

    On a related matter, I had already pointed out that the official coroner’s report on RFK shows that he was shot from behind at very close range while everyone agrees that Sirhan was standing several feet in front of him. Moreover, tapes reveal that many more shots were fired than the capacity of Sirhan’s gun. All of this is discussed in Talbot’s book, and Talbot also reveals that RFK was 100% sure that his brother had been killed by a conspiracy and was planning to track down the guilty parties once he became president. It seems to me that RFK probably had a better idea of what had really happened to his brother than you or I or even Bugliosi. (RFK intensely disliked Lane.)

    You never replied to any of this, so do you therefore admit that presidential candidate RFK was killed in a conspiracy, but still argue that JFK was not?

    It strikes me as rather odd that you focus so heavily on what you call Talbot’s “mood music” and completely ignore the very important facts he provides regarding RFK and JFK. I’d almost wonder if the long excerpt you quoted was intended to obfuscate these crucial issues.

    • 回复: @Pincher Martin
  314. lysias 说:
    @Pincher Martin

    Retired naval officer Horne was Chief Analyst of Military Records for the Assassinations Records Review Board, which had subpoena power by Act of Congress and could thus interview all surviving people involved in the JFK autopsy, and you call his five volumes (some 2000 pages) total rubbish? I wonder if you even read them.

    • 回复: @Pincher Martin
  315. Skeptikal 说:
    @Pincher Martin

    “Why was Mossad needed at all for such mundane tasks?”

    You completely missed the point of my comment.

    Do you get a bonus depending on the speed with which you hit “reply”?

    • 哈哈: gay troll
  316. @Ron Unz

    Unlike myself, you seem heavily focused on stylistic issues, including Lane’s poor style and Talbot’s “mood music.” Personally, I’m more interested in the facts.

    Talbot is all style. His entire argument is built on style. There is no other argument in his book other than the Manichean one of turning the Kennedys into Gods and military men into demons, and that approach relies entirely on his style.

    Even you, Ron, don’t think there is anything to Talbot’s argument. You know how I know that? Because his argument runs against the grain of everything you claim to believe about Kennedy’s presidency. The same is true of Douglass’ book.

    Didn’t you claim last year that too many conspiracy theorists lose people by glorifying the Kennedy administration? Yet that is exactly what Talbot and Douglass do. Their work relies entirely on turning Kennedy into a Sun God who, as soon as he was re-elected, would show us all the light by ending the Cold War, removing our troops from Vietnam, and even recognizing Red China.

    It was all going to happen, Ron, and then BANG, BANG, BANG the military-industrial complex struck him down.

    You seem to believe, for some strange reason, that you can take your Israel/Mossad/International Jewry thesis and graft it on to their works. But it doesn’t work that way. There’s nothing for you to graft onto because you can’t graft onto a stylistic argument. It’s like a cinephile trying to put The Exorcist into Citizen Kane. Even if he loves both movies, that won’t work.

    So all you are left with are books drenched in a stylistic argument that Kennedy was so special that he had to be killed by his own state. You claim you disagree with that thesis, yet here you are promoting their work.

    It strikes me as rather odd that you focus so heavily on what you call Talbot’s “mood music” and completely ignore the very important facts he provides regarding RFK and JFK. I’d almost wonder if the long excerpt you quoted was intended to obfuscate these crucial issues.

    I’m not ignoring the RFK angle. I simply don’t know enough facts about his assassination. Unlike some here, I refuse to engage in a discussion on a topic about which I’m uninformed. I know a lot about Robert Kennedy’s life and politics; I just don’t know much about his assassination.

    There’s plenty to discuss about JFK’s assassination, which is where 95% of the Kennedy conspiracy literature focuses anyway. Perhaps you ought to stop dancing around and zero in on what you think happened with JFK rather than change the subject to RFK.

    • 回复: @Ron Unz
    , @Jack McArthur
  317. Petermx 说:
    @Skeptikal

    I remember the movie well. Unfortunately. Yes, I agree, I think it played a big role in advancing the use of the term and the narrative.

  318. @lysias

    Why would I privilege one person’s view, however expert he might be, over the views of seventeen forensic pathologists in four different groups spread out over fifteen years and who all had access to the relevant material still available?

    Bugliosi has much to say about Horne. None of it good. After going through Horne’s crazy and defamatory allegations about the autopsy surgeons, Bugliosi writes:

    In case the reader is wondering, I did not call Doug Horne to have him comment on his highly defamatory (to Drs. Humes and Boswell) and scurrilous memorandum. I would not be interested in anything further he had to say. But on August 21, 2000, I did call and speak to Horne’s superior, Jeremy Gunn. Gunn immediately tried to distance himself from Horne. When I said to him, “You of course have read Douglas Horne’s memorandum,” he said, “I try to avoid reading anything written by Douglas Horne.” When I told him that in Horne’s introduction to the Probe republication of his memo Horne said he had shown him (Gunn) the first draft of his memorandum on August 28, 1996, and that Gunn had told him he liked what Horne had written about the two-brain discovery “very much” and that it was “very persuasive,” but that it was “a little bit too one-sided, and a little bit too biased in tone” and that he could be more effective in making his argument if he included “devil’s advocate” arguments on the other side,* Gunn said, “Anything that Horne said about any conversation I had with him I would not consider reliable.”

    Gunn refused to give me his opinion on the merits of Horne’s theory, saying, “I don’t want to get into any of this. It’s no longer a part of my life. I want to stay away from all of this as far as I can.” When I reminded him that he had told the Washington Post’s George Lardner Jr. on November 10, 1998, that he found Horne’s position “highly plausible,” he responded that so often in interviews, remarks are taken “out of context,” adding he would “neither confirm nor deny” he told Lardner this.

    If Horne’s former boss doesn’t consider him reliable, why should you?

  319. Thanks for this. Laurent Guyenot continues to be one of my most favorite writers on Unz Review.

  320. lysias 说:

    I take it you have not read Horne’s work.

    • 回复: @Pincher Martin
  321. Ron appears not to understand the nature of Talbot’s gifts as a writer.

    Talbot doesn’t make great arguments in the sense of laying out various lines of evidence and then tying the strands together. He writes vivid scenes that create an impression in his readers’ minds slanted toward some idea that he favors.

    The umbrella scene I mentioned earlier is a great example. I laughed when I read it. “Those nasty military generals! How could they not lend an umbrella to McNamara when it was raining?!”

    这是另一个:

    From the very beginning of his administration, the young president himself was regarded with a wary suspicion by Washington’s warrior culture. They feared JFK was a lightweight who might very well put the nation at risk, a physically and morally compromised man whose victory had been purchased by his cunning crook of a father.

    For these men, Kennedy’s inauguration was not an occasion for celebration. During the inaugural ceremony, while waiting for a luncheon in Eisenhower’s honor at the exclusive F Street Club, a group of senior military officials, including Admiral Arthur Radford, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs, stood grimly watching the TV as the new president called upon the nation to follow him into the future. The military men were focused less on Kennedy’s inspiring words than on his forehead, which was perspiring profusely in the frigid winter air. “He’s all hopped up!” shouted out General Howard Snyder, the retiring White House physician. Snyder, who had access to FBI and Secret Service files on Kennedy, told Radford that Kennedy—who suffered from Addison’s disease—was “prescribed a shot of cortisone every morning to keep him in good operating condition” and on this particularly stressful day he had obviously been administered an extra dose, resulting in his heavily beaded brow. Snyder worried aloud about the nation being placed in the hands of a man so obviously medically impaired: “I hate to think of what might happen to the country if Kennedy is required at three a.m. to make a decision affecting the national security.”

    It would not be long before Kennedy did face the first such crisis of his administration—and the way he handled it confirmed the warrior elite’s worst fears about him.

    This is a very vivid anecdote that fits well with Talbot’s thesis, but let’s examine it more closely.

    The only two members of the “warrior culture” or “warrior elite” Talbot mentions here are a retired admiral (Radford became a semi-retired pensioner in 1957) and the nearly 80-year-old personal physician of Eisenhower who, as an army doctor already sixty years old when WW2 began, might never have heard a shot fired in anger, and in any case was getting ready to retire now that Ike was on his way out of the presidency.

    Snyder was hardy what anyone – then or now – could call a member of the “warrior elite.”

    And was Snyder wrong? No. Kennedy regularly took cocktails of drugs so he could perform. If the public had known the truth, Kennedy would not have been elected to the presidency.

    Yet Talbot presents this scene ominously, as if it represents the views f the entire military, and as if Kennedy’s health was an illegitimate worry.

    Kennedy had great friends in the military. David Shoup was the Commandant of the Marine Corps and a war hero. He was awarded the Medal of Honor for his actions on Tarawa during WW2. Eisenhower selected Shoup to be the Marine Commandant in 1959, so his term of service overlapped the first two years of Kennedy’s term.

    Kennedy loved Shoup. He begged him to stay on for another term in 1963, but Shoup wanted to retire. Shoup was frequently an opponent of military action. He opposed invading Cuba after the Bay of Pigs (whose planning he was only vaguely aware of before it took place), and he was strongly opposed to the Vietnam War. Shoup did take a bellicose position early during the October missile crisis, but so did all the other military men. Nonetheless, Shoup fits well with Talbot’s notion of Kennedy as a man of peace.

    Talbot acknowledges Shoup’s relationship with Kennedy:

    General David Shoup, head of the Marine Corps, was the only member of the Joint Chiefs with whom Kennedy was able to build a decent relationship.

    But later Talbot has to take Shoup down to strengthen his book’s impressionistic thesis:

    Kennedy had reason to question the Joint Chiefs’ loyalty. After he and McNamara left the Cabinet Room that morning, the president’s secret taping system continued to record the military chiefs’ conversation, unbeknownst to them. As soon as the president and his defense secretary were gone, the chiefs began profanely condemning Kennedy’s cautious, incremental approach to the crisis. Shoup, the supposed Kennedy loyalist, took the lead in the angry attack, as if to show his fellow generals’ where his allegiance truly resided. JFK always took a gradual approach in “every goddamn” crisis, Shoup vented bitterly to his colleagues. You can’t “go in there and frig around with the missiles,” he cursed, or “you’re screwed.”

    “That’s right,” LeMay seconded.

    Talbot doesn’t appreciate that this kind of spirited discussion and airing of frustrations is normal. It happens with the military generals under all the presidents. It’s not something special that just happened to Kennedy. Talbot doesn’t understand what he’s reporting because he doesn’t know much about the military. It’s alien to him. But the generals are in their positions to give military advice and then follow the president’s orders; they aren’t there to kiss Kennedy’s ass. Venting – to the president and amongst themselves – is normal. It’s not evidence of treason.

    Yet that is the impression Talbot wants to present.

    Second, when the Soviet missiles were first discovered being put into Cuba in October 1962, the hawkish response was normal, even from many civilians in the Kennedy administration. Knowing what we know today, I’m glad Kennedy took a very cautious approach to fixing a problem he had created for himself with the Bay of Pigs, but the generals were not crazy for thinking those missiles a provocative threat that required a strong response.

    But that is not how Talbot presents it.

    The second friend Kennedy had in the military was Maxwell Taylor, a man he plucked out of retirement because of his anti-Eisenhower book, 不确定的小号, to be his Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

    Taylor was not a typical general. He spoke Spanish, French and Japanese. He was cultured and handsome, and therefore he fit socially into the New Frontier. He got along so well with the Kennedys that Robert Kennedy named one of his sons Maxwell.

    Unfortunately for the U.S., Taylor was not nearly as talented a general as he was cultured. But the point is that Kennedy had good friends in the military with four stars on their uniforms wh were not out to get him.

  322. @lysias

    Of the two of us, who has read far more about JFK and his assassination?

    If anyone here has some reading to do, it’s you, not me. When you get halfway through what I’ve read, give me a call and we’ll talk about me reading Horne then.

    Until then, worry about the mote in your own eye.

  323. Ron Unz 说:
    @Pincher Martin

    Talbot is all style. His entire argument is built on style…Even you, Ron, don’t think there is anything to Talbot’s argument…It was all going to happen, Ron, and then BANG, BANG, BANG the military-industrial complex struck him down.

    As you might know, back in the 1980s I published a series of major articles in Classical history, a discipline that requires an academic to weigh and evaluate sources that are often somewhat unreliable, fragmented, and contradictory. Those scholarly tools have (unexpectedly) proven very helpful in analyzing more recent controversial subjects like the JFK assassination.

    You seem to take the approach that if you feel you can refute some of the conclusions of a given author such as Talbot, you can disregard the entire body of his work, including the evidence he presents. That is a very poor scholarly technique to follow. You even seem to say that if Talbot is a little too “literary” in his style, his evidence can be ignored, which is absurd.

    You appear to have a near-fanatic interest in the JFK assassination given that you claim to have read close to 100 books on that topic including the entire Warren Commission report, and have already left 57 comments(!) on this thread totaling more than 21,000 words, verbiage greater than that of the next four commenters combined. But although you have read an enormous amount, you seem to have understood very little, focusing so overwhelmingly on Talbot’s style but totally ignoring his *证据*.

    As it happens, I entirely agree with your skepticism regarding the claims of Talbot (and Douglass) that the Military-Industrial Complex was behind the assassination. I’ll take the liberty of quoting a lengthy excerpt from my own article:

    如果发现丈夫或妻子被谋杀,手头没有明显的嫌疑人或动机,警方的正常反应是仔细调查幸存的配偶,而且这种怀疑往往被证明是正确的。 同样,如果你在报纸上读到,在某个不起眼的第三世界国家,两位充满敌意的领导人,名字都难以发音,一直分享着至高无上的政治权力,直到一个人突然被不知名的阴谋家神秘暗杀,你的想法肯定会动摇在一个明显的方向。 1960 年代初期的大多数美国人并没有从这种角度看待自己国家的政治,但也许他们错了。 作为肯尼迪阴谋分析这个庞大而隐秘的世界的完全新人,我立即对针对副总统林登·约翰逊的一丝怀疑感到惊讶,林登·约翰逊是被杀领导人的直接继任者,也是最明显的受益者。

    塔尔博特的两本书和道格拉斯的一本,总共约 1500 页,仅用了几段来说明约翰逊是否参与其中。 塔尔博特的第一本书报道说,在暗杀事件发生后,副总统立即向他的私人助手表达了一种疯狂的担忧,即军事政变可能正在进行或世界大战即将爆发,并暗示这几句随意的话表明了他明显的清白,尽管一个更愤世嫉俗的观察者可能想知道这些言论是否正是出于这个原因而发表的。 塔尔博特的第二本书实际上引用了一个明显的低级共谋者声称约翰逊亲自签署了阴谋并承认亨特相信同样的事情,但在添加一句话之前承认约翰逊可能确实如此一直是被动的支持者,甚至是帮凶。 道格拉斯和彼得戴尔斯科特,1993 年有影响力的书的作者 深度政治与肯尼迪国际(JFK)的死,似乎似乎从来没有娱乐过这种可能性。

    Ideological considerations are probably an important reason for such remarkable reticence. Although liberals had grown to revile LBJ by the late 1960s for his escalation of the unpopular Vietnam War, over the decades those sentiments have faded, while warm memories of his passage of the landmark Civil Rights legislation and his creation of the Great Society programs have elevated his stature in that ideological camp. Furthermore, such legislation had long been blockaded in Congress and only became law because of the 1964 Democratic Congressional landslide following JFK’s martyrdom, and it might be difficult for liberals to admit that their fondest dreams were only realized by an act of political parricide.

    Kennedy and Johnson may have been intensely hostile personal rivals, but there seem to have been few deep ideological differences between the two men, and most of the leading figures in JFK’s government continued to serve under his successor, surely another source of enormous embarrassment to any ardent liberals who came to suspect that the former had been murdered by a conspiracy involving the latter. Talbot, Douglass, and many other left-leaning advocates for an assassination conspiracy prefer to point the finger of blame towards far more congenial villains such as hard-line, anti-Communist Cold Warriors and right-wing elements, notably including top CIA officials, such as former director Allan Dulles.

