JFK: What do we really know about that day in Dallas?

Was JFK done in in Dallas, 11/22/63?
In retrospect, as an average news consumer and going by what the mainstream media offered on November 22, 1963 and beyond, I'd say I don't find it plausible.
As I was only five years old and in California when the assassination allegedly took place, I can't really apply the trivium method rigorously. In place of logic sits common sense. Assessing the plausibility content vis a vis what the media has told us over the years (that includes the dissenting opinion of the Grassy Knoll Society who share but one conclusion in common with the Warren Report/HSCA: That Kennedy was shot dead in Dallas) is all I can do with what knowledge I have accrued over the years about the event. Basically what I'm working through is a critique of the narrative, not the forensics evidence, which, if my suspicions have any validity, do not exist.
One question that bugs me, because it’s largely based on the nebulous concept of mass psychology rather than the cause and effect narrative of a power struggle, is this: According to the back and to the left argument proposed by the Zapruder film, that would place a shooter ahead and to Kennedy's right behind the picket fence atop the Knoll. In the film, which I believe to be tampered with if not an outright forgery, JFK's head appears to explode at frame 312/313. At that moment, Jackie is literally cheek by jowl with her husband. Assuming the world's greatest (criminal) marksmen were used, even then the tiniest variation in aim might have taken Jackie's head off. Did the planners of this Grand Guignol theater piece believe the First Lady, at the time the most famous, glamorous and sympathetic woman on Earth (she apparently lost a child at birth earlier in the year) was acceptable collateral damage? I realize there's no way to pose this question and appeal to logic, but it does baffle me all the same. I'm not sure what Jackie's death or injury would have done to the national mood. The President is by nature of the office a man of violence, at least vicariously. He would logically be the target of violent outrage from America's enemies. Theoretically, getting shot is an occupational hazard. Threats to his family, on the other hand, either were never reported or are only and forever the figments of a hack screenwriter's imagination. If we are dealing with mass mind control, whether he was actually killed or not, a question like this concerning Jackie is valid, if unanswerable.
 

lorenhough

Well-Known Member
d
Was JFK done in in Dallas, 11/22/63?
In retrospect, as an average news consumer and going by what the mainstream media offered on November 22, 1963 and beyond, I'd say I don't find it plausible.
As I was only five years old and in California when the assassination allegedly took place, I can't really apply the trivium method rigorously. In place of logic sits common sense. Assessing the plausibility content vis a vis what the media has told us over the years (that includes the dissenting opinion of the Grassy Knoll Society who share but one conclusion in common with the Warren Report/HSCA: That Kennedy was shot dead in Dallas) is all I can do with what knowledge I have accrued over the years about the event. Basically what I'm working through is a critique of the narrative, not the forensics evidence, which, if my suspicions have any validity, do not exist.
One question that bugs me, because it’s largely based on the nebulous concept of mass psychology rather than the cause and effect narrative of a power struggle, is this: According to the back and to the left argument proposed by the Zapruder film, that would place a shooter ahead and to Kennedy's right behind the picket fence atop the Knoll. In the film, which I believe to be tampered with if not an outright forgery, JFK's head appears to explode at frame 312/313. At that moment, Jackie is literally cheek by jowl with her husband. Assuming the world's greatest (criminal) marksmen were used, even then the tiniest variation in aim might have taken Jackie's head off. Did the planners of this Grand Guignol theater piece believe the First Lady, at the time the most famous, glamorous and sympathetic woman on Earth (she apparently lost a child at birth earlier in the year) was acceptable collateral damage? I realize there's no way to pose this question and appeal to logic, but it does baffle me all the same. I'm not sure what Jackie's death or injury would have done to the national mood. The President is by nature of the office a man of violence, at least vicariously. He would logically be the target of violent outrage from America's enemies. Theoretically, getting shot is an occupational hazard. Threats to his family, on the other hand, either were never reported or are only and forever the figments of a hack screenwriter's imagination. If we are dealing with mass mind control, whether he was actually killed or not, a question like this concerning Jackie is valid, if unanswerable.
hi Tyrone
good question I would ask ya;

how would they know what Jacky o would do after the 1st shot?
and if you were told to shot what do you do? and what happened to her son. if this was a fake & no one died; why jfk son to? it seems he was looking into his dads death

the car coming to u means his head was inline for 10 seconds lets say making it much easer to make the that shot then from the side or far away and up high; the pros shot for the neck and then the head. so I heard. the shooter could have be told not to shot if he though he would hit her. it was a close in shot with scope hard to miss, but if she did get shot as the guy ahead if that's true? who would the public be mad at? and why? if the film is fake then there was no risk of her being hurt if it was her in the car and not her double. the neck would not exploded but the head would like a water melon if hit with high power bullet. the shots that hit him seem to come from the front yes?

