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

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Patrick Kiger, blogging for public TV station WETA, confirms that JFK was instrumental in getting the film "Seven Days in May" produced.

https://blogs.weta.org/boundarystones/2014/05/13/movie-jfk-wanted-made-didnt-live-see

JFK's connection with the film began in the summer of 1962, when syndicated columnist Fletcher Knebel sent the President an advance copy of a novel, Seven Days in May, that he'd co-authored with fellow journalist Charles W. Bailey, Jr. Knebel had been inspired to write the book after he did an interview with U.S. Air Force Gen. Curtis LeMay, in which the military officer went off the record to castigate JFK as cowardly in his handling of the Bay of Pigs crisis. From that thread, Knebel and Bailey spun a tale of a right-wing military coup. It was a storyline that apparently resonated with JFK. In 1961, his Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, even had been compelled to fire U.S Army Gen. Edwin Walker from his command in Europe after it was revealed that Walker had been indoctrinating troops with literature from the John Birch Society, which viewed both JFK and his predecessor Dwight D. Eisenhower as closet communist agents. The President was all too aware of a fringe that shared similar views, especially after Walker showed up in Mississippi to rally white bigots to oppose James Meredith's enrollmen at the University of Mississippi. As Attorney General Robert Kennedy told White House aide Ted Sorenson, Walker was "getting them all stirred up. If he has them march down there with guns, we could have a hell of a battle."

JFK quickly read the book and then shared it with his brother, as well as members of their inner circle. While JFK thought it was marred by "awful amateurish dialogue" and that the President was drawn too vaguely, the character of treasonous Gen. Scott made a strong impression upon him. JFK took it upon himself to ensure that a hit movie was made of the book, as a preemptive strike against his extremist enemies. As JFK aide Pierre Salinger later told journalist and author David Talbot, "Kennedy wanted Seven Days in May to be made as a warning to the generals. The President said, 'The first thing I'm going to tell my successor is, 'Don't trust the military men--even on military matters.'"
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Interesting.

As well, it should be remembered that L. Fletcher Prouty claimed that it was a rogue administration official, one of the Bundy brothers, that independently ordered the Bay of Pigs bombers to stand down, causing the rout of the rebels on the beach. Was this true about Bundy or not? Some say no.

The Bay of Pigs gives us Operation Zapata, and the fact that the two transport ships involved had been renamed (originally from the US Navy) the Houston, and the Barbara. Zapata was the name of George HW Bush's global oil exploration company, which was the perfect cover for his 007 CIA affairs, and from which GHWB later became CIA Director briefly, a supposedly minor oil tycoon. The Texas carpetbagger (from New England), GHWB, lives in Sugarland, Texas, a suburb of Houston, and of course, his wife is named Barbara.

I just happened to watch a video of GHWB giving a speech at Gerald Ford's funeral where, in briefly mentioning JFK's assassination, he was clearly grinning. Like his son's knowing smirk while sitting in the front row of the National Cathedral just after 9/11. There is a quite plausible photo of GHWB standing around at Dealy Plaza in front of the Texas Book Repository just after the shooting. And another similar one showing him at Philip Graham's (owner of the Washington Post) funeral where JFK also attended. There is strong suspicion that Graham's death was a politically motivated professional hit, and not a suicide.

Researchers discovered FBI documents naming a George Bush, of the CIA, as being debriefed on JFK assassination matters. GHWB claimed that these referred to another George Bush. Subsequent investigation turned out that this other George Bush had been hired by the CIA as a file clerk months before the assassination and lasted for a short time after the assassination. He was hired to provide plausible deniability. It is known for sure that GHWB was in Dallas that day, because he was giving a speech to an oil association, in his cover capacity as head of his county Republican Party. As Daniel Hopsicker discovered, GHWB had a long association with a CIA assassination squad operating in Central and South America (Remember such as Day of the Condor). Another document revealed GHWB's association in this time frame with a CIA operative stationed in Greece, known for replacing foreign leaders with American friendly ones.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
The following is the video about GHWB, JFK, and the Phil Graham business. The photos are plausiby deniable, and even if true, they don't present solid proof of complicity in terms of a court of law. But, I would convict on the totality of evidence.