    An additional factor helping to explain the extreme unwillingness of Talbot, Douglass, and others to consider Johnson as an obvious suspect may be the realities of the book publishing industry. By the 2000s, JFK assassination conspiracies had long become passé and were treated with disdain in mainstream circles. Talbot’s strong reputation, his 150 original interviews, and the quality of his manuscript broke that barrier, and attracted 自由新闻 作为他非常受人尊敬的出版商,后来又受到了一位领先的学术学者的强烈好评。 纽约时报周日书评 还有一个小时的电视转播 C跨度记事本. But if he had devoted any space to voicing suspicions that our 35th president had been murdered by our 36th, surely the weight of that extra element of “outrageous conspiracy theory” would have ensured that his book sank without a trace.

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-jfk-assassination-part-ii-who-did-it/

    One of the main reasons I broke my JFK assassination analysis into two different articles was that the first focused on *whether* there had been a conspiracy, while the second analyzed who had most likely been involved. These are entirely different questions, and while I found Talbot extremely persuasive in the first case, I rejected his conclusions in the second.

    Those stylistic flourishes of Talbot that so deeply stuck in your own mind left absolutely no trace in mine. But what I drew from his book (and you apparently forgot) was that official autopsy report conclusively proved that Sirhan did not kill RFK, who was therefore killed by conspirators. Since RFK had always been absolutely sure that JFK had been killed by a conspiracy and was on the very verge of being able to track down and punish his brother’s killers, this leads to certain rather obvious conclusions.

    • 谢谢: Iris, Skeptikal
  324. @Ron Unz

    You seem to take the approach that if you feel you can refute some of the conclusions of a given author such as Talbot, you can disregard the entire body of his work, including the evidence he presents. That is a very poor scholarly technique to follow. You even seem to say that if Talbot is a little too “literary” in his style, his evidence can be ignored, which is absurd.

    I’ve said nothing of the sort.

    1) I’ve said Talbot is a great writer for this genre, but that his gifts are strictly literary. He has neither historical nor analytical gifts. He’s not a great scholar. His background knowledge of the subject is sketchy. His judgment is poor. His gift is to be a great storyteller.

    I’ve provided several examples showing why this is so. You’ve ignored them. I’ve read three books by Talbot, including his modern history of San Francisco, so I’m confident I’m not judging too much based on a single book or a single subject matter. He writes the same way in all of them.

    2) If you know much about Kennedy, nothing Talbot says is remarkable. But I admit some details were interesting. The many anecdotes about RFK’s response to the death of his brother were engaging. But Talbot could’ve put those in a long article rather than a 400-page book, and because of his flawed judgment he comes to the wrong conclusion about them.

    3) You say I disregard the evidence Talbot presents, but he doesn’t really present much in the way of new evidence. He reinterprets the old evidence and shapes it into a great pro-Kennedy story.

    You appear to have a near-fanatic interest in the JFK assassination given that you claim to have read close to 100 books on that topic including the entire Warren Commission report, and have already left 57 comments(!) on this thread totaling more than 21,000 words, verbiage greater than that of the next four commenters combined.

    I made none of these claims.

    I’ve read many Kennedy books over the years, but almost all of them have no connection to his assassination or conspiracy theories about his assassination. I also said I had NO interest in reading the 27 volumes of the Warren Report. I only read the one-volume Warren Report, which is the summary. That’s enough.

    Of the books I listed, probably around twenty are specifically devoted to the JFK assassination. Not one of them is about the RFK assassination. I’ve read more than half of those books over the last year in preparation for this thread. So, no, I’m not a “near fanatic” about the topic.

    I just didn’t like how last November’s debate on the Kennedy assassination went. I made only a few comments at the time, but I didn’t like the misinformation that was casually tossed about in the thread. I didn’t care for the casual stupidity about Kennedy’s presidency that marked most of the posts.

    But I had too many holes in my knowledge to discuss things like the potential Israeli role in the JFK assassination. So I looked at your reading list and started making my way through it in anticipation that, as sure as night follows day, The Unz Review would return to this subject, probably on the anniversary of Kennedy’s death.

    You were late this year.

    The number of my posts and words on this topic reflect the work I put in over the last year to make sure I was prepared for this discussion. But this will be the last time I waste this much effort on such a silly subject. Conspiracies of this sort are for children and fools. Reading so much of this material over the last twelve months really brought that home to me.

  325. utu 说:
    @Ron Unz

    One of the main reasons I broke my JFK assassination analysis into two different articles was that the first focused on *whether* there had been a conspiracy, while the second analyzed who had most likely been involved.

    This article by Laurent Guyenot belongs to the second part that starts with the premise that there was a conspiracy. I have an impression that Pincher Martin position is that the official narrative that Oswald acted alone and that there was no conspiracy is true. He should dismiss everything what was written in your second part and what Laurent Guyenot presents here as based and a false premise that there was a conspiracy and he should state it so. However he tries to diminish and undermine all arguments in favor of the Israel hypothesis as if he believed in some conspiracy but not the Israel conspiracy. Would he be so active if Laurent Guyenot wrote an article that Aristotle Onassis was behind the assassination or what if it was about LBJ? After all there should be no difference for him what conspiracy people are making up. In each case his answer should be: there was no conspiracy. I am not saying that he is acting in a bad faith but by not revealing his true position and motives I have an impression that the Israel hypothesis rubs him the wrong way much more than any other conspiracy hypothesis.

    • 同意: Ron Unz
    • 回复: @Pincher Martin
  326. @Pincher Martin

    Israel could build the bomb and Kennedy could do nothing to prevent it.

    To say that a US president could do nothing to constrain Israel in 1963 is laughable. There was a lot he could do. He could bring the issue publicly to the United Nations. This would embarass Israel tremendously and could lead, for instance, to Egypt bombing Dimona, an action that could be perceived as legitimate by the world. I think Douglass (whose stylistic qualities you haven’t discussed yet) makes a compelling case that JFK was deadly serious about denuclearizing the world. Although Douglass doesn’t suggest any link between Dimona and Kennedy’s remarkable “Peace Speech” of June 10, 1963 on “general and complete disarmament” (read it here https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkamericanuniversityaddress.html) it happened precisely at the height of his heated exchange with Ben-Gourion. Kennedy’s ultimate letter to Ben-Gurion threatening that US “commitment to and support of Israel could be seriously jeopardized” was sent just six days after this speech. It was not just the letter that prompted Ben-Gurion to resign, that is, dive into underworld assassination politics; it was the speech plus the letter. The letter made it clear that Kennedy was serious, and the speech made it clear that he was ready to go public. Very public. And again, Douglass’s failure to mention Dimona, Kennedy’s letters to Ben-Gurion, and Ben-Gurion’s mysterious resignation in the context of that speech is evidence enough of his dishonesty, and therefore further evidence of the concerted efforts to bury that lead: Kennedy’s peace speech was a message to Israel, not just to Khrushchev and the American Cold Warriors.

    • 同意: utu
  327. @Ron Unz

    I commend you, Ron, for engaging so patiently with Pincher Martin. You have left him cornered into his desperate stylistic arguments that I find highly revealing. As far as I’m concerned, you have not wasted your time.

    • 同意: James N. Kennett
  328. @Laurent Guyénot

    By the way, Khrushchev, who was also serious about disarmament, had Kennedy’s Peace speech translated in Pravda. The message was coming to Ben-Gurion through both ears, East and West. Dimona was doomed.

  329. Skeptikal 说:

    Yes. That American University speech was enormously influential.

    Douglass may have failed to follow all paths to final outcomes or had certain blinders.

    But I think he was correct in his focus on that speech—which I had not heard of before. I am sure that it was a new angle to many readers of Douglass’s book.

    Regarding the JFK-Castro back channel, a good source is
    Fidel and Che: A Revolutionary Friendship. Simon Reid-Henry. Bloomsbury/USA, 2009.

    I’m sure there are other sources, but this is one I know of.

    I read it a long time ago. But my recollection is that the near-cataclysm of the Missile Crisis focused Kennedy’s mind, as did his realization of the urgent need to set aside ideological battles in order to ensure a peaceful future for young innocent children like his own two young children.

  330. @utu

    I have an impression that Pincher Martin position is that the official narrative that Oswald acted alone and that there was no conspiracy is true. He should dismiss everything what was written in your second part and what Laurent Guyenot presents here as based and a false premise that there was a conspiracy and he should state it so.

    I’m almost certain (95%+) Oswald acted alone, but it’s not impossible he had a conspirator or two.

    但是, *自然* of the conspiracy that someone hypothesizes – how large it was, who was involved in it, what they were responsible for, etc. – tells me a lot about whether Ron’s (or anyone else’s) Part 2 ought to contradict his Part 1.

    Some of the conspiracy speculation is so florid that nearly every major group and prominent individual alive at the time plays a part. I dismiss this kind of ornate conspiracy talk out of hand.

    I also dismiss any conspiracy talk that doesn’t put Oswald at the center of it. If Oswald didn’t act alone, then he certainly was a – if not 练习 – major participant in the conspiracy. The evidence tells us this clearly. He wasn’t a patsy.

    But a few more cautious individuals speculate that Oswald might have been working with or in close contact with some anti-Castro Cubans. They often point to the Sylvia Odio testimony. I don’t buy it. I don’t think such a conspiracy is necessary to explain anything important about the case. But I don’t immediately dismiss it, either. It’s in the realm of possibility.

    Ron’s dichotomy is not where to start with this murder case. Begin instead with the crime scene and other physical evidence, as well as the events of the first three days as reported contemporaneously by the many participants. Only then move to the suspects.

    However he tries to diminish and undermine all arguments in favor of the Israel hypothesis as if he believed in some conspiracy but not the Israel conspiracy. Would he be so active if Laurent Guyenot wrote an article that Aristotle Onassis was behind the assassination or what if it was about LBJ?

    But an article about Aristotle Onassis killing JFK has less emotional traction, and therefore less staying power, than an article about LBJ or the CIA or FBI or Secret Service or Mossad or the military-industrial complex or the mob killing Kennedy.

    Most people don’t have the kind of political passion against Onassis in the same way they do against LBJ or the CIA or J. Edgar Hoover or Israel. It would be like Guyenot writing an article that U.S. Steel was behind the assassination. It might momentarily pique the readers’ interests about what he had to say, but it wouldn’t excite many people’s passions.

    Am I particularly animated against the Israeli argument in a way Im not against the CIA or FBI or LBJ arguments? No, the Israeli argument is new to me, and I’ve always thought Oswald acted alone since Stone’s movie came out and I first began informing myself about the issue. Until I read Ron’s articles, I’d never even seen the Israel argument before.

  331. lysias 说:

    When I asked earlier in this thread whether James Jesus Angleton’s Mexican mother was a crypto-Jew, the only answer I got was a statement that she was not Mexican, but a Hispanic from the American Southwest, New Mexico, I think. But I should not have accepted that as an answer, because it did not answer my question, since there were and are crypto-Jews in the Southwest, including New Mexico.

  332. lysias 说:

    Anway, it turns out that answer was wrong: Angleton’s father met and married his mother in Mexico.

    • 回复: @lysias
  333. @Skeptikal

    Douglass may have failed to follow all paths to final outcomes or had certain blinders.

    Yes, I take back “dishonesty.” And if he had mentionned Dimona, his book would not have gone mainstream; it was a positive contribution, and it had a positive impact without doubt.

  334. @Laurent Guyénot

    To say that a US president could do nothing to constrain Israel in 1963 is laughable. There was a lot he could do. He could bring the issue publicly to the United Nations.

    Yes, I mentioned this possibility to Utu. 这是我写的:

    Short of Kennedy going public about Dimona and internationalizing the problem of Israeli nonproliferation [sic – should read “Israeli proliferation”], and then working with the Soviets on a regional response that guaranteed the Jewish State’s security, I can’t think of anything that was going to stop Israel from getting the bomb.

    But was this likely to happen? Kennedy was already three years into a dialogue with the Israelis about Dimona, and we have no indication he had thought of going public and putting international pressure on Israel. If there was an indication, I’ve never seen it. I’ve also never seen the Israelis at the time expressing fear that the American president would do so.

    If Kennedy had taken this type of approach toward Israel that you’re talking about, he almost certainly would not have publicly singled out Israel for embarrassment.

    Many countries at that time had nuclear weapons programs, and many more had nuclear weapons ambitions. Nassar’s United Arab Republic was one of the latter. He never developed a serious nuclear weapons program, but he did publicly talk about developing one. His ambitions had nothing to do with Dimona. That was just the way leaders back then expressed their national aspirations. Even Sweden had a nuclear weapons program at the time.

    So Kennedy would’ve had to take a neutral approach to any international nonproliferation regime he proposed. He couldn’t single out Israel for embarrassment.

    That’s eventually what later happened with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The NPT was negotiated starting in 1965, completed in 1968 and entered into force in 1970. Once it was complete, Israel faced both global and American pressure to sign the NPT and follow international protocols for inspections at Dimona. It refused.

    Let’s assume Kennedy lived and did choose to single out the Israelis for Dimona. He almost certainly would not have gone public before the November 1964 election, so that’s another year wasted.

    After the election, as a result of Diem’s removal the previous year, South Vietnam began to fall apart. That would have taken up most of Kennedy’s time had he lived to see a second term. That’s true even if we assume Kennedy took a much different approach to Vietnam than LBJ did.

    Khrushchev also lost power in October of 1964 and the hardliner Brezhnev would lead the USSR for the next two decades. So managing the Cold War was going to continue to be the top priority and most difficult task for Kennedy in his second term.

    You have to keep this global context in mind when discussing Kennedy’s rage of options for Israel. It may be emotionally satisfying for you to believe that Kennedy could just stand up and give a speech and that would do it, but that is not how the world works and Kennedy knew that even if you do not.

    • 回复: @Laurent Guyénot
  335. lysias 说:
    @lysias

    Well, that’s what Wikipedia says. Jefferson Morley’s life of Angleton, “The Ghost”, says that the elder Angleton met and married Carmen Mercedes Moreno while stationed as a National Guard officer in the border town of Nogales, Arizona. Carmen, he says, although born in Mexico, had by that point been naturalized as a U.S. citizen.

    None of this, of course, has any bearing on my question about whether she was a crypto-Jew, something for which I have no evidence beyond her son’s strange predilection for Israel, so like that of Lyndon Johnson, who has been alleged to have secret Jewish ancestry on his mother’s side.

  336. @Laurent Guyénot

    Although Douglass doesn’t suggest any link between Dimona and Kennedy’s remarkable “Peace Speech” of June 10, 1963 on “general and complete disarmament” (read it here https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkamericanuniversityaddress.html) it happened precisely at the height of his heated exchange with Ben-Gourion. Kennedy’s ultimate letter to Ben-Gurion threatening that US “commitment to and support of Israel could be seriously jeopardized” was sent just six days after this speech.

    I’ve already referred to this upthread at least twice.

    Kennedy had few options for pressuring Israel in 1963. The U.S. did not give Israel anything beyond trivial levels military aid at the time. In most years it gave Israel no military aid. The U.S. also did not provide Israel with much in the way of special grants and loans. Israel in the early sixties got far more in support from private Jewish donors and German reparations than it received from the U.S. government. The context in 1963 was much different than it is today.

    I don’t know what the level of trade was between the U.S. and Israel in 1960, but it was certainly far lower than it is today. (The U.S. is currently both Israel’s #1 export and import market.) In any case, Kennedy’s options through trade were limited. He was president, not dictator.

    Could Kennedy have gone through Congress and passed sanctions on Israel because of a nuclear reactor on which the Israelis refused to allow regular international inspections, but had allowed the occasional American inspection? Yeah, good luck with that.

    • 回复: @Iris
  337. @Skeptikal

    Kennedy’s American University speech has been famous for decades. It’s a good speech. Khrushchev loved it. It was not a proposal to end the Cold War.

