Choose Search Type
Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Latest topics
» Shirley Temple is Prayer Man According to Duncan McRae
Today at 4:12 am by steely dan

» The Eighth Naval District
Yesterday at 11:33 pm by Hasan Yusuf

» Send Lawyers Guns & Money Pt2
Yesterday at 8:08 pm by barto

» Send Lawyers Guns & Money Pt1
Yesterday at 11:58 am by barto

» JFK Assassination
Yesterday at 7:15 am by jack ferguson

» Lifton on his "new evidence"
Yesterday at 4:47 am by steely dan

» friends student exchange programs
Wed 07 Dec 2016, 12:01 pm by greg parker

» Richard Bernarbei
Tue 06 Dec 2016, 11:29 pm by barto

» The Facts about Connally's Wounds
Tue 06 Dec 2016, 11:23 am by Paul Francisco Paso

Log in

I forgot my password

Social bookmarking

Social bookmarking Digg  Social bookmarking Delicious  Social bookmarking Reddit  Social bookmarking Stumbleupon  Social bookmarking Slashdot  Social bookmarking Furl  Social bookmarking Yahoo  Social bookmarking Google  Social bookmarking Blinklist  Social bookmarking Blogmarks  Social bookmarking Technorati  

Bookmark and share the address of REOPENKENNEDYCASE on your social bookmarking website

Bookmark and share the address of REOPENKENNEDYCASE on your social bookmarking website

RSS feeds


Yahoo! 
MSN 
AOL 
Netvibes 
Bloglines 


Affiliates
free forum
 



16 Candles

View previous topic View next topic Go down

16 Candles

Post by Stan Dane on Tue 27 May 2014, 4:17 am

The things music can bring to mind. I heard 16 Candles on an oldies station and then I started thinking about 16 Questions. I found a copy of Bertrand Russell's 1964 paper, "16 Questions on the Assassination." Pretty insightful dude for his day, seeing's how most, if not all, of the questions remain unanswered.

http://sydwalker.info/blog/2013/10/05/betrand-russells-16-questions-on-the-jfk-assassination/

  1. Why were all the members of the Warren Commission closely connected with the U.S. Government?
  2. If, as we are told, Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin, where is the issue of national security?
  3. If the Government is so certain of its case, why has it conducted all its inquiries in the strictest secrecy?
  4. Why did the Warren Commission not establish a panel to deal with the question of who killed President John F. Kennedy?
  5. Why have so many liberals abandoned their own responsibility to a Commission whose circumstances they refuse to examine?
  6. Why did the authorities follow many persons as potential assassins and fail to observe Oswald’s entry into the book depository building while allegedly carrying a rifle over three feet long?
  7. Why was the President’s route changed at the last minute to take him past Oswald’s place of work?
  8. Why has the medical evidence concerning the President’s death been altered out of recognition?
  9. What is the evidence to substantiate the allegation that the President was shot from behind?
  10. Why has the FBI refused to publish what could be the most reliable piece of evidence in the whole case [photographs taken of JFK’s vehicle just before and during the shooting]?
  11. How is it that millions of people have been misled by complete forgeries [of photos of the murder weapon] in the press?
  12. Why was the result of the paraffin test altered before being announced by the authorities?
  13. Why was the only description of Tippit’s killer deliberately omitted by the police from the affidavit of the sole eyewitness?
  14. Why was Oswald’s description in connection with the murder of Patrolman Tippit broadcast over Dallas police radio at 12:43 p.m. on November 22, when Tippit was not shot until 1:06 p.m.?
  15. How was it possible for Earl Warren to forecast that Marina Oswald’s evidence would be exactly the reverse of what she had previously testified?
  16. How does a District Attorney of Wade’s great experience account for all the extraordinary changes in evidence and testimony which he has announced during the Oswald case?

Stan Dane

Posts : 2330
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 63

View user profile https://prayermanleeharveyoswald.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: 16 Candles

Post by Frankie Vegas on Mon 02 Jun 2014, 11:42 am

Number 16 is a good one, considering what we know now about Wade and his way of getting convictions.
I find lots of the early work has stood the test of time really well. I imagine it was more difficult then without the internet, yet way less convoluted without every Tom Dick and Harry putting up their pet versions of what happened on their personal Youtube channel.
I have a pretty good collection of some early work. One of my faves is a book called "The Unanswered Questions About President Kennedy's Assassination" By Sylvan Fox, written in 1964 and published 65.
'If you prefer to believe that you have been given the final answers to the assassination, don't read this book, otherwise, you are in for an unsettling experience... in the highest traditions of journalism.'
- Edwin Silberling, Chief of the Organised Crime and Racketeering Division of the United States Dept of Justice under Robert F Kennedy.

