Best JFK books of the last 2 years?

[James Lateer]

Tracy: You can't possibly realize how terrific it is to me that you are conscientiously responding to my posting about the JFK issues. After four years of research and after putting my theory and discoveries out there in front of many, there seems to be an incredible "consipiracy of silence" surrounding my information about JFK and the ex-Nazis. Only H P Albarelli and James Fetzer seem capable of digesting this stuff. Almost everybody else is apparently paralyzed by the horrific implications.

I completely agree with you that there will be no smoking gun about the JFK assassination ever discovered in the national archives. But my reason for saying that is probably different than yours would be. I am not sure that there was ever one single person who knew the scope of the plot. Whoever planned it apparently applied the tried and true method of "compartmentalizing" the plot. There were probably "cells" maybe of 5 or so persons who each carried out their piece.

The conversation would be "You hate Kennedy, right? Well just do what I tell you on the date I tell you. Kennedy will not be a problem for much longer, I promise you. So just do what I told you to do and don't ask any questions."

This type of conversation illustrates that the whole thing could have come off with only a handful of inside people, maybe even one or two, probably outside the country who did the planning. That could explain why "nobody talked". None of the people who had proven advance knowledge like Nagell, Milteer, Dinkin and Rose Cheramie displayed any comprensive knowledge about the entire plan. When you think about it, each of these people with advanced knowledge was just involved in his or her piece. All Milteer knew was that there would be a sniper and that the Secret Service was complicit. He also said there was a lot of "Catholic money" involved. None of this was very specific.

Even if Oswald was a CIA asset 53 years ago, I don't see how that would justify anyone wanting to protect him in 2018. It's not like there has been no suspicion of the CIA or other agencies in that regard. All we know is that the intelligence community is still stonewalling, but it seems like what they are withholding still is embarassing to the competence of the investigation more than being any smoking gun. (And if rich people were involved, we know that rich people cover the backside of other rich people, no matter how long ago they died).

I stlll think it's odd that anyone who considers themselves to be either Liberal or Conservative think they have an axe to grind or a dog in the fight now in 2018 when it comes to the JFK. Three years ago, I talked to the guide and the Old Courthouse in Vicksburg, Mississippi who defended the "lone gunman" theory regarding John Wilkes Booth. Other than him, I can't imagine anyone who feels he has to cover the butt of John Wilkes Booth. Or Brutus or Marc Antony, or Pontius Pilate etc. Doesn't make any sense.

Speaking from my experience at this point, the impediment to anyone wanting to understand the JFK plot is depression. When one discovers that the government is deceiving us, it triggers at least a minor, temporary hour long episode of depression. For most people, learning the truth is not worth enduring the letdown and temporary depression that comes from such revelations. Ignorance is bliss. It's the truth that hurts.

By the way, since I'm new to this website, I just have to ask: although your postings display terrific insight into these type of issues, I'm not sure about your overall opinion about the necessity of having the National Security State remain in place as it now exists. The overall drift of your analysis seems to be more defensive of the National Security State than the typical person who posts here. Just curious.

James Lateer

[Tracy Riddle]

Yes, compartmentalization was extremely important. That's how they got members of his Secret Service detail to lower their guard (Kennedy doesn't want you on the bumper!), select members of the DPD in the motorcade to change their positions (Kennedy doesn't want motorcycles alongside the car!), cancel the photographers' flatbed truck (in front of JFK's limo) and make the photographers get into vehicles farther back in the motorcade....

The official story is clung to by a wide range of people, from Rush Limbaugh and George Will to Chris Matthews, Tom Hanks and Stephen King (I'm a big fan of the latter two by the way). There is a psychological need with some people to believe in it. 9/11 is the same way, maybe more so. I'm sympathetic to it in a way, I just can't do it myself.

Okay, a lot of people here seem to be confused by my position on the Trump-Russian scandal. I have never supported the National Security State.
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...o3DW1rwayc
I also don't support a con artist real estate baron who has spent decades in bed with Russia and American mobsters and practically begged (in public) a foreign government to interfere in US elections.

I'm just a spectator observing this scandal. If I had been an ordinary German watching the Army Plot against Hitler in 1944, would I have to support either side? If forced to choose, I would root for the German Army plotters, at least until Hitler was gone. But I wouldn't want a German military junta running the country either.

Unfortunately, the national security state isn't going anywhere, especially in the Cyber Age we live in now. Every major country has a Deep State now, and if we could somehow get rid of ours, I can guarantee you that the Russians, Chinese, Europeans, Israelis and others wouldn't get rid of theirs.