    Two weeks later, Kennedy went to Berlin and gave another equally famous speech, in which he said this:

    “There are many people in the world who really don’t understand, or say they don’t, what is the great issue between the free world and the Communist world. Let them come to Berlin. There are some who say that communism is the wave of the future. Let them come to Berlin. And there are some who say in Europe and elsewhere we can work with the Communists. Let them come to Berlin. And there are even a few who say that it is true that communism is an evil system, but it permits us to make economic progress. Lass’ sie nach Berlin kommen. Let them come to Berlin.=

    Khrushchev didn’t like this speech nearly as much.

    You know how many times Douglass refers to the American University speech in his book?

    78 times. He even includes the full text of the speech at the end of this book.

    You know how many times Douglass refers to Kennedy’s famous Berlin Wall speech given two weeks after the American University Commencement address?

    为零。

    • 回复: @Skeptikal
  338. Iris 说:
    @Pincher Martin

    But was this likely to happen?

    Your hypothesis that Israel had no fear of the US’ opposition to its nuclear program is beyond ludicrous.

    The US reaction to such significant power re-configuration in the Middle-East does not need to be speculated about. It actually had already materialised during the 1954 Suez crisis, when the USA and the USSR conjointly and swiftly made Britain and France cave in and renounce their ambitions in the region. And the latter countries were two very powerful nations permanent members of the UNSC, with Britain already a nuclear power since 1952. Beggar Israel was nothing in comparison.

    Pretending that the USSR would not have intervened against Israel’s nuclear agenda is equally ludicrous. Nasser was a close USSR ally, and destabilizing the power balance at the expense of Egypt meant encroaching onto the USSR’s interests, too. The commitments between the two superpowers that played during the Suez crisis would have similarly played in 1963.

    There is no need to speculate about this anyway. The first resolution to stop proliferation of nuclear weapons was drafted by Ireland in 1958 and unanimously adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1960. So there was a clear and shared conscience of the nuclear peril, and a formal international framework to stop it.

    US archives of the Kennedy presidency shows that other European countries such as Britain were also monitoring the Israelis’ nuclear activity and feeding back information to Washington.
    In his May 1963 meeting with French FM Couve de Murville, it is clear that JFK was reproaching to France to having provided uranium to Israel, to which Couve de Murville feels obliged to 道歉 by saying that it was only small quantities for research purposes, and that Israel could have secretly gotten it from rogue sources otherwise. It is very clear what the hierarchy was: Israel wasn’t even invited or informed when its nuclear ambitions were being discussed.

    肯尼迪: I am pleased because if Israel had atomic weapons, we would be blamed equally, you for furnishing uranium, and we for the financial aid given to Israel. The position of that country is stupid because it gives a pretext to the Russians, who are retreating in the region, to indict us before world opinion, and perhaps not without reason,

    Actually, the only thing I would perhaps disagree about with Mr Guyenot’s opinion is that President Kennedy’s March 1963 speech was a veiled threat 特别是 addressed to Israel. His speech was made one month after a secret Department of Defense memorandum assessed that eight countries—Canada, China, India, Israel, Italy, Japan, Sweden, and West Germany—were likely to be able to produce nuclear weapons within 10 years.
    Israel indeed bore a great nuisance factor due to its position across a West/East confrontation line, but I am not sure Mr Kennedy gave the Zionist entity a particular attention over other such important countries.

    The abject subservience of the current Zionist-occupied government is no image of 1963’s America. When Kennedy died, the US Presidency as an institution died with him too.

    • 回复: @Pincher Martin
  339. @Laurent Guyénot

    I was hanging on to EO 11110 as nugget of truth that others overlooked as another key piece of the puzzle. Can’t do that anymore. Thank you for the clarification.

  340. @Iris

    The witness who gave a lift to Oswald with his “curtain rods” was Wesley Frazier, a TSBD co-worker and neighbour of Oswald’s lodger Ruth Paine.

    Wesley Frazier gave Oswald a ride on Friday 22nd November.

    Another man, Robert Yates, gave a hitchhiker a lift on Wednesday 20th November. A hitchhiker with “curtain rods” who looked like Oswald and talked about the feasibility of assassinating JFK. It would have been possible to conclude that Oswald brought parts of his disassembled rifle to work on more than one day, but the FBI had other ideas and told Yates to report to the local mental hospital.

  341. Skeptikal 说:
    @Pincher Martin

    I am curious as to what you think Kennedy meant when he repeated “Lass sie nach Berlin kommen.”

    It is not obvious to me.

    Possibly he meant that these “invitees” would see how prosperous West Berlin was in comparison to East Berlin. Or West Germany in comparison to East Germany.

    Of course West Berlin was massively subsidized for precisely this propaganda purpose. And the DDR had to build the Wall to prevent the ongoing degradation of its currency.

    However, economic competition is not the same thing as nuclear confrontation, so IMO your example means zero.

    • 回复: @Pincher Martin
  342. Douglass’ book really ought to be called “The Canonization of John F. Kennedy” because that’s what his book is all about. He turns JFK into a plaster saint.

    What’s worse is that during moments of the book, Douglass seems to also want to extend the public cults to Nikita Khrushchev and Lee Harvey Oswald.

    Oswald, in Douglass’ mind, is not only innocent of the JFK assassination, but a hero who tried to stop it. That’s not only wrong, but obscene.

    He also blames Tippet’s murder on an Oswald double who was in the movie theater at the time of Oswald’s arrest and may have even been arrested by the police in the balcony before they let him go. We are plainly in the Twilight Zone with that speculation.

    One of the books buttressing Douglass’ absurd speculations is called Flight From Dallas. It tells the tale of an enlisted Air Force man, Sergeant Robert Vinson, who travels to Washington D.C. for an administrative matter involving his promotion. After finishing his business, he unknowingly and accidentally boards the wrong Cargo plane on November 22nd, 1963, to return home to Colorado.

    Vinson is the only passenger on the plane until it lands in the dusty flats of the Trinity River near Dallas. At that point Vinson sees what he would later tell his wife was an Oswald doppelgänger and another man board the plane. Neither speaks to him. They are the only three passengers on the plane. Much to Vinson’s consternation, they then fly not to Colorado, but to Roswell Air Force Base in New Mexico. Sometime afterward, he sees the television news about JFK and realizes he was flying on the plane with a man who looked just like Oswald.

    Soon afterwards, Vinson says soft surveillance and subtle employment pressures were put on him. He felt he was being watched. He began to speculate about his experience and came to the conclusion that he had boarded the wrong plane in Washington DC by accident. The pilots and the two men who boarded in Dallas just assumed he belonged there. After landing in New Mexico and discovering Vinson was not a member of the plot, they panicked, but decided not to kill him if he kept quiet.

    It’s an absurd tale for many reasons, but I haven’t yet given the biggest reason why it’s so absurd.

    Before Vinson ever boards the plane on the morning of November 22nd, he met with an officer about his promotion the day before on November 21st. This is how Douglass describes Vinson’s meeting with the officer in his book:

    On Thursday, November 21, in a basement office of the Capitol Building, Sergeant Vinson met with a Colonel Chapman, who served as a liaison officer between Congress and the Pentagon. While he looked over Vinson’s papers, Chapman engaged in a phone conversation Vinson would not forget.

    Col. Chapman told the person on the other end of the line he “would highly recommend that the President not go to Dallas, Texas, on Friday because there had been something reported.”[488] Chapman said the president should cancel his Dallas trip, even though an advance group of Congressmen whom Chapman was coordinating had already left the capital.[489] Vinson did not hear what the “something” was that moved Col. Chapman to urge the last-second cancellation of President Kennedy’s Dallas trip (that would have followed by less than three weeks the last-second cancellation of his Chicago trip, where a four-man sniper team and an assassination scapegoat had been discovered).

    My bullshit detectors were exploding while I read this.

    First, think of the fortunate set of circumstances that would allow Vinson to sit in a Colonel’s office on November 21st as he listened to the man warn the president’s team over the phone not to go to Dallas and then the very next day accidentally boards a plane that would pick up Oswald’ double in Dallas.

    What Vinson wishes us to believe is that on two consecutive days he stumbled into not only overhearing a phone call warning the president about an impending assassination, but also upon one of the assassins responsible for the deed that the Colonel was trying to warn the president about!!!

    Entirely by accident. Both incidents. On consecutive days. And all while handling a routine administrative matter as an enlisted man that I highly doubt he even needed to travel to Washington to take care of. Certainly, one would not go to a liaison officer in the Capitol basement to solve it.

    I’ve served in the military. The whole story smells. This is the kind of crap that buttresses the arguments in Douglass’s book.

    • 回复: @Skeptikal
    , @Ron Unz
    , @Alden
  343. @Pincher Martin

    “turning Kennedy into a Sun God”

    He is a biblical David figure. On my birthday on 911 a few hours before the first plane hit the twin towers I was left was the unmistakable belief that like David JFK was beloved by God and that in ways I do not understand he stopped something happening that day which would have have had an even more devastating impact on the American psyche.

    It was a day a graces for me and I link it to the very title of this article – JFK was a Catholic and the year before I remembered him and his family on All Souls Day.

    When 911 happened the closing words of the speech which he was on his way to deliver before being gunned down in Dealy Plaza took on a special meaning as the events of 911 unfolded:

    “For as was written long ago ‘except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.’

    Those words from one of David’s psalms are even more relevant today in which the cities of the West are like Sodom and Gomorrah proclaiming their sin boldly unlike David who felt shame and wept bitter tears for his sins.

  344. @Skeptikal

    I’d focus more on what Kennedy meant by the English phrases rather than what he meant by the bad German phrases he learned and practiced only shortly before the speech.

    He was drawing a contrast between the two systems. He was showing the West was clearly the superior of the two. He pointed out how Berlin’s division proved that superiority.

    Most startlingly, given this was just two weeks after the American University speech, he implicitly agreed with those in the West who suggested that one could not work with Communists and that the Communist system was evil. These were more rhetorical flourishes than genuine sentiments he believed in, obviously. But it’s telling that he did include them.

    However, economic competition is not the same thing as nuclear confrontation…

    I completely agree, but it’s still a Cold War.

    Kennedy was not ending the Cold War, as Douglass claims, with his American University speech or his Test Ban Treaty or anything else he accomplished during his administration. He merely wanted to decrease the chances for a mutually destructive and lethal encounter by slowing down, if not putting an end to, the arms race.

    The Cold War also didn’t end with Nixon and Ford’s detente. It didn’t end with Jimmy Carter proclaiming that Americans had an irrational fear of communism. It didn’t end when Reagan and Gorbachev seriously negotiated getting rid of all nuclear weapons.

    You know when it ended? If you had to pick just one day? When that Berlin Wall fell.

    • 回复: @Skeptikal
  345. Skeptikal 说:
    @Pincher Martin

    “Lass sie nach Berlin kommen” is perfectly good German, as is “Ich bin ein Berliner.”

    Red herring there, or pointless snark.

    You are in basic agreement with me.

    But add a few flourishes to show off in a meaningless fashion.

  346. Alden 说:

    Why has no one mentioned the Corsican heroin smugglers and WW2 Nazi collaborators Lucien Sarti and Auguste Ricord who shot Kennedy from the grassy knoll?

    Why has no one mentioned that Mrs Kennedy’s second husband Aristotle Onassis moved into the White House the day after Kennedy was murdered and stayed for days?

    Why has no one mentioned Maritza Lorenz’ deposition in which she claimed she spent most of 1961 in Florida training with Lee Harvey Oswald for the Bay of Pugs invasion? 1961, when Oswald was still in Russia?

    • 哈哈: Pincher Martin
  347. @Iris

    虹膜

    Before I go on to correct your many mistaken animadversions in this most recent post to me, I’d like your answer as to why you earlier misrepresented the 1963 Cronkite interview of President Kennedy as showing he was intending to withdraw from Vietnam.

    If you remember, I gave you three choices.

    1) Were you lying?

    2) Were you stupid?

    3) Are you too limited in the sources you read on this topic?

    I think it’s #3, but you’re welcome to take either one of the other two alternatives if you believe they fit better.

    It’s bad form for you to demand explanations and answers from me, but provide none yourself when you are caught passing along misinformation.

    Your hypothesis that Israel had no fear of the US’ opposition to its nuclear program is beyond ludicrous.

    I didn’t say the Israelis had no fear of US opposition. I said Kennedy had no leverage.

    Everyone in the Israeli leadership at that time wanted a good relationship with the Americans. Even more so, they would have liked the United States to give Israel a security guarantee.

    但是, 1950 Tripartite Declaration, which the US still adhered to in the early nineteen-sixties, even if other parties did not, prevented any large sale of arms from the U.S. to Israel or other Middle Eastern countries. This studied neutrality made it difficult for Kennedy to offer anything Israel really wanted. He did sell them Hawk missile batteries, but it was a small deal.

    The president’s White House foreign policy team did eventually give him a memo which said that providing Israel a security guarantee might potentially offset Israel’s stated need for Dimona. The State Department disagreed, explaining it was too abrupt a change for how the U.S. had handled Middle East politics over the previous fifteen years.

    In any case, by Kennedy’s death, he had spent three years negotiating with the Israelis and the most dangerous thing he had done was give a vague unspecified threat which is hard to see how he could follow through on.

    The US reaction to such significant power re-configuration in the Middle-East does not need to be speculated about. It actually had already materialised during the 1954 Suez crisis, when the USA and the USSR conjointly and swiftly made Britain and France cave in and renounce their ambitions in the region. And the latter countries were two very powerful nations permanent members of the UNSC, with Britain already a nuclear power since 1952. Beggar Israel was nothing in comparison.

    There’s a monumental difference between lighting up a couple of allies up when they’re engaged in a colonial war they didn’t tell you about before launching, and which Eisenhower considered to adversely affect U.S. global and regional interests, and pushing a small country to open up inspections on a facility it claims is peaceful.

    Obviously, if Kennedy considered Israeli compliance at that same level Eisenhower considered ending the Suez Crisis, then it would have happened. But Kennedy didn’t. For good reason. It wasn’t nearly as important. Kennedy has a hundred other things more important to worry about than Israel’s nuclear program. He dealt more with Laos during his administration than he did with Israel. Far more.

    When the French, British and Israelis responded with armed force to the Suez Crisis, nothing was more important to Eisenhower than shutting them down. The goal was at the top of his agenda. Ike got up early and stayed up late when the crisis was at its peak. He had leverage because he felt strongly that he needed to end Anglo/French/Israeli aggression to keep the Arabs away from the Soviet sphere.

    Kennedy felt passionately about Israel and nonproliferation issues, but it was just a garnish compared to what else he had on his plate. You can read entire books on Kennedy and never see the name of “Israel” once. For example, in Ted Sorenson’s 750-page biography of Kennedy, the word “Israel” is mentioned only twice in the index. “Laos” is mentioned over 90 times. “Formosa” is mentioned over 20 times.

    Israel, on the other hand, felt having nuclear weapons was a life-and-death issue. That disparity in importance is why Kennedy had no leverage.

    • 回复: @gay troll
  348. Skeptikal 说:
    @Pincher Martin

    “Douglass’ book really ought to be called “The Canonization of John F. Kennedy” because that’s what his book is all about. He turns JFK into a plaster saint.”

    Douglass does no such thing.
    I am tired of puny minds trashing Kennedy, Douglass, and Douglass’s book while working off unstated but false premises regarding the origin of the book and the spirit in which it was written. These wrong-headed trashy comments could discourage people from reading what is widely considered to be one of the very most valuable books about Kennedy and Dallas.. It places the man and the event in the context of the postwar USA that came into being under Truman and Eisenhower, the situation that Kennedy inherited.

    Douglass does not purport to “solve” the crime. He presents the evidence that he found (in great detail; I reckon a third of the word count is documentation) and leaves it to the reader to draw conclusions. I don’t think Douglass ever states that the CIA did it.

