Charles Drago Wrote:I understand and deeply appreciate your own understanding of this case, Vasilios.
Like Seamus, I hesitate to attempt to name the true sponsors of the assassination other than to engage in a process of elimination -- an ultimately flawed process that cannot hope to deliver us to our common destination.
Thank you Charles i appreciate that.
Evica's essay Perfect cover had a profound impact on my thinking.
Below i present an excerpt from this essay:
Who Killed JFK?
The initiating order was the U.S. Establishment, the Ruling Class, the Power Elite, the National Security State: the anti-JFK personae in Big Oil, banking, defense and their Intelligence and Military assets. Driven by both real and opportunistic anti-Communism, the Establishment aimed at reducing union strength, reducing production costs, and increasing the power of its "military-industrial complex" with its outposts in Southeast Asia, Latin America, and Western Europe.
Specifically, the initiating order was inside the complex of corporate and financial institutions of the Rockefeller-Morgan-Mellon alliance: the advisors, associates, and partners of David Rockefeller. But rather than acting as the Big Boss of the assassination, David Rockefeller energized the actual initiators by continually attacking JFK's philosophy and politics through public statements published in a compliant media from 1961 on. David Rockefeller was the perfect upper-echelon patsy, the up-front standard-bearer, urged on in his attacks on JFK by the assassination decision-makers.
What the Rockefeller-Mellon-Morgan power elite perceived in JFK's administration was a managed economy with wealth distribution driven by a strong president. The initiators, having decided that JFK had to be eliminated, sent their contract through D.C. power brokers (for example, Irving Davidson and Robert Maheu) to the facilitating order.
What i don't understand is why he calls David Rockefeller the perfect upper-echelon patsy, the up-front standard-bearer.
Dawn Meredith Wrote:Charles Drago Wrote:As a very young kid in 1963 I remember my barber, Al, ranting and raving that Johnson "did it."
It was the obvious Texas connection, in tandem with the elevation of LBJ to the presidency, that persuaded Al and millions more that Johnson was the "mastermind."
This conclusion born of ignorance continues to be exploited by the Sponsors and their Facilitators-of-the-moment.
LBJ would have been one hell of a "mastermind" if he chose his own state for the killing ground.
It happened in Texas -- and never would have happened in Chicago, by the way -- because a Dallas hit provided absolute assurance that LBJ would do as he was told.
The weekend it happened I was sure LBJ did it too. At fourteen I did not know about CIA and invisible governments. That would be a few more years, '73 my study began in ernest.
Dawn
Thats so cool. It's funny Dawn how your mates with Carl Ogelsby cos I didn't get into this till I saw the The Men Who Killed Kennedy in about 92 I'd missed JFK hell knows why. I saw the Zap film and it was all over. Thats always been why I've had no time for the alterationist stuff. Anybody who has seen it (and I've shown it to loads and loads of people) they all go 'from the front' lol. So I mean well it's just so weird. Wouldn't an altered film have wanted it to look like it was coming from the back?
Of course I threw myself in and of course came up with every crazed notion but I kinda clung to what Prouty and Mack (of all people said). In particularly Proutys comments about Johnson 'were they shooting at me' which I have verified he actually said (great work Col) But I didn't abandon all the Dealey Plaza ID's of tramps and that guff until I came across Carl O in about 96 I think and as you can see his comments just hit me like a brick. Hence my quest started and eventually I wound up here (on my 2nd attempt) But keep these tales 'a comin' they're cool. They help an outsider get a better view from you guys. Question: When did you guys turn away from the LBJ line? Sort of seminal influences sort of thing?
Vasilios Vazakas Wrote:Charles Drago Wrote:I understand and deeply appreciate your own understanding of this case, Vasilios.
Like Seamus, I hesitate to attempt to name the true sponsors of the assassination other than to engage in a process of elimination -- an ultimately flawed process that cannot hope to deliver us to our common destination.
Thank you Charles i appreciate that.
Evica's essay Perfect cover had a profound impact on my thinking.
Below i present an excerpt from this essay:
Who Killed JFK?
The initiating order was the U.S. Establishment, the Ruling Class, the Power Elite, the National Security State: the anti-JFK personae in Big Oil, banking, defense and their Intelligence and Military assets. Driven by both real and opportunistic anti-Communism, the Establishment aimed at reducing union strength, reducing production costs, and increasing the power of its "military-industrial complex" with its outposts in Southeast Asia, Latin America, and Western Europe.
Specifically, the initiating order was inside the complex of corporate and financial institutions of the Rockefeller-Morgan-Mellon alliance: the advisors, associates, and partners of David Rockefeller. But rather than acting as the Big Boss of the assassination, David Rockefeller energized the actual initiators by continually attacking JFK's philosophy and politics through public statements published in a compliant media from 1961 on. David Rockefeller was the perfect upper-echelon patsy, the up-front standard-bearer, urged on in his attacks on JFK by the assassination decision-makers.
What the Rockefeller-Mellon-Morgan power elite perceived in JFK's administration was a managed economy with wealth distribution driven by a strong president. The initiators, having decided that JFK had to be eliminated, sent their contract through D.C. power brokers (for example, Irving Davidson and Robert Maheu) to the facilitating order.
