An "unthinkable" proposition for your consideration

[Jeffrey Orling]

This assumes that someone can become president of the USA who has not already been "owned".

Perhaps this may not have always been the case and whacking JFK was s clear warning that someone else will be calling the shots... no pun intended... before they simply owned any pol that even got their name mentioned as a possible pres candidate.

They also whacked others who seemed to represent a charismatic leader of people which could challenge the status quo, and who seemed to have an ethical and moral compass.

Assassinations made sure no one who wanted to life a normal life and die a natural death would ever consider a wielding such power as a president has.

[Mark Ludwig]

The design of this scenario as I see it is, no matter how rich, powerful, connected and good looking you are, we make the rules.

Thinking about it further, JFK may of been set up from the start as a sacrificial stool pigeon, wether he played by the rules or not, to deter any other leaders both in the USA and abroad from going against the rules and policies that were being put in place.

The fact that he was rich, powerful, connected, young and all the rest of it was a further bonus and was even better at driving the point firmly home.

Now as pure speculation on my behalf, it may just be that JFK knew or suspected (this point is touched on in JFK and the unspeakable) and went about his business with this mind, hoping that one day there maybe enough clues for future generations to work out what had happened and take a leaf out of JFK's book and make change for the better.

[Phil Dragoo]

1. RESOLVED: Even if JFK had behaved himself and played ball with the Unthinkable, he would have been hit anyway.
   

The hypothetical is impossible to imagine. While Eisenhower left matters to the Dulles Brothers, and Nixon was the fledgling hawk in the wings, Kennedy pursued peace.

Ike warned of the military-industrial complex and Truman lamented an agency involved in strange activities, but the man of peace was gunned down in a Texas street at high noon.

The Arthurian construct was largely a post-mortem creation of the widow. The man thwarted the military-intelligence power at every turn, made enemies in oil and organized crime, even threatened the Federal Reserve.

Could the Cold War power elite allow a detente pursued through private correspondence and a demarche sought with personal couriers.

With industry poised to profit would no be an acceptable answer.

The poser seeks reflection on a dark cabal plotting the enslavement of the human spirit by creating and destroying heroes for its aspirations, crushing the heart in the manner of a voodoo doll.

JFK, MLK, RFK. Until no iconoclasts remain.

Only the hollow men.

Each in turn brought down.

Nixon gives way to Ford who taps Rockefeller and Bush as DCI.

Reagan targeted and who ran Nicaragua.

Bush and Clinton.

And Gates the common thread connecting the so-different faces of the Janus, George and Barak.

[Charles Drago]

1. RESOLVED: Even if JFK had behaved himself and played ball with the Unthinkable, he would have been hit anyway.
   

The hypothetical is impossible to imagine.

[/QUOTE]

Almost impossible, Phil.

In a controlled and limited manner I have imagined and stated it so that I could challenge us to search for what might be some of the Sponsors' most deeply buried motives.

Motives not commonly considered.

Again I invite speculation.

[Bernice Moore]

As understand it. unless this has been mentioned previously, their greatest fear, was not only of JFK, but then RFK then EMK ascending to the Presidency, 24 years of uncontrolled peace amongst the military industry would have broken all of them, their power would have been destroyed, so...they felt they must show their power, and their full control, by shooting the figure head,like a dog in the street at high noon, in a main city within their own country, showing any who dared to follow,that they were also disposible, very quickly so, if need be...the message was clearly received...b

[Magda Hassan]

Certainly looks that way Bernice :bolt:

[Charles Drago]

This is true.

Accordingly, I amend my original proposition as follows:

RESOLVED: Even if JFK had behaved himself and played ball with the Unthinkable, and even if he did not have sibling successors waiting in the wings, he would have been hit anyway.

A politely offered hint as to how to approach this exercise with maximum benefit:

We all know -- or should know -- the long-established reasons why JFK was killed. Rather than focus on and reiterate them, why not try to conjure previously unappreciated Sponsor motives?

[John Kowalski]

When speculating about the motives for Kennedy's assassination, whether they be known, not given sufficient consideration, or are yet to be discovered, we must always look at power, and what Kennedy was doing or proposing that so threatened the power of the elites to provoke them into action (assuming that his assassination was a one-off event done in reaction to specific proposals made by his administration)

If viewing his assassination as part of a transnational event we still have to look at power, except now we must look at what he was proposing in terms of international power, and the goals of a transnational power elite or coalition. To understand this we would need a longer view of history. Changes to the global power structure that occurred since World War 2 and the concentration of economic power in the US and other countries which has been occurring since the early 1900s would looked at very closely.

That said, I do not think that your speculative question can be answered because most research is focused on the CIA, Vietnam, LBJ and Texas oilmen and not an emerging power structure.

John

[Charles Drago]

Thanks, John.

What I'm asking us to search for are ideas that by definition cannot be supported entirely by traditional academic inquiry.

Intuition must be accepted, utilized, and honored.

That being noted, your call for us to take a "longer view of history" is right on the money. It is just that perspective that motivated my creation of this thread.

I would suggest lengthening that view of history, and adding similarly comprehensive views of other subjects.

And you're quite right in noting the limitations of "most research" as you describe it.

Everyone,

John, along with the aforementioned Stan Wilbourne, are on the right track. Or at least on my track, right or wrong.

Charles

[Jan Klimkowski]

As I suggested in post #2 of this thread....

Every diabolic play needs an audience....

A work of Grand Guignol, with the world's Most Powerful Man slaughtered like a dog, to traumatize a global audience.

The medical science of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder has conducted extensive work on how memory is laid down, and a working hypothesis - in non medical jargon - is loosely that the biochemistry of how a traumatic event (eg seeing a friend being shot, learning of a child's death) is turned into memory is fundamentally different from how everyday events (eg walking the dog) are turned into memories.

This difference renders the traumatic memories much more likely to appear uncontrollably, transporting the person's body back to the time, moment and fight/flight biochemistry of the original traumatic moment.

"Everyone remembers where they were when Kennedy was shot".

A global trauma.

Delivered to the preterite....

To remind them of their preterite status....