His questions are:
1.The question of motive
2. Was there a conspiracy?
3. How was it possible?
4. How many shots were fired?
5. Why did Oswald kill Tippit?
6. What happened to Jackie?
7. Marina: Mystery Witness
8. Why did Ruby shoot Oswald?
9. Who was Lee Harvey Oswald?
10. Guilty or Innocent?
11. Can it happen again?

Frankie Vegas

Posts : 367
Join date : 2009-11-09
Age : 33
Location : New Zealand

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 16 Candles

Post by Terry W. Martin on Tue 03 Jun 2014, 4:22 am

Good questions, Frankie...

Now we have 27 questions to answer.
And they are all important.

Terry W. Martin

Posts : 690
Join date : 2013-11-30
Age : 65
Location : Middleburg, VA, USA

View user profile http://martianpublishing.com

Back to top Go down

Re: 16 Candles

Post by greg parker on Tue 03 Jun 2014, 8:15 am

Frankie Vegas wrote:Number 16 is a good one, considering what we know now about Wade and his way of getting convictions.
I find lots of the early work has stood the test of time really well. I imagine it was more difficult then without the internet, yet way less convoluted without every Tom Dick and Harry putting up their pet versions of what happened on their personal Youtube channel.
I have a pretty good collection of some early work. One of my faves is a book called "The Unanswered Questions About President Kennedy's Assassination" By Sylvan Fox, written in 1964 and published 65.
'If you prefer to believe that you have been given the final answers to the assassination, don't read this book, otherwise, you are in for an unsettling experience... in the highest traditions of journalism.'
- Edwin Silberling, Chief of the Organised Crime and Racketeering Division of the United States Dept of Justice under Robert F Kennedy.

His questions are:
1.The question of motive
(current thinking) TFX contracts, getting LBJ into power, revenge for BOP etc 
2. Was there a conspiracy?
Yes
3. How was it possible?
One man knowing all the right people
4. How many shots were fired?
Who cares?
5. Why did Oswald kill Tippit?
Begging the question
6. What happened to Jackie?
She eventually remarried and died
7. Marina: Mystery Witness
?
8. Why did Ruby shoot Oswald?
A number of psychological tricks used on top of chemicals to convince him to do it
9. Who was Lee Harvey Oswald?
A kid with Asperger's whose family got caught up in Cold War BS and allowed him to be used
10. Guilty or Innocent?
LHO? Innocent
11. Can it happen again?
It HAS happened again - because they have been getting away with it since at least 1948. That said, it's unlikely to recur in the US any time soon because it has finally reached the point where NO  ONE is going to buy into another Lone Nut.

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3448
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: 16 Candles

Post by Goban Saor on Tue 03 Jun 2014, 8:37 am

My view on the question of motive is that it all comes down to the old bitch goddess, money or, more precisely, greed.

Which is probably just a simpler version of Greg’s answer.

JFK was standing in the way of the raping of the planet by warmongering imperialist kleptocrats and he had to be eliminated.

Goban Saor

Posts : 170
Join date : 2013-07-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 16 Candles

Post by greg parker on Tue 03 Jun 2014, 10:22 am

Goban Saor wrote:My view on the question of motive is that it all comes down to the old bitch goddess, money or, more precisely, greed.

Which is probably just a simpler version of Greg’s answer.

JFK was standing in the way of the raping of the planet by warmongering imperialist kleptocrats and he had to be eliminated.
There you go with that "Big Picture" stuff again!  What the? 

That was the overarching "mind set" of some very influential individuals/corporations/politicians/military types that navigated and weaved its way throughout modern US history... yet there was no need to assassinate him to get rid of him. They could simply have thrown all their wealth, influence and bag of dirty tricks into making sure he lost the upcoming election. The ONLY reasons to assassinate him prior to an election he could lose (or be made to lose) would be to get LBJ in and to make certain potential criminal actions go away. These same people were already pissed (VERY pissed) about the BOP and Missile Crisis. They had no desire to bring an end to the Cold war and all the money it generated for the War Industry. It was the very essence of the MICC.