What i don't understand is why he calls David Rockefeller the perfect upper-echelon patsy, the up-front standard-bearer.
Vasilios. I was unaware that GME had written this. But it sums up kind of how I feel. I do think this Rockefeller thing is a bit weird it's never sat well. What I think GME is driving at is kind of how McCone was steering the CIA ship and was the figure head while the power or those using the CIA were really the ones in command. I dunno if I'm completely right. But hmmmmmm thanks for bringing it up man all very interesting and this debate has certainly gone up another gear. It also turns Johnson into the veritable 'pin prick' he was!
Hi Seamus
You can google Perfect Cover by Evica to read the whole essay.
Vasilios Vazakas Wrote:Hi Seamus
You can google Perfect Cover by Evica to read the whole essay.
Am on it buddy thanks a bunch. Be good if Jim Di and CD threw their hats in on this.
I'll get back to you after I have a read.
Phew just read it. I wonder if GME changed tune somewhat later on? 'A Certain Arrogance' is slightly different in tone and scope in many ways a bit more refined. You can tell the influences of Dale Scott and Salandria's logic here and it's through the Salandria vein that he does raise some interesting questions. Real interesting questions. I've been them pondering them for a time. Namely if you have a look at say the CIA's in house Histories they really do hang out the old guard to dry. Of course a lot of the stuff is still archaic like the Kennedys hell bent on killing anything commie and so on. But the appraisals of Helms, Dulles, Angleton, Hunt and Phillips certainly don't deter one from thinking 'Hell these guys could have easily done it' lol. I think it's house cleaning on their part IE the facilitators can be named (well sort of) but the power behind goes on namelessly and has since morphed into something else probably wholly more horrific. Sort of like a child informing on their parents for subversive activity. Almost like saying 'Hey we're not like this anymore these guys were just some bad eggs'. Pull the other one please!
Albert Doyle Wrote:I was going to point out earlier that Piper is off-topic to this thread and we should start a new thread to deal with him. I just wanted to add that the criticisms of Piper in this thread are mainly one line answers and sweeping dismissals saying "false sponsor" and "fell for the trap". (I'll read Seamus) The reason I cringe at this is because if you read 'Final Judgment' you'll see Piper has outdone those criticisms and gives extensive detail.
What is really unbelievable is that someone would try to blow-off the Miami-Bahamian bank-Swiss Banque De Credit Internacional cartel as unrelated when one can see that it was the singlemost key to the covert power structure acting against Kennedy. This proved itself in the fact it then took over as the funding backbone for the covert interests of the shadow group that killed Kennedy. They themselves always say "follow the money". Well, when you do you end up at that very cartel and its banks. This is proven again in the fact this funding power structure lasted up until Oliver North and his using it to fund the CONTRA War. The Military Industrial Complex was involved in killing Kennedy. One of their prime interests was the Israel front against both the oil-bearing arabs and iron curtain. Tibor Rosenbaum was a Mossad officer who then became the owner of Banque De Credit Internacional for the sole purpose of channeling dirty money to Israel to support its defense. When Kennedy acted against Ben Gurion's attempts to acquire nuclear weapons he basically acted against this cartel whose members included the US's Military Industrial Complex. Before being forced out under a nervous breakdown Ben Gurion told Kennedy he was "threatening the future of Israel". Israel is a messianic state, you have to watch out when they say something like that against you.
If you know how CIA operates it hides its doings behind plausible interests. Knowing the nature of CIA once you realize Israel offered a huge shield in its messianic zionism you can safely assume CIA went right for that protected shadow to conceal its most powerful interests. It would be a denial of established reality to ignore how that relationship has grown directly since the death of president Kennedy. This day's main war interests are directly centered around Israeli hegemony and that relationship. It isn't a coincidence that Israel and CIA were born within a year of each other. At the time the most important funding artery for Israel was that CIA/mob bank underground.
If you read 'Final Judgment' you'll see that this mediterranean cartel had now become the new center of gravity of CIA international power. The one thing all the players involved in Kennedy's killing had in common was either a direct or indirect relationship to this shadow government. This is why it is important to relate Clay Shaw and his relationship to both the formation of Mossad and Permindex to his connection to the New Orleans operators.
"The Jews are now backing us"
Why did Echevarria say that?
Good post. I think that's pretty close to the mark.
Phil Dragoo Wrote:In my view Israel had precisely as much to do with killing John as the Palestinian Lone Nut's Rage over Bobby voting warplanes for Israel had to do with killing Bobby, which is to say nothing substantive, only distracting in nature.
You're wrong on both counts.
Israel was the major beneficiary of Dealey Plaza, had the power to do it, cover it up and suppress a genuine investigation for all these years. They control most of the western media.
They left their bloodstained signature on Bobby. A Palestinian lone nutter? That's rich.
Israel is a piece of the puzzle not the puzzle itself.
For the Sponsors of the JFK assassination, Israel serves the purposes of helping to maintain profit-generating global conflict and war-based minority control over the global majority population.
Charles Drago Wrote:For the Sponsors of the JFK assassination, Israel serves the purposes of helping to maintain profit-generating global conflict and war-based minority control over the global majority population.
Sad but so very, very true.