[Tracy Riddle]

(deleted because Lauren removed his post)

[James Lateer]

Tracy: Your comment about being conflicted if you were contemplating Operation Valkyrie set off a chain reaction in my thinking about Valkyrie and the JFK conspiracy.

It seems likely that the JFK assassination was due to "unfinished business" arising from the botched attempt on Hitler in Valkyrie. Just think about the following:

(1) Allen Dulles was apparently involved in fomenting and funding the plot from his OSS base in Berne, Switzerland. Dulles would have been playing both sides.

(2) Countess Mechtilde Podewils was the secretary to General Stueplnagel, Commander in Chief in Paris during the attempt. He was executed and Countess Podewils was interrogated by the Gestapo multiple times. Of course, Countess Podewils was married to Otepka biographer William J. Gill and she was in Washington on 11-22-63 as far as we know. Her husband and she ran a Washington DC bookstore around that time. Her family were Catholic Bavarian Monarchists. She came to the US under paperclip.

(3) Heinrich Muller, head of the Gestapo was an escaped Nazi regarding whom there are claims that he was hired as a consultant by the US Government after the War. Gregory Douglas claimed that he was actually in the White House advising Truman, but that's not proven nor even likely. But he has some post WWII role.

(4) Maj. Horst Kopkow, Muller's Deputy has been proven to be a consultant to the UK government after the War and into the 1960's and even the 1970's. Both Kopkow and Muller were allies and the plotters, including Himmler who was also with them were basically Bavarian Catholic Monarchists. The Valkyrie plot would have restored a monarchy, possibly the Bavarian Catholic Monarch of the Guelphs.

(5) On the other side was General Adolf Huesinger. He was Chairman of the NATO Military Committee. He commanded 400 officers and employees in the Pentagon on 11-22-63. He was standing next to Hitler when the bomb went off 07-22-1944. He was a strong ally of Hitler and was anti-Valkyrie.

(6) General Walter Dornberger, the supervisor of Michael Paine at Bell Aerospace was involved. It is not clear whether he was Catholic but he was sympathetic to another General who was persecuted by Hitler due to his Catholicism. Dornberger always refused to join the Nazi Party and he never did. This also may indicate that he was either Catholic or pro-Catholic.

(7) Wernher von Braun was, like Major Horst Kopkow, an East Prussian. Von Braun joined the SS and it's not clear whether he would have been pro-Valkyrio or anti-Valkyrie. He was a not a leader but a follower and was probably agnostic about Valkyrie.

(8) The West Germany Wehrmacht was anti-Valkyrie and considered the plotters to be traitors. The main example was General Hans Speidel. Speidel was commander of the NATO Central Command on 11-22-63. All of the ex-Nazis in the West German Government were anti-Valkyrie and considered the Valkyrie plotters to be pro-US and to be traitors to Germany.

(9) Konrad Adenauer was a fanaticlally Catholic political activist, would have been a monarchist if he could and was probably pro-Valkyrie. Adenauer was anti-reunification in order to keep West Germany Catholic.

(10) General Reinhard Gehlen was in charge of CIA operations in Europe post-World War 2 Europe. He was pro Hitler and definitely ant-Valkyrie. He was very tight with Allen Dulles who recruited him.

(11) General Edwin Walker was, of course, stationed in Bavaria which was the occupation zone of the US in the partition of Germany post-WWII. Like General George S. Patton, he apparently got entangled in West German politics. His allegiance would likely have followed his religious affiliation. If he were Catholic, then he would have been the Adenauer, Muller, Himmler pro-Valkyrie faction.

JFK may have been flirting with the re-unification of Germany as a neutralist country like Austria. That is what the Soviets wanted. The Catholic activists like Adenauer considered that thinking to be anethema.

It's obvious to me that JFK wound up on the losing side of this argument and paid with his life.

James Lateer

[Tracy Riddle]

James, that's some very interesting research. I wasn't aware of some of those things. I looked at your "Org Chart" post and here is my honest take on it. These theories that involve very large, complex conspiracies with many elite players (Bilderberg, Rockefellers, Rothschilds, CFR, Nazi war criminals, etc) are probably not realistic. There's just too many people involved. And everybody in this world is connected to somebody who is connected to somebody, etc. Six degrees of separation and all that...

I've been studying the subject since the early 1990s and finally decided that the best way to solve the case is to ask yourself what the plotters were trying to accomplish and how they carried out the crime, and then work backwards from there.