11-22-69 is like fukushima 3-11-11 they seem to like the 11 22 etc.

u say; mass psychology rather than the cause and effect narrative of a power struggle; I agree 100% though they do this stuff for a hundred reasons. and why kill so many witness, if the film is fake? the film guy was there man. no accident he got it on film from were they wanted people to see the death. if that is what happened. I hope some else has more insights.
how would jfk know there was no or little security if they did it without him knowing. the film of her putting her had up to his head how would that not blow of her hand or hurt her being head to head as u said? if she had something do with it and could that not have been fake also ? the 1st shot killed him . they didn't need the second shot if he though he would miss.
Loren
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
If the Zapruder film was tampered, why? Perhaps to hide the fact that the President's car came to a complete stop, so that the shooters would have an easy target?

But if this is correct, then we really don't know exactly where Jackie was when the fatal shot was fired? Before assuming that the film shows the correct relationship between JFK and Jackie, we would need a fully developed theory of how the film was doctored, and what information could survive.
 

lorenhough

Well-Known Member
If the Zapruder film was tampered, why? Perhaps to hide the fact that the President's car came to a complete stop, so that the shooters would have an easy target?

But if this is correct, then we really don't know exactly where Jackie was when the fatal shot was fired? Before assuming that the film shows the correct relationship between JFK and Jackie, we would need a fully developed theory of how the film was doctored, and what information could survive.
u said;
If the Zapruder film was tampered, why? Perhaps to hide the fact that the President's car came to a complete stop, so that the shooters would have an easy target?

for Shure it was tampered ; like when the film starts and when it stops the world is a stage and this was. yes looks to me like it stopped and or got slower; easier shot but not necessary if slow and coming to you for a time. but why not stop if u can cut the film and not report what people there saw.

if the car was stopped when the 2 nd shot hit him it could not the film sill show the shot where she was but made to look like the car never stopped ? is it true she got out of the car to get part of his head?
 

lorenhough

Well-Known Member
If the Zapruder film was tampered, why? Perhaps to hide the fact that the President's car came to a complete stop, so that the shooters would have an easy target?

But if this is correct, then we really don't know exactly where Jackie was when the fatal shot was fired? Before assuming that the film shows the correct relationship between JFK and Jackie, we would need a fully developed theory of how the film was doctored, and what information could survive.
jacke o said after boby; ' if there killing' Kennedys- ' I am out of here' so they give here a billionaire to take care of her and to keep a eye on her to keep here quite; as she know to be so, or her or her children or toast.??

jacke was a dolly; coined by ben franking, as like a piano dolly; like dolly the sheep; she was high end breeding for the big boys from long line of dollys .

as ben f was a member of the hell fire club, mason etc. and was the rock star they made up as in he didn't invent the lighting rod etc. to let the people follow him. probably gave up some seed in London to improve the breeding stock .. sorry to see jacky o's only living child is in japan now she is being fukushimad sorry to say why there out of all the world I guess hard to give up a offer like that. but still I would never go there
 
Last edited:
I had a film professor in college who one day screened several Looney Tunes cartoons as an example of a director having complete control of everything in the film frame- A couple of years later, I was working in an animation studio and while the director might have appeared to have more control than a live action director, he by no means had absolute control of the visuals- Every time a new element was added, whether music, dialogue, frame pacing (adding/subtracting cels) it would affect everything else- In time he would announce a production complete, warts and all, and the clients were always satisfied- The reason they were satisfied is that they could not see the tiny but perceptible glitches we animators saw, and because the director knew that, he’d call it a wrap when the project was adequate enough for civilian viewing-