    The book was written at the behest of the Maryknoll Foundation. This foundation (it has a publishing arm, Orbis Books) felt that Americans needed to come to terms with and have some kind of reckoning with the three assassinations that shook this country in the sixties and deprived it of three leaders (JFK, RFK, and King; I don’t think they included Malcolm X). They wanted the American people to take up the ethical burden of getting to the bottom of what had happened and why the loss of these leaders should not be a “Get over it” thing. I believe that Douglass in the end wrote only one of the three projected books. Perhaps he was burned out after spending 12 years on the Kennedy book.

    Douglass was tasked with reexamining all of the available evidence and digging to see if he could find more. One reviewer wrote, “Mr. Douglass seems to have responsibly and painstakingly plumbed the evidence of the Kennedy assassination from a new angle and raised disturbing yet essential questions.” This as his task. He was/is a theologian, not a police detective nor a counterintelligence operative.

    The first third of the book is an in-depth study of the postwar development , under Truman and Eisenhower, of various forces and interests in the American govt and society and economy whose workings were neither well understood nor acknowledged by our standard commentators. Forces that Douglass spotlights as being threatened by Kennedy in one way or another and that had an interest in neutering him and (his pugnacious brother Bobby), which they tried to do in all kinds of ways.

    Douglass’s book is worth reading for this significant chunk of it alone.

    I expect that Douglass attempted to be exhaustive . By the time the book had been long published and someone came along quizzing him about Dimona, he may well have been, simply, exhaustED.

    You can see a list of Douglass’s writings here:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_W._Douglass

    Shallow minds want a writer, and his subject, to fit easily into a mold that carries a simple label. Neither Kennedy nor Douglass obliges. (Those who are obsessed by Kennedy’s sex life, for example, think this side of the man explains everything about his presidency.) It must be taken on board that Kennedy’s communications with both Castro and Khrushchev were undertaken at *伟大的* risk. Kennedy was walking a foreign policy tightrope. As was Khrushchev.

    I applaud Laurent Guyenot for picking up the baton of understanding the Dallas crime and cover-up.
    I expect the originators of Douglass’s project at the Maryknoll Foundation would do the same. The need to understand Dallas and its consequences is as urgent as ever.
    Trashing Douglass, and picking at his contribution because it is one thing and not another, is a silly waste of time.

    • 同意: Laurent Guyénot
    • 谢谢: Iris
    • 回复: @Pincher Martin
  349. @Skeptikal

    “Lass sie nach Berlin kommen” is perfectly good German, as is “Ich bin ein Berliner.”

    I don’t speak German, but I’ve read that the second phrase means “I am a jelly donut,” even if Berliners listening to the speech understood what he meant.

    In any case, I defer to your point. Good or bad German, it hardly matters to me. The tone of his speech was clear.

    • 回复: @Kapyong
    , @Skeptikal
  350. @Skeptikal

    Douglass does no such thing.

    他当然知道。

    And the religious nature of Douglass’ other writings, which you helpfully provide by linking to his Wikipedia page, shows that. He’s a bit of a religious nut. Hagiography – canonization – comes easily for him.

    I didn’t know about these other writings when reading Douglass’ 肯尼迪和无法形容, but right away I could tell he was drenched in the blood of the lamb. That religious impulse permeates his writing in the same way style is the focus of Talbot’s. It defines his book.

    That’s fine as long as it doesn’t cause him to distort history. But it does. Kennedy was not going to end the Cold War, pull out of Vietnam, and bring peace and good will to all men.

    He was not a Christ-like figure. He was just a mediocre president.

    But here’s Douglass:

    The story of why John Kennedy died encircles the earth. Because JFK chose peace on earth at the height of the Cold War, he was executed. But because he turned toward peace, in spite of the consequences to himself, humanity is still alive and struggling. That is hopeful, especially if we understand what he went through and what he has given us as his vision.

    At the climax of his presidency in the missile crisis, John Kennedy turned a corner. Although JFK was already in conflict with his national security managers, the missile crisis was the breaking point. At that most critical moment for us all, he turned from the remaining control his security managers had over him toward a deeper ethic, a deeper vision in which the fate of the earth became his priority. Without losing sight of our own best hopes in this country, he began to home in, with his new partner, Nikita Khrushchev, on the hope of peace for everyone on this earth—Russians, Americans, Cubans, Vietnamese, Indonesians, everyone—no exceptions. He made that commitment to life at the cost of his own.

    Good lord, what horseshit. It’s happy horseshit, but still horseshit.

    I can live with it, though. But when Douglass tries to turn the traitorous, wife-beating, pistol-packing, cop-killing, rifle-toting, presidential assassin Oswald into a hero, it’s no longer just happy horseshit.

    It’s filthy propaganda of the worst kind.

    • 回复: @James N. Kennett
  351. gay troll 说:
    @Pincher Martin

    Credit where credit is due, your sophistry is utterly stupefying.

  352. Ron Unz 说:
    @Pincher Martin

    I’m almost certain (95%+) Oswald acted alone, but it’s not impossible he had a conspirator or two…But the *自然* of the conspiracy that someone hypothesizes – how large it was, who was involved in it, what they were responsible for, etc. – tells me a lot about whether Ron’s (or anyone else’s) Part 2 ought to contradict his Part 1.

    Well, our good friend “Pincher Martin” still seems totally obsessed with debunking the JFK assassination. He’s now reached 68 comments on this thread, totaling more than one-third of the entire wordcount.

    Douglass’ book really ought to be called “The Canonization of John F. Kennedy” because that’s what his book is all about. He turns JFK into a plaster saint.

    His strategy seems to be denouncing particular rather stylistic elements from some of the main books under discussion, as well as rebutting specific details, most of which I’d entirely forgotten. When there are dozens or even hundreds of pieces of strong evidence pointing in one direction, focusing enormous efforts on attacking two or three of these is hardly persuasive.

    Since I’ve given very little thought to JFK assassination issues for the last year or two, I’ll once again take the liberty of quoting a couple of long excerpts from my first article, since it summarizes a few of the key factual points I had drawn from the Talbot book rather than narrowly focusing on Talbot’s pro-JFK sentiments or his writing style:

    I was stunned at what I immediately discovered. Not only was the evidence of a “conspiracy” absolutely overwhelming, but whereas I’d always assumed that only kooks doubted the official story, I instead discovered that a long list of the most powerful people near the top of the American government and in the best position to know had been privately convinced of such a “conspiracy,” in many cases from almost the very beginning.

    塔尔伯特(Talbot)的这本书给我留下了深刻的印象,它是基于150多次个人访谈并出版的。 自由新闻, a highly reputable publisher. Although he applied a considerable hagiographic gloss to the Kennedys, his narrative was compellingly written, with numerous gripping scenes. But while such packaging surely helped to explain some of the favorable treatment from reviewers and how he had managed to produce a national bestseller in a seemingly long-depleted field, for me the packaging was much less important than the product itself.

    To the extent that notions of a JFK conspiracy had ever crossed my mind, I’d considered the argument from silence absolutely conclusive. Surely if there had been the slightest doubt of the “lone gunman” conclusion endorsed by the Warren Commission, Attorney-General Robert Kennedy would have launched a full investigation to avenge his slain brother.

    But as Talbot so effectively demonstrates, the reality of the political situation was entirely different. Robert Kennedy may have begun that fatal morning widely regarded as the second most powerful man in the country, but the moment his brother was dead and his bitter personal enemy Lyndon Johnson sworn in as the new president, his governmental authority almost immediately ebbed away. Longtime FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, who had been his hostile subordinate, probably scheduled for removal in JFK’s second term, immediately became contemptuous and unresponsive to his requests. Having lost all his control over the levels of power, Robert Kennedy lacked any ability to conduct a serious investigation.

    According to numerous personal interviews, he had almost immediately concluded that his brother had been struck down at the hands of an organized group, very likely including elements from within the U.S. government itself, but he could do nothing about the situation. As he regularly confided to close associates, his hope at the age of 38 was to reach the White House himself at some future date, and with his hands once again upon the levels of power then uncover his brother’s killers and bring them to justice. But until that day, he could do nothing, and any unsubstantiated accusations he made would be totally disastrous both for national unity and for his own personal credibility. So for years, he was forced to nod his head and publicly acquiesce to the official story of his brother’s inexplicable assassination at the hands of a lone nut, a fairy tale publicly endorsed by nearly the entire political establishment, and this situation deeply gnawed at him. Moreover, his own seeming acceptance of that story was often interpreted by others, not least in the media, as his wholehearted endorsement.

    Although discovering Robert Kennedy’s true beliefs was a crucial revelation in the Talbot book, there were many others. At most three shots had allegedly come from Oswald’s rifle, but Roy Kellerman, the Secret Service agent in the passenger seat of JFK’s limousine, was sure there had been more than that, and to the end of his life always believed there had been additional shooters. Gov. Connolly, seated next to JFK and severely wounded in the attack, had exactly the same opinion. CIA Director John McCone was equally convinced that there had been multiple shooters. Across the pages of Talbot’s book, I learned that dozens of prominent, well-connected individuals privately expressed extreme skepticism towards the official “lone gunman theory” of the Warren Commission, although such doubts were very rarely made in public or on the record.

    Summarizing a half-century of conspiracy research, the Talbot and Douglass books together provide a wealth of persuasive evidence that elements of organized crime, individuals with CIA connections, and anti-Castro Cubans were probably participants in the assassination plot. Oswald seems to have been working with various anti-Communist groups and also had significant connections to U.S. intelligence, while his purported Marxism was merely a very thin disguise. With regard to the assassination itself, he was exactly the “patsy” he publicly claimed to be, and very likely never fired a single shot. Meanwhile, Jack Ruby had a long history of ties to organized crime, and surely killed Oswald to shut his mouth.

    Many others may have suffered a similar fate. Conspirators daring enough to strike at the president of the United States would hardly balk at using lethal means to protect themselves from the consequences of their action, and over the years a considerable number of individuals associated with the case in one way or another came to untimely ends.

    Less than a year after the assassination, JFK mistress Mary Meyer, the ex-wife of high-ranking CIA official Cord Meyer, was found shot to death in a Washington DC street-killing with no indications of attempted robbery or rape, and the case was never solved. Immediately afterwards, CIA counterintelligence chief James Jesus Angleton was caught breaking into her home in search of her personal diary, which he later claimed to have destroyed.

    Dorothy Kilgallen was a nationally-syndicated newspaper columnist and television personality, and she managed to wrangle an exclusive interview with Jack Ruby, later boasting to her friends that she would break the JFK assassination case wide open in her new book, producing the biggest scoop of her career. Instead, she was found dead in her Upper East Side townhouse, having apparently succumbed to an overdose of alcohol and sleeping pills, with both the draft text and the notes to her Jack Ruby chapter missing.

    吉姆·加里森(Jim Garrison)提起暗杀指控之前不久,他的头号嫌疑犯大卫·费里(David Ferrie)被发现死于48岁,可能是自然原因,尽管DA怀疑犯规。

    During the mid-1970s, the House Select Committee on Assassinations held a series of high-profile hearings to reopen and investigate the case, and two of the witnesses called were high-ranking mafia figures Sam Giancana and Johnny Rosselli, widely suspected of having been connected with the assassination. The former was shot to death in the basement of his home one week before he was scheduled to testify, and the body of the latter was found in an oil-drum floating in the waters off Miami after he had been subpoenaed for an additional appearance.

    这些只是与达拉斯暗杀有联系的最著名人物中的少数几个,在随后的几年中他们的生命被缩短了,尽管死亡可能纯粹是偶然的,但整个名单相当长。

    Having read a couple of books that completely upended my settled beliefs about a central event of twentieth century America, I simply didn’t know what to think. Over the years, my own writings had put me on friendly terms with a well-connected individual whom I considered a member of the elite establishment, and whose intelligence and judgment had always seemed extremely solid. So I decided to very gingerly raise the subject with him, and see whether he had ever doubted the “lone gunman” orthodoxy. To my total astonishment, he explained that as far back as the early 1990s, he’d become absolutely convinced in the reality of a “JFK conspiracy” and over the years had quietly devoured a huge number of the books in that field, but had never breathed a word in public lest his credibility be ruined and his political effectiveness destroyed.

    A second friend, a veteran journalist known for his remarkably courageous stands on certain controversial topics, provided almost exactly the same response to my inquiry. For decades, he’d been almost 100% sure that JFK had died in a conspiracy, but once again had never written a word on the topic for fear that his influence would immediately collapse.

    If these two individuals were even remotely representative, I began to wonder whether a considerable fraction, perhaps even a majority, of the respectable establishment had long harbored private beliefs about the JFK assassination that were absolutely contrary to the seemingly uniform verdict presented in the media. But with every such respectable voice keeping so silent, I had never once suspected a thing.

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-jfk-assassination-part-i-what-happened/

    I found it extremely enlightening that so many very knowledgeable and prominent people had been absolutely convinced for decades that JFK had died at the hands of a conspiracy but had never dared speak out for fear of having their reputations destroyed.

    Many of the other highly “controversial” topics often discussed on this website, including those connected with scientific research or twentieth century history, seem to follow this same pattern…

    • 谢谢: Iris
    • 回复: @Pincher Martin
  353. Alden 说:
    @Ron Unz

    I remember very well that LBJ made numerous speeches urging passage of the 1964 civil rights for all but Whites law. Everyone of the speeches urged passage “ in memory of John Kennedy. The civil rights act will be his greatest legacy”.

    LBJ refereed to Kennedy in his speeches about the civil rights for all but Whites, law, 1964, unlimited immigration for non Whites 1965, saving both S and N Vietnam from communism as the great heroic saint JFK wished; and invoking the great civil rights activist President Kennedy when lobbying for the affirmative action law of 1968.

    LBJ did everything the Jews wished domestically; civil rights for all but Whites. Unlimited non White immigration affirmative action, Johnson’s DOJ filed friend of the court briefs in every school desegregation and school bussing case, a favorite Jewish cause. since the 1940s, and of course affirmative action aka No Whites Need Apply act.

    1960s was the Jewish triumph against the White goyim. In 7 years, March 6, 1961 executive order 10925 to summer of 1968 affirmative action 2 White presidents enacted the laws that made Whites unemployable, hated constantly vilified, despised untouchables

    But as soon as Johnson completed his anti White legislation the Jews turned against him and drive him from office. Because N Vietnam was a communist country and communism was a favorite Jewish cause at the time.

    Jews did the same thing with Nixon. Nixon gave tens of billions to anti White liberal legal and other foundations. Plus direct grants to anti White NGOs. As soon as the programs succeeded, the Jewish newspaper Washington Post drove him from office.

    Kennedy created the Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity. Johnson changed the name to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Same thing

    Kennedy, like every President since Truman was anti White. That’s all I know about him and all I need to know.

  354. @Pincher Martin

    I must admit that I skimmed some of the “background” passages by Douglass, once I had got the general idea, and concentrated on the evidence that he presented.

    I think the purpose of Douglass’ material about JFK’s policies was to show from his speeches and public statements that he had changed direction in his final year. The Cuban Missile Crisis had changed his politics. This is important when asking who might have had a motive to kill him.

    I don’t recall passages eulogizing Oswald.

    If Douglass has a tendency towards hagiography of JFK, he is hardly alone in that, and we can adjust for that bias. The important thing is to focus on the evidence that he presents.

  355. @Jake

    The Judaizing heresy of Anglo-Saxon Puritanism has inherent consequences. They come with WASP culture. … because WASP culture features contempt for all things Irish Catholic as ranging from buffoonish to the evil

    ah lad, a well spoken token of pure fenian hatred and for a good cause now…aye but could you tell us a sad tale, maybe that one, again, about the hoooly mother of god and you in her lap and how she’s come for to avenge thooos sons of the devil who be worshippin’ her alleged son, and glory-o glory-o.

  356. @Pincher Martin

    admitted, Martin, both you and your questions are certifiable

  357. @Alden

    okay Martin, I idolized her first, so get your obsequiously twisted and cloying thought process away from my fave postess

  358. @Ron Unz

    Well, our good friend “Pincher Martin” still seems totally obsessed with debunking the JFK assassination. He’s now reached 68 comments on this thread, totaling more than one-third of the entire wordcount.