 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
The video is from the "Jeranism" sect. This may be the only sect smaller than Postflavianism; Jeran seems to be the only adherent. But, the key tenet of "Jeranism" is "Flat Earth". So, does that mean the "Jeranism" is related to "Gaffneyism"? Is this another honeypot? Could there be a more trustworthy source on this?
 

lorenhough

Well-Known Member
Patrick Kiger, blogging for public TV station WETA, confirms that JFK was instrumental in getting the film "Seven Days in May" produced.

https://blogs.weta.org/boundarystones/2014/05/13/movie-jfk-wanted-made-didnt-live-see

JFK's connection with the film began in the summer of 1962, when syndicated columnist Fletcher Knebel sent the President an advance copy of a novel, Seven Days in May, that he'd co-authored with fellow journalist Charles W. Bailey, Jr. Knebel had been inspired to write the book after he did an interview with U.S. Air Force Gen. Curtis LeMay, in which the military officer went off the record to castigate JFK as cowardly in his handling of the Bay of Pigs crisis. From that thread, Knebel and Bailey spun a tale of a right-wing military coup. It was a storyline that apparently resonated with JFK. In 1961, his Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, even had been compelled to fire U.S Army Gen. Edwin Walker from his command in Europe after it was revealed that Walker had been indoctrinating troops with literature from the John Birch Society, which viewed both JFK and his predecessor Dwight D. Eisenhower as closet communist agents. The President was all too aware of a fringe that shared similar views, especially after Walker showed up in Mississippi to rally white bigots to oppose James Meredith's enrollmen at the University of Mississippi. As Attorney General Robert Kennedy told White House aide Ted Sorenson, Walker was "getting them all stirred up. If he has them march down there with guns, we could have a hell of a battle."

JFK quickly read the book and then shared it with his brother, as well as members of their inner circle. While JFK thought it was marred by "awful amateurish dialogue" and that the President was drawn too vaguely, the character of treasonous Gen. Scott made a strong impression upon him. JFK took it upon himself to ensure that a hit movie was made of the book, as a preemptive strike against his extremist enemies. As JFK aide Pierre Salinger later told journalist and author David Talbot, "Kennedy wanted Seven Days in May to be made as a warning to the generals. The President said, 'The first thing I'm going to tell my successor is, 'Don't trust the military men--even on military matters.'"
Interestingly, JFK also persuaded Hollywood director John Frankenheimer to turn the novel Seven Days in May into a movie. It would end up being released after his “assassination,” and it was probably a script for the takeover of the shadow government that followed the assassination. Was this a blatant attempt to make the American people more amenable to the idea of shadow government? To quote,

Patrick Kiger, blogging for public TV station WETA, confirms that JFK was instrumental in getting the film "Seven Days in May" produced.

Maybe also the faking


https://blogs.weta.org/boundarystones/2014/05/13/movie-jfk-wanted-made-didnt-live-see

JFK's connection with the film began in the summer of 1962, when syndicated columnist Fletcher Knebel sent the President an advance copy of a novel, Seven Days in May, that he'd co-authored with fellow journalist Charles W. Bailey, Jr. Knebel had been inspired to write the book after he did an interview with U.S. Air Force Gen. Curtis LeMay,

JFK quickly read the book and then shared it with his brother, as well as members of their inner circle.

.
Interestingly, JFK also persuaded Hollywood director John Frankenheimer to turn the novel Seven Days in May into a movie. It would end up being released after his “assassination,” and it was probably a script for the takeover of the shadow government that followed the assassination. Was this a blatant attempt to make the American people more amenable to the idea of shadow government?

In this book, a charismatic superior officer, Air Force General James Mattoon Scott, intend to "stage"
a coup d’état ….

