28-02-2011, 02:09 PM
Charles,
Could you explain what you meant by this:
I have often thought that after the Cuban Missile Crisis, the origins of the plot began, President Kennedy being marked as dealing with the Communists and a threat to national security.
I do not think that was the real motivation behind the assassination, but the reasoning was used on key members of the military and Secret Service it would take to execute the order.
Now...I'm re-thinking how and why the plot began. We are way beyond the question of whether there was a conspiracy. I'm not even sure "who" is in doubt. But, the "why" and "when" linger.
If Kennedy was marked for assassination after the Missile Crisis why take so long (over a year) to kill him? If he was such a threat, why not have the job done quickly and be done with it?
Or, is it all grand theater, the Missile Crisis, the Bay of Pigs, the assassination, everything?
Were we really on the brink of war (in the Missile Crisis) as we have taught? Or was that a theatrical production to be used in conjunction with the assassination later?
Was the Bay of Pigs part of the play, introducing a leading character in the drama of the Kennedy presidency? A tension building device to engage the audience and to set the back drop?
The part of Edisen's story that I find most chilling (and it's all spooky as hell): Rivera predicted the loss of the Kennedy's unborn child, Patrick. How in the world would he have known that unless it was part of a story already written? It is a tip-off to how detailed this story was constructed.
We are also taught how narrow the Kennedy win in '60 was, that he used his father's vast wealth and influence to secure his victory. We have seen the saga of the LBJ side of things played out this forum with much passion. Is that part of the story as well, part of this theater?
Did JFK win because he was supposed to? Did he react to key events in his presidency as he was predicted to? And, was he slaughtered right on schedule in the place it was always supposed to happen?
Is looking at the assassination in the context of times another tip-off? Was it the initial surge into the splitting of the American psyche, a further fracturing/fragmenting of consciousness?
The message: It is hopeless. You are powerless. You have no control. You welcome the need for authority in your life.
Could you explain what you meant by this:
Quote:And would such a "plan" in its entirety have been fully under conscious control?If we are to believe Adele Edisen - and I do - there was an elaborate plan to kill JFK in full swing of April of '63.
I have often thought that after the Cuban Missile Crisis, the origins of the plot began, President Kennedy being marked as dealing with the Communists and a threat to national security.
I do not think that was the real motivation behind the assassination, but the reasoning was used on key members of the military and Secret Service it would take to execute the order.
Now...I'm re-thinking how and why the plot began. We are way beyond the question of whether there was a conspiracy. I'm not even sure "who" is in doubt. But, the "why" and "when" linger.
If Kennedy was marked for assassination after the Missile Crisis why take so long (over a year) to kill him? If he was such a threat, why not have the job done quickly and be done with it?
Or, is it all grand theater, the Missile Crisis, the Bay of Pigs, the assassination, everything?
Were we really on the brink of war (in the Missile Crisis) as we have taught? Or was that a theatrical production to be used in conjunction with the assassination later?
Was the Bay of Pigs part of the play, introducing a leading character in the drama of the Kennedy presidency? A tension building device to engage the audience and to set the back drop?
The part of Edisen's story that I find most chilling (and it's all spooky as hell): Rivera predicted the loss of the Kennedy's unborn child, Patrick. How in the world would he have known that unless it was part of a story already written? It is a tip-off to how detailed this story was constructed.
We are also taught how narrow the Kennedy win in '60 was, that he used his father's vast wealth and influence to secure his victory. We have seen the saga of the LBJ side of things played out this forum with much passion. Is that part of the story as well, part of this theater?
Did JFK win because he was supposed to? Did he react to key events in his presidency as he was predicted to? And, was he slaughtered right on schedule in the place it was always supposed to happen?
Is looking at the assassination in the context of times another tip-off? Was it the initial surge into the splitting of the American psyche, a further fracturing/fragmenting of consciousness?
The message: It is hopeless. You are powerless. You have no control. You welcome the need for authority in your life.