Since so much truth is coming out vindicating what we've been saying, each in his or her own way, it may be time to go back to where all the lies began.
Yes, I'm talking about (oh, no!!!!!!!!!!!) the assassination of Jack Kennedy.
First caught sight of this as a linked item off Emerald Robinson's substack (I really am falling in love with her; she's about to make the list of my all-time fave newsbabes along with, from Fox, Jennifer Griffin and Catherine Herridge, and, from Black Rock, Liz Trotta (my first love) and Sharyl Atkisson) and it's all quite interesting.
I never really thought that much about it, actually, and all the toing and froing over the Warren Commission wasn't really on my radar. Who in their right mind trusts anything chaired by Earl Warren?
The whole single bullet thing bounced off me and the second shooter business was all conjecture. That changed a bit after I read years later a quote of Jack Kennedy to Newsweek after he'd just had his lunch eaten by Nikita Sergeivich in the settlement of the Cuban Missile Pandemic.
"We have to make our power pertinent in the world and Vietnam seems to be the place".
Think about that for a short second. A guy who may have come closer than anybody knows to blowing up the world refused to learn the lesson from it. He was not up to the job of being President because he thought he was double Aught Whatshisface (his reading the Bond books sparked the spy thing in the 60s, if you recall). He was going to keep on trying to pick a fight with the Russkies.
Just like so many Democrats of the 20th century, he was a dangerous fool.
It also tells us he was not getting ready to pull out (insert punchline).
I was 16 when Kosygin and Brezhnev pensioned off Nikita to a little dacha and the event at the time struck me as being more significant than just your usual generational power thing, but the reason eluded me.
So, years later, when I read the whole single bullet thing was probably a crock because the contention the carbine Oswald used couldn't be fired that quickly was a lie because an expert with that weapon, and he was an expert, could fire it that quickly and that seemed to be reasonable to me.
Howsomever, there was that time frame. A year after Kennedy makes his Newsweek quote, he's dead. A year after that, Nikita's out.
Coinkydink? Maybe, but it seemed to me, if there was a plot, it wouldn't have been the Military Industrial Complex (who were getting rich off Kennedy's adventurism) or the Mob which was supplying him with babes. A more likely scenario was the Russkies, especially Nikita, who'd lived through a Hellacious war and it was no fun. No way this clown was going to start another war.
The Russians as the good guys. Whoda thunk?
That bring us to this piece by Emerald Robinson which blows everything into the stratosphere and proves that the truth really was out there. But you're going to have to dig to find it.
The Warren Commission said there was no entry hole by a bullet in the windshield. But the people at the Ford plant where it was sent to create a new one saw one and destroyed the original on orders. Then there are all those home movies that show the effect of a shot from the front and the ER people at Parkland Memorial.
So, did the Russkies hit Jack Kennedy? Seems likely, but that's just my theory.
All the Unicorn rainbows of what might have been had St Jack lived would IMHO have been just so much smoke and mirrors, but it does tend to show the Democrats of today didn't begin with Occasional Cortex.
YMMV
8 comments:
Nope I don't think the Russians, so close after the Cuban missile crisis, would even have attempted it. Castro did not have the resources to pull it off. The mob, doubtful, unless working with the deep state. LBJ, I couldn't prove it but wouldn't doubt it. The CIA and or FBI, a possibility but not for the conventional wisdom reasons. There's no way Kennedy was going to deescalate Vietnam so the Military Industrial complex had nothing to fear. He could have been eliminated because of his increasing erratic personal behavior something J Edgar Hoover no doubt had full knowledge of.
Robert Kennedy's similar death had the whiff of deep state involvement too. I'll stick with Oswald, lone gunman, patsy or conspirator.
Well, I think my theory is about reaction to Kennedy's adventurism and an unwillingness not to play the game any more. Keep in mind, it wasn't just missiles in Cuba, but Berlin, Laos, 'Nam, the Bay of Pigs, the DR, and Iraq. He was forever sending troops overseas (I remember it so well) and made no secret about championing Special Forces using it as an offensive weapon.
I do think, if they did do it, the removal of Khrushchev was intended as a peace offering or at least to make it harder to justify an open attack.
ampersand said...
I'll stick with Oswald, lone gunman, patsy or conspirator.
The issue of the windshield bullet hole makes that a tenuous position and seem to justify the existence of a second shooter.
You may disagree.