The Zapruder film has plenty of warts but no one was going to see them until a critical mass of trained eyes (who also had the motivation to pursue the case) could articulate the film’s problems- Another win for the internet and You Tube, even if a half century after the fact-

The question then becomes: What is the Zapruder film’s function? The first is to show the President getting his head blown off in extremely graphic detail- If you can’t fathom the film being a fake then frames 312/313 are all you need to convince yourself he’s all kinds of dead regardless of the motives and perp’s identities- The second function is to divide the ranks of the Grassy Knollers into real/fake factions- Real film supporters go looking for the same culprits the fake film claimers do, but a lot of energy is expended on these specific details like the claims witnesses made saying the limo came to a stop (Secret Service complicity implied, adding another rabbit trail), some witnesses in the film appear to be seven feet tall, the freeway sign is a paste up job, etc.- Amidst all this factional strife, no one asks: If, in fact, part or all of the film is fake or tampered with, is what it purports to show (a murder) also fake?

Very few who get past the gore and the glitches would ask that question because a whole new set of questions arise: Did they kill him some other, less risky way but then presented the full color staged spectacular as the threat demonstration they wanted to aim at the public while remaining out of reach of the law? Was JFK, then oldest public son of an oligarch, in on it and joined the ranks of unseen hands that possibly run this world? After all, his older sister, Kathleen, a Roman Catholic, married an Anglican Cavendish, a Duke in waiting- That’s a serious power match that conveniently went onto die quickly: The heir to the Duke of Devonshire dying in battle (since when do Dukes allow their first born sons to be exposed in wartime?) and she went down in a plane crash four years later (something the Kennedys have a knack for) One could shovel in that sand pit forever if they wanted to, looking for where all the Dead Kennedys and their allies ran off to hide and pull the levers of power and such with their fellow oligarchs- And that begs another difficult question: Is the principle of Causality just one interpretation of reality that we have been issued and therefore leashes in our imaginations to restrict even conceiving of something as seemingly irrational as the JFK assassination being a hoax? A serf buried in the muck and mire of the Dark Ages would never have been able to conceive of the common air travel of today even though the gravitational and atmospheric conditions of the Earth are more or less the same now as then- Who knows what we aren’t comprehending that could be physically possible?
 

lorenhough

Well-Known Member
I had a film professor in college who one day screened several Looney Tunes cartoons as an example of a director having complete control of everything in the film frame- A couple of years later, I was working in an animation studio and while the director might have appeared to have more control than a live action director, he by no means had absolute control of the visuals- Every time a new element was added, whether music, dialogue, frame pacing (adding/subtracting cels) it would affect everything else- In time he would announce a production complete, warts and all, and the clients were always satisfied- The reason they were satisfied is that they could not see the tiny but perceptible glitches we animators saw, and because the director knew that, he’d call it a wrap when the project was adequate enough for civilian viewing-

The Zapruder film has plenty of warts but no one was going to see them until a critical mass of trained eyes (who also had the motivation to pursue the case) could articulate the film’s problems- Another win for the internet and You Tube, even if a half century after the fact-

The question then becomes: What is the Zapruder film’s function? The first is to show the President getting his head blown off in extremely graphic detail- If you can’t fathom the film being a fake then frames 312/313 are all you need to convince yourself he’s all kinds of dead regardless of the motives and perp’s identities- The second function is to divide the ranks of the Grassy Knollers into real/fake factions- Real film supporters go looking for the same culprits the fake film claimers do, but a lot of energy is expended on these specific details like the claims witnesses made saying the limo came to a stop (Secret Service complicity implied, adding another rabbit trail), some witnesses in the film appear to be seven feet tall, the freeway sign is a paste up job, etc.- Amidst all this factional strife, no one asks: If, in fact, part or all of the film is fake or tampered with, is what it purports to show (a murder) also fake?

