The Splintering Frame

[Rob Caprio]

We are talking about professional shooters here who could do anything they were told to do. The fact they did not wound anyone else like Mrs. Kennedy shows how good they were IMO.

This is not correct, since Connally was almost certainly wounded by a separate bullet (maybe two), and then there's James Tague. A stray bullet certainly hit the pavement near him.

Having said that, I wouldn't totally dismiss the Freemason angle. I'm re-reading "In God's Name" by David Yallop and he describes how Pope John Paul I was virtually surrounded by Freemasons in the Vatican who belonged to the P2 lodge. John Paul I almost seemed to delight in flouting conventions and traditions (not wanting to be carried around in the chair, having the nerve to answer the phone himself or talk to the Swiss guards like a regular person). This really irritated the uptight reactionary clique around him. That irreverence plus his desire to clean up the Vatican Bank and legalize birth control probably led to his death.

All I can say about your initial comments is that a ricochet can not be accounted for by any shooter as sometimes you miss. As for Connally, even the WC was NOT sure if JFK was the sole intended target or not as late as January 30, 1964 when they did the following memo.

Quote on

This shows us even the WC didn't BELIEVE the SBT happened!

***************************************************


MEMORANDUM January 30, 1964
TO: J. Lee Rankin
FROM: David W. Belin

SUBJECT: Oswald's knowledge that Connally would be in the Presidential car and his intended target.

According to the Secret Service Report, Document No. 3, page 11, the route of the motorcade was released on the evening of November 18 and appeared in Dallas newspapers on November 19 as shown in Exhibits 6D and 6E (Document No. 3 is the December 18 Secret Service Report).

In examining these exhibits, although the general route of the motorcade is shown, there is nothing that shows that Governor Connally would be riding in the Presidential car.

In determining the accuracy of Oswald, we have three major possibilities: Oswald was shooting at Connally and missed two of the three shots, the two misses striking Kennedy; Oswald was shooting at both Kennedy and Connally and all three shots struck their intended targets; Oswald was shooting only at Kennedy and the second bullet missed its intended target and hit Connally instead.

This clearly shows us that as of 1/30/64 the WC was saying ALL three shots HIT someone! How can that be, when they later claimed one missed and one hit BOTH men? What made them change this analysis above?

If there was no mass media coverage that Connally would be riding in the Presidential car, it would tend to confirm the third alternative that Kennedy was the only intended target. This in turn bears on the motive of the assassination and also on the degree of markmanship [sic] required, which in turn affects the determination that Oswald was the assassin and that it was not too difficult to hit the intended target two out of the three times in this particular situation.

And yet no one was able to duplicate this feat using better conditions and having the ability to try it multiple times!

In any event, I believe it would be most helpful to have the FBI investigate all newspaper, television and radio reports from November 18 to November 22 in Dallas to ascertain whether or not in any of these reports there was a public announcement that Connally would be riding in the Presidential car. If such public announcement was made, we should know specifically over what media and when.

This is interesting and shows us that the order of who was riding with whom was NOT set yet. This gives more credence to the story Mrs. Lincoln told of LBJ and JFK fighting over this the night before and JFK insisting JBC ride with him instead of Yarlborough.

Of course, there is another element of timing: If Connally's position in the motorcade was not released until the afternoon of November 21, then when Oswald went home to get the weapon, he would not have necessarily intended Connally as the target.

The other interesting thing is that as of 1/30/64 they still did NOT even seem sure if JFK was the target or not! Otherwise, why are they so focused on showing Connally was NOT the target. Things would change quickly though as they would conclude JFK was the SOLE target.

Finally, we would like to know whether or not there was any release to the public news media that Connally would ride in any car in the motorcade, regardless of whether or not it was the Presidential car.
Thank you.

I find this illuminating that as of 1/30/64 they did NOT even know for sure if JFK was the sole target or not! What changed? Did they find out if it was announced JBC would be riding with JFK or not? Does anyone know for sure? IF so, please cite/quote the evidence for me.