Joe just said on Tims Kelly podcast that he thought Mrs jfk was in on the killing of jfk as she new many of the players all here life, and that she would go along with a photo op with a bloody dress on etc.
I say she was in on it
But she would not had put her head next jfk when he is being shot
So this being all faked
Makes more sense to get all the people they need to go along with it
He moves to island, JFK Heath was going down anyway
Mrs jfk fake marriage
See this for best prof I have seen yet
http://www.cabaltimes.com/2015/06/29/jfk-faked-death/


Wow I just read this the evidence for the faking
Miles report PDF a must read !!
http://mileswmathis.com/barindex2.pdf
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
This is very interesting, and I agree with the main thesis of Tarpley, that Wall Street interests and the CIA were the prime drivers. The Harriman and Bush family's had deep roots, before the CIA's foundation, like the money laundering for the Nazis in the 30's. However, I think he still has too much of a romantic notion of Kennedy's Camelot, and FDR's machinations as well.

However, I think that Miles Mathis's and Tyrone McCloskey's take on JFK, and his true motivations, is the more likely. Namely that JFK, from the wider family milieu, can be seen somewhat more like the 'populist' motivations of Julius Caesar. JC was a 'populist', first for rewarding his soldiers with land and a pension, but only secondarily for the masses if it might benefit him more. Hence the great rhetoric.

Today, we have yet another great populist con, Donald John Trump, who reprises all this to a golf T. Like JFK the WH is half loaded with players from the biggest Wall Street bank, Goldman Sachs, but who put a gun to his head to do so? Likewise, Trump constantly said he was going to drain the Washington D.C. lobbying Swamp and then he made Paul Manafort his campaign leader. Manafort was one of the men who revolutionized the Washington D.C. Swamp. It's not like he didn't know Manafort, as PM lived in Trump Tower, and they shared Russian friends.

Why was Tarpley so willing to ignore the associations of JFK's father. Why aren't these relevant to the analysis?

FDR is conveniently popular with the left progressives because of the New Deal policies, but what if FDR had to implement certain of them because his political hand was being forced, and not because that was his intention?

We have recently discovered that the original 'Fitzgerald' (a strain in the Kennedy clan) was really a Norman knight, who married into the Irish, and thus became known as "more Irish than the Irish." Ralph Ellis proposes that the name 'Camelot' refers to Egyptian origins (from Kemet) and hints at the likely 'Norman' role in the 18th and 19th Egyptian Dynasties and the original foundation of Israel (as claimed by Nicholas De Vere).
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I think that Miles Mathis's and Tyrone McCloskey's take on JFK, and his true motivations, is the more likely.
Moved to Tyrone's thread for continuity. But, I think it's reasonable to believe that JFK might have had a genuine change of heart, and become a true progressive late in his life.

And I don't think it's even possible to really know JFK's internal motivations. It's hard enough just to get the facts about what he did, and who killed him.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
I think it's reasonable to believe that JFK might have had a genuine change of heart, and become a true progressive late in his life.
Based on exactly what? Most of the 'progressive' things he never got around to, leaving us to wonder if they were for real or just part of the supposed acid trip. What did get accomplished posthumously was that it was no longer acceptable for WASPs to rag on American Catholics. It worked out well for the ecumenical movement, and for Catholics to move into significant political power.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
There have been lots more books purporting that some Jesus of Nazareth (or the Nazarene) was a divinity known as the Christos, but this doesn't prove that the thesis is true. Thus, JFK was typologically another 'failed' messiah who is purported to have wanted to do many things that the imperium would not like. Then he got killed for it, ... and then Catholics were no longer second class citizens in what had been WASPlandia. And so yet ... like Jesus, JFK didn't fail in (alleged) death, at least. Albeit that Jesus took 300 years to achieve political results.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
There have been lots more books purporting that some Jesus of Nazareth (or the Nazarene) was a divinity known as the Christos, but this doesn't prove that the thesis is true.
Yes, and one doesn't expect to resolve that debate once and for all in a brief forum post either. All I'm saying is, if you want to know why I think JFK's expressed beliefs might have been genuine, here's a book length reference for you. I've read excerpts and consider it generally well researched and well argued.

