The Cover-Up: How Was Movement from Phase I to Phase II Justified?

[Lauren Johnson]

Thank you for an thought provoking discussion. In trying to put myself back in time I see two main things (probably more) going on... who did / was behind the hit on JFK... and how does this manifest in the official response? And who was providing the advice on the entire process for these two main things?

This entire post is mush. You have a strong track record of posting mush if not pure disinfo. I know Peter Lemkin thinks you are one of "them." I generally stay away from JFK threads because I am neither a researcher nor a serious student. But you have proven yourself to be one to be ignored in the 9/11 threads. This first posting after a long absence is even worse than anything you put up regarding 9/11.

I know, the irony, the hypocrisy. Here I have been jumping on CD and then I go and say this.

Having said that, I note that you are posting during a time of tension and after a long absence. I submit you are here to advance your cause of sowing chaos and confusion. Leave.

EDIT: I am blocking Orling and I suggest the rest of you do the same.

[Charles Drago]

Enemy action in its purest form.

The quote Orling attributes to DiEugenio is something I wrote and posted on multiple threads. Although the mis-attribution could be a function of Orling's mishandling -- likely intentional -- of quoting procedures.

Nevertheless: DPF is under attack, everyone.

Doubt it at your peril.

Orling -- You appear in a moment of great challenge for DPF. Even though you made it clear that you were leaving and never would return. If "follow the money" was the mantra of Watergate investigators, "question the timing" is just as important a tool for all of us toiling in contemporary deep politics.

There is no innocent explanation for the timing of current your re-emergence from the filth.

Keep your word, Orling. Screw!

And Lauren: Sticking your head in the sand by "blocking" Orling or anyone else does nothing other than accomplish their missions to silence us and take our podium.

When you stick your head in the sand, you stick your head up your ass.

NO BLOCKING!

RESPOND! EXPOSE! FIGHT!

[Charles Drago]

[quote=Jim DiEugenio]

But I submit that at the Sponsor level there could be found perception of long-term value in the maintenance of a communist "threat" just 90 miles away. Castro was more valuable alive than dead. For wasn't the whole point of Cold War dramaturgy -- on both sides of the Iron Curtain -- to maximize power and profit by maintaining and controlling hostilities?

Thank you for an thought provoking discussion. In trying to put myself back in time I see two main things (probably more) going on... who did / was behind the hit on JFK... and how does this manifest in the official response? And who was providing the advice on the entire process for these two main things?

Would it even occur to LBJ the big cheese... that the hit could have been a coup by the pentagon/CIA nexus? If so what could be possibly do? My guess is that the POTUS under those circumstances would tread very lightly... and if he bit his toungue and observed the advisers he might get an inkling of who was behind it. Of course know who was behind it would determine the response and everyone quickly realized that the lone nut would be the least worst outcome. If it was Cuba, USSR an attack Iraq response was in the offing but it would attack USSR. Was there evidence of that to go that radical? The CIA and friends probably saw this as too radical an outcome and conceivably the end game... They would argue to cool it so their franchise would go on and the generals would be able to get what they wanted if they had to keep their nukes in their holsters they could have their little proxy war in SE Asia.

As creepy as LBJ was it seemed that all he could do is get to sit in the oval office if he behaved and get his corrupt ways swept under the rug... The nation would not stand for one assassination and an impeachment of the VP now pres as a crook and murderer. Johnson was trapped even if he did suspect a coup. He'd also have a hard time of convincing the world that he was not part of it.

To make sure that the coup was feared they offed RFK, MLK and anyone who had visions of anything other than the USA as empire with a unleashed military MIC to roam the world.

What would have happened if the coup possibility has surfaced? If it had any legs at all it might have led to the coup taking over a la South America... marshal music and no need to the fig leaf democracy that they used for cover for the last 50 years. But would America go fascist without some push-back? Boiling frogs and all manner of distraction and PR and slowly legally evolving into a lawless neo-fascist nation would produce a much cleaner and better outcome.

The Warren report was suppose to fool everyone. It didn't. But many were and many seemed to realize that it didn't make sense but the real conspiracy was even more frightening that the lone nut and people settled into domestic tranquility and loss of innocence... and off they went to SE Asia with dreams of a strong nation being a safe one... an easy sell.

