Can We Agree?

[LR Trotter]

I disagree with the word "clearly," and also with the idea that the perpetrators were the whole intelligence community or the whole MIC (or some representative sample thereof). I don't disagree with the idea that persons from those entities were involved.

​Once again, although brief, a post of quality information by Mr Phipps. Far too often, when allowing oneself to be led, as the voice of experience tells me, it is quite easy to follow to a dead end with no place to turn around. And, the only choice is to back up, and/or back out. Once again as stated, the assassination of JFK was accomplished by individuals, not entities. JMO. FWIW.

[Albert Doyle]

Once again as stated, the assassination of JFK was accomplished by individuals, not entities. JMO. FWIW.

In my opinion, if that were true then the greater entities, eastern establishment, and agencies would have acted upon the traitors within them. The fact they didn't tells you all you need to know.


The similarity of the influence of a rogue group over the greater political infrastructure in the assassination to what happened in Germany in the 30's is not coincidental.

[LR Trotter]

Once again as stated, the assassination of JFK was accomplished by individuals, not entities. JMO. FWIW.

In my opinion, if that were true then the greater entities, eastern establishment, and agencies would have acted upon the traitors within them. The fact they didn't tells you all you need to know.


The similarity of the influence of a rogue group over the greater political infrastructure in the assassination to what happened in Germany in the 30's is not coincidental.

I am reminded that when I was working, the boss wasn't always right, but was "always the boss"! Insubordination, even when the right thing to do, can be very costly. In any event, I consider it a possibility that some assassination participants were "acted upon". But again, JMO.

[Tracy Riddle]

I disagree with the word "clearly," and also with the idea that the perpetrators were the whole intelligence community or the whole MIC (or some representative sample thereof). I don't disagree with the idea that persons from those entities were involved.

I don't think anyone believes that the hundreds of thousands of people in the MIC/Intel community, down to the last data entry clerk and purchasing manager, were involved in the plot. But clearly a group of people (maybe a hundred or so) from pretty high up in the national security state were responsible.

[R.K. Locke]

It's impossible to have a conversation about this subject if people don't define their terms. Defining terms is the most basic and fundamental precondition of presenting a thesis. The sloppy, nebulous language used by JFK researchers is one of the main reasons why we are still engaged in childish "whodunit" debates 52+ years later. It is genuinely maddening.

In the time I have been studying this case I have seen the assassination pinned on the following groups/individuals:

Organized crime/the Teamsters
Castro
LBJ
The Freemasons
Israel/"The Jews"
The Suite 8F Group
Nazis
Edwin Walker
The CIA
The Military-Industrial Complex
The National Security State
The Eastern Establishment

I may have forgotten one or two.

It is embarrassing that this kind of thing is still going on. It makes us all look bad. It demonstrates that most researchers - whether well intentioned or not - have failed to undertake even the most basic processes of logic and critical thinking in relation to the case.

Is it any wonder that we are where we are?

[Tracy Riddle]

I define "national security state" as the intelligence/police/military agencies, federal, state and local, and the private and public institutions linked to them (defense contractors, private security companies, etc.) This would also include the privatized/corrupted/criminal groups (the Iran-Contra "enterprise," Gladio, Team B, etc.) Of course, these would be further linked to the big banks, elite families, international finance. But now we are getting into Drago's argument about facilitators and so on.

[Albert Doyle]

There's two arguments here. One is that we need to precisely define every single aspect of the assassination perfectly. The unspoken suggestion is that we cannot act effectively until we do this. The second argument is that, at the point we are right now, we have enough reasonable evidence to show elements of the national security infrastructure were involved in Kennedy's assassination in reaction to the interests of powerful sponsors in American society.


I'd have to give the nod to the latter. Whether or not entire agencies were involved, the way our system is supposed to work is that once those agencies failed to protect the American public from the traitors who murdered JFK they failed and were no longer credible. The sad truth is that America was supposed to be a country formed by revolution and not shy about it. The people should have gone to revolution immediately once they even suspected members of the government overthrew our democracy with the killing of Kennedy.