Thus, JFK was typologically another 'failed' messiah who is purported to have wanted to do many things that the imperium would not like.
Yes, and we are merely debating whether he actually wanted to do those things, or whether he was really a psychopathic "lifetime actor" who was lying as he talked about what he wanted. Either way, it doesn't change the facts of what happened.

and then Catholics were no longer second class citizens in what had been WASPlandia.
One might argue that this process was well under way when JFK was elected in the first place. But he was elected as a "liberal" Catholic; that is, he denied that he would recognize any temporal authority for the Pope or the church hierarchy.

And isn't this what liberalism is all about? Would we argue that Muslims or Jews or Protestant Christians are disqualified to participate in democracy because of their crackpot authoritarian religious dogma? Orthodox Islam calls for Sharia law. Orthodox Judaism says that Jews are "God's Chosen People" and that all others are less than dogs. Orthodox Protestantism has been interpreted to say "kill them all, and let God sort them out." Personally I don't like to vote for any of them, I wish we had more secular candidates. But, many Muslims, Jews and Protestants reject fundamentalist irrationality, authoritarianism and intolerance.

But, the problem is not Catholics in politics. The problem is with those Catholics (hopefully, a small minority) who actually want to make the US government into a branch of the Vatican.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Yes, and we are merely debating whether he actually wanted to do those things, or whether he was really a psychopathic "lifetime actor" who was lying as he talked about what he wanted. Either way, it doesn't change the facts of what happened.
You mean that the autopsy photos look like a body double was used?

I say we get some DNA. Except that JFK is likely dead by now, and so "they" have placed him in Arlington in place of his double. Sneaky bastards.

One might argue that this process was well under way when JFK was elected in the first place.
How so?
But he was elected as a "liberal" Catholic; that is, he denied that he would recognize any temporal authority for the Pope or the church hierarchy.
"He denied." That's what he said. And he had to say that because he was constantly asked about this issue.

No one could ever get away with asking a candidate if he was Catholic today, while the radical cultural Xian Right still makes much about Muslims running for office. And Dogod forbid an atheist from running for President. Fortunately, for Trump he's a 'good' Presbyterian, of sorts.

And isn't this what liberalism is all about?
Letting people that might answer to two masters have authority over one's life? This looks like an Achilles Heel for Liberal Democracy now. Especially when the 'Hidden Master' is an avowed enemy, and/or the Hidden Master's script book is being interpreted literally by hordes of demonic chimpigs.

Orthodox Protestantism has been interpreted to say "kill them all, and let God sort them out."
What? I was raised in a very 'Liberal' Church Jerry. Although there was one guy that was a John Bircher, and a few Freemasons.
But, the problem is not Catholics in politics. The problem is with those Catholics (hopefully, a small minority) who actually want to make the US government into a branch of the Vatican.
Saussy's thesis was that we've been a branch of the Vatican all along, only we didn't know it. Now, the veil is to be lifted, after the demonic fundamentalists jump over the cliffs with their false messiah.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
You mean that the autopsy photos look like a body double was used?
I've heard a story that the corpse was substituted en route from Parkland to Bethesda, so that the body presented to the autopsy would conform better with the official story of the magic bullet's trajectory. In a case like the JFK assassination, as you know, there are some fake news stories thrown up to confuse matters. I haven't looked into this in enough detail to have any feel for the credibility of the story.

Miles Mathis says that the photos of the corpse at Bethesda look like an obvious substitute. But, it looks to me like that body could be JFK. Or, maybe not. It's deceased and beat up, and the photo quality is not very good.

What I think happened, in broad terms, is that JFK presented himself as a progressive. He implemented some policy changes, and threatened more. Some conspiracy somewhere within the "Deep State" materialized to take him out. Whether this was all scripted kabuki theater, or whether it represented a real drama, I don't know.

What I mean is that if it were really impossible for a Catholic to be elected, then JFK would never have made it to the Senate, much less the Presidency. So, the change of attitudes towards Catholics in politics, was already well under way.

Letting people that might answer to two masters have authority over one's life? This looks like an Achilles Heel for Liberal Democracy now.
Yes indeed, and this is exactly why conservatives argue against electing Muslims to office. They, too, might potentially have two masters. And yet, the mayor of London is a practicing Sunni Muslim. He says he's a liberal and not a terrorist.