Thanks!

*****************

I think the fact Connally was hit by at least two separate shots from JFK would at least give some weight to the issue of whether JBC was a target too. I don't know and I am NOT saying he was, but him being shot does necessarily equate with the shooters being sloppy.

[Charles Drago]

In my expert and widely respected opinion as protected by the U.S. Constitution, you have come to DPF on a mission to disrupt, disinform, demonize, and further prep the battlefield in advance of pending 50th anniversary attacks on those who know and proselytize the truth of conspiracy in the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

[B]This is pure nonsense and SLANDER on your part.

Nice try, junior.

Opinion, when stated as such, is just that. Not slander. Opinion.

Another Sunsteinian tactic in evidence here: the implicit threat of legal action.

If you believed in the Constitution as you claim then you wouldn't be throwing around slander like you are.

There's that "S" word again with its implicit threat.

And of course I made no claims whatsoever regarding my opinion of the U.S. Constitution.

Do you have any evidence or proof I am a disinformation agent? IF not, then what you just did is irresponsible and harmful.

Just my constitutionally-protected opinion. An alternative explanation: You may be nothing more or less than an ignorant and arrogant little man without the slightest grasp of deep politics.

You will not engage anyone of merit here. Your agenda will be thwarted. You are exposed. What goals is sufficiently valuable to you so as to justify dealing with the contempt I and others are sending your way?

Get lost.

[Tracy Riddle]

^^ If Connally was an intended target, and these shooters were as amazing as you say they were, then the Governor should have been dead.

[Albert Rossi]

We are talking about professional shooters here who could do anything they were told to do. The fact they did not wound anyone else like Mrs. Kennedy shows how good they were IMO.

This is not correct, since Connally was almost certainly wounded by a separate bullet (maybe two), and then there's James Tague. A stray bullet certainly hit the pavement near him.

Having said that, I wouldn't totally dismiss the Freemason angle. I'm re-reading "In God's Name" by David Yallop and he describes how Pope John Paul I was virtually surrounded by Freemasons in the Vatican who belonged to the P2 lodge. John Paul I almost seemed to delight in flouting conventions and traditions (not wanting to be carried around in the chair, having the nerve to answer the phone himself or talk to the Swiss guards like a regular person). This really irritated the uptight reactionary clique around him. That irreverence plus his desire to clean up the Vatican Bank and legalize birth control probably led to his death.

Quite apart from the question of Freemasons (but remember the caveat that indices, if that is indeed what they are, can be fabricated to create yet another false lead/sponsorship), I would warn strongly against numerological arguments. They are not "falsifiable", not subject to rigorous methodological verification. Overextrapolation can lead one astray even in such obvious cases of numerological patterning as, for instance, in a literary work such as the Divina Commedia.

As for Pope Luciani, one must also remember that, while not a liberation theologist, he had much more sympathy for the plight of third-world communities as well, and his eyes were turned very much on socio-political issues there; he may also have represented a threat to certain interests in that domain; that, added to his shaking up the Curia (the night he was murdered he actually had handed to the Secretary of the Curia a list of people to be dismissed or fired) and the Vatican Bank, with its links to P2, all makes his death very suspicious. I read Yallop's book years ago, but after that happened to become friends with a second cousin of Luciani, who insists that the family never believed he died of a heart attack.

[Phil Dragoo]

As I have recounted in the past, my mother's father was a 33d degree Mason.

We are told above:

I have read the only way a person can achieve 33rd degree status is by participating in a ritual killing.

I have read that a Tesla device sent a USS warship to another dimension.

