How Did President Kennedy's Assassination Happen?

[Stan Wilbourne]

It's obvious the national security apparatus within the U.S. government was involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.

James Angleton, Richard Helms, Ed Lansdale, David Atlee Phillips, William Harvey. Key, upper echelon members of the CIA, the FBI, the Secret Service and the U.S. military are all now, fifty years later, suspected of playing key roles in JFK's murder. Even American Establishment figures like Henry Cabot Lodge, C.D. Jackson and Jock Whitney (to name a few) appeared to be "in the know."

So, what was it that mobilized this apparatus and put it into action against a sitting president?

Was it the back-channel negotiation President Kennedy established with the Soviets at the height of the Cold War that was the cause?

JFK did not trust his own intelligence agencies to give him the truth, and they certainly didn't trust him enough to give him that truth. Thus this back-channel was established, the president and his brother dealing directly with the Soviets.

Is that what put this thing in motion against President Kennedy? Is that what those that were asked to participate were asked to believe? "We have proof that the president is a traitor and threat to the security of the country; it is your patriotic duty to help us be rid of him."

And, the ducks all fall in row, one by one, until JFK's protection is stripped, and he is driven into the shooting gallery of Dealey Plaza.

We wonder why Robert Kennedy did not act, why did he accept the obvious Warren Commission sham? Could it be because he knew, that he was told immediately the afternoon of November 22nd by John McCone and others why his brother was killed? The "proof" given to him of this back-channel, perhaps even his participation in it? If so, what could Bobby ever do to avenge his brother's death?

I will add: I do not feel that this is the real reason for the murder of President Kennedy. That motivation goes much deeper, into the heart of the American Corportacy. President Kennedy was completely re-shaping the base of power within the country and a Kennedy Dynasty was at hand. The war industry was going to grind to a halt, and the power money brokers saw their grip on the American system begin to loosen. It was far from "business as usual" during the Kennedy years. There was something new about to be born, and it scared the shit out of the old die-hard money grubbers who had a strangle-hold on American monetary system and still do today.

But if someone at the pinnacle of power within this system, within the United States, someone like say David Rockefeller and/or Averell Harriman had a meeting with Allen Dulles and President Kennedy's removal was discussed, I wonder what that discussion would have been like.

"Is it possible?"

I'm sure Dulles would have said, "Oh, yes."

"How much time?"

"A year, or thereabouts."

Dulles would then have a talk with Angleton who would hatch the plot and put it into motion: President Kennedy is a traitor and must be removed. Angleton would then go about putting his "proof" together for reasonable standards, and it is a done deal, the entire security apparatus of the United States government behind the murder, doing its duty to remove this rogue threat to the nation's safety.

I know this is nothing knew, but I have often wondered how the assassination could have happened. Maybe this is how.

I said "maybe." Carefully.

Shanet Clark has an excellent online seminar on the EF Forum regarding this: Was the Assassination of President Kennedy "Legal?"

[Albert Doyle]

It might be possible that the correct arrangement of deep sponsors could still be kept intact while the back channel negotiations with Khrushchev and move on JMWAVE were used to convince the lower level participants in the rightness of the action. Each cause being manipulated by the greater sponsors in an orchestrated manner that left each individual cell appearing to take some responsibility.

[Charles Drago]

It's obvious the national security apparatus within the U.S. government was involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.

As Sponsor? False Sponsor? Facilitator?

James Angleton, Richard Helms, Ed Lansdale, David Atlee Phillips, William Harvey. Key, upper echelon members of the CIA, the FBI, the Secret Service and the U.S. military are all now, fifty years later, suspected of playing key roles in JFK's murder. Even American Establishment figures like Henry Cabot Lodge, C.D. Jackson and Jock Whitney (to name a few) appeared to be "in the know."

As Sponsors? False Sponsors? Facilitators?

So, what was it that mobilized this apparatus and put it into action against a sitting president?

In other words, who were the true Sponsors of the assassination?

Was it the back-channel negotiation President Kennedy established with the Soviets at the height of the Cold War that was the cause?

It would have triggered self-correction within the Supra-National Security State.

JFK did not trust his own intelligence agencies to give him the truth, and they certainly didn't trust him enough to give him that truth. Thus this back-channel was established, the president and his brother dealing directly with the Soviets.

The fictive construct that was the Cold War was to be preserved at all costs by those described by George Michael Evica as being "above Cold War differences." In other words: The true Sponsors.