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3448
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: 16 Candles

Post by Terry W. Martin on Tue 03 Jun 2014, 11:36 am

greg parker wrote:That was the overarching "mind set" of some very influential individuals/corporations/politicians/military types that navigated and weaved its way throughout modern US history... yet there was no need to assassinate him to get rid of him. They could simply have thrown all their wealth, influence and bag of dirty tricks into making sure he lost the upcoming election. The ONLY reasons to assassinate him prior to an election he could lose (or be made to lose) would be to get LBJ in and to make certain potential criminal actions go away. These same people were already pissed (VERY pissed) about the BOP and Missile Crisis. They had no desire to bring an end to the Cold war and all the money it generated for the War Industry. It was the very essence of the MICC.

Historically speaking, the "shadow government" or Illuminati or whatever name you choose did not need to kill JFK. They had been controlling the economies and thereby the governments of most the planet for some time now. To kill the President would draw undue attention to them and their power.

When politicians and governments in the past had gotten in their way, they assassinated characters and destroyed politicians' power bases. Why kill a person and make his causes strengthened via martyrdom? Best to simply expose them as shallow grasping flawed humans and be done with it. In that way their causes would be destroyed as well.

IMHO Kennedy was killed for personal reasons, not political ones.

Terry W. Martin

Posts : 690
Join date : 2013-11-30
Age : 65
Location : Middleburg, VA, USA

View user profile http://martianpublishing.com

Back to top Go down

Re: 16 Candles

Post by Goban Saor on Wed 04 Jun 2014, 5:13 am

greg parker wrote:
Goban Saor wrote:My view on the question of motive is that it all comes down to the old bitch goddess, money or, more precisely, greed.

Which is probably just a simpler version of Greg’s answer.

JFK was standing in the way of the raping of the planet by warmongering imperialist kleptocrats and he had to be eliminated.
There you go with that "Big Picture" stuff again!  What the? 

That was the overarching "mind set" of some very influential individuals/corporations/politicians/military types that navigated and weaved its way throughout modern US history... yet there was no need to assassinate him to get rid of him. They could simply have thrown all their wealth, influence and bag of dirty tricks into making sure he lost the upcoming election. The ONLY reasons to assassinate him prior to an election he could lose (or be made to lose) would be to get LBJ in and to make certain potential criminal actions go away. These same people were already pissed (VERY pissed) about the BOP and Missile Crisis. They had no desire to bring an end to the Cold war and all the money it generated for the War Industry. It was the very essence of the MICC.


Going on your final few sentences, Greg, we seem to be agreed on the Mammon motive.

I think JFK posed a unique threat to the MIC kleptocrats and their ilk. His personal wealth made him dangerously independent (he donated his presidential salary to charity) and he had proved in office that they couldn’t control him. 

Unlike you, I believe they weren’t at all confident they could stop him from being re-elected no matter what they threw at him. Nixon had sworn not to run in 64 and Goldwater was never going to beat JFK. As David Talbot repeatedly pointed out in Brothers, both JFK and RFK were shrewd political operators who knew how to mix it when the going got rough.

As well as that, JFK – and of course Jackie – had a charismatic appeal akin to that of the great stars of stage and screen and JFK knew its political value. Which is why he insisted on going to Dallas to engage personally with the electorate in spite of the danger.

If they thought they could nobble JFK in the 64 election they wouldn’t have murdered him – for the reasons Terlin gave. The only way they were able to stop RJK in 68 was by murdering him.

I doubt the kleptocrats were greatly exercised about shoehorning LBJ into the White House.   LBJ was dispensable and replaceable just like most other corrupt(ible) puppet politicians (as Terlin also implies) and didn’t matter in the overall scheme of things.

JFK did matter because, as James Douglass describes cogently in his book, he didn’t play the puppet role. That’s why I don’t agree with Terlin when he says he believes JFK was killed for personal reasons not political reasons. 

Goban Saor

Posts : 170
Join date : 2013-07-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 16 Candles

Post by Frankie Vegas on Wed 04 Jun 2014, 6:58 am

Goban Saor wrote:
greg parker wrote:
Goban Saor wrote:My view on the question of motive is that it all comes down to the old bitch goddess, money or, more precisely, greed.

Which is probably just a simpler version of Greg’s answer.

JFK was standing in the way of the raping of the planet by warmongering imperialist kleptocrats and he had to be eliminated.
There you go with that "Big Picture" stuff again!  What the? 