* It's obvious that the choice of Oswald as the patsy meant that they wanted it to appear that JFK was killed by someone who appeared to be pro-Communist, pro-Castro.
* Cuban exiles and their CIA friends tried to put out fake evidence that Oswald had been seen meeting with Castro agents in Florida and Mexico, but this narrative didn't take hold in the media (thank god they didn't have Facebook and Twitter back then).
* Why? To incite the American people into demanding a real invasion of Cuba, and possibly even a preemptive strike on the USSR. The US at that time still had a big advantage in ICBMs and the Joint Chiefs and Strategic Air Command were itching to use them before the Russians caught up.
* LBJ and others in Washington understandably didn't want to start WWIII, and this is why the Warren Commission was appointed - to stop all the rumors of Communist involvement and prevent a war.
* So who had the motive/means/opportunity to do this? Here's an old thread of mine about it:

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...o8BiFrwayc

[James Lateer]

Tracy: I just printed off your post and will be reading and studying it in detail. My inclusion of the Bilderburg and Rockefellers is because they were in authority at the time and probably knew about the plot. I don't mean to imply that they did anything specific. It's like Russia-gate. Since the FBI was spying on Trump under the Obama Administration, I would put Obama on my chart of that operation. If (1) he was in authority over the FBI, (2) he knew or should have known about it and (3) he was passive about it, then, to me, he has responsibility. Emporer Hirohito didn't fly a plane over Pearl Harbor, not did he know how many ships were there, etc. But he was on the hook for the whole thing, regardless.

George HW Bush knew about the JFK assassination on 11-22-63 but I did nothing. He's not on my chart because he was not in authority at that time (that I know of). My chart is not so much about actual participants, but about the lines of authority above and surrounding it. I learned about that working for the largest privately owned bank in Iowa. The owner of the bank was the richest man in Iowa. He knew about every important thing that happened in his state. He (along with his circle) could also assist or prevent almost everything that happened. Likewise, the Bilderbergs and the Rockefellers were so powerful that they (1) would have known everything and (2) could have stopped it with one phone call. To me, if they're in authority and in the know, then they're on my chart and are culpable.

James Lateer

[Tracy Riddle]

Tracy: I just printed off your post and will be reading and studying it in detail. My inclusion of the Bilderburg and Rockefellers is because they were in authority at the time and probably knew about the plot. I don't mean to imply that they did anything specific. It's like Russia-gate. Since the FBI was spying on Trump under the Obama Administration, I would put Obama on my chart of that operation. If (1) he was in authority over the FBI, (2) he knew or should have known about it and (3) he was passive about it, then, to me, he has responsibility. Emporer Hirohito didn't fly a plane over Pearl Harbor, not did he know how many ships were there, etc. But he was on the hook for the whole thing, regardless.

George HW Bush knew about the JFK assassination on 11-22-63 but I did nothing. He's not on my chart because he was not in authority at that time (that I know of). My chart is not so much about actual participants, but about the lines of authority above and surrounding it. I learned about that working for the largest privately owned bank in Iowa. The owner of the bank was the richest man in Iowa. He knew about every important thing that happened in his state. He (along with his circle) could also assist or prevent almost everything that happened. Likewise, the Bilderbergs and the Rockefellers were so powerful that they (1) would have known everything and (2) could have stopped it with one phone call. To me, if they're in authority and in the know, then they're on my chart and are culpable.

James Lateer

I think it's a mistake to assume that in any large institution (like the Federal Government, the military, the intelligence agencies, etc) the people at the top must know and approve every single thing that is going on. These institutions are truly vast and even the heads of agencies often don't know what everyone in them is up to. This is especially true if you have compartmentalized, rogue criminal elements operating in them (edit: or I should add, super-patriots who see themselves as being above the law).

I've worked at companies with 50 to 150 employees and I can assure you that the top management frequently didn't know what was going on, LOL!

