JFK: What we know now that we didn't know then

[Charles Drago]

This is where the case gets interesting to me. My understanding of these events is ever-fluid, and I'm always willing to allow my understanding to re-shift. In fact, I welcome that.

Me too.

First, the whole "Rockefeller" thing. If I'm not mistaken, the Rockefeller Empire took over majority interest in the Federal Reserve in the early 30s. That's significant. The "Rockefellers" exist in relationship to other global interests, certainly. The "Rothchilds" come to mind. This "elite" mechanism is tied to the "top dogs" of the monetary system, but that's a topic for another day.

Pretty much on the same page here.

I've heard some researchers claim the assassination was never ordered, it just happened organically. I can't get my mind around that. Doesn't there have to be a conversation (or many), and the topic discussed? Doesn't the order have to be given? Where did this conversation take place? What's the apex of power that could order such event and know there would never be any repercussions? Who could've been in the room? I can easily understand your premise of a guiding global hand. But, this conversation took place somewhere on earth, in time.

ABSOLUTELY on the same page here.

I've always felt part of President Kennedy's murder was for the pure exercise of power. It was a flexing of muscle for the sake of the display of brute force. I think we are on the same page there

In part, at least.

How far does this storyline go into the Kennedy presidency, Charles? The Bay of Pigs - part of the intended drama? The Cuban Missile Crisis - part of the intended drama? The closest election in history - part of the intended drama? The death of baby Patrick Kennedy - part of the intended drama? And, certainly the trip to Dallas, intended.

The greater the light that is extinguished, the greater is darkness's victory.

The light cast by JFK's American University speech was great and, left to shine and spread, non-survivable by the creatures of the night. So to speak.

Do you believe that no matter who was to be elected in '60 was marked for assassination? Do you believe John Kennedy was selected for this purpose? Do you believe the assassination had nothing to do with his policy as president? Do you believe JFK was cast in the part of the idealistic, young, progressive president with the full intent to kill him before the world?

1. I don't know yet. 2. Ditto. 3. It had a lot to do with JFK's policies -- and also his essence. 4. I don't know yet. While JFK's youth, and the life force it represented, always was obvious, I don't know if his progressive tendencies were predictable. I'm curious about JFK's studies with Harold Laski at the London School of Economics; clearly JFK was under intense scrutiny by ostensibly competing intelligence agencies during his London residency.

The search endures. The fight endures.