06-05-2010, 06:26 AM
Mark,
None of these things can be known with certainty, since that is not logically possible in the case of empirical knowledge. But some of them can be known beyond reasonable doubt, which means that no alternative theory or hypothesis is reasonable, given the available relevant evidence. I have been asked the question you raise about Israeli complicity several times before. I can only report that, based upon my research, while it may have had a grudge to bear against JFK, Israel does not appear to have played a role in the assassination. That's my take and you were asking me for my conclusion. Others have drawn different conclusions. That is mine.
The list of those involved appears to be substantial. The oil men feared he would cut the oil depletion allowance. Anti-Castro Cubans wanted revenge for the Bay of Pigs. The Joint Chiefs had concluded that he was part of the problem and not the solution to containing the expansion of international communism: he had not invaded Cuba (which they supported), he had signed an above ground test-ban treaty with the Soviet Union (which they opposed), and he was pulling our forces out of Vietnam (which they also opposed). He was threatening to shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces. Bobby was cracking down on the mob. He was going to reform or abolish the FED.
Others wanted more for themselves. Lyndon wanted to be president of all the people. J. Edgar wanted to stay on as Director. An excellent study about JFK's evolution from a traditional "cold warrior" to a statesman for peace may be found in James Douglass, JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE. Another interesting book about JFK's death is David Talbot, BROTHERS, where he adopts Bobby's point of view. I may have been more confrontational than appropriate with regard to a confrontational post. For my overview of the assassination, you might read my review of RECLAIMING HISTORY archived on assassinationscience.com and in assassinationresearch.com.
Jim
None of these things can be known with certainty, since that is not logically possible in the case of empirical knowledge. But some of them can be known beyond reasonable doubt, which means that no alternative theory or hypothesis is reasonable, given the available relevant evidence. I have been asked the question you raise about Israeli complicity several times before. I can only report that, based upon my research, while it may have had a grudge to bear against JFK, Israel does not appear to have played a role in the assassination. That's my take and you were asking me for my conclusion. Others have drawn different conclusions. That is mine.
The list of those involved appears to be substantial. The oil men feared he would cut the oil depletion allowance. Anti-Castro Cubans wanted revenge for the Bay of Pigs. The Joint Chiefs had concluded that he was part of the problem and not the solution to containing the expansion of international communism: he had not invaded Cuba (which they supported), he had signed an above ground test-ban treaty with the Soviet Union (which they opposed), and he was pulling our forces out of Vietnam (which they also opposed). He was threatening to shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces. Bobby was cracking down on the mob. He was going to reform or abolish the FED.
Others wanted more for themselves. Lyndon wanted to be president of all the people. J. Edgar wanted to stay on as Director. An excellent study about JFK's evolution from a traditional "cold warrior" to a statesman for peace may be found in James Douglass, JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE. Another interesting book about JFK's death is David Talbot, BROTHERS, where he adopts Bobby's point of view. I may have been more confrontational than appropriate with regard to a confrontational post. For my overview of the assassination, you might read my review of RECLAIMING HISTORY archived on assassinationscience.com and in assassinationresearch.com.
Jim
Mark Stapleton Wrote:James H. Fetzer Wrote:Listen,
My research (often based upon that of others who have gone before me) has established (a) that there are at least fifteen indications of Secret Service complicity in setting him up for the hit, (b) that the CIA/military/mafia were involved in taking him out, © that the FBI was used to cover it up, (d) that J. Edgar and Lyndon were principals, and (e) with financing from wealthy Texas oil men. I can prove my allegations. You appear to be willing to infer from Ruby's ethnicity to Israeli control and to make other speculative inferences that I am unwilling to adopt. My only advantages in dealing with these issues are (i) that I have been working with the best qualified individuals to ever study the case, (ii) that we have reconstructed the case from the bottom up, and (iii) that I had the benefit of 35 years teaching logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning as background in evaluating arguments and evidence. There were more than sufficient parties who wanted to kill him without a stretch to Tel Aviv. You are welcome to your opinions. Show some respect for those of others.
Jim
Mr. Fetzer,
Regarding your terse little warning at the end: in case you are not aware, to disagree does not necessarily mean to disrespect. So far I have merely disagreed and I would appreciate your bearing that in mind.
I always blanch when a researcher says they can 'prove it' because it cannot be proven with certainty since most of the evidence has been destroyed, altered or stolen. I can't prove Zionist Israel was the main sponsor but I can argue Israel is the most likely of a range of possibilities, and that your quick dismissal of its likelihood does yourself and the research community a disservice. In saying that, I am assuming closure of this matter beyond a reasonable doubt is the ultimate goal of the research community. Assumptions can be dangerous of course.
Before I do however, I am curious to know what motives you attribute to those whom you believe were responsible for JFK's death.
In brief, if possible. Or as briefly as possible.
Thanks.