30-04-2019, 01:28 AM
When you analyze those who contribute to evil "black ops", the only concern to me is the answer to this question--what persons actually did a specific act in furtherance of the criminal act? And the test for a criminal enterprise is "were they close to the perpetrators in terms of physical proximity and proximity in time?"
It seems like assigning names like "mechanics", "facilitators", "power centers", etc. doesn't really move the analysis along very much.
There are just some gigantic problems with history and those who write history and analyze history. And these problems persist and keep on going and going and going.
Shocking (to me) is the fact that at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis, JFK was relying on the book The Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman. Many consider this book as basically the best US history book ever written and it won a Pulitzer Prize. (A similar case if often made regarding William L. Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich).
The problem is that the thesis of Tuchman was that World War I started essentially by accident. That mobilzation began, and that it couldn't be stopped and it led to the horrible Great War as basically ONE GIGANTIC OOPS!!!!
Actually that thesis was totally false. World War I was begun by Kaiser Wilhelm and the former associates of Bismark for the purpose of derailing the "Liberal" movement that was gaining steam in the early 1900's in central Europe. Bismark started wars with Denmark, Austria and France for the very same purpose during his time as chancellor. This seems to me to be a simple and undeniable fact that totally explains WWI. Why the artificial mystery?
Was Tuchman ignorant of this fact? I was schooled in high school history that nobody agrees as to the reason why WWI broke out. And even a very smart person and history-major like JFK was apparently in the dark about that issue.
Citing Carrol Quigley is significant and interesting. He is terrific in painting the picture of the secret group that runs the UK behind the scenes. But after you know about this special group named by Quigley, you don't really know any more than you knew before he tells you. (You do learn to be wary of Rhodes Scholars, however)
It's like the question of who took over from the WWII ex-Nazis like Bormann, von Braun, Heinrich Muller, etc. etc? That's a very important question, but not one person in a million could give you even one name as an answer. I admit, I haven't any idea myself. Somebody took their place, but who?
Many of the answers to the mystery of the JFK assassination are answers that are easily available, but just not all in one place or in one source. So the deficit is not in having the answers available, but synthesizing all of the answers together to explain the event.
Black ops are not really hidden. The Bay of Pigs wasn't hidden. The 9-11 attacks were not hidden. But that's why disinformation works so well. When bogus information is put out there side by side with actual truth, the consumer of the information is not up to the task of sorting out the good information from the bad.
So Clay Shaw was apparently in San Francisco on 11-22-63 either partially or totally directing the events back in Dallas and New Orleans. But even a hugely important fact like this has apparently remained hidden in plain sight, despite the many square miles of paper filled up with JFK information in all the countless books and articles on the subject.
It's not lack of information. It's the sorting process that is sadly deficient.
James Lateer
It seems like assigning names like "mechanics", "facilitators", "power centers", etc. doesn't really move the analysis along very much.
There are just some gigantic problems with history and those who write history and analyze history. And these problems persist and keep on going and going and going.
Shocking (to me) is the fact that at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis, JFK was relying on the book The Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman. Many consider this book as basically the best US history book ever written and it won a Pulitzer Prize. (A similar case if often made regarding William L. Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich).
The problem is that the thesis of Tuchman was that World War I started essentially by accident. That mobilzation began, and that it couldn't be stopped and it led to the horrible Great War as basically ONE GIGANTIC OOPS!!!!
Actually that thesis was totally false. World War I was begun by Kaiser Wilhelm and the former associates of Bismark for the purpose of derailing the "Liberal" movement that was gaining steam in the early 1900's in central Europe. Bismark started wars with Denmark, Austria and France for the very same purpose during his time as chancellor. This seems to me to be a simple and undeniable fact that totally explains WWI. Why the artificial mystery?
Was Tuchman ignorant of this fact? I was schooled in high school history that nobody agrees as to the reason why WWI broke out. And even a very smart person and history-major like JFK was apparently in the dark about that issue.
Citing Carrol Quigley is significant and interesting. He is terrific in painting the picture of the secret group that runs the UK behind the scenes. But after you know about this special group named by Quigley, you don't really know any more than you knew before he tells you. (You do learn to be wary of Rhodes Scholars, however)
It's like the question of who took over from the WWII ex-Nazis like Bormann, von Braun, Heinrich Muller, etc. etc? That's a very important question, but not one person in a million could give you even one name as an answer. I admit, I haven't any idea myself. Somebody took their place, but who?
Many of the answers to the mystery of the JFK assassination are answers that are easily available, but just not all in one place or in one source. So the deficit is not in having the answers available, but synthesizing all of the answers together to explain the event.
Black ops are not really hidden. The Bay of Pigs wasn't hidden. The 9-11 attacks were not hidden. But that's why disinformation works so well. When bogus information is put out there side by side with actual truth, the consumer of the information is not up to the task of sorting out the good information from the bad.
So Clay Shaw was apparently in San Francisco on 11-22-63 either partially or totally directing the events back in Dallas and New Orleans. But even a hugely important fact like this has apparently remained hidden in plain sight, despite the many square miles of paper filled up with JFK information in all the countless books and articles on the subject.
It's not lack of information. It's the sorting process that is sadly deficient.
James Lateer