But it's hard to keep a lid on lies... they have short legs and don't get far. And they haven't. People know they were lied to... are being lied to all the time and are helpless to do a thing about it. We waited 50 yrs to get a look at the evidence... I'm willing to bet... we don't see it or it's gone... There is nothing that has the force... or whatever it would take to reveal the truth and effect justice. The MIC, CIA are not going away. And they have all the guns. They run the show.

Not only am I not blocking Orling; I am reposting his gibberish as an example of what Guido Preparata describes below:

The social sciences . . . suffer when fashionable nonsense and word games displace
the critical and rigorous analysis of social realities. Postmodernism has three
principal negative effects: a waste of time in the human sciences, a cultural confusion
that favors obscurantism, and a weakening of the political left . . . No research
[ . . . ] can progress on a basis that is both conceptually confused and radically
detached from empirical evidence [ . . . ]. What is worse [ . . . ] is the adverse effect
that abandoning clear thinking and clear writing has on teaching and culture.
Students learn to repeat and to embellish discourses that they only barely understand.
They can even, if they are lucky, make an academic career out of it by
becoming expert in the manipulation of an erudite jargon.

[Magda Hassan]

All of this being stated for the record, Your Lordships, I reserve the rights to rip the bowels out of enemy agents and to refuse to suffer fools.

We don't allow 'enemy agents' on the forum. As for fools use the 'Block' function so you don't have to suffer them.

Problem with that is, if fools are given free reign, their foolishness taints the serious work of those around them and threatens to become part of the record.

We're not debating the flat earth hypothesis here, Maggie.

There are knives to our throats.

I'll be goddamned if I run away and hide from the fight by using a "Block" function.

I'll retain disemboweling as an option, thank you.

Go have your blood lust some where else please. Adrenaline junkies do nothing to help. Your definition of a fool is different to say, Lauren's definition. It is all too subjective. My point still stands as forum owners we have the delete button when it is needed as it inevitably will be from time to time. No need to get all worked up about it Charles. Basic standards of decorum will be maintained on this forum so that productive discussions and progress can take place. This is not the EF where any thing goes. That is one of the reasons this forum exists.

[Adele Edisen]

Before I relate my story, I'd like to thank Charles and Jan for their overwhelming words and comments some pages before this one. And also I'd like to thank everyone, just for being yourselves, even with some restraint.

My classroom story is about the power of words.

During the many years I've taught physiology to college, graduate, medical, and nursing students, I played a little game with them when the subject of Conditional Reflexes came up on the topic schedule. It was worked pretty well in each class, and especially well in late morning classes. The topic was announced and then I asked the students for their permission to play a little game with them. Of course they said, "Yes and Okay," anything for which was a chance for fun. I would tell the class to pay attention to their bodies and to note any changes they perceived while I would keep on talking.

I would launch into a list of popular foods young people seemed to like, such as hamburgers, sodas, pancakes, pizzas, cookies, pie, waffles, stesks, cakes, baked chichken, popcorn, cheese crackers, baked potatoes with sour cream, turkey and stuffing, nachos (in Texas)....I took my time and after a minute or so, I stopped and asked it they had noticed any changes in their body. Usually the answers came slowly because they did not know quite how to answer my question. Someone might say they felt hungry, and many would agree. But the answer I was seeking usually came too, that they felt more moisture (saliva) in their mouths. I would then ask why they would salivate because all I had done was recite a list of food names. Well, they soon figured out that they had associated these words with these foods which they liked and had learned all this during their lives. This, of course, introduced Ivan Pavlov's experiements with his dogs who were taught to salivate to the sound of a ringing bell when it was rung as food was shown to the animal. The smell or the sight of food stimulated the production of saliva, and eventually, the animals would salivate to just the sound of the bell. Pavlov called the sight or smell or taste of food a primary signal system to the nervous system. The sound of the bell became a secondary signal system to the dogs, and this is what our languages are, or can be. We learn the meanings of words through direct action, as a child learns to identify colors, and by the use of other words (by sounds and by sight), or by touch in Braille language and by sight with hand gestures for the deaf.