On a side note, it's well established that Obama was aware that people in the Trump campaign were under surveillance because they were communicating with people linked to the Kremlin. And for other reasons -
"For two years ending in 2013, the FBI had a court-approved warrant to eavesdrop on a sophisticated Russian organized crime money-laundering network that operated out of unit 63A in Trump Tower in New York. The FBI investigation led to a federal grand jury indictment of more than 30 people, including one of the world's most notorious Russian mafia bosses, Alimzhan Tokhtakhounov. Known as the "Little Taiwanese," he was the only target to slip away, and he remains a fugitive from American justice. Seven months after the April 2013 indictment and after Interpol issued a red notice for Tokhtakhounov, he appeared near Donald Trump in the VIP section of the Miss Universe pageant in Moscow. Trump had sold the Russian rights for Miss Universe to a billionaire Russian shopping mall developer."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story-fbi-wiret...d=46266198

[Lauren Johnson]

Tracy: I just printed off your post and will be reading and studying it in detail. My inclusion of the Bilderburg and Rockefellers is because they were in authority at the time and probably knew about the plot. I don't mean to imply that they did anything specific. It's like Russia-gate. Since the FBI was spying on Trump under the Obama Administration, I would put Obama on my chart of that operation. If (1) he was in authority over the FBI, (2) he knew or should have known about it and (3) he was passive about it, then, to me, he has responsibility. Emporer Hirohito didn't fly a plane over Pearl Harbor, not did he know how many ships were there, etc. But he was on the hook for the whole thing, regardless.

George HW Bush knew about the JFK assassination on 11-22-63 but I did nothing. He's not on my chart because he was not in authority at that time (that I know of). My chart is not so much about actual participants, but about the lines of authority above and surrounding it. I learned about that working for the largest privately owned bank in Iowa. The owner of the bank was the richest man in Iowa. He knew about every important thing that happened in his state. He (along with his circle) could also assist or prevent almost everything that happened. Likewise, the Bilderbergs and the Rockefellers were so powerful that they (1) would have known everything and (2) could have stopped it with one phone call. To me, if they're in authority and in the know, then they're on my chart and are culpable.

James Lateer

James, I don't know if you have encountered the work of George Michael Evica. He uses a model that distinguishes various players in the JFK murder. You might find this helpful to your work. The author of the post was ultimately banned from DPF due to his nasty personality. This post however is one of the best things he ever put up. I've always found it helpful. Others here like Jim DiEugenio not so much.

[James Lateer]

Tracy: I'm moving along in your posting to mine it for more evidence to fine-tune my JFK analysis. I should say that the top publisher in the JFK area (who will remain nameless here) believes that Nelson Rockefeller was on of the top five involved in JFK. With John J McCloy being the recent president of Chase Manhattan, I don't think the Rockefellers are a stretch. Further, the founder and CEO of the Bilderberg Group, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands was a former SS member. He was reportedly seen at an airshow in Argentina previewing test flights of the Nazi-designed Argentine "arrow" jet fighter in the 1950's. Hans-Ulrich Rudel who was a leader among the fugitive Nazis expressed jealousy because Prince Bernhard could travel freely around Latin America and have no fear of arrest because of his social position, even though he was a former SS officer. Prince Bernhard was very likely regularly conspiring with the worldwide Nazi network both in South America and in Germany itself.

As for international banker Clarence Dillon of Dillon, Read, he had a winter home less than a mile from the infamous Tryall Compound at Montego Bay in Jamaica. That was allegedly where Sir William Stephenson (according to some) met to hatch some of the JFK plotting. The British Royals and Winston Churchill were also Tryall owners. Of course, Dillon was the father of C. Douglas Dillon who controlled both the ATF and the Secret Service on 11-22-63. Clarence Dillon had many more fascist connections than I have space to list here.

So the Rockefellers, Dillon Read and the Bilderbergs were not just remote bureaucrats at the top of some anonymous bureaucracy. As I see it, all three of these international conspiratorial types had a hands-on role in everything from 9-11 to Watergate to the Iran Hostage crisis under Jimmy Carter as well as the JFK assassination. I would sooner believe that LBJ or J. Edgar Hoover was in the dark about the assassination, than believe the same about the Bilderbergs, the Council on Foreign Relations or Clarence Dillon and his many partners at Dillon Read like Paul Nitze, William Draper and his son C Douglas Dillon.

I will be posting more once I finish your detailed JFK analysis. Thanks.

James Lateer

[James Lateer]

Tracy: I carefully read your posting about the military and the JFK assassination. Here are my comments and reactions:

(1) As of 1958, the Joint Chiefs were removed from commanding their branches of the service and were given over to planning only. This was apparently a mistake. As a result, they only had an incentive to create dramatic plans that had the superficial look of significance. They followed Trump's Law. Trump's Law is "any attention is good attention." Further, the actual head of the services were waiting in line for them to get fired and move up and take their jobs. The JSC created plans but they didn't have to carry them out. Hence the plans could be RESPONSIBLE plans or IRRESPONSIBLE plans. They didn't have to carry them out. They would become somebody else's problem. In his book, General John B Medaris called the JCS "only a debating society."