    Ron started off this thread by questioning whether I had really read what I claimed to have read after I listed all the books from his JFK assassination-related articles.

    Now he considers me an obsessive who both reads and writes too much.

    You can’t win with some folks.

    You would think that Ron would be happy – ecstatic even – that someone actually took the trouble to inform himself about a favorite perennial topic at this site, one which Ron has spent considerable time researching and writing about, despite the fact that he now claims he’s not been recently interested in it.

    You would think Ron would be even more thrilled that someone bothered to take seriously his book recommendations, and didn’t just skim through them, but read them closely and took notes.

    But what hurts most, what cuts me more deeply than anything, is when Ron Unz of all people complains about my word count. This from a man who has been known to drop 3,000 words in an article just to clear his throat.

    *****

    BTW, I’ve been posting at the Unz Review since 2008. I have just over 1,700 posts and 331,000 words at the site. You can do the math on your own.

    If that output puts me in the top 250 contributors for this site, I’d be very surprised. Put me in top 500 and I’d still be a little surprised. Top 1000? More believable. But I still might not be that high.

    So I don’t post here that often. But occasionally a topic here interests me, and I put a lot more work and time into it than I typically do for my posts. This is now one such topic.

    • 回复: @Ron Unz
  359. @James N. Kennett

    I don’t recall passages eulogizing Oswald.

    Well, let me show you.

    We have seen mounting evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald, an admirer of President Kennedy, was an FBI informant trying to stop the CIA plot to kill the president. In late July, in the notes he wrote for his speech to the Jesuits, Oswald warned of a coup d’état against the U.S. government. He attributed that threat especially to the Marine Corps—in a way, however, that pointed more specifically at the CIA, into whose ranks he had passed from the Marine Corps.

    In August, according to New Orleans FBI employee William Walter and other witnesses, Oswald was acting as an FBI informant.[827] While Oswald was in jail in New Orleans for the ruckus caused by his pro-Castro leafleting, he met for an hour and a half with FBI agent John Quigley.[828] Given his Kennedy sympathies, his warning against a coup, and his recent recruitment (with deeper designs) into the plot to kill the president, it is reasonable to suppose Oswald at this point in his FBI contacts was trying to save Kennedy’s life—and in the process, risking his own.

    He apparently kept on trying. The Chicago plot to kill Kennedy on November 2 was, as we saw, disrupted by Chicago Police lieutenant Berkeley Moyland and by an otherwise unidentified FBI informant named “Lee.” Lee Harvey Oswald, the most likely candidate to have been the FBI informant “Lee,” had strong similarities to the intended Chicago scapegoat, Thomas Arthur Vallee. Government sources characterized both men unsympathetically as psychopathic loners with extremist political views—in effect, perfect patsies. Both were Marine veterans. Both had served at U-2 bases in Japan under the Joint Technical Advisory Group (JTAG), the CIA’s cover name for its U-2 spy plane surveillance as well as “other covert operations in Asia.”[829] Both of their U-2 bases were prime recruitment stations for the CIA. Both men had recent intelligence connections with anti-Castro Cuban exiles.

    Lee Harvey Oswald wasn’t just a patsy. He was a hero! He risked his own life – probably more than once! – to try and save JFK from assassination.

    And what is more heroic, even Christ-like, than that? Risking one’s life to save the life of another.

    (I believe Douglass actually uses the word “hero” somewhere in his text or in one of the footnotes when describing Lee, but I’m unable to find it right now. You can see from the text I quote above, however, that he believes Lee was heroic in the end.)

    Do any of your guys actually read these books?

  360. @James N. Kennett

    I think the purpose of Douglass’ material about JFK’s policies was to show from his speeches and public statements that he had changed direction in his final year. The Cuban Missile Crisis had changed his politics. This is important when asking who might have had a motive to kill him.

    As I have said in at least three different posts in this thread now, motive is NOT important.

    Millions of people in the country had a possible motive for killing Kennedy, some civil rights opponents to civil rights activists, from right wingers to left wingers, from LBJ to Jackie Kennedy.

    Motive is not important in this case. What’s important is the evidence. Especially the physical evidence.

    As for Kennedy’s evolution in office, it was real. But it was more gradual than people like Douglass believes and we have no reason to assume that a more moderate Kennedy would portend great things for America’s future.

    After all, Moderate Kennedy, not Cold War Kennedy, gave us the Bay of Pigs. And the Bay of Pigs gave us the Missiles of October, the most dangerous time in the entire Cold War.

    How did that happen? Because Khrushchev saw what happened at the Big of Pigs and asked his son in amazement, “Is he really so weak?” That perception encouraged Khrushchev to later take a risk in Cuba he would not have taken against Eisenhower.

    That’s Moderate Kennedy’s fault, not Cold War Kennedy’s fault.

    If Douglass has a tendency towards hagiography of JFK, he is hardly alone in that, and we can adjust for that bias. The important thing is to focus on the evidence that he presents.

    I did focus on his evidence. Did you not read my description of Flight From Dallas, a book which Douglass spends several pages describing?

    I not only closely studied Douglass’ description. I read the book he took that evidence from. It’s a crock of shit. I explained why above.

    • 回复: @James N. Kennett
  361. @Pincher Martin

    I think we must be precise here about the theory we are defending (I say we to include Iris’s answer in 348). You will not be convinced that Israel has no other option but to kill Kennedy in order to get the bomb. I hear it, and I think you are right that there is no convincing proof of that. Iris then responds against “you hypothesis that Israel had no fear of the US opposition to its nuclear program.” But having fear and having no other options are different things, and perhaps, Pincher Martin, you would concede that Israel had at least legitimate fears, but you would add that these fears were not a strong enough motive to kill the President, with all the risks of exposure it implied.
    In order to move beyond this deadlock, I propose to formulate Israel’s motive differently (and after all I must thank you for forcing me to clarify): rather than trying to prove that Israel had a necessity to kill Kennedy, which would be perhaps an exageration, what we have to prove, and what I think I’ve been trying to prove in my articles, is that Israel had an advantage in killing Kennedy, an advantage sufficiently great to justify the risk. In other words, the motive was not just to get rid of Kennedy, but to replace him with Johnson. The formulation of Stephen Green, Taking Sides: America’s Secret Relations With a Militant Israel (1984), is here very insightful (whether on purpose or not):

    “Perhaps the most significant development of 1963 for the Israeli nuclear weapons program, however, occurred on November 22: on a plane flying from Dallas to Washington, D.C., Lyndon Johnson was sworn in as the 36th President of the United States, following the assassination of John F. Kennedy. (…) Lyndon Johnson’s White House saw no Dimona, heard no Dimona, and spoke no Dimona when the reactor went critical in early 1964.”

    He doesn’t say that the most significant development was Kennedy’s elimination from the presidency, but Johnson’s accession to the presidency. Israel gained tremendously from Johnson: beyond the green light for Dimona, it tripled its size wih the Six Day War, it multiplied its military aid from the US (reaching 92 million dollars in 1966, more than the total of all previous years combined, according to Green), while aid to Egypt was cut down, immigration in the US, etc. Johnson was an irreplacable Israel-friendly president. There was no one like him. Now, did Israel have to kill Kennedy in order to get Johnson president? Couldn’t they wait till 1968, assuming they could hope to turn Kennedy’s attentation away from Dimona for another five years? No, they couldn’t because Kennedy was going to drop Johnson for his second term. There are enough testimonies on Kennedy’s decision, beyond Nixon’s prediction published in the 达拉斯晨报 11月22。
    Most murderers do not murder because they have to, but because they find a great advantage in doing so. When trying to determine the motive of Israel, we do not have to prove that Israel had no other options, just that it had a vital interest in the assassination. And that is proven.
    In fact, more than that can be proven: it can be proven that Israel, through Abraham Feinberg, forced Kennedy to chose Johnson as vice-president, and that can only be for the purpose of having Johnson president at some time; Kennedy’s decision to drop Johnson may have been a decisive factor, after all: I’ll put it in number 3, after Dimona and AIPAC. So there are plenty of motives for Israel.
    But in discussing the motive, we should not lose sight that the case against Israel does not rest primarily on the motive. We must have enough circumstancial evidence of Israel’s guilt. I have stressed, and others here, that Jacob Rubenstein is our most important piece in the puzzle: the man who killed the patsy. He is the most important person to investigate in this case, and strangely one of the least investigated: even his real name is hardly mentionned by most investigators, isn’t that amazing? Jacob Rubenstein, a Jewish gangster connected directly to Menahem Begin’s Irgun through his mentor Mickey Cohen, and who said on at least three occasions that he acted “for the Jews”, must be considered as Israel’s hitman beyond a reasonabl doubt. Of course, Ruby did not participate in the killing of Kennedy. His action aimed at preventing any true investigation: Oswald dead, case closed. So it proves Israel’s guilt in the killing of JFK only indirectly. But sufficiently, especially if we add other actors working for the same goal and equally connected to Israel, like Arlen “Magic Bullet” Specter.

    • 谢谢: Iris, Skeptikal
    • 回复: @Pincher Martin
    , @Gulnare
  362. Kapyong 说:
    @Pincher Martin

    I don’t speak German, but I’ve read that the second phrase means “I am a jelly donut,” even if Berliners listening to the speech understood what he meant.

    是的,不。
    It can imply that, but the German word 柏林 means “of Berlin”, and commonly means a person from Berlin.

    Consider the newspaper called 柏林日报
    https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/
    which is a newspaper of Berlin, not of jelly donuts.

    But in a German pastry shop, asking for a Berliner would usually mean a jelly donut.

    So too, a person from Hamburg may call themselves a 汉堡包 in German (c.f. webpage 汉堡包) but they would probably also be aware of the English usage, especially in a fast food shop. I’d guess Hamburgers at Hamburg McDonalds jape that pun often. (They also call themselves 汉萨顿 after the old Hanseatic League.)

    • 谢谢: Pincher Martin
  363. @Skeptikal

    Actually as a point of trivia, a berliner is/was a sort of popular jelly doughnut. The proper phrase Kennedy should have stated would have been ” Ich bin Berliner”.

    Just the same it didn’t matter to the Germans or the rest of the world as everyone knew what he meant.

    As an aside I remember reading somewhere from what I remember to be a credible source ( Sorenson?) that Kennedy was in a funk on the plane home thinking that he had made a complete fool out of himself with the Berlin Wall Speech. Instead of course it became the high water mark of his public persona. Obama managed to still dine out on that moment 46 years later.

    干杯-

  364. Perhaps the person acting the role of Pincher Martin is teaching something other than assassination theories on this island. Coincidentally this day and tomorrow by my reckoning are two special days in which the Ancient Egyptians went to the cemeteries and remembered the dead and especially the divine monarchy – not unlike All Souls Day. William Golding made a passing reference to Om Sety once (see last section of the Wiki article).

  365. @Laurent Guyénot

    The Jews have controlled The Vatican since Vatican II in the sixties and cemented that control in 1978 with the assassination of anti-Freemason John Paul I = a Pope for just 33 Days.

  366. Ron Unz 说:
    @Pincher Martin

    BTW, I’ve been posting at the Unz Review since 2008. I have just over 1,700 posts and 331,000 words at the site. You can do the math on your own.

    If that output puts me in the top 250 contributors for this site, I’d be very surprised. Put me in top 500 and I’d still be a little surprised.

    Your remarks made me a little curious, so I checked. By total wordcount, you actually rank #151 among all our commenters, so I guess you should be “very, very surprised.”

    Ron started off this thread by questioning whether I had really read what I claimed to have read…Now he considers me an obsessive who both reads and writes too much.

    Well, just as you say you’ve been commenting on this website for quite a number of years, but by wordcount over 8% of your total lifetime comments have been on this one single thread. Your 71 comments here now amount to over one-third of the total comment wordcount on this entire article, and significantly higher if you exclude the lengthy excerpts I quoted from my own past articles. That might seem a little “obsessive” to me.

    You seem extremely eager to debunk any JFK assassination conspiracy in general, and the possible role of the Israeli Mossad in particular. But instead of focusing on the points of evidence raised, much of your approach is to ridicule the styles of the various authors who provide that evidence. The writing of Mark Lane and Michael Collins Piper is too unpolished, while that of David Talbot is too polished and James Douglass filled with too many religious overtones.

    I also had mixed feelings about the styles of some of those authors. But I was more interested to discover that RFK had always been absolutely sure that his brother died in a conspiracy, and just as he was finally on the verge of finally being able to hunt down and punish those conspirators, he too was killed, with the official autopsy revealing that he was shot in the head from behind at very close range.

    Those facts provided in Talbot’s book stuck in my mind much more than his stylistic “mood music”…

    • 回复: @Pincher Martin
  367. Alden 说:
    @Pincher Martin

    women. and men born after 1955 gave no idea what the draft was for young men 18-26 in those days. It wasn’t just dying in Vietnam. It was a huge obstacle to starting adult life.

    For instance, many employers would not hire men for career or even part time jobs if the had not completed their military service. In fact, it was a question in many job applications. What is your draft status? Have you completed your military obligations ?

    So, a high school grad man had 3 choices. Enlist, go to college or mooch around looking for a career job while working part time. If he enlisted and survived, he could be hired and embark in a career and adult life.

    If he went to college, he just delayed enlistment. Then the military and another 3 years delay in a decent career.

    In 1960 there were plenty of real jobs for high school grads. Young people were expected to leave home and make their own living at 18 if they didn’t go to college. In fact, a set of luggage was a common Christmas present senior year of high school or high school graduation

    It was easier for girls. The high schools had professional level commercial secretarial programs. And they were hired right out of high school. For the guys, those were the good old days of employment aptitude tests and employers hiring young people training them for a year or 3 and keeping them for a lifetime career.

    Draft resistance wasn’t just the threat of getting killed in Vietnam. Or the injustice of killing Vietnamese. Or spending money that should be spent on blacks. ( That was MLK’s argument against the military, not just wars)

    It was government just swarming like a vulture on every high school and college graduating class of men.

    Maybe in povertyville south east where the military was the only way out men felt differently. But northeast, Midwest, west coast the prosperous parts of the country no one wanted to be drafted.

    And at Brandeis University Michigan Madison UC Berkeley, my university and others, the communist subversive professors were already preaching US get out of Vietnam because the communist N Vietnam were the good guys. And the S Vietnamese were the oppressive capitalists oppressing the downtrodden peasants and working clad. Same old same old commie professor propaganda heard from 1900 on to justify communist revolutions.

    Since 1945, when the Russians took over E Europe , the commie professors, NYSlimes. New Republic, The Nation America and the lefty press had praised the soviet occupation of E Europe. Any resistance to that occupation was sneered at by the great and good commie intellectuals. Any demonstration by American Poles Hungarians was denounced by the great and good as fascistic Nazi collaborators during the war who herded their Jewish neighbors unto the trains.

    My husband didn’t enroll for the 1963 fall semester at UCBerkeley because of the tear gas he always joked. Bettina Apotheker, Mario Savio Marcuse’s daughter didn’t close down the school till fall winter of 63-64. But during the 61,62, spring of 1963 school year they’d already caused massive disruptions. A favorite trick was calling in bomb threats so entire buildings were closed down for a couple days. Anyone who was at Berkeley can tell you about the 61 62 spring of 1963 school year.

    You think college professors nowadays are America hating leftists? They were just as bad then as they are now. Except they didn’t hate all Whites. Just White southerners. Also hated the Chinese of Hong Kong, Taiwan, Indonesia, America and all Chinese who hadn’t been allied with Mao. The anti Vietnam crusade didn’t just appear out of nowhere in 1964. It had been carefully prepared by seditious liberals for years.

    Gay marriage didn’t just appear out of nowhere It was 20 years in preparation. Transgenderism didn’t appear out of nowhere. It was years in preparation. Same with the anti Vietnam draft riots. I saw what the liberal professors and noo yawk Jew students were doing 1960-1962.

    • 谢谢: David In TN
  368. Alden 说:
    @Pincher Martin

    Reminds me of seditious immigrant Jew Colonel Vindeman “ just happening “ to over hear General Flynn plotting with the Russian ambassador. What Vindemann claims to have overheard completely differs with the recording made at the time.