It is not only the parasympathetic part of our nervous system which is activated by words, but every part of the nervous system. The sympathetic portion responds in a rapid "fight or flight" way to help us survive; the heart beats faster and the blood pressure rises. It produces the thrills and excitement while watching a scary movie or video. The motor system of the central nervous system goes to work to move the body from danger. And soothing words can make us feel more relaxed.

Incidentally, the correct translation from the Russian is conditionAL (not conditionED) relexes. The relexes can be inhibited or abolished because -they depend upon building new connections between neurons which may be lost from inhibition or disuse. Spinal reflexes, such as the knee-jerk reaction, are not learned reflexes, but have permanent anatomical connections in their pathways.

The point of all this is that words and phrases can have, and do have, physiological consequences. Stay healthy.

Adele

[Jeffrey Orling]

Interesting response... perhaps a bit paranoid. Doesn't matter. I simply had my interest in JFK reignited when I received an email from Russ Baker with a link to a 9 part movie online about the assassination. I spent the day watching and and then came over to DPF to read through the JFK threads... of which there many. I am certainly not trying undermine the thrust of the DFP. Not being a research I have nothing to ad... only my impressions based on my exposure limited as it is. I don't know why my comments or opinions evoke such a reaction... accusing me of being some sort of agent sent here to disrupt and cause DFP to lose focus. I am not an agent... with no intention other than understand some of the complexity... how the players I witnessed in the film fit together... and into the plot. I came upon new names... as I have not been a follower of the research over the years... and was curious to learn what DFP thought about some of those mentioned... such as Judith Baker, Ochsner...

The only similarity that I see between 9/11 and JFK is the same interests controlled the narrative and steered the policies surrounding the two events... the MIC and intel... both of which are legalized criminal operations of enormous power and control yet hungry for more and protective of their franchise. I tend to see the sponsors as a collection of the men at the top of these huge corps, conglomerates, monopolies... the empire... whose interests are served and supported by the pentagon and intel. It's a structure which is self renewing of personnel but the agenda remains the same. My sense is that these interests had somewhat less control over political power pre JFK and decided that this was too unreliable to secure this goals. JFK was their push to change that... a coup which left a neutered political system in place which was easily manipulated to serve their agenda... which included all things military in their control serving their goals.

It seems to me that the empire with a big stick becomes a self fulfilling prophesy much the way the need for guns is there because the need to protect from others with guns. The empire can't help but grow a powerful national security state which can justify itself by the chaos, terrorism and insurgency it gives rise to. The NSS has learned to cleverly (and no so cleverly) exploit the chaos, terrorism and insurgency it gives rise to. This informs my overarching view that 9/11 was not MIHOP but more of a LIHOP and JFK was a MIHOP... of the NSS. If this is mush... it's my mush. Feel free to ignore it.

[Jim Hackett II]

Adele writ:
"The point of all this is that words and phrases can have, and do have, physiological consequences. Stay healthy."

Amen
Ma'am

[Jeffrey Orling]

Adele writ:
"The point of all this is that words and phrases can have, and do have, physiological consequences. Stay healthy."

Amen
Ma'am

And psychological consequences inform actual behavior... which is what makes the world go round.

[Adele Edisen]

Adele writ:
"The point of all this is that words and phrases can have, and do have, physiological consequences. Stay healthy."

Amen
Ma'am

And psychological consequences inform actual behavior... which is what makes the world go round.

And that, too, Jeff. It reminds me of a statement made by another, but earlier Russian physiologist, Ivan Sechenov* (around 1865), "The external expression of brain activity is in the form of muscular movement." Some might call that 'body language' these days, a way of analyzing and understanding emotional states. The psychiatrist and clinical hypnotist, Milton Erickson**, who had suffered from infantile paralysis as an adolescent, was a master in understanding his patients' moods and feelings by keenly observng their physical reactions to his questions and statements. As he had recovered the use of his body musculature little by little he had became aware of the tiniest and weakest muscle action which he could later observe in his patients' faces and bodies. These subtle actions might match the verbal remarks of the patients, or they might not, but in either case Erickson was able to surmise what the patients real feelings actually were, and thereby make progress in his therapeutic work.

*Ivan Sechenov biography: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Sechenov

**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_H._Erickson

Adele

[Greg Burnham]

Adele writ:
"The point of all this is that words and phrases can have, and do have, physiological consequences. Stay healthy."

Perhaps I was talking at break-neck speed?