That was the overarching "mind set" of some very influential individuals/corporations/politicians/military types that navigated and weaved its way throughout modern US history... yet there was no need to assassinate him to get rid of him. They could simply have thrown all their wealth, influence and bag of dirty tricks into making sure he lost the upcoming election. The ONLY reasons to assassinate him prior to an election he could lose (or be made to lose) would be to get LBJ in and to make certain potential criminal actions go away. These same people were already pissed (VERY pissed) about the BOP and Missile Crisis. They had no desire to bring an end to the Cold war and all the money it generated for the War Industry. It was the very essence of the MICC.


Going on your final few sentences, Greg, we seem to be agreed on the Mammon motive.

I think JFK posed a unique threat to the MIC kleptocrats and their ilk. His personal wealth made him dangerously independent (he donated his presidential salary to charity) and he had proved in office that they couldn’t control him. 

Unlike you, I believe they weren’t at all confident they could stop him from being re-elected no matter what they threw at him. Nixon had sworn not to run in 64 and Goldwater was never going to beat JFK. As David Talbot repeatedly pointed out in Brothers, both JFK and RFK were shrewd political operators who knew how to mix it when the going got rough.

As well as that, JFK – and of course Jackie – had a charismatic appeal akin to that of the great stars of stage and screen and JFK knew its political value. Which is why he insisted on going to Dallas to engage personally with the electorate in spite of the danger.

If they thought they could nobble JFK in the 64 election they wouldn’t have murdered him – for the reasons Terlin gave. The only way they were able to stop RJK in 68 was by murdering him.

I doubt the kleptocrats were greatly exercised about shoehorning LBJ into the White House.   LBJ was dispensable and replaceable just like most other corrupt(ible) puppet politicians (as Terlin also implies) and didn’t matter in the overall scheme of things.

JFK did matter because, as James Douglass describes cogently in his book, he didn’t play the puppet role. That’s why I don’t agree with Terlin when he says he believes JFK was killed for personal reasons not political reasons. 

I agree with this as well. I definitely think it was political and for the same reasons - but can't they also be personal? I believe Dulles and LeMay and others hated JFK. Personally as well as politically. They couldn't control him and he bested them at every turn.

Frankie Vegas

Posts : 367
Join date : 2009-11-09
Age : 33
Location : New Zealand

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 16 Candles

Post by greg parker on Wed 04 Jun 2014, 7:48 am

Goban -- what you describe is what you arrive at looking at it from a panoramic viewpoint. The detail gets lost. Within that wide screen view, there are lots of little playlets being performed, and without fully seeing them, the Big Picture becomes skewed. We have to fill in those details with assumptions which are more informed by personal perspective than anything else.

I have a specific individual in my sights who connects to both the Oswalds and to a major witness against LHO. Moreover he connected to LBJ and to the MICC. 

JFK was no certainty in the 1964 elections. And if someone on YOUR side can play dirty politics against you regarding your health, imagine what the other side would stoop to. And he desperately needed Texas - thus the trip. Yes, the brothers were shrewd and tough. But that's no guarantee of success. Nor was his relatively high personal approval rating. Texas was on the cusp of going Republic, the Hispanic vote was deserting him, and Goldwater was building momentum in the South. Goldwater himself, I should add, would probably not have played dirty - but his supporters? You bet. Mud sticks and a week is a long time in politics. Numbers can get turned upside down very quickly.   

Talbot and Douglass can describe JFK as tough and no one's puppet because both are true. But neither fact is proof of anything beyond that. Assassination is always a last resort. But these people couldn't wait for an election. Assassination was the only way out.

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3448
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: 16 Candles

Post by Goban Saor on Wed 04 Jun 2014, 7:58 am

I can't disagree with any of that, Greg, nor with what Frankie said in the preceding post - not least because I simply don't have the detailed knowledge you have.

Goban Saor

Posts : 170
Join date : 2013-07-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 16 Candles

Post by Hasan Yusuf on Wed 04 Jun 2014, 8:00 am

Goban Saor wrote:JFK did matter because, as James Douglass describes cogently in his book, he didn’t play the puppet role.

Amen to that.

Hasan Yusuf

Posts : 1784
Join date : 2013-03-13
Age : 28
Location : Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

View user profile http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com.au/

Back to top Go down

Re: 16 Candles

Post by Sponsored content Today at 9:01 am


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum