Hello...I just joined this forum and it's quite interesting to say the least. I have a theory about the JFK assassination, and I have thought about this for quite awhile. I have heard the assassination described as a "coup d' etat", and I agree with this assessment. However, one of the main tenets of a coup is that someone has to benefit...not just something, as in the CIA, oil barons, or something like that. Excluding MLK and Malcolm X, there were three major political assassinations or attempted assassinations from the period 1963-1972. These were JFK, RFK, and George Wallace. All three of these men shared something...and someone...in common. All three had either run in or were running in presidential elections involving Richard M. Nixon. Remember, if Nixon hadn't lost the California governor's race in 1962, he would have run for President in 1964. Nixon also would have lost in 1968 if RFK hadn't been killed. And as for Wallace...had he run in 1972, Nixon would most likely have lost because Wallace would have split his vote in half, much like Ross Perot did to George Bush I in 1992. Remember also that H. R. Haldeman, in his book The Ends Of Power, stated that anytime the phrase "Bay of Pigs" was used during the Watergate tapes, it was actually code for the JFK assassination...which means that he was using the asssassination as leverage to blackmail the CIA into going along with the Watergate cover-up. If there were no conspiracy, and the CIA were not involved, how could Nixon use JFK as leverage against them ? And furthermore, how would Nixon know to use JFK as leverage unless he was somehow part of the conspiracy ? Just a thought...
James Lewis Wrote:Hello...I just joined this forum and it's quite interesting to say the least. I have a theory about the JFK assassination, and I have thought about this for quite awhile. I have heard the assassination described as a "coup d' etat", and I agree with this assessment. However, one of the main tenets of a coup is that someone has to benefit...not just something, as in the CIA, oil barons, or something like that. Excluding MLK and Malcolm X, there were three major political assassinations or attempted assassinations from the period 1963-1972. These were JFK, RFK, and George Wallace. All three of these men shared something...and someone...in common. All three had either run in or were running in presidential elections involving Richard M. Nixon. Remember, if Nixon hadn't lost the California governor's race in 1962, he would have run for President in 1964. Nixon also would have lost in 1968 if RFK hadn't been killed. And as for Wallace...had he run in 1972, Nixon would most likely have lost because Wallace would have split his vote in half, much like Ross Perot did to George Bush I in 1992. Remember also that H. R. Haldeman, in his book The Ends Of Power, stated that anytime the phrase "Bay of Pigs" was used during the Watergate tapes, it was actually code for the JFK assassination...which means that he was using the asssassination as leverage to blackmail the CIA into going along with the Watergate cover-up. If there were no conspiracy, and the CIA were not involved, how could Nixon use JFK as leverage against them ? And furthermore, how would Nixon know to use JFK as leverage unless he was somehow part of the conspiracy ? Just a thought...
James...thanks for your thoughts. I think that Nixon was involved,
and also George Herbert Walker Bush...and Gerald Ford. All became
president because of the JFK murder.
Jack
The assassination of JFK was not a coup d'etat -- a blow against the state.
It was a blow BY the state, struck as an act of self-correction.
Charles Drago Wrote:The assassination of JFK was not a coup d'etat -- a blow against the state.
It was a blow BY the state, struck as an act of self-correction.
Like a wolf caught in a trap and gnawing off its paw?
Ed Jewett Wrote:Charles Drago Wrote:The assassination of JFK was not a coup d'etat -- a blow against the state.
It was a blow BY the state, struck as an act of self-correction.
Like a wolf caught in a trap and gnawing off its paw?
It never got so far.
More like a Reno divorce, with prejudice.
Charles Drago Wrote:It never got so far.
More like a Reno divorce, with prejudice.
Yet another coffee-spluttering moment - except this time it was tea.
Still can't stop chuckling at it!
:rofl::rofl::rofl:
After Douglass' Unspeakable listed the half-dozen "Bay of Pigs" sins of John Kennedy--when Kennedy had said to a friend that it might be Seven Days in May were a president to commit only three, I've renewed the sense that the larger organism surrounded and dissolved JFK in its inexorable path to a remake of Steve McQueen The Blob (1955).
Picture yourselves as CO2 extinguishers.
CIA cannot today to be said to be the tail wagging the dog. Although it had a dog in the fight. Allen Dulles, roll over in your grave.
Briefly: LBJ became King for a Day, dead of a heart attack in 1973.
Hoover secure against a Kennedy forced retirement, dead of a heart attack 1972.
Nixon victory, great victory, tears as 1984 lauds Big Brother--but he went down with Hunt's duct tape.
Kennedy went against the Cold War grain--the Pentagon and State warriors surrounded him like a splinter, an infection, a Zapruder blob, and on to NSAM 273 when the riderless horse was led back to the stable.
Nixon and GHWBush and LBJ and Hoover and many more had personal reasons for accessory before, during, after the fact.
But they are logs popping up in a raging Alaskan river moving inexorably to the sea.
I leave it to the great minds to define wet and identify the largest unifying concept, to name the world ocean.
Nixon is dead. Yet the records and the record is not corrected nor transparent.
Actually, I would say it was both a blow against the state by the state...an act of self-correction brought on by the power-grabbing madness of one man that benefited many. It benefited Nixon in that he finally got the power that he wanted so badly, and it benefited the Cold Warriors in that they got a man who would follow their wishes to a T. A win-win situation if I ever saw one.
I believe that the State helped facilitate the removal of JFK, but were not behind that order.
It's the naming of the people who gave order, which is the hardest thing to do.
A lot of researchers seems to get stuck on details of the assassination itself, but it's almost like it was planned that way with little clues and inconsistencies here and there so the researchers get caught up and don't look at the bigger picture, the REAL people who ordered it and WHY.
I have to give it to those behind the removal of JFK, they thought it out extremely well.
Some questions that may help advance the discussion:
Who was/is "the State"?
Who was behind the creation of
the National Security Act of 1947?
http://z7.invisionfree.com/E_Pluribus_Un...topic=8965
[What were the conditions and setting for creation? ]
Who were the agents of power in the background who spoke for those people i
n the early 1960's? Who spoke directly, or more likely indirectly.. by their actions, by the absence of their actions, by their training and development or funding of key people ... What was the methodology for subtle signaling at that time? Where would such signals be tracked? [You can sometimes track the flight of the baseball at high speed by the reactions in the crowd.]
Where/who was the economic center of Wall Street wealth and the energies that created (and then sustained and suggested tasks for) the national security state?