Very few who get past the gore and the glitches would ask that question because a whole new set of questions arise: Did they kill him some other, less risky way but then presented the full color staged spectacular as the threat demonstration they wanted to aim at the public while remaining out of reach of the law? Was JFK, then oldest public son of an oligarch, in on it and joined the ranks of unseen hands that possibly run this world? After all, his older sister, Kathleen, a Roman Catholic, married an Anglican Cavendish, a Duke in waiting- That’s a serious power match that conveniently went onto die quickly: The heir to the Duke of Devonshire dying in battle (since when do Dukes allow their first born sons to be exposed in wartime?) and she went down in a plane crash four years later (something the Kennedys have a knack for) One could shovel in that sand pit forever if they wanted to, looking for where all the Dead Kennedys and their allies ran off to hide and pull the levers of power and such with their fellow oligarchs- And that begs another difficult question: Is the principle of Causality just one interpretation of reality that we have been issued and therefore leashes in our imaginations to restrict even conceiving of something as seemingly irrational as the JFK assassination being a hoax? A serf buried in the muck and mire of the Dark Ages would never have been able to conceive of the common air travel of today even though the gravitational and atmospheric conditions of the Earth are more or less the same now as then- Who knows what we aren’t comprehending that could be physically possible?
yes I think your right that that the Kennedys death of the 1st born big bro in ww2 airplane full of bombs could be fake jfk boat accident could be fake his sister in airplane fake to get the public to notice and to love ya then become pres. to set the big blow the killing of the king in slow motion snuff film; real or not it goin mess up

jack in car or ? and his brother in the kitchen and little john in a airplane [his mom never wanted him to fly so they say] and his sister going to see fukushima real close and personal. all fake as she flies in and out of japan not eating the food and not drinking the water and not out side much without filtering the air; the kennidy family friend of London & rome etc. to be the poster Childs of the big brothers; the kings they love us and die for us so we should for them amen.

bushes dad plane shot down was fake and bush 2 didn't have to be drafted just fake it and not show up and know one tells .. all to sheer the sheep they are the men behind the curtain in the land of oz's of gold hold on to your hat!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_family
Kennedy family - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_family

The Kennedy family is an American family of Irish descent who are prominent in American politics, government, and business. The first Kennedys to reside in America were Patrick Kennedy and Bridget Murphy, who sailed from Ireland to America in 1849. Their son, P.J., went into politics and business. P.J. and his wife, Mary Hickey, were the parents of businessman/politician Joe, Sr. The four sons of Joe, Sr. and philanthropist/socialite Rose Fitzgerald were: Joe, Jr., John, Robert, and Ted. John served as president, while Robert and Ted both became prominent senators. The Kennedys' political involvement has revolved around the Democratic Party. Harvard University educations have been common among them, and they have contributed heavily to that university's John F. Kennedy School of Government. The wealth and glamour of the family members, as well as their extensive and continuing involvement in public service, has elevated them to iconic status over the past half-century, with the Kennedys sometimes referred to as "America's Royal Family".
Notes
The Grant of Arms granting this Arms to all descendants of Patrick Kennedy was presented to John Fitzgerald Kennedy Sr. from the Chief Herald of Ireland on 17 March 1961, St. Patrick's Day.
Adopted
17 March 1961
Crest
Between two olive branches a cubit sinister arm in armour erect, the hand holding a sheaf of four arrows, points upwards, all proper
Escutcheon
Sable three helmets in profile Or within a bordure per saltaire Gules and Ermine
Symbolism
The 3 helmets on black alludes to the Arms of the O'Kennedys of Ormonde, and the red and Ermine allude the Arms of the FitzGeralds of Desmond. The olive branches and arrows symbolise America, because the olive branches and the arrows that appear in the Arms also appear in the talons of the American Eagle in the Great Seal of the United States of America.
jfk grand father on is mon side was Boston Mayor Fitzgerald and her father embarked on a tour of Europe. She and Honey Fitz had a private audience with Pope St. Pius X at the Vatican. Jacqueline Kennedy described her mother-in-law in her correspondence to Father Joseph Leonard, an Irish priest: "I don't think Jack's mother is too bright – and she would rather say a rosary than read a book."In 1951, Pope Pius XII granted Kennedy the title of countess in recognition of her "exemplary motherhood and many charitable works."
hav ya seen this there just new rich but very rich
 
Last edited:

mad1

New Member
Reading JFK and the Unspeakable by James W. Douglass should convince anyone of the massive conspiracy going on that day in Dallas, but sadly it did not extend to faking his death, that was all too real. I will never forget it, I was a sophomore in high school in a Dallas suburb and it remains to this day the most
important political moment of my lifetime. Douglass makes his case with the power and depth of research rarely seen, brings to mind the work of Joseph Atwill.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I hope we all can agree that JFK existed as a human being on the world stage, that he was never again seen or heard from again in the public eye on 11/22/63, and that the historical narrative told by all witnesses is that he was murdered that day. Any theory to the contrary would involve a body double who was killed in place of the President, while the man himself was spirited away to the "Hidden Resort".

This is impossible to falsify, but on the other hand I've never seen the slightest scrap of evidence, at least not in this case, and precious little evidence in any other case (Hitler, Saddam, etc.) Any theory that's impossible to falsify, can hardly be considered 'scientific'.

And if the person is never seen nor heard from again, what difference does it make? If JFK was so well hidden, he might as well have been dead, as far as the world is concerned.
 
JFK’s being and nothingness is not in dispute, as far as I can tell- What matters to me is not that significant, either, when you get down to it- If JFK’s removal was an inside job, his complicity or not isn’t that big of a deal- Despite his words and deeds (okay, rubbing Wallace’s face in it was pretty good stuff, though I mentioned something elsewhere about civil rights bringing new issues with it) he was still one of them- If he was allowed to be the secular saint some make him out to be, only to be forcibly removed and replaced with a hawk to kick start the Vietnam war, or he was complicit in some bait and switch tactic to get the public back on their heels in order to distract from the seemingly radical shift in foreign policy, the result was still the same: Decisions were made by THEM with such inadequate amount of input from the public that said public had to eventually take their gripes into the streets- If JFK was sincere, are we left with an ideal that within living memory still inspires us to participate in this seemingly rigged game, hoping for another JFK even as one politician after another reveals himself to be just another malleable tool of the power elite?
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
If JFK was sincere, are we left with an ideal that within living memory still inspires us to participate in this seemingly rigged game, hoping for another JFK even as one politician after another reveals himself to be just another malleable tool of the power elite?
What I hear more often goes like this: "Any progressive and populist politician who wants to create truth and justice, is going to get himself killed. Just like JFK, Bobby Kennedy, and Martin Luther King were."
 
What I hear more often goes like this: "Any progressive and populist politician who wants to create truth and justice, is going to get himself killed. Just like JFK, Bobby Kennedy, and Martin Luther King were."
That's one of the most quoted evergreens in the tropiary garden- I just wonder who it is aimed at- Politicians up and coming on a populist wave of reform or the public who are being warned not to get their hopes up which helps erode participation in the voting process altogether-
 

Frank Newborg

New Member
The national mood was so darkened by JFK's demise, that losing Jackie too would have made little difference. In may ways, the country's mood has never recovered from that shock. Since then, we have thought (and known) that there were dark forces operating, that would stop at nothing to change the leadership and direction of this country.
There was an attempted coup d'etat in the 1930's that failed (search for "Smedley Butler"), and there was an equally traumatic event on 9/11/2001.
What amazes me is how willing people have been to believe the "official stories" of these events, despite the overwhelming evidence that the official narrative was a lie.
== ==
Do you want to discuss the flaws in the official story, or have you already done the research?
 

lorenhough

Well-Known Member
The national mood was so darkened by JFK's demise, that losing Jackie too would have made little difference. In may ways, the country's mood has never recovered from that shock. Since then, we have thought (and known) that there were dark forces operating, that would stop at nothing to change the leadership and direction of this country.
There was an attempted coup d'etat in the 1930's that failed (search for "Smedley Butler"), and there was an equally traumatic event on 9/11/2001.
What amazes me is how willing people have been to believe the "official stories" of these events, despite the overwhelming evidence that the official narrative was a lie.
== ==
Do you want to discuss the flaws in the official story, or have you already done the research?
as Plato said; if it worked in the past it will work now,[ pigs are pigs LH]; how many usa presidents died in office? for awhile they were dropping like flies like the Caesars there not the hidden hand that is in control. After Lincolns death the son of the women that help Lincolns killers ended up in England and Rome to be safe. we have always been under control and now its time the for new century of change; bigger hat fewer cattle. take the blinders off and this look at the plan there saying the change will be. and it aint what is was its called the 4th world.
 
Last edited:

lorenhough

Well-Known Member
Please allow me to introduce myself


Sympathy For The Devil Lyrics


 

lorenhough

Well-Known Member
"Sympathy For The Devil" It was written by Jagger, Mick / Richards, Keith.? so they say but I don't believe they the boy band did.

"The Devil Is My Name", and here is my game

''woo"? "WHO" had it wrote ? who is really singing this song? and why ?

is it the same big boys who wrote walrus? etc. & the Beatles walrus made the movie with a-bomb at the end that I saw in a dark theater 100 feet high!. I am HE!

I am he as you are he as you are me
And we are all together [he you me? ]

Please allow me to introduce myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
I've been around for a long, long year
Stole many a man's soul to waste
And I was 'round when Jesus Christ
Had his moment of doubt and pain
Made damn sure that Pilate
Washed his hands and sealed his fate
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game
I stuck around St. Petersburg
When I saw it was a time for a change
Killed the czar and his ministers
Anastasia screamed in vain
I rode a tank
Held a general's rank
When the blitzkrieg raged
And the bodies stank
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name, oh yeah
Ah, what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game, oh yeah
(Woo woo, woo woo)
I watched with glee
While your kings and queens
Fought for ten decades
For the gods they made
(Woo woo, woo woo)
I shouted out,
Who killed the Kennedys?
When after all
It was you and me
(Who who, who who)
Let me please introduce myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
And I laid traps for troubadours
Who get killed before they reached Bombay
(Woo woo, who who)
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guessed my name, oh yeah
(Who who)
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game, oh yeah, get down, baby
(Who who, who who)
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guessed my name, oh yeah
But what's confusing you
Is just the nature of my game
(Woo woo, who who)
Just as every cop is a criminal
And all the sinners saints
As heads is tails
Just call me Lucifer
'Cause I'm in need of some restraint
(Who who, who who)
So if you meet me
Have some courtesy
Have some sympathy, and some taste
(Woo woo)
Use all your well-learned politesse
Or I'll lay your soul to waste, mm yeah
(Woo woo, woo woo)
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guessed my name, mm yeah
(Who who)
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game, mm mean it, get down
(Woo woo, woo woo)
Woo, who
Oh yeah, get on down
Oh yeah
Oh yeah!
(Woo woo)
Tell me baby, what's my name
Tell me honey, can ya guess my name
Tell me baby, what's my name
I tell you one time, you're to blame
Oh, who
Woo, woo
Woo, who
Woo, woo
Woo, who, who
Woo, who, who
Oh, yeah
What's my name
Tell me, baby, what's my name
Tell me, sweetie, what's my name
Woo, who, who
Woo, who, who
Woo, who, who
Woo, who, who
Woo, who, who
Woo, who, who
Oh, yeah
Woo woo
Woo woo

Man, you should have seen them kicking
Edgar Allen Poe
I am the eggman
They are the eggmen
I am the walrus
Goo goo g' joob
Goo goo goo g' joob
Goo goo g' joob
Goo goo goo g' joob
Goo goo

Read more: Beatles - I Am The Walrus Lyrics | MetroLyrics


Sympathy for the Devil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sympathy_for_the_Devil


"Sympathy for the Devil" was written by Mick Jagger and Keith Richards, though the song was largely a Jagger composition.[1] The working title of the song was "The Devil Is My Name", and it is sung by Jagger as a first-person narrative from the point of view of Lucifer.[2]

In the 2012 BBC documentary Crossfire Hurricane, Jagger stated that his influence for the song came from Baudelaire and from the Russian author Mikhail Bulgakov's novel The Master and Margarita (which had just appeared in English translation in 1967). The book was given to him by Marianne Faithfull.

In a 1995 interview with Rolling Stone, Jagger said, "I think that was taken from an old idea of Baudelaire's, I think, but I could be wrong. Sometimes when I look at my Baudelaire books, I can't see it in there. But it was an idea I got from French writing. And I just took a couple of lines and expanded on it. I wrote it as sort of like a Bob Dylan song."[1] It was Richards who suggested changing the tempo and using additional percussion, turning the folk song into a samba.[3]

Backed by an intensifying rock arrangement, the narrator, with narcissistic relish, recounts his exploits over the course of human history and warns the listener: "If you meet me, have some courtesy, have some sympathy, and some taste; use all your well-learned politesse, or I'll lay your soul to waste." Jagger stated in the Rolling Stone interview: "... it's a very long historical figure — the figures of evil and figures of good — so it is a tremendously long trail he's made as personified in this piece."

Contrary to a widespread misconception, it was "Under My Thumb" and not "Sympathy for the Devil" that the Rolling Stones were performing when Meredith Hunter was killed at the Altamont Free Concert.[5] Rolling Stone magazine's early articles on the incident misreported that the killing took place during "Sympathy for the Devil",[10] but the Stones in fact played "Sympathy for the Devil" earlier in the concert; it was interrupted by a fight and restarted, Jagger commenting, "We're always having—something very funny happens when we start that number." Several other songs were performed before Hunter was killed.[8] wiki
 
Last edited:

lorenhough

Well-Known Member
"Sympathy For The Devil"
In a 1995 interview with Rolling Stone, Jagger said, "I think that was taken from an old idea of Baudelaire's Russian author

Mikhail Bulgakov's novel The Master and Margarita

(which had just appeared in English translation in 1967). The book was given to him by Mari-anne Faithfull.


Plot summary
The novel alternates between two settings. The first is 1930s Moscow, where 'Satan'
appears at the Patriarch Ponds in the guise of "Professor" Woland, a mysterious gentleman "magician" of uncertain origin. He arrives with a retinue that includes the grotesquely dressed valet Koroviev; the mischievous, gun-happy, fast-talking black cat Behemoth; the fanged hitman Azazello; the pale-faced Abadonna; and the witch Hella. They wreak havoc targeting the literary elite and its trade union MASSOLIT.[note 1] Its privileged HQ is Griboyedov's House and is made up of corrupt social climbers and their women (wives and mistresses alike), bureaucrats, profiteers, and, more generally, skeptical unbelievers in the human spirit.

The second setting is the Jerusalem of Pontius Pilate, described by Woland in his conversations with Berlioz and later echoed in the pages of the Master's novel. This part of the novel concerns Pontius Pilate's trial of Yeshua Ha-Notsri, his recognition of an affinity with, and spiritual need for, Yeshua and his reluctant but resigned submission to Yeshua's execution.

Part one of the novel opens with a direct confrontation between the unbelieving head of the literary bureaucracy, Berlioz, and an urbane foreign gentleman (Woland) who defends belief and reveals his prophetic powers. Berlioz brushes off the prophecy of his death, only to have it come true just pages later in the novel. The fulfillment of this death prophecy is witnessed by a young and enthusiastically modern poet, Ivan Ponyrev, who writes his poems under the alias Bezdomny ("homeless"). His futile attempt to chase and capture the "gang" and warn of their evil and mysterious nature lands Ivan in a lunatic asylum. There, Ivan is introduced to the Master, an embittered author, the petty-minded rejection of whose historical novel about Pontius Pilate and Christ leads him to such despair that he burns his manuscript and turns his back on the "real" world, including his devoted lover, Margarita.

Major episodes in the first part of the novel include a satirical portrait of the Massolit and their Griboyedov house; Satan's magic show at the Variety Theatre, satirizing the vanity, greed and gullibility of the new rich; and Woland and his retinue capturing the late Berlioz's apartment for their own use.

Part two of the novel introduces Margarita, the Master's mistress, who refuses to despair over her lover or his work. She is invited to the Devil's midnight ball, where Woland offers her the chance to become a witch with supernatural powers. This takes place the night of Good Friday, with the same spring full moon as when Christ's fate is sealed by Pontius Pilate and he is crucified in Jerusalem, which is also dealt with in the Master's novel. All three events in the novel are linked by this.

Learning to fly and control her unleashed passions (not without exacting violent retribution on the literary bureaucrats who condemned her beloved to despair) and taking her enthusiastic maid Natasha with her, Margarita enters naked into the realm of night. She flies over the deep forests and rivers of the USSR, bathes and returns with Azazello, her escort, to Moscow as the anointed hostess for Satan's great Spring Ball. Standing by his side, she welcomes the dark celebrities of human history as they arrive from Hell.