Is that what put this thing in motion against President Kennedy? Is that what those that were asked to participate were asked to believe? "We have proof that the president is a traitor and threat to the security of the country; it is your patriotic duty to help us be rid of him."

I am convinced that many of those individuals conscripted as both unwitting False Sponsors and witting Facilitators were convinced by just this argument.

We wonder why Robert Kennedy did not act, why did he accept the obvious Warren Commission sham? Could it be because he knew, that he was told immediately the afternoon of November 22nd by John McCone and others why his brother was killed? The "proof" given to him of this back-channel, perhaps even his participation in it? If so, what could Bobby ever do to avenge his brother's death?

I am convinced that the "JFK-as-Soviet-agent" operation was vented to Seymour Hersh while he was researching his hideous Dark Side of Camelot. Do any of you recall an interview with Hersh conducted during his book tour at which he stated, "I was told things about JFK that I didn't want to believe"?

I will add: I do not feel that this is the real reason for the murder of President Kennedy. That motivation goes much deeper, into the heart of the American Corportacy.

The "American Corportacy [sic]" (corporatocracy) was both a False Sponsor and a Facilitator.

President Kennedy was completely re-shaping the base of power within the country and a Kennedy Dynasty was at hand. The war industry was going to grind to a halt, and the power money brokers saw their grip on the American system begin to loosen. It was far from "business as usual" during the Kennedy years. There was something new about to be born, and it scared the shit out of the old die-hard money grubbers who had a strangle-hold on American monetary system and still do today.

But if someone at the pinnacle of power within this system, within the United States, someone like say David Rockefeller and/or Averell Harriman had a meeting with Allen Dulles and President Kennedy's removal was discussed, I wonder what that discussion would have been like.

If we ever are to identify the true Sponsors of JFK's assassination, we are going to have to re-educate ourselves to acknowledge the functions of "nations" to the Supra-National Security State. David Rockefeller and Averell Harriman are classic examples of key players in the Supra-National Security State.

Dulles would then have a talk with Angleton who would hatch the plot and put it into motion: President Kennedy is a traitor and must be removed. Angleton would then go about putting his "proof" together for reasonable standards, and it is a done deal, the entire security apparatus of the United States government behind the murder, doing its duty to remove this rogue threat to the nation's safety.

You are describing Facilitators, not Sponsors.

[Stan Wilbourne]

Hello Albert and Charles,

Charles, would you please define "Supra-National Security State?" Just for the sake of clarity.

I do not believe that anyone from Dulles/Angleton/Intell or the national security state in general was involved in the initial decision to kill President Kennedy. They were used as tools (just as the military was, just as Texas Oil was, just as LBJ, just as the Establishment Media, just like the Cubans and anti-Cubans, just as the Mafia, just as Oswald was) to accomplish that goal after the decision was made. Facilitators (and False Sponsors)???

But, what is intriguing to me is how those Facilitators were motivated to facilitate. "He is a traitor and must be removed." The "proof" is provided and this apparatus swings into action to remove President Kennedy from office, complete with the cover-up. The apparatus is a tool of the decision-makers, the Sponsors.

That is why we see the names of Angleton, Helms, Lansdale, Phillips, sprinkled throughout this fifty-year odyessy. They weren't rogue agents working outside of the system. They were on the inside, working for the Sponsors of the JFK killing, working for the power of established order. They knew their actions were sanctioned by that power, and there would never be any repercussions for what they were doing.

The back-channel provided a reason, the "why," there for the consumption of the Facilitators. The story: I am doing my patriotic duty by participating in this. I am on the "inside" and privy to info which the average American citizen has no knowledge. I've been called to do my duty.

The Bobby Kennedy/Kennedy family angle also intrigues me. If Bobby was told his brother was killed that day for acts of treason against his country, how would he have responded? What could he have done? A file is given to him, complete with dates and times and the content of contacts both he and the President made with forces within the Soviet Union and Cuba without the knowledge or consent of national security. What would he have done?

"I fought the law, and the law won."

[Charles Drago]

Always enjoyable and enlightening to engage with you, Stan.

I define the Supra-National Security State as those individuals and institutions for whom the fatal disease known as tribalism and its horrific symptoms national identity, patriotism, and organized religions are thought of and utilized as tools to control vast populations by, among other methods, fostering armed conflicts in the names of flags and/or deities.

FWIW, I too am intrigued by the nuts and bolts of the JFK assassination operation and by the post-JFK, RFK, and JFK Jr. assassinations actions of the Kennedy family.