My grandfather showed me a very secret place in a tall monolithic building where a mysterious whooshing sound emanated from all sides--

--it was an entire office floor of (to an eight year old) enormous IBM card sorters, their manila rectangles whirring and blurring like so many Triscuits

I submit the symbolism of the assassination of the 35th president was that of power over the ideal

Subsequent overlayment of ritualism is all by way of baroque abhorrence of naked form

For informed commentary we have sources mentioned in the forum archives

H.P. Albarelli has addressed these matters

I submit the shooting of the target had nothing to do with Masonic ritual

Everything to do with trajectory, ballistics, termination with extreme prejudice

In a public and unmistakable manner

[Albert Rossi]

baroque abhorrence of naked form

A nicely turned phrase, Phil.

[David Josephs]

Baroque - when one wanders round without Monet....

:jumpingjoy:


Great posts Phil...
DJ

[Tracy Riddle]

If the frame ain't baroque, don't fix it.

[Phil Dragoo]

Stan

You began your meditation with

We are given an interesting image inside a picture frame. We intensely look inside this framed image to solve a mystery. We look for as much detail in the circumference of this framed image as we can detect to help find a solution. We have done this for the last 50 years in the case of the murder of President Kennedy. But, it goes well beyond that.


and we are back to the future

as it was an action
to scratch the needle
across the vinyl
so we'd hear it
and cringe

entropy
the degradation of matter and energy in the universe to an ultimate state of inert uniformity

that was their intention
where their
represents
the unspeakable

Moving back through the scargate
we see Hjalmar Schacht and Montagu Norman walking in the woods
see the Northwoods alight with the bombs bursting in
Pearl Harbor and the Towers
Tarot, Tarot
his house is in the village though

We
stopping here
with Holmes and Watson
"Good old Watson!
You are the one fixed point in a changing age.
There's an east wind coming all the same,
such a wind as never blew on England yet.
It will be cold and bitter, Watson,
and a good many of us may wither before its blast.
But it's God's own wind none the less, and a cleaner, better,
stronger land will lie in the sunshine when the storm has cleared."

Or so it seemed to Arthur Conan Doyle in 1917
when Allen Dulles would have us believe
he played tennis with buxom twins
as Germans put Lenin on a sealed train to Petrograd

A beautiful picture
in a baroque frame
when we were Jung
and our hearts were an open book



[ATTACH=CONFIG]5034[/ATTACH]

[Stan Wilbourne]

Hello Phil,

Does the thinker create thought? Or, does thought create the thinker? An old question, but if you carry it with you long enough, something begins to shift.

If the thinker is the creator, well enough. The world spins on in its "greased grooves." But. If thought is the creator (of the thinker) EVERYTHING flips. The field of being moves. The frame splits wide open, if there is a perception, if there is an awakening to this.

When the thinker creates thought - when the concept is unquestionably believed, consciousness can be controlled and shaped. Mined. Cultivated. Harvested. Used as a resource like any other thing on earth.

Thought is matter, right? Therefore a "thing." Material. It can be owned. Free thinking? I wonder if that is even possible.

When suffering takes place in human consciousness, it (consciousness) becomes much more malleable. When President Kennedy was assassinated, a deep wave of suffering took place inside the boundaries of human consciousness. This wave folds into the layers of being at great depth for generations, into the subconscious. And, the frame became a much more fertile field to be moved and shaped.

We take suffering for granted. It is never questioned. Does suffering have to be a way of life? Can it ever come to a complete stop? Not idealistically but in reality (the thinker IS suffering, right)? The way the current mind is framed, it cannot even conceive of the question. Which, I suggest, just maybe, was one of the intentions of the Kennedy assassination: to the keep the frame in place and from questioning itself, and to perhaps harvest some energy derived from human suffering.

Does the thinker create thought? Or, does thought create the thinker? Is there a non-reality to self? If so, our entire culture, our entire being is based on a false premise. The frame.

It is my feeling (?) the infinite is calling mankind, at this crucial juncture in the history of the world. That calling comes at a huge price: the death of personal psychology. As we frightfully cling to the frame. Seeking a security that does not exist, traveling through time with our heads voluntarily bowed to the earth while the heavens are speaking in the language of silence we cannot acknowledge.

K/Blavatsky/Jung. That's a winner.