    Interesting about Jews. Of all demographics they are the least likely to join the military. But, they strangely manage to rise quickly and cause enormous problem’s. The Air Force academy has 3 generations of a Jewish family whose only purpose in being in the military is to file law suits requesting the removal of Christian chaplains, end of Christmas decorations and parties and abolition of Christianity from the military.

    它永远不会结束

  369. Iris 说:
    @Pincher Martin

    Lee Harvey Oswald wasn’t just a patsy. He was a hero! He risked his own life – probably more than once! – to try and save JFK from assassination.

    This shallow assessment of Douglass’ work only shows how ignorant you are of the opinions openly discussed within the extended JFK Truth community of researchers.

    It is only a quibble in the larger picture of this discussion, but from a strictly factual point of view, there is no proof of any sort, whatsoever, that would even slightly hint that Oswald had a negative sentiment towards President Kennedy that would make him take part in an assassination.
    No opinions, no words, no attitude, nothing was ever recorded and reported by any person who knew him that would indicate Oswald had any dislike of JFK. How extraordinary is that?

    The only “evidence” of Oswald opposing Kennedy or his policies were produced after his death. It consists broadly of the two official narratives about (1) Oswald’s alleged communist opinions, and of (2) Oswald’s alleged participation in the Dallas killing operation.

    Both these narratives are deeply undermined, to say the least, by the fact that critical records about Oswald’s intelligence background and about the Dallas tragedy are still withheld from the public to the day and for decades to come.

    Real people told a completely different story.
    His dodgy lodger and intelligence asset Ruth Paine was obliged to declare on camera that Oswald liked Kennedy. Marina Oswald Porter, his widow, despite a life-long harassment by the authorities, always maintained that Oswald loved Kennedy and cried when JFK’s infant son Patrick died.

    Judyth Vary Baker, a lady who claims to have been LHO’s girlfriend and associate in anti-Cuban activities in New-Orleans, and who nobody has been able to confute in 45 years, has consistently stated that Oswald hero-worshipped Kennedy, and went to Dallas as part of an “abort mission” to protect JFK.
    Below is Judyth Baker attending the JFK Assassination Conference in Dallas, 22 Nov 2019, affectionately hugged by Oliver Stone:

    Oswald’s eldest daughter openly claims her father’s innocence and is very positively considered within the JFK truth community.

    The propaganda against Oswald is a key part of the cover-up.
    The formidable and indefatigably updated cover-up of the JFK assassination shows that it was not one-off action by a national institution having gone rogue. Many countries, France, Spain, Chile, Argentina, South Africa, have also gone through hurtful political events that badly damaged national unity and were somehow overcome through truth commissions and amnesty.

    The JFK assassination is covered up because it was masterminded and executed by the same powers who are in control of America to the day.

    • 谢谢: Laurent Guyénot, Skeptikal
  370. @Pincher Martin

    it is reasonable to suppose Oswald at this point in his FBI contacts was trying to save Kennedy’s life—and in the process, risking his own.

    Like you, I do not much care for Douglass’ suppositions. If anything is clear it is that Oswald, in his involvement with three-letter agencies and anti-Castro activities, was way out of his depth.

    However, I am glad you have raised the matter of the Chicago plot, and the informant named “Lee”. Among the most valuable documents that have vanished are the arrest records for the two gunmen who were caught in Chicago. One does not need to sanctify Oswald to notice uncomfortable parallels between himself and Vallee – notably that the latter worked in a tall building that overlooked the proposed route of the President’s motorcade!

    Do any of your guys actually read these books?

    Yes, I’ve read the book although I do not have it to hand. I guess people remember the parts that they think are important. For me this was the evidence connected to the murder of JFK, while for you this seems to be any of Douglass’ suppositions that can be used to discredit him.

    • 回复: @Pincher Martin
  371. @Pincher Martin

    I did focus on his evidence. Did you not read my description of Flight From Dallas, a book which Douglass spends several pages describing?

    I not only closely studied Douglass’ description. I read the book he took that evidence from. It’s a crock of shit. I explained why above.

    Yes, and I have to admit that the overheard phone call also triggered my BS detector. It is an unlikely coincidence. But then 每周 explanation has at least one improbable aspect – even the official explanation that Oswald was the only gunman. Oswald’s second and third shots were rather closely spaced for a single shooter with a bolt-action rifle; and his “magic bullet” traversed 15 layers of clothing, seven layers of skin, and approximately 15 inches of muscle tissue, struck a necktie knot, removed 4 inches of rib, and shattered a radius bone; yet was found in pristine condition on Governor Connally’s gurney!

    • 回复: @Pincher Martin
  372. @noname27

    That may be true, or a bit exagerated. But Catholicism cannot be reduced to the Vatican. If we look at it from below (the grassroot level) rather than from the top, we can even say that Catholicism is much more pagan than Jewish. What’s Jewish about the cult of Mary? Puritanism, by contrast, it almost completely Jewish.

    • 回复: @utu
    , @noname27
  373. @Iris

    Judyth Vary Baker has been ‘confuted’ 45 times from sundown. She is a psychopathic fraud who tried to tie her working with Oswald in the same company (Reily Coffee for maybe a couple of months) into a love story that had her meeting EVERYONE in New Orleans with any alleged connection to the assassination (including ‘Sparky’ Rubenstein ha ha ) and hopefully into a career with her peri-menopausal episode of creative writing.

    Anyone who could take her story seriously should excuse themselves from participating in serious discussions about the JFK assassination. Either that or use Gone With The Wind as your base material and argue about Civil War battles with serious historians.

    When she forced herself on Mary Ferrell who had studied Oswald in New Orleans in minute detail down to daily activities and was subsequently asked by Ferrell whether Oswald was circumcised as a general question to verify her bona-fides she had a 50% chance of answering correctly. She answered wrong. I mention that because even a simple faux pas like that engendered thousand of pages of rationalizations and discussions of partial circumcisions etc etc…

    A good friend gave me her book Me and Lee about 10 years ago with a “wow you should read this”. It didn’t take too long to figure out that this was one of the many historical frauds in circulation but it was so ridiculous that I had to finish it much like those movies that are so bad that you have to see them to the end.

    However one thing I did learn from investigating her afterwards is that normally intelligent people can become functional retards when you invoke the emotional aspects of their brains. Much like with politics.

    Many people with strong reputations in the JFK assassination research went down to humiliation trying to defend her. She also had the adorable habit of throwing anybody and everybody under the bus when they outlived her ‘moveable feast’ story-line.

    It is much like those who stick to the opinion of Oswald being a lone assassin. They must know that they will never be taken seriously by objective thinking intelligent people but somehow they can’t decouple, logic and preponderance of evidence notwithstanding. A cynical person might think that such dogmatic obstinacy might have an ulterior motive. After all disseminating false narratives, like politics has always been a minor branch of harlotry. But sincere stupidity has also been vastly underrated.

    干杯-

    • 同意: utu
    • 回复: @Alden
    , @Iris
    , @Pincher Martin
  374. @Ron Unz

    Your remarks made me a little curious, so I checked. By total wordcount, you actually rank #151 among all our commenters, so I guess you should be “very, very surprised.”

    I am very surprised. But I’m sure I would be much lower in the rankings if you add in my post count rank and then blend the two into an average. I do have a high word count per post. I also cite many references, which means I copy and paste a lot of those words.

    Well, just as you say you’ve been commenting on this website for quite a number of years, but by wordcount over 8% of your total lifetime comments have been on this one single thread.

    所以呢?

    The Kennedy Assassination is, as I said earlier, a perennially popular subject here at The Unz Review. If I was as obsessed about the topic as you believe, I would have far more comments on it than I do. And most of them would have come much earlier than December 2020.

    Take away this particular thread and how many times have I commented on Kennedy’s assassination in twelve years at this forum? A handful at most. I typically avoided these JFK assassination threads, despite having countless opportunities here to participate in them.

    For whatever reason, last year I wandered into one of these threads after it was well under way with dozens if not hundreds of comments. Maybe I was bored that day. Maybe I was intrigued by the headline. I can’t remember why I wandered into it.

    In any case, I made a few comments about how silly some people were for believing Kennedy was a special president. You LOL’ed one of those comments – something about me being caught in a time warp back to the mid-sixties when the myth of Camelot was at its height – because you were in agreement with it. You even had a separate post addressed to other commentators in which you warned conspiracy theorists not to get caught up in the Kennedy myth because it would weaken their arguments.

    But later in that thread you turned nasty toward me in your typical way when I made some derogatory comments about the conspiracists’ logic and knowledge of history. I held my fire at that time because I did not know the Israeli angle on JFK, which I knew was your pet conspiracy. So I read your articles, wrote down the books you recommended, and began reading. I knew in a year’s time that The Unz Review would have another JFK assassination thread.

    That’s why I’m here. That’s why I’m commenting so much. That’s why I’m so well-informed.

    The first two books I read from your list were Talbot’s 兄弟 and Douglass’s 肯尼迪和无法形容. Right away I noticed something. Despite the fact I had just seen you warn conspiracy theorists not to get caught up in the Kennedy myth, these two books which you had recommended built their entire conspiracies on that myth. Take away the myth of Kennedy’s specialness as president, and the entire edifice for Talbot and Douglass’ explanations for why Kennedy died is demolished.

    It’s then I realized something about you, Ron, something which became clearer the more books on your list that I read. You take an omnibus approach to the JFK conspiracy theories, one which emphasizes quantity over quality. As long as the book agrees there was a conspiracy to murder Kennedy, you’re happy to include it in the conversation. The quality of the arguments and the evidence in it doesn’t matter to you. How they’re constructed doesn’t matter to you. Whether they conform to your specific ideas doesn’t matter to you, so long as they conform to your general idea that JFK was killed by a conspiracy.

    Vincent Bugliosi’s concluding comments about Mark Lane’s 手法 ring very true when applied to you as well, Ron.

    Bugliosi mentions Lane’s work representing James Earl Ray before the HSCA. Look at how the HSCA interpreted it:

    Lane was up to his old tricks in 1978 when he represented Martin Luther King’s assassin, James Earl Ray, before the HSCA. Let’s look at what the HSCA had to say about Lane in its final report: “Many of the allegations of conspiracy the committee investigated were first raised by Mark Lane, the attorney who represented James Earl Ray at the committee’s public hearings. As has been noted, the facts were often at variance with Lane’s assertions…In many instances, the committee found that Lane was willing to advocate conspiracy theories publicly without having checked the factual basis for them. In other instances, Lane proclaimed conspiracy based on little more than inference and innuendo. Lane’s conduct resulted in public misperception about the assassination of Dr. King and must be condemned.”51

    In other words, just like you, Ron, Mark Lane had no quality control. If someone somewhere said something which suggested a conspiracy, then that was good enough for Mark Lane.

    And it appears it’s good enough for you, too. You don’t care what actually happened on November 22nd. You just want to toss another log on the anti-establishment fire.

    • 回复: @Ron Unz
  375. Alden 说:
    @Timur The Lame

    Gone With The Wind is much more historically accurate about the Civil War than most of the WKK genre.

    Baker has nothing in Maritza Lorenz who pops up in numerous WKK books. Even the lying Mark Lane never had her testify in the Hunt vs Liberty Libby appeal. Nor did she testify in the original trial.

    She did make several depositions under penalty of perjury at various times to various investigators. She claimed to be a Cuban who fled to Florida early when Castro took over. At various times she’s claimed she trained for the April 1962 Bay of Pigs invasion with Oswald in 1961. Oswald lived in Russia during all of 61 and didn’t return to the US till June 1962.

    Her main claim to fame is that she, Howard Hunt and others accused of conspiring to kill Kennedy traveler by car from Florida to Dallas with the rifle used to kill Kennedy. Upon arrival in Dallas, Jack Ruby was there to meet them at the motel they stayed in.

    Question Why would the conspirators need to travel 1,500 miles across 5 states in 1963 to deliver an ordinary rifle? Whatever rifle was used, Texas was full of easily obtained rifles in 1963.

    The latest theory is that Kennedy was killed by the secret service driver who stopped the car king enough to shoot Kennedy with his secret service revolver.

    9 witnesses positively identified Oswald as the man who shot Officer Tibbitt. He stood in the ID line with several other men his age size coloring and general appearance not wearing the jacket he wore when he shot Tibbitt. Several
    books have been written claiming Oswald didn’t shoot Kennedy. But the WKK obsessive compulsive fools should at least admit Iswald killed Officer Tibbitt that day.

    Even if Tibbitt was tasked by Conspiracy Central Committee with killing Oswald or picking up Oswald and driving him to a top secret CIA KKK FBI secret service pentagon oil company air field, even the deluded should admit Oswald killed Tibbitt that day.

    We took the book depository building tour when they still had the tour. We stood in the window where somebody shot Kennedy. It was a short distance. 3 shots fired. One hit him.

    Of course there’s the ridiculous theory that Oswald was incapable of hitting Kennedy because he didn’t get the top shooting score when he was a marine. Even the lowest passing score marine was capable of making the shot. As for his old useless badly functioning rifle. The Mannlicher Carcano was the official Italian infantry rifle for decades.

    That was s real hoot and holler in the early books. All these sissy soy boys who’d never even seen a real rifle in their lives going on and on about Oswald’s marksman skills and his dis functional rifle.

    I find the books enjoyable historical fiction and the controversy over who done it and why very entertaining

    • 回复: @Timur The Lame
  376. utu 说:
    @Laurent Guyénot

    “The Jews have controlled The Vatican…” – But Jewish animus against Catholicism does not abate. The beliefs that Jews control this or that are there to demoralize the resistance to the Jews and thus they benefit the Jews.

  377. @Laurent Guyénot

    You start off very well in your post, but you lose me with your various segues after the Green cite.

    I do agree we need to be precise. It would also help to divide up the important questions that you or your side has to answer satisfactorily with 证据 before Israel and/or Mossad can even be considered potential suspects for what happened on November 22nd, 1963.

    Unlike some, I don’t even think there is a serious motive here for Israel, let alone evidence that Israel was involved. I say that even though I believe millions of people had a motive to kill Kennedy and even though I believe motive is unimportant to this case. I still don’t see a motive.

    1) What exactly precipitated Israel’s decision to kill Kennedy? What triggered them into such an important and risky decision? Why could they not avoid it?

    The decision to covertly kill an American president does not come close to killing German scientists or Arabs or Iranians who threaten your state with weapons development. This also does not come close to openly killing British leaders in Egypt and the Palestinian Mandate because of an openly Zionist insurgency. In both those cases, the motives for the killings were clear and sometimes openly advocated, even if the operations themselves were covert.

    So what precipitated someone with power in Israel to say, “We can’t continue with these negotiations. We need to kill Kennedy.”

    Was it Kennedy’s May 18th, 1963 letter that has this comment?:

    This [U.S.] commitment and this support [to Israel] would be seriously jeopardized in the public opinion in this country and in the West, if it should be thought that this Government was unable to obtain reliable information on a subject as vital to peace as the question of Israel’s efforts in the nuclear field.63

    The passage above is generally considered the worst threat Kennedy made to Israel in the negotiations. It was, according to Cohen, considered “harsh”, even “brutal,” by the Israeli leaders and it caused a “mini-crisis” in the Ben Gurion’s inner circle.

    Is that passage what you believe caused Israel to order JFK’s death?

    2) Who in Israel made the decision? And when?

    Ben Gurion? Golda Meir? Eshkol? The leader of Mossad? All of them? A combination of them?

    And when did they decide it? What evidence do you have, contemporary to the events, of a decision being made? A letter in early to mid-1963? A comment by an Israeli leader in early to mid-1963? Etc.

    3) How did the Israelis operationally pull it off?

    What specifically did they do to kill Kennedy? Did they pull the trigger on Oswald’s rifle? Did they get Oswald to pull the trigger? Did they get Ruby to get Oswald to pull the trigger? Did Ruby pull the trigger on Oswald’s rifle to blame it on him?