So, I say we should be happy to see self-professed Liberals elected to office, whether they happen to be Catholic, Sunni, Jewish or whatever. Yes, they could be lying and maybe their true loyalties are to their religious hierarchy. But then, anybody could be a Crypto something else, or a Lifetime Actor. What to do? Judge politicians by their actions as well as words.

Did somebody around here mention a theory that history goes in cycles? Here's one more cause. Voters get increasingly confused by propaganda, and make bad choices. Democracy gets overthrown by the authoritarian Beast from the Sea. After enduring great privations, decimation, and slavery, the people wise up and re-assert their rights. Democracy and the rule of law are reinvented, and the elite are forced into submergence. Rinse and repeat at 500 year, 1000 year or 2000 year intervals.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
There is one major difference between Catholics and most all the other Abrahamic branches. The former answer to one human and supposedly divinely (to them) ordained authority, and their social-cultural tradition is to obey the 'respected authority' figures, the ecclesiastical before the secular. Even though American Catholics are differentially 'liberalized' on the whole (compared to in other countries), there are yet substantial pockets of conservative Traditionalism.

Did somebody around here mention a theory that history goes in cycles?
Yes, exactly. While I try to remain in an objective reporting mode, I am not happy about being correct. I see no good or easy solutions, and that's why I have said before that humanity seems to have a long, long way to go, before it finds a solution, if ever.

That said, I say that JFK's political positioning seems awfully convenient for his messiah aspect. Prior to this time he was a notorious playboy and superficial, and once President he was yet a playboy. Even the Camelot theme suggested the same end. Another coincidence no doubt. His father was a Nazi sympathizer like Prescott Bush's, and similar to Trump's white nationalist pandering and Trump's father's KKK association.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Did somebody around here mention a theory that history goes in cycles?
Just remembered that I recently watched Tony Robinson's (2003) Legends of Power series, episodes 2 and 3 on Julius Caesar. He discusses that JC's destruction of the Republic was the next logical and necessary step for the Romans, as the Republic, as constituted, was not capable of ruling the vastly expanded domains that first Pompey had garnered and then JC after Pompey. Robinson discusses JC's personal attributes in a manner that evokes thinking of Trump.

Episodes 4 and 5 are on Caligula and Nero, and episode 1 is interestingly on Richard III. And I remember those interesting references that Shakespeare made in Richard III about JC. Robinson came to the conclusion that Richard III had indeed ordered the killing of his nephews, as from them being existential threats to him. And even though he had declared their father and his brother Edward IV illegitimate, and thus them as well.

Lots of red heads and green eyes.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
I forgot to mention that Robinson briefly mentioned Julius Caesar's 'last supper' with his frenassassin [like frenemy], Brutus, in attendance, and discussed was that Caesar's demise was immanent. JC also said that he preferred a sudden death, when asked. According to legend, at least, it was an ancestor of Brutus who killed the last king of the Romans, and that this king might have been an ancestor of JC's as well. The Republican Romans (more 'egalitarians' with slaves) supposedly hated kings because of their excesses, yet JC did everything he could to inspire great animus before and after he became Dictator / Imperator.

Similarly, the other JC tells his disciples that one of them will betray him, and then tells Judas to leave and 'go about his business'.

The one quarter Welshman, Henry Tudor, had in his legend kit that the Welsh had descent from one of those Bruti, at least, and in the Tudor propaganda he struck down Richard III, the claimed murderer of Richard's own nephews. Is this the reason for Shakespeare's cryptic references to Julius Caesar in Richard III? Was this a statement that the old order and the times was a'changing? Henry VIII's minister, Cromwell, converted England into the first 'modern' state ... and an expanding global imperium of sorts, Henry holding both crown and crosier.

Once the Church heals its schisms, including the Church of England, it will have rolled up everything back into one ball of wax. With the outcome of WWII, England ran into the juggernaut of Rome on the Tiber, the USA, and less than twenty years later there was a Catholic President and another dead messiah to seal the deal.
 
Top