She survives this ordeal without breaking; and, for her pains, Satan offers to grant Margarita her deepest wish. Margarita selflessly chooses to liberate a woman whom she met at the ball from the woman's eternal punishment: the woman was raped and had later suffocated her newborn by stuffing a handkerchief in its mouth. Her punishment was to wake up every morning and find the same handkerchief lying on her nightstand. Satan grants her first wish and offers her another, citing that the first wish was unrelated to Margarita's own desires. For her second wish, she chooses to liberate the Master and live in poverty-stricken love with him.

Neither Woland nor Yeshua appreciates her chosen way of life, and Azazello is sent to retrieve them. The three drink Pontius Pilate's poisoned wine in the Master's basement. Master and Margarita die, though their death is metaphorical as Azazello watches their physical manifestations die. Azazello reawakens them, and they leave civilization with the Devil as Moscow's cupolas and windows burn in the setting Easter sun. The Master and Margarita, for not having lost their faith in humanity, are granted "peace" but are denied "light" — that is, they will spend eternity together in a shadowy yet pleasant region similar to Dante's depiction of Limbo, having not earned the glories of Heaven, but not deserving the punishments of Hell. As a parallel to the Master and Margarita's freedom, Pontius Pilate is released from his eternal punishment when the Master finally calls out to Pontius Pilate telling him he's free to finally walk up the moonbeam path in his dreams to Yeshua, where another eternity awaits;

Freemason interpretation
It was noted many times in various studies that the novel abounds with Freemason symbols, often showing Freemason rituals which, as the theory implies, originate from the mystery plays of Ancient Egypt and Ancient Greece, and suggest that Bulgakov had knowledge of Freemasonry.[8] Bulgakov may have obtained this knowledge from his father, Afanasiy Bulgakov, and his book Modern Freemasonry.[9]

"The Devil Is My Name",

no Sympathy for a widows son
son of a stone mason LH

The apocryphal Nag Hammadi codex "The First Revelation of James" states: Jesus speaking to James "I called you my brother, though you are not physically my brother."
Flevit super illam (He wept over it); by Enrique Simonet
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Is there an answer about who killed the Kennedys? "After all it was you and me." Pretty broad diffusion of responsibility.

When you consider a song with a title like "sympathy for the devil" you have to consider the possibility that it's meant ironically, or as a paradox. "And all the sinners saints, As heads is tails, Just call me Lucifer" but heads aren't tails, and sinners aren't saints!

I always get confused about whether God is Lucifer, or vice versa, and the Stones weren't trying to clear things up for me.
 

lorenhough

Well-Known Member
Is there an answer about who killed the Kennedys? "After all it was you and me." Pretty broad diffusion of responsibility.

When you consider a song with a title like "sympathy for the devil" you have to consider the possibility that it's meant ironically, or as a paradox. "And all the sinners saints, As heads is tails, Just call me Lucifer" but heads aren't tails, and sinners aren't saints!

I always get confused about whether God is Lucifer, or vice versa, and the Stones weren't trying to clear things up for me.
that's not how I read it; as far as i know i am the 1st to see this with joes help; my theory is

they are telling the family history story as there family was in control of rome and made up the story of Christ and they took out the czar in Russia ; made hitler hitler and started ww2 down through history they play there part in jfk etc. and it was 'them' when they say you and me; it is not us. Lucifer is not there name; just there massage of what there like god
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
You're right, Loren, that Jagger and the Stones (and Bulgakov) were referring to the complex of Masonic ideas and symbols we're talking about. And it seems pretty likely that this is part of the black propaganda scheme we're talking about here. Good find, and well worth investigating, thanks.

Hmmm... they didn't say "I shouted out, Who killed the Kennedys? when after all it was Oswald." Not Oswald, but you and me.. meaning Lucifer (that is, the illuminated ones) plus the general public who remained quiescent and accepted LBJ and the Vietnam war as consequences?

Ultimately, the Stones are perhaps saying, the sheeple have to take some responsibility here.
 
Top