    Flesh out the basic structure of how you believe the Israelis pulled this off and make some connection between what we do know about that day and Israeli capabilities.

    4) Did the Israelis have the operational know-how to pull off and cover up such a sophisticated conspiracy in the timeline you give them?

    Prove to us that the Mossad of 1963 had the ability to both kill Kennedy in Dallas and cover it up with other examples of Mossad operations from that time – or at least close to that time – which show a similar capability.

    And show how they could do it in no more than six months (assuming you think the May 18th letter precipitated the Israeli decision to kill Kennedy).

    5) How could they know for sure that Kennedy’s death was be key to any policy change? Do you have any proof that Israeli leaders knew they could count on LBJ to drop all effective demands for opening up the Dimona facility to inspections?

    It’s not good enough to know in hindsight that Kennedy’s death caused a change in U.S. policy demands for Dimona. One has to be in Israel and know it before November 1963.

    Please show a comment – any comment – by an Israeli leader before November 1963 that says or reads something like this, “You know, if we didn’t have to deal with Kennedy, these negotiations would go much more smoothly.”

    *****

    These five points to me have to be answered satisfactorily to even get your theory in the door. Otherwise, you don’t even have motive.

    • 回复: @Iris
    , @Laurent Guyénot
  378. Ron Unz 说:
    @Pincher Martin

    I am very surprised. But I’m sure I would be much lower in the rankings if you add in my post count rank and then blend the two into an average.

    Well, among all commenters you rank #151 in total wordcount and #324 in total number of comments. Regardless of how you average those totals, the result is far higher than you expected.

    Despite the fact I had just seen you warn conspiracy theorists not to get caught up in the Kennedy myth, these two books which you had recommended built their entire conspiracies on that myth. Take away the myth of Kennedy’s specialness as president, and the entire edifice for Talbot and Douglass’ explanations for why Kennedy died is demolished.

    Well, I can’t read the minds of Talbot or Douglass, but as I pointed out in my article, if either of them had suggested LBJ was an obvious, major suspect—let alone the Israeli Mossad!—their books never would have been published by a respectable press, nor reviewed anywhere, so no one except fanatic JFK activists would have ever heard of them.

    The Piper book had come out more than a dozen years earlier and become a major underground bestseller, with 40,000 copies in print. Yet I noted that neither the Talbot nor Douglass books even included it in their massive, extremely comprehensive bibliographies. They obviously believed that merely admitting they were aware of Piper’s book would have doomed them.

    This sort of things happens pretty frequently in all sorts of “controversial” topics. For example, David Irving probably ranks as the most internationally successful British historian of the last 100 years, and his massive bestseller on Churchill revolutionized the subject. But he was later purged and demonized so that when Pat Buchanan wrote his own Churchill book a couple of decades later, Irving was entirely absent from both the bibliography and index. This is even more common in “racially-charged” matters, with mainstream anthropologist Henry Harpending now have become an un-person, whom no one is allowed to mention.

    You denounce Talbot for his strong pro-JFK sentiments and therefore feel free to totally ignore his vast array of factual material. I took the approach of a serious scholar, separating the personal sentiments of a source from the value of his information:

    塔尔伯特(Talbot)的这本书给我留下了深刻的印象,它是基于150多次个人访谈并出版的。 自由新闻, a highly reputable publisher. Although he applied a considerable hagiographic gloss to the Kennedys, his narrative was compellingly written, with numerous gripping scenes. But while such packaging surely helped to explain some of the favorable treatment from reviewers and how he had managed to produce a national bestseller in a seemingly long-depleted field, for me the packaging was much less important than the product itself.

    As I pointed out upthread, Talbot proved that RFK had always told his friends that he was absolutely sure his brother had been killed by conspirators, and just when he was on the verge of finally avenging that murder, he was shot in the back of the head at close range, allegedly by a dazed and confused individual standing well in front of him. Apparently, you were so deeply focused on marking Talbot’s pro-JFK sentiments that you somehow missed this important factual element in his book.

    Some of the commenters on the JFK articles we have published seem to enormously admire him. Others loathe and despise him. Frankly, being a bit younger, I’d never had any strong feelings about either him or his slain brother, but was utterly shocked a few years ago when I discovered they’d both died at the hands of conspirators rather than the disgruntled lone gunmen I’d always believed. And that’s been the focus of my writings on the subject.

    • 回复: @Pincher Martin
  379. @Alden

    I am hoping that you are drunk and not having a mini-stroke. What in hell are you babbling about? Judyth Vary Baker is/was a nobody who had a supposed surge in her granny panties for Oswald 40 years after the assassination when she found out that they worked in the same place in a company of about 100 people, her being in the office area and him being a greaser in the plant. She was totally unknown during the 1,000,000,000,000 aspects of the WC investigation in the 60’s.

    Re-read your post. I will not take advantage of a bad moment.

    But I will take the opportunity about the reference about someone being a ‘marksman’. This was one of the small facts that was used to persuade the mob as to the credibility of Oswald as being the shooter.

    There are three levels of expertise in the military, namely marksman, sharpshooter and expert. With enough practice any young person with good eyes could qualify as a marksman. It’s the booby prize for effort but admittedly not without a good capability.

    Changing preconceived notions is difficult especially when there is a fragile ego component involved. Be strong. your buddy the Pincher boy has already cracked. We have him in the room next door. He is on record as saying there ‘may’ be a conspiracy but only with Oswald’s drinking buddies.
    It is a start.

    干杯-

  380. Iris 说:
    @Timur The Lame

    However one thing I did learn from investigating her afterwards is that normally intelligent people can become functional retards when you invoke the emotional aspects of their brains. Much like with politics.

    Mrs Baker is an insignificant topic compared to the importance of Oswald.

    I purposely used the verb “claim” regarding Judy Vary Baker. Unlike you, I wasn’t interested in her “love story” and never read her book. What fascinated me most in the interview she gave for the “Men who killed Kennedy” series was her claimed participation, in the aftermath of the Bay of Pigs, in a makeshift bio-research program to create cancer cells aimed at killing President Castro.
    At the time (2011), a series of bizarre cancers were occurring among left-wing Latin American leaders, labelled by late President Chavez “the US cancer plot”. It was quite fascinating to learn from a 1970’s documentary that such plots had been long on the agenda.

    Mrs Vary Baker does not bring exclusive, brand new information about Oswald’s persona, and mostly confirms what is already known from others : he was pro-Kennedy and worked as a covert intelligence asset. Therefore, it is a waste of time building an opinion of her.
    However, I definitely find your your judgment expeditious and misinformed. Prominent JFK researcher Jim Marrs wrote the afterwards of her book and remained her friend until his death. Conversely, she also was systematically pilloried by professional JFK shill McAdams, which should set your BS detector in alarm.

    A most noticeable trait of the JFK assassination is that, at regular intervals when it became necessary to let the public steam off, the authorities have organised 假装 “truth campaigns” such as the HSCA and AARB, involving many sincere individuals, but which true agenda was much darker. The real purpose of these reviews was to collect any evidence remaining out of governmental control and to destroy it.

    While the ballistics, Magic Bullet, Zapruder film head move and utter fiasco autopsy prove the official version to be a risible cock-and-bull story, there currently exist no hard evidence of what actually happened: it is being systematically destroyed.
    The only way to approach the events is to collect fragments of individual testimonies that survived and try to merge them into a coherent picture. The most enlightening testimonies about Dallas were those made by mob hitmen.

    Pretending, under the current political circumstances, to approach the real circumstances of such a state crime under a sourced, academic angle is not just arrogant; it is completely delusional.

    • 同意: Skeptikal
    • 回复: @lysias
    , @Timur The Lame
  381. lysias 说:

    John Newman’s “Oswald and the CIA” (the last chapter of the paperback edition) makes clear Angleton’s central role in managing Oswald’s intelligence career. And Angleton’s career was intimately bound up with Israel.

    All Israel would have had to do would have been to influence Angleton to put together the assassination plot.

  382. Skeptikal 说:
    @Pincher Martin

    “I don’t speak German, but I’ve read that the second phrase means “I am a jelly donut,” even if Berliners listening to the speech understood what he meant.”

    “I don’t speak German.”

    Then STFU, Esel.

    Place names in German become adjectives (referring to the place) with the addition of -er.

    Like other adjectives, they can then become nouns.

    Germans are clever enough to figure out sense in context, unlike you, apparently.

  383. lysias 说:
    @Iris

    Things can be learned from the surviving evidence. Retired Army officer John Newman (and aide to NSA Director William Odom) was able to piece together a lot of information from government documents and to publish it in “Oswald and the CIA”. Retired Navy officer Douglas Horne learned a lot from the evidence he was exposed to working for the Assassinations Records Review Board and published his conclusions in his five-volume “Inside the AARB”.

    Both concluded there was a conspiracy.

    • 谢谢: Iris
    • 回复: @lysias
    , @Ron Unz
  384. Skeptikal 说:
    @Pincher Martin

    It is you who are obsessed with demonizing Kennedy.

    That is, your constant accusations of hagiographics are an inversion of your obsession with ripping Kennedy down.

    你有什么问题?

    坚持证据。

  385. Iris 说:
    @Pincher Martin

    1) What exactly precipitated Israel’s decision to kill Kennedy?

    Unbeknownst to President Kennedy and in spite of his blunt warnings to them, the Israelis had secretly energised the Dimona reactor in July 1963. Kennedy had to die before the December 1963 nuclear inspection that would have inevitably found out that the reactor had gone live and was meant for military purposes.

  386. lysias 说:
    @lysias

    “Inside the ARRB”, that should have been.

  387. Skeptikal 说:
    @Laurent Guyénot

    “Again, I am humbled by the dozens of valuable comments in this thread. It has provided, like others before, a rich harvest of precious information.”

    An earlier post disappeared in a cyber-glitech of some kind in which I recommended two books I consider valuable:
    1. Gus Russo’s “The Outfit”, for an account of (some of) Joe Kennedy’s career as a mobster, and a blow by blow as to how Joe and his pals in the Chicago Democrat organization (I think Richard Daley) actually got the needed votes in Chicago to put JFK over the top and defeat Nixon.

    2. Russo’s other book on the mob, “Supermob,” shows how the “underworld” and the “upperworld” interface, and how a generation or two spent in the underworld or the twilight world of big-city political machines, labor racketeering, bought judges, deals with local pols, etc. has been a primary if not the main route to respectability for certain immigrant groups who were able to “pass” in the political and social “upperworld.” IMO one cannot understand American politics without understanding this dynamic. (One of the primary focuses of “Supermob” is the Pritzker family, Chicago Jewish mobsters who are now ultra-respectable in Illinois, having gone west to steal and profit from the expropriated properties and businesses of the Nisei and German Americans. Obama was sponsored by the Pritzker outfit.)

    My point re JFK: Rather than delegitimize Kennedy because his father bought the presidency for him via his mob contacts, what I think is remarkable about JFK is that he rose above and (almost) broke free of the constraints his political background and debts placed on him. Truly a tragic hero, in the sense of classic drama. A loyalty lose-lose. The case of Bobby, too, was tragic, as “the avenger” went after the mob, not really understanding what his father had done and the debts incurred to get JFK and him into the White House.

    I think Russo has also written a book on the assassination and I don’t know what he says about that.
    But “The Outfit” and “Supermob” are outstanding. Heavily documented. Lots of photos. And readable.

    • 谢谢: Iris
    • 回复: @Skeptikal
    , @Alden
  388. @Iris

    虹膜–

    我再问: Why did you earlier misrepresent the 1963 Cronkite interview of President Kennedy as showing he was intending to withdraw from Vietnam.

    你有三个选择。

    1) Were you lying?

    2) Were you stupid?

    3) Are you too limited in the sources you read on this topic?

    As I told you before, I think it’s #3, but the more you continue to evade giving me a straight answer, the more I start to believe it’s #1.

    Why should I pay attention to your posts when you peddled misinformation to me, got caught and now refuse to fess up?

    *****

    But because I’m a good sport and, unlike you, have nothing to hide, I will deign to respond to parts of your comment.

    It is only a quibble in the larger picture of this discussion, but from a strictly factual point of view, there is no proof of any sort, whatsoever, that would even slightly hint that Oswald had a negative sentiment towards President Kennedy that would make him take part in an assassination.

    You avoid what was easily the most controversial part I quoted from Douglass’ book. It has nothing to do with his description of Oswald’s attitude toward Kennedy. It’s Douglass’ absurd belief that Oswald spent almost the last month of life trying to save JFK from a coup.

    I never said Oswald was motivated by a hatred of Kennedy or his politics. Nor do the better informed anti-conspiracy writers believe that. Bugliosi certainly doesn’t.

    Oswald’s crime was somewhat impulsive. There’s no indication he spent a lot of time planning it. He was not motivated by some rational political goal or political calculus. He may not have even decided to shoot Kennedy until the day before or the morning of November 22nd.

    Oswald was frustrated at his station in life. He was a loser consumed by extreme politics. He was a weakling fascinated by strength and the power of the deed. He thought he was a great man who had fascinating ideas about the world, if only other people would listen. Yet he was painfully aware he had accomplished very little in his life. He failed in one endeavor after another. High school, Marine Corps, Russia, job after job, and as a husband and father. All failures. Finally, one November day, an opportunity opened up for Oswald to grab history by the neck. He took it.

    Oswald didn’t want to be known as the murderer of JFK. He just wanted everyone’s attention. He finally got it. Unfortunately for him it only lasted two days.

    Oswald’s crime can’t be understood politically; it can only be understood psychologically. The murder just happened to be expressed politically because that was Oswald’s primary interest in life.

    Oswald’s eldest daughter openly claims her father’s innocence and is very positively considered within the JFK truth community.

    I don’t care how the JFK Truth community considers her. Understanding this case has nothing to do with DNA just because it’s related to Lee Harvey Oswald.

    The rest of your sources are dreck.

    • 回复: @dimples
  389. lysias 说:

    Oswald, having served as a Marine at the Atsugi Air Base in Japan from which U2s took off, was able to defect to the USSR, announce in the U.S. embassy in Moscow that he was renouncing his U.S. citizenship, and nevertheless to return to the U.S. not only with no problem but with a loan from a government-associated organization. He was obviously a part of the program of false defectors that we know existed. He was an intelligence operative.

    He was not a loser who decided to give outlet to his resentments.

    • 同意: dimples, James N. Kennett, Iris
    • 回复: @Pincher Martin
  390. Skeptikal 说:
    @Skeptikal

    Some interesting observations on JFK and the Federal Reserve near the beginning of this film. The contention is that JFK was going to majorly change the relationship of the govt to the Fed and had taken initial steps (starting ca. 14:30) to abolish the private Federal Reserve. The implication is that the Fed was yet another traveler on the Orient Express trip that ended with JFK’s murder in broad daylight. The narrator’s conclusion is similar to my own. The PTB thought they would be able to control Kennedy, but he went off the reservation and grew a spine on a number of pivotal issues of fundamental importance to the National Security State. So he had to go. I’ll leave it to someone else to figure out whether the Israeli connection fits in here, and how.

    The subject of the film is the banks and the puppet and obvious faker Obama. (I can barely stomach the Ego in a Suit Obama, so that is fine with me!!) But plenty of background here on the use of the 2008 financial crisis in a way (language and assertions of the need for a New World Order) eerily similar to how the “corona crisis” is being used today as crisis that must not be wasted to usher in the Great Reset.

    Granted Alex Jones is often overheated in his delivery . . . There is plenty of other historical background material and interviewees that are worth listening to, namely Webster Tarpley and a guy whose name I can’t recall but at ca. 39:00.

    • 谢谢: Iris
  391. dimples 说:
    @Pincher Martin

    Well now you’re lying or the cognitive dissonance is strong within you padawan. You’ve just been shown a reference to the document that proves that the military were ordered to withdraw by 1965, military success or not. Why not actually read it?