(2) There were a number of books and movies which were commentaries on the 1960's political and military condition: Seven Days In May, Doctor Strangelove, On The Beach, the James Bond novels (about SMERSH), I Led Three Lives, etc. JFK probably read Seven Days In May only because he was an avid reader.

(3) The only evidence I have seen of an actual military coup threat were (1) the coup plan against FDR sponsored by the DuPont people which was actually real and (2) a threat by General John B. Medaris and Wernher von Braun against Ike due to the transfer of Army missile research to NASA (only a rumored coup).

(4) It has helped me to list in my mind to list the military people in order of their common sense and IQ. They are in order General John B. Medaris, Robert McNamara, Col. L. Fletcher Prouty, General Thomas Power, General George Marshall, General Lyman Lemnitzer, General Dwight Eisenhower, General Douglas MacArthur, General Maxwell Taylor, General Lauris Norstad, General Curtis LeMay, General Mark Clark and last was General Edwin Walker. This means that what was said by General LeMay probably didn't count for much because he was an obvious dim-wit. And Walker was ten times worse! This is what JFK meant when he questioned whether "these are the best the services can produce" [?].

(5) The only half-way sensible plan in all of your information is the suggestion by General Lemnitzer that we should have flat-out invaded Cuba and solved that problem. That would have at least been feasible, unlike Operation Northwoods or the pre-emptive nuclear first strike.

(6) Your summary of all these bizarre military/JFK facts is unique and about the best I have seen. This theme could justify a book of its own, maybe titled "Insane Nuclear Plans And Other Boondoggles." This could include Reagan's Star Wars SDI program.

(7) General Thomas Power was not a nut case. When one reads his book "Design for Survival" this becomes obvious. As Commander of the Strategic Air Command, he had his finger on the nuclear button. To explain his job to people he HAD to have a story to tell about how he would conduct a nuclear war (and win). Ergo, he came up with story of winning a nuclear war. It sounded crazy. That should not be a surprise because the whole topic of nuclear was was totally insane. That was not the fault of General Power.

Next I will list what I would add to your compendium:

(1) I don't know if you're implying that JFK was assassinated because he refused to launch the hypothetical preemptive first strike against the Soviets. I personally don't think that was the case.

(2) There was a possible military take-over involved in the JFK assassination plan. But that was the plot to kill BOTH JFK and LBJ and hence throwing the US government into chaos. That would have made the Vatican-connected and virulent anti-Communist John W. McCormack the President. The hunt for the obvious plot and it's members would have required martial law. That was the desire of the ex-Nazis, i.e. disrupt our government and GET RID OF DEMOCRACY because it was a threat to fascists and monarchists like themselves. A General MacArthur or similar officer would have made an excellent partner for worldwide fascists such as Francisco Franco of Spain and Italian fascists.

(3) All of the research about the military and JFK in the literature reflects the cover-up of the real relationship between the US military and the NATO organization. The US appointed the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO. The problem is that he was not actually the commander. It was just an empty title. The real commander, General Adolf Heusinger was actually Hitler's former right-hand man. On 11-22-1963 Heusinger commanded 400 officers and employees in the Pentagon as the real commander of NATO because he was permanent chairman of the NATO military committee.

We don't know the facts. It could have been that, in an emergency such as the JFK assassination, Heusinger as NATO commander could have taken control of some or all of US forces. We just don't know. On 11-22-1963, that could have actually take place (in whole or in part). We just don't know.

(4) When the Cuban Missile Crisis was settled, JFK agreed to remove the Jupiter missiles from Turkey and Italy. We are told (by liars) that these missiles were "obsolete". Actually, these were the only nuclear delivery system under the control of NATO and thus, Germany. The "Supreme Allied Commander" General Lauris Norstad had worked years to get these missiles under the control of NATO. And, of course, Norstad had been fired by JFK and McNamara. In the LBJ phone calls, the name of Norstad was being strongly pushed to be on the Warren Commission. He came very close.

(5) If JFK were assassinated due to military factors (which he could have been) then it was because he took nukes out of the control of NATO (and Germany) and he was flirting with a unified Germany which would be (a) neutralist (b) pacifist and disarmed and © mostly Protestant. The ex-Nazis were virulently opposed to such a possiblity.

James Lateer