He could have been eliminated because of his increasing erratic personal behavior
Therein lies the rub. The trip to Dallas was to shore up the once-Solid South due to fears he was going to lose in '64. Remember, the Demos were on a losing streak as far as one term wonders in the White House.
Whatever the motive, it was a hit. More than the act of a lone deranged gunman. The windshield bullet hole evidence (witnesses and photos) supports the involvement of more than one shooter, and the original statement by Dr Perry of the throat wound being from a frontal shot goes along with the "there in plain sight" title of the article. Even if who was ultimately responsible isn't clear.
Fascinating read. One I likely wouldn't have seen without your post, edutcher, so thank you for that.
I appreciated her summation:
But one might well ask why the government would also evade a 1992 Records Act passed by Congress, signed by a president requiring ALL documents pertaining to the Assassination to be released by 2017-2018, and deny full release under both Presidents Trump and Biden because of idiotic “security practices concerns”?
Perhaps because we now see the Federal Government had been destroying evidence, changing testimony, and intentionally lying to the American people for almost 60 years about the facts it knew well about the assassination of a beloved American president one November day in 1963.
In any case, as long as that phony windshield keeps being exhibited at the National Archive, there is a constant reminder that for all the Freedom of Information laws and pledges of transparency by political candidates, our current government not only wants to govern our present and arrange our future, but to control our understanding of the past as well.
On another note, I'd started and then stopped reading the book about the RFK-Jackie and Ari triangle, (I think it was "Nemesis" by Peter Evens?) as it was too depressing, like I was going down a rabbit hole. Way more going on there than met the eye too. With a yuck factor that felt tainting. Especially so in light of all the JFK, RFK, Jackie, fantasy BS, and adulation that surrounded them.
This, with the photo provided, comes through as surprisingly clear from my POV:
But there in frame 230, in the Zapruder film as well as the Altgens, is that white spec on the left side of the windshield, in exactly the same place in all photos. It doesn’t take a ballistics genius to see, just looking at the Zapruder frame, that if one draws a straight line to the place Kennedy is clutching his throat to the white spec on the windshield — and it IS a bullet hole, just as so many witnesses have said, the line of fire extends to the FRONT of the limousine. And that means the first shot to hit Kennedy came from in front of him.
MamaM said...
But one might well ask why the government would also evade a 1992 Records Act passed by Congress, signed by a president requiring ALL documents pertaining to the Assassination to be released by 2017-2018, and deny full release under both Presidents Trump and Biden because of idiotic “security practices concerns”?
A conjecture on my part.
I think the Feds (assuming the Russkies did it and they knew it, or that they suspected as much) knew that anything linking the Reds to the hit, no matter how tenuous, would have been met with a call for war. Keep in mind, the country was a lot more Conservative, even in the big cities, than it is now*. The adulation you mention, plus the fact this would have been seen as an attack on America carried out on American soil would have been unanswerable.
This makes the removal of Nikita more reasonable as a means to placate the US, at least at the highest levels, certainly, but it also points up the fact that DC has been lying to us, whether justified or not, for a very long time.
It's been about 25 years since the Internet has deregulated information in this country and we're learning things the big 3 networks and the major dailies and magazines would have suppressed.
*In '63, most big cities in this country were still run by Republicans.
I remember seeing a selection of the Zapruder film frames blown up in LIFE mag, and am now surprised by how clearly the hole in the windshield shows up in the one frame pictured at the link.
I also remember my dad (no fan of Kennedy) sadly telling me we wouldn't know the truth in his lifetime, but perhaps it would come out in mine.
And here we are now with the evidence needed to replace the zany mystery bullet theory with a clearer one that makes much more sense, revealing a co-ordinated hit and a cover-up with the motive and shadow players yet to be ID'd While the Cuba/Russia connection seems most likely, given how compromised and messy the Kennedy lives and connections were, the Mob, and/or the US Gov't (Johnson?)involvement could also have been tangled up in the outcome.
And yes, I also believe the tone of the country was such that if Cuba or Russians had been shown then to have been responsible, there would have been a call for war.
At this point, my guess regarding the denial of full release is that it now has more to do with the exposure of gov't meddling and the protection of party interests than fear of war, as it will as edutcher said, point up the fact that DC has been lying to us, whether justified or not, for a very long time. And I don't see that revelation sitting well in this current climate for people in either party.
Post a Comment