04-05-2018, 11:22 PM
Thanks so much for this opinion to all readers and posters on this issue. I think it vastly underestimates the JFK research community to give more credit to the planners of the JFK assassination than to those who have researched it over the past 55 years.
Although the cover-up has succeeded to some extent, the cover-up does not, to me, indicate any genius on the part of those who perpetrated the crime. I would say, the perpetrators were 5% genius and 95% just plain horrible people.
I guess you could give a lot of credit to the people like Ferdinand Eberstadt, Herbert Hoover, Everett Dirksen and company who invented (and put in place) the National Security State in 1946 to 1950. But the people who took advantage of the work done back then do not deserve a lot of credit in my opinion. And I'm talking about people like E Howard Hunt and Ken Starr. These are not brilliant people, they're just bad people.
Even Hitler was maybe 10% genius and 90% just plain rotten. If you are looking for genius in public affairs, you have to look to people like Thomas Jefferson and Lenin. They built something up which lasted (and arguably left most people better off). Hitler just tore stuff down. (Apparenty, that's the function of reactionaries).
As for the identification of the SPONSORS of the JFK assassination, the prior posting seems to assume that the SPONSORS are known entities, but that we just can't get proof against them. This concept seems to be based on the idea that, since we are talking about a crime, that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required.
In synthesyzing and building on the work of the research giants from the past, I personally do not adhere to the criminal law standard of proof. Rather, the better standard in my opinion is not proof beyond a doubt. The better test is "which is the most probable explanation?"
Probably most readers on this site assume that the SPONSORS of the JFK assassination were Curtis LeMay, Allen Dulles, James Angleton, etc. As some people might know, my identification as to the sponsors is radically different.
In my opinion, the sponsors were the worldwide network of ex-Nazis and probably some key people high up in the West German government as well as those who controlled NATO. They were obviously working together with the US National Security State. But their activities, in my opinion, are the reason why the murder of the President occured on 11-22-63 and not in some other time and place.
In other words, these ex-Nazis were the proximate cause, but by no means the only cause. Their motivation was the prime motivation, the precipitating cause.
The only JFK book I have read twice is Fletcher Prouty's book on the assassination. He Secret Team book would no doubt be of equal value. But I do think that (even if the involvement of the sponsors can never be proven), we can determine who they probably were and, more importantly, why they acted. This is, to me, the purpose of history books and actually, the purpose of historical research itself. Different, and maybe more important even than criminal investigation and punishment.
James Lateer
Although the cover-up has succeeded to some extent, the cover-up does not, to me, indicate any genius on the part of those who perpetrated the crime. I would say, the perpetrators were 5% genius and 95% just plain horrible people.
I guess you could give a lot of credit to the people like Ferdinand Eberstadt, Herbert Hoover, Everett Dirksen and company who invented (and put in place) the National Security State in 1946 to 1950. But the people who took advantage of the work done back then do not deserve a lot of credit in my opinion. And I'm talking about people like E Howard Hunt and Ken Starr. These are not brilliant people, they're just bad people.
Even Hitler was maybe 10% genius and 90% just plain rotten. If you are looking for genius in public affairs, you have to look to people like Thomas Jefferson and Lenin. They built something up which lasted (and arguably left most people better off). Hitler just tore stuff down. (Apparenty, that's the function of reactionaries).
As for the identification of the SPONSORS of the JFK assassination, the prior posting seems to assume that the SPONSORS are known entities, but that we just can't get proof against them. This concept seems to be based on the idea that, since we are talking about a crime, that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required.
In synthesyzing and building on the work of the research giants from the past, I personally do not adhere to the criminal law standard of proof. Rather, the better standard in my opinion is not proof beyond a doubt. The better test is "which is the most probable explanation?"
Probably most readers on this site assume that the SPONSORS of the JFK assassination were Curtis LeMay, Allen Dulles, James Angleton, etc. As some people might know, my identification as to the sponsors is radically different.
In my opinion, the sponsors were the worldwide network of ex-Nazis and probably some key people high up in the West German government as well as those who controlled NATO. They were obviously working together with the US National Security State. But their activities, in my opinion, are the reason why the murder of the President occured on 11-22-63 and not in some other time and place.
In other words, these ex-Nazis were the proximate cause, but by no means the only cause. Their motivation was the prime motivation, the precipitating cause.
The only JFK book I have read twice is Fletcher Prouty's book on the assassination. He Secret Team book would no doubt be of equal value. But I do think that (even if the involvement of the sponsors can never be proven), we can determine who they probably were and, more importantly, why they acted. This is, to me, the purpose of history books and actually, the purpose of historical research itself. Different, and maybe more important even than criminal investigation and punishment.
James Lateer