Not only do I not take issue with your analysis of the back channel; I long have concluded that those communications systems were discovered by Supra-National forces on both sides of the Iron Curtain and recognized as grave threats not "to" peace, but rather "of" peace. I am further convinced that the timing of Nikita Khrushchev's removal is hardly coincidental in regards to the JFK removal. Hardline Soviet patriots likely were offered the same arguments for NK's removal as those offered to hardline American patriots for JFK's murder.

[Lauren Johnson]

Stan, allow me to butt in.

The Bobby Kennedy/Kennedy family angle also intrigues me. If Bobby was told his brother was killed that day for acts of treason against his country, how would he have responded? What could he have done? A file is given to him, complete with dates and times and the content of contacts both he and the President made with forces within the Soviet Union and Cuba without the knowledge or consent of national security. What would he have done?

I ask the same question as a kind of thought experiment. This is where I am at with this now. I try to put myself into RFK's world as best I can. People at his level in the power apparatus know what is possible and what is not. He of all people will have learned by now that "going public" in the post-JFK world would be like lifting any hope of security around him and his extended family. Secondly, he was traumatized and went needed to find himself. As I recall he climbed an unnamed mountain with Jim Whittaker and got it named Mt. Kennedy.

But considering his subsequent assassination, he still did not appreciate the danger he was in and how deep the reach of the tentacles of the octopus. And if that is the case, why did he run for President in the first place? Maybe he was as naive as his brother.

My guess at this time is that he wanted to become President in part so that he could re-open the investigation of his brother with SS protection while doing it. But then, why would he make himself so available for murder?

I like you still find him and the Kennedy clan to be a puzzle. Remember, Caroline Kennedy decided in the wee hours of the morning not to run for the Senate. Did she find a horse head in her bed?

[Stan Wilbourne]

Thanks, Charles. It's a always a great pleasure to get your thoughts when I've something on my mind about this case. It's the chief reason I post here.

I want to understand what really happened to President Kennedy and why. I appreciate your continued assitance.

And, thanks for again participating in one of my threads.

[Stan Wilbourne]

Hello, Lauren. Please. "Butt in" all you like.

I, too, believe Bobby knew the who and the why. If the back-channel and treason was put before him as why his brother was now dead, he had to have felt a great guilt for his participation in those events. Perhaps the back-channel was even his idea.

So, does he:

1) Go along with the official version - President Kennedy was killed by a crazy lone-gunman.

2) Tell the public what he knows - his brother was killed for negotiating with the Soviets and Cubans behind the backs of national security? See, there is no way he wins that battle. Too much would have been aligned against him. He would have been eaten alive.

I've often wondered why Bobby ever decided to run for the presidency. He had to know there was no way he would be allowed to get there.

Survivor's guilt?

[Albert Doyle]

But considering his subsequent assassination, he still did not appreciate the danger he was in and how deep the reach of the tentacles of the octopus. And if that is the case, why did he run for President in the first place? Maybe he was as naive as his brother.

My guess at this time is that he wanted to become President in part so that he could re-open the investigation of his brother with SS protection while doing it. But then, why would he make himself so available for murder?

I think most Americans don't understand the Catholic bravery and sense of duty and honor that motivated the Kennedy's. Douglass is successful because he identifies it and puts it in its right perspective.

I'm sure Bobby knew that if they killed him they couldn't escape the unavoidable dishonor and ultimate negative public opinion they would draw upon themselves.

That's coming to fruition now. Isn't it our responsibility to make sure Bobby's calling their bluff is carried-out to its intended result?

I think the Homelanders have made America a battleground at the right time.

[Stan Wilbourne]

Just tying up some of this together in my own mind now...

I was recently reading somewhere about Robert McNamara and his about-face in Vietnam and in working with LBJ. His work with Johnson flew in opposition to the work he was doing with JFK. When he was asked how he could do that, he responded, "Oh, I don't want to get into that now."

If he was aware that his former boss was executed by State for acts of treason, it would explain his turn.

And, remember Robert Kennedy sending down Walter Sheridan to circumvent the Garrison investigation? Garrison was always baffled by this. "If it was my brother, I'd want to know."

But, what if Bobby did know, if he had been told from the outset that his brother was killed for acts of treason? It would explain it and his unwillingness to publically question the details of the president's death. There'd be nothing to uncover; he knew State had executed his brother, and he knew why.

I also recall an interview with Fletcher Prouty where he was asked who all knew that JFK was going to be murdered.

"They all knew."

The back-channel, the President executed for it, would explain a lot of what has gone on the last fifty years.