A new theory of the assassination

[Magda Hassan]

Which 'state' are we talking about here?

[Mark Ludwig]

Which 'state' are we talking about here?

That is exactly the right question to ask.......

[Anthony Marsh]

FYI a coup d'etat also includes one group within a government taking over from another group, as in the Diem coup.

[Charles Drago]

I write of the deep political state.

It is not defined/limited by lines on a map or contrived political or philosophical demarcations.

It is global and hidden, and it projects the realities and illusions of inter- and intra-tribal rivalries to preserve and protect itself.

[James Lewis]

FYI a coup d'etat also includes one group within a government taking over from another group, as in the Diem coup.

Exactly what I meant...that's why Nixon's role is important. Remember also, during Watergate, Nixon attempted to hire damn near the entire Warren Commission to strategic places within the investigation in order to cover it up...

[Anthony Marsh]

I think what he means is like the Puppet Masters changing the cast of puppets.

[Anthony Marsh]

Just one quick correction. The duct tape was done by James McCord who was a CIA officer reporting directly to Richard Helms. Helms was pissed off at Nixon for his trying to blackmail him. I think the duct tape put the wrong way was to draw the attention of the security guard and have them get caught red-handed.

[James Lewis]

Just one quick correction. The duct tape was done by James McCord who was a CIA officer reporting directly to Richard Helms. Helms was pissed off at Nixon for his trying to blackmail him. I think the duct tape put the wrong way was to draw the attention of the security guard and have them get caught red-handed.

You are absolutely correct...and Nixon was using JFK to blackmail Helms, which puts the lie to Woodward and Bernstein...we know now that Watergate wasn't Nixon vs. Congress...it was Nixon vs. the CIA...and we see who won that battle...

[Anthony Marsh]

I don't see any other appropriate thread about theories about who was behind it, so I'll leave this here. My own theory came about by serendipity. I was researching the limousine damage and trying to track down a rumor of a bullet hole in the floor. So, I looked up an article in Time from 1964. And I noticed a theory which was very widespread in France.
The theory is that the CIA learned about a plot to kill President Kennedy and intentionally let it happen. They knew about a threat to kill JFK and intentionally did not notify the Secret Service.
Then Jean Davison wrote in Oswald's Game that Hoover told the Warren Commission that they knew from a source that Castro had complained in his inner circle that Oswald had made a threat to kill President Kennedy when he was at the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City and Castro saw it as a provocation to try to link Cuba to the assassination. Either the CIA had its own sources in the Cuban Embassy such as Duran or they had room bugs so that they also HEARD Oswald making that threat to assassinate President Kennedy, but intentionally withheld that from the Secret Service. They could justify doing that to protect sources and methods. The Warren Commission never made that public.

[Ed Jewett]

FYI a coup d'etat also includes one group within a government taking over from another group, as in the Diem coup.

Exactly what I meant...that's why Nixon's role is important. Remember also, during Watergate, Nixon attempted to hire damn near the entire Warren Commission to strategic places within the investigation in order to cover it up...

Not wishing to argue or detract from anyone's theory or thesis in this post or thread... or certainly to be specific to critical aspects of the Dealey Plaza event... but what is alluded to in the quoted material and elsewhere is the use by various parties and elements of the state's means, mechanisms and tools to seize control of the power to direct the state itself.

I would not certainly be the first to suggest the presence of mutiny (using a ship of state theme), or treason. Had it involved foreign influence, action, etc., it would have been been an act of war. Indeed, some of the disinformation seems constructed in a way to force a focus on external "foreign" perpetrators rather than internal domestic ones, or perhaps a different foreign perpetrator than the guilty culprit. Some of the early machinations seem focused on "shaping" the perceptive or investigative lens to make sure it was out of focus enough to disable clarity, a thematic approach that has been honed and sharpened in its exercise over time (but which also appears to have become more sloppy or transparent in its execution). In any coloration, it is an act to discount or dislodge or deny the normal empowerment of the American people.

What troubles me is that there are clear indicators (perhaps unproven) that the success of events in and after Dealey Plaza generated expansive mimicry in later events, each getting larger and more powerful and pervasive, and which have taken the country (and the world) in a direction to the benefit of only a few and to the detriment of the nation and the world. Whether with JFK, or MLK, or RFK, or other events (including 9/11), the desired end-result seems to have been extended war. To whose benefit?

But this is all probably another thread entirely, a bigger question than the narrowly-defined thesis at the beginning of this thread.