I've existed long enough in the assassination internet world to be able to detect persons who convert fear of acting to calls for better evidence. These same people complain that we are prolonging the issue as the plotters intended but then make calls themselves for more examination and talk. More perfecting of evidence. The Kennedy assassination is still on the national docket and still needs to have justice done on it and be resolved. Our system is designed to let evidence and truth rule. It has been in a state of non-working dysfunction ever since they killed the Kennedy's. When treason is committed in such a brazen manner that corrupts American democracy to the degree it did the requirements of evidence fall to a much lower level than normal for the sake of justice and defense against the advantage such insidious actions enjoy. An advantage that was meant to be countered by the very system they overthrew. It is becoming clear the founding fathers trusted the guarding of their creation to a public that was not up to the challenge and did not carry out their responsibility when confronted with the murder of the Kennedy's by fascist elements within the government. For those who still believe in democracy the only recourse is realization that the present American government is not a legitimate one and may it be declared that it is now deserving of the fate of such rogue states that stand in opposition to themselves...

[Jim Hargrove]

Well said, Albert!


We're hurting our own cause by making this seem way more complicated than it really was.


Essentially, the assassination involved usurping an ongoing CIA operation, using one agent to frame another as the patsy for the hit, and then, at first, trying to blame it all on Castro, and when LBJ quashed that, trying to blame it all on a "Lone Nut."


As the director and money man for the Student Revolutionary Directorate (DRE), CIA officer George Joannides was the man charged by the Agency with linking "Lee Harvey Oswald" to Fidel Castro in the months prior to the assassination. When, years later, the Agency put Joannides in charge of misleading the HSCA, the CIA clearly became, at the very minimum, an accessory after the fact of the murder of JFK.


But we can make almost as strong case that then-current and former CIA members such as David Phillips, E. Howard Hunt, Allen Dulles and perhaps George Joannides and, for that matter, both the Paines, were involved in the planning and execution of the hit. This is not rocket science. Among the CIA employees who at various times have said the Agency had something to do with the assassination of JFK are Victor Marchetti, James Wilcott, Donald Norton, Joseph Newbrough, John Garrett Underhill, William Gaudet, Donald Deneslya and no doubt other CIA employees.


Making distinctions between plotters, facilitators, mechanics and the like is a useful activity, but not if it obscures the simple fact that an enormous amount of evidence points to the fact that the murder of JFK was a coup d'état with a sizable number of American Intel personnel at its very core. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if other powerful players outside the normal intelligence sphere were part of this conspiracy, but for now, and for the life of me, I can't see why all of us don't simply follow the evidence. It isn't that difficult, and even at this late date, it might lead to even more of the truth.

[Albert Doyle]

If it was put in front of a jury there's only one reason why CIA would work to subvert and cover-up the evidence during the House Select Committee On Assassinations. Because it was trying to conceal the fact it was involved in the original act.


This kind of thing is normally decided quickly if it involves an individual who is put before the court. However there is suddenly a reverse standard if it involves the government and its powerful agencies. If you read the founding writs of this country that's not how it was supposed to be. It said very clearly that the government would not be held to a different standard of law than the people.


We're quite delusional because CIA was murdering people who stood as a democratic threat to their fascist power.

[Jim Hargrove]

In a 1997 interview Robert Webster told JFK researcher and author Dick

Russell that he met Marina Prusakova in Moscow in the summer of 1959 and spoke with

her in English. Webster said that Marina spoke English well, but with a heavy accent.

A year after Webster was sent to Leningrad by the Soviet Government, 400 miles from

Moscow, he met Marina again shortly after he applied for an exit visa so that he could

return to the US. [Interview of Robert Webster by Dick Russell at Cape Cod, MA. 1997]

Marina's friend in Dallas, Katya Ford, said that when she asked Marina why Oswald

went to Russia, Marina told her that he worked for the Rand Corporation and helped

set up the American exhibit at the World Trade Exposition in Moscow. [WC Document 5,

p. 259; FBI interview of Katherine Ford by SA James P. Hosty, 11/24/63] Marina had

momentarily confused Harvey Oswald with Robert Webster, the 1st US "defector," whom

she met in Moscow (1959) and again in Leningrad (1960).

It is not a coincidence that both Webster and Oswald "defected" a few months apart in

1959, both tried to "defect" on a Saturday, both possessed "sensitive" information of

possible value to the Russians, both were befriended by Marina Prusakova, and both

returned to the United States in the Spring of 1962. These US "defectors," acting in

perfect harmony, were both working for the CIA.

--From Harvey and Lee, p. 799