  392. dimples 说:

    “Yet he was painfully aware he had accomplished very little in his life. He failed in one endeavor after another. High school, Marine Corps, Russia, job after job, and as a husband and father. All failures. Finally, one November day, an opportunity opened up for Oswald to grab history by the neck. He took it.”

    …..so one day Oswald was feeling at a loose end so he decided to shoot the President.
    BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAH

    Where in Oswald’s life was he a failure? He was an accomplished Russian speaker, married to an attractive woman with a healthy normal child. Where in his Marine Corps career was he a failure? He was a radar operator, surely higher status work than a brain dead jarhead. Was he kicked out for some failure or other? No, he left of his own accord. He went to Russia as ordered by his clandestine superiors and returned no doubt under the same orders. His jobs were typical for a young man from a poor background without educational credentials. What would you consider success from such a person?

    Sure he was losing his hair badly, all the more reason to stick with the attractive wife he already had. Apart from the balding problem, if I had all this experience and success under my belt when I was 24, I would consider myself to be going very well, and, very peculiarly, I would have had no desire to one day suddenly get up and shoot a popular political figure whose politics I agreed with, an act tantamount to suicide. But that’s just me, I didn’t go bald, so these anarchic thoughts did not occur to me.

    Oswald didn’t even own the rifle. If he had he would have bought one in the Dallas/Fort Worth area incognito. As you say, he didn’t want to be known for shooting the President (although paradoxically this was to be the crowning achievement of his sad career). The FBI had to fit him up with the very convenient documents in a hurry and left the franking stamps off the postal order.

    请参见:
    http://harveyandlee.net/Mail_Order_Rifle/Mail_Order_Rifle.html
    http://harveyandlee.net/Guns/PMO/Money_Orders.html
    http://harveyandlee.net/Guns/Guns.html

    • 同意: utu
    • 谢谢: Iris
  393. dimples 说:
    @Pincher Martin

    See also comment 403, I missed the connection there.

    ” Oswald was frustrated at his station in life. He was a loser consumed by extreme politics. He was a weakling fascinated by strength and the power of the deed. He thought he was a great man who had fascinating ideas about the world, if only other people would listen. Yet he was painfully aware he had accomplished very little in his life.”

    So you are regurgitating this pop psychological dreck from whom, Bugliosi?

  394. @James N. Kennett

    For me this was the evidence connected to the murder of JFK, while for you this seems to be any of Douglass’ suppositions that can be used to discredit him.

    This evidence doesn’t exist. Douglass selected the choicest pieces of recent gossip and the most absurd stories to fill his book. In some cases, he interviews “witnesses” who have new information more than forty years after the crime. He ignores more than 90% of the evidence against Oswald.

    Anyone can destroy a case against someone when they simply ignore the vast majority of the evidence.

    An example of the absurd stories Douglass passes on as fact is the Oswald body double who supposedly followed Oswald around after he left the Texas School Book Depository building. This body double also supposedly made appearances all around Dallas (and sometimes outside the state of Texas and even in Mexico) in the days and weeks before the assassination.

    According to the conspiracy theorists, those appearances were done to help provide a wealth of incriminating background detail in anticipation of framing Oswald for Kennedy’s murder. But when studied in detail, none of these appearances make sense as a deliberate frame since they are all too ambiguous to help convict a man of murder. For example, if you’re a conspirator and you want to frame Oswald for murder by having the body double be seen doing something, shouldn’t he do something incriminating and leave evidence of his identity? Otherwise, where’s the frame? Shouldn’t he at least look a little like Oswald? Or where’s the frame?

    This body double is not Douglass invention. Conspiracy theorists started using it back in the nineteen-sixties because they knew the evidence against Oswald was so strong that only a body double could prevent him from looking obviously guilty. But Douglass believes the most absurd tales about the body double and passes them on as fact because he understands that without a body double, Oswald is responsible for Officer Tippit’s murder.

    Douglass also accepts as facts the ever-changing stories of deaf-mute Virgil “Ed” Hoffman, a man who even his own father and brother do not believe. Bugliosi has a long, detailed footnote explaining the evolution of Hoffman’s bullshit and why he probably wasn’t even at Dealey Plaza on the day of the shooting. He certainly lied about his location at Dealey Plaza if he was there.

    But Hoffman is not only a credible source for Douglass, he’s one of the primary sources. His tales earn him several pages in Douglass’ book.

    I could go on and on and on. There’s no evidence in Douglass’ book, only the absence of evidence.

    • 回复: @James N. Kennett
  395. @James N. Kennett

    It is an unlikely coincidence. But then every explanation has at least one improbable aspect – even the official explanation that Oswald was the only gunman.

    Unlikely coincidence? One improbable aspect?

    Vinson’s story relies on highly improbable and unrelated stories happening on consecutive days that both happen to deal with the JFK assassination.

    Vinson’s story requires that you believe that on one day he accidentally met an officer just as he was trying to save JFK from assassination with a phone call and then on the very next day he accidentally bumped into two of JFK’s killers on a plane, including the Oswald double, when it was just the three of them as passengers.

    If I’m being generous, and you twisted my arm really, really hard, I might believe one story. Just to humor you.

    But two such stories? On consecutive days? Now you’re insulting me.

    Those two items are Vinson’s story. He has little else, other than surveillance and job enticements. And it happened all while he was handling a routine, low-level administrative matter that had bupkis to do with the president and probably didn’t require Vinson to even be in Washington D.C. to solve.

    Oh, and by the way, Vinson didn’t happen to report this story until thirty years later. You know, because he was being watched.

    *****

    如果你不问自己更多关于给白宫打电话的那个上校,那么你就是一个非常缺乏好奇心的人。

    上校不会只是一时兴起拿起电话打电话给白宫要求取消总统访问,除非他有具体的、可信的严重性质的信息。

    他当然不会挂断电话,回去处理与他的联络工作无关的应征人员的行政事务。

    Assume you’re that colonel and you hear credible information that the president’s life is in danger. You’re not going to make just one call to the White House. You’re going to make dozens of calls to a lot of different people – including military superiors, military subordinates, the secret service, the FBI, the lawmakers in the building where you work, etc.

    你会做所有这些,或者你永远不会首先拿起电话。

    • 同意: dimples
  396. @Timur The Lame

    It is much like those who stick to the opinion of Oswald being a lone assassin. They must know that they will never be taken seriously by objective thinking intelligent people but somehow they can’t decouple, logic and preponderance of evidence notwithstanding.

    Hogwash. It’s you people who are the uninformed weirdos who don’t care about the truth or even give a fig to weigh the evidence evenhandedly.

    Bugliosi:

    …when we couple his [Lane’s] demonstrated infidelity to the truth, and his deliberate distortion of the evidence, with the fact that virtually all intelligent people who are knowledgeable of the facts (both of which Lane is) know that Oswald killed Kennedy and almost assuredly acted alone, one is compelled to conclude that from the very beginning, Lane was a fraud in his preachments about the Kennedy assassination.

    See, I can cite a quote where all the intelligent, well-informed people are on my side, too.

    If Bugliosi’s book is too large for you guys to digest, then I suggest Jim Moore’s A Conspiracy of One. It’s a short, compact book written by a former conspiracy theorist junkie who got tired of their lies and defected to the dark side. His work is short and to the point. He knows the Dealey Plaza and the Texas School Book Depository building better than anyone because he worked there for years and even reconstructed the sniper’s nest.

    One thing is clear to me: You all need to do more reading and balance your sources.

  397. @Ron Unz

    Well, among all commenters you rank #151 in total wordcount and #324 in total number of comments. Regardless of how you average those totals, the result is far higher than you expected.

    It is. I thought there were a lot more regulars here. I’m officially “very surprised.”

    Well, I can’t read the minds of Talbot or Douglass, but as I pointed out in my article, if either of them had suggested LBJ was an obvious, major suspect—let alone the Israeli Mossad!—their books never would have been published by a respectable press, nor reviewed anywhere, so no one except fanatic JFK activists would have ever heard of them.

    This is a non sequitur. I was talking about their views on Kennedy. They inflate him into a man who was potentially one of America’s greatest presidents because in their mind he was about to change the direction of world history. If Kennedy lives, there is no Vietnam and no Cold War. Or as Douglass says, Kennedy was about to bring peace and hope to “Russians, Americans, Cubans, Vietnamese, Indonesians, everyone—no exceptions.”

    And he was killed by a deep state conspiracy for it.

    You wrote last year that this approach of glorifying Kennedy was wrong and even damaging to the conspiracy cause. You made no mention of Douglass or Talbot in that comment, but your point was broad enough to cover anyone who might do it.

    发生了什么事?

    You denounce Talbot for his strong pro-JFK sentiments and therefore feel free to totally ignore his vast array of factual material.

    He doesn’t have a “vast array of evidence.” For example, you made the mistake of accepting Talbot’s story on Hunt’s confession as evidence rather than just the sad story it was: A son pushing his dying father to leave him some financial legacy and pissing the rest of the family off because of it.

    Talbot uses his style to dance around the fact there’s nothing to Hunt’s revelation. Let’s go through it together:

    Hunt’s last will and testament—for that is how it sounds, as the gray-bearded figure struggles to speak in the video and on the tape recorder, gasping for air between snatches of his story—is a remarkable American tale. “He felt that he had to come clean—not just for his conscience and history, but also to leave behind something for his family, in case the book made some money. He always deeply regretted that his family had been destroyed by Watergate.”

    我: “Fascinating. So what were the revelations?”

    Back to Talbot:

    St. John believes that his father was willing to open up to him, in particular, because of the risks his son had taken for him during Watergate. “We had relationship built on trust, based on all of that…So years later, when I implored Papa to tell me everything he knew about JFK’s killing, he was open to it.”

    我: “Great. Are you going to tell us what were those revelations?”

    Talbot goes back to the Hunt family drama for a couple of pages before he re-emerges to tell us this:

    Hunt’s most explosive revelation about the CIA and the Kennedy assassination is not contained in his book.

    我: “Uh oh.”

    Before he stopped telling his oldest son about his buried past, however, the old spy unburdened himself of a stunning secret. And this revelation was not speculative, but an eyewitness account.

    我: “Uh, okay. So what is it?”

    In 1963, Hunt recalled, he was invited by Frank Sturgis—the mob-friendly anti-Castro operative who later joined Hunt’s Watergate burglary team—to a clandestine meeting in a CIA safe house in Miami. At the meeting, a group of men—including David Morales—discussed what was referred to as “the big event,” which, it soon became clear, was a plot to kill President Kennedy. After Morales left, Sturgis asked Hunt, “Are you with us?” Hunt said he was “incredulous.”

    “You guys have everything you need—why do you need me?” Hunt asked Sturgis.

    “You could help with the cover-up,” Sturgis suggested.

    Hunt was no Kennedy lover. He once told St. John he wanted to have a bumpersticker made reading: “Let’s finish the job—let’s hit Ted.” But Hunt insisted he did not join the plot, because he learned that Bill Harvey was involved, a man he regarded as “an alcoholic psycho.”

    After Kennedy was shot down in Dallas, Hunt recounted, he was “haunted” by the assassination “like the rest of the country.” He felt “lucky” that he had not played “a direct role” in the conspiracy. But Hunt left his exact role in the plot hazy. In the audiotape he sent St. John in January 2004, he said, “I was a benchwarmer in [the plot],” adding cryptically, “I had a reputation for honesty and information was brought to me.”

    Sitting in the Red Lion as the winter sun sank into the Pacific and the shadows fell over the coastal redwoods, St. John Hunt tried to make sense of his father’s truncated confession. Was his father a co-conspirator in the killing of President Kennedy? “At the end of the day, I just don’t know. But I do know that he at least had foreknowledge of it. He certainly knew a lot more than he said about it. I was just starting to get a lot out of him when they shut him up.”

    That’s it? That’s the confession? I just read six or seven pages building up to a revelation, liberally seasoned with a narrative about the Howard Hunt family drama, just so I could get to that vague dying confession?

    This is what Hunt’s confession entails:

    * Three well-known names, who are all frequent suspects in the conspiracy literature and who were all conveniently long-dead when Hunt made his revelation: Frank Sturgis, David Morales, and Bill Harvey.

    * No date, just a year: 1963.

    * No specific place, just a CIA safe house in Miami.

    * No specifics as to how the plot was hatched or what Hunt’s “benchwarmer” role covering up might entail. No mention of Oswald. No mention of Ruby.

    I looked in the notes to see what specific sources Talbot relies on other than an audiotape to support this confession:

    Handwritten E. Howard Hunt notes, courtesy of St. John Hunt.

    Is Talbot that sure Hunt’s son can’t fake his father’s handwriting?

    I’d check, because while Talbot reports in his book that the family wasn’t upset with the sons’ revelations about their father’s confession, that is not how others are reporting it:

    The LA Times, March, 2007

    The materials they [Hunt’s sons] offer to substantiate their story, examined by the Los Angeles Times, are inconclusive.

    Hunt answers questions on a videotape using speculative phrases, observing that various named figures were “possibly” involved. A chart Hunt sketched during one conversation with St. John shows the same rogue CIA operation he describes in the memoir. None of the accounts provides evidence to convincingly validate that their father disclosed anything revelatory.

    Hunt’s widow and her two children, 27-year-old Austin and 23-year-old Hollis, dismiss the brothers’ story, saying it is the result of coaching an old man whose lucidity waxed and waned in his final months.

    Kevan bitterly accuses her brothers of “elder abuse,” saying they pressured their father for dramatic scenarios for their own financial gain. Hunt’s longtime lawyer, Bill Snyder, says: “Howard was just speculating. He had no hard evidence.”

    Is this part of Talbot’s “vast array of factual material,” Ron, that you claim I ignore?

    No, it’s exactly what I told you earlier about Talbot’s writing: It is style as argument. Mood music, a lot of buildup, some fascinating asides, slanted but good writing.

    But in the end? Nothing.

  398. @lysias

    Complete rubbish. Oswald was a loser.

    First, Oswald did not officially renounce his U.S. citizenship before entering Russia. He verbally told the American diplomatic officer there that he was defecting, and he wrote a letter saying he wanted to renounce his U.S. citizenship, but he never got around to filling out the forms or taking the oath required to do so.

    The fact that Oswald said the U.S. embassy had “refused” to let him renounce his U.S. citizenship when it hadn’t done this at all is revealing. Snyder merely told Oswald to return on another date, and when Snyder responded to Oswald’s November 3, 1959, letter on November 6, he informed Oswald that he did, in fact, have the “inherent right” to renounce his citizenship and all he had to do was return to the embassy during the hours the embassy was open (set forth in the letter) and follow the prescribed procedures, including the taking of an oath.535 Yet Oswald elected not to return to the embassy, which perhaps speaks loudly for one point. Renouncing his citizenship was only ancillary to the main thing he wanted, becoming a Soviet citizen.

    Therefore, Oswald never officially lost his U.S. citizenship. He was still an American citizen the entire time he was in the Soviet Union, which was fortunate for him when he later decided he wanted to leave Minsk with his wife and return to America.

    Second, it took no special skill for Oswald to serve at Atsugi Air Base in Japan. Thousands of other dunderhead Marines and Airmen served there with him.

    I know. I served in a similar unit as Oswald’s. His was MACS-1 (Marine Air Control Squadron-1). Mine was MACS-2 (Marine Air Control Squadron-2 or MACS-2 pronounced “Macs-Deuce”). I also had a similar job (tactical data communications repairman) and a similar security clearance (“Secret”).

    There was nothing particularly special about the job. Oswald’s access to looking at the U-2s and radars didn’t provide him with any special knowledge about the plane that he might lure the Russians with – either as a genuine traitor, which he was, or as a counteragent by feeding the Russians disinformation.

    Edward Jay Epstein speculates in his 1978 book 传说:李·哈维·奥斯瓦尔德的秘密世界 that Oswald might’ve been able to tell the Russians how high the U-2 was flying over their country, but the Russians already knew that information by the time Oswald defected. And it’s questionable that Oswald even knew that detail.

    Soon after his arrival in Minsk, Russian intelligence sized Oswald up as a person of no value. They were right. They were