JFK describes "The Unthinkable" -- "The High Cabal"

[Albert Doyle]

In re the John XXXV/John XX111 comparison: Wishful thinking, pleasant dream. And please don't demean JFK's 6/10/63 "and we are all mortal" speech by favorably comparing it to his earlier Cold War rhetoric being disected on this thread.

I think Douglass does a good job of showing Kennedy had reservations about CIA going back to his early presidency. They sprung the Bay Of Pigs set-up on him early on in his presidency and he resisted it. I suggest his actions speak what he was thinking about CIA at the time.

What fascinates me about Douglass's coverage of Kennedy's link to peace negotiations is how the Pope was directly influential. I think this is highly ironic since Kennedy was put through the mill over whether he would separate the papacy from his actions as president. As it turns out the Pope ended up being instrumental in keeping the world from being incinerated by the very people who were making sure his influence was removed. The same people who didn't question the generals who were going to blow-up the planet.

By the way, you don't have to sell me on either the spiritual content and power of the American University speech or its status as a death warrant.

The more you read the more you learn there was a developing corollary that accumulated as it progressed. What is fascinating is trying to assemble this jigsaw puzzle as each event, like the move against JM/WAVE in March 1963, and other events like CIA finding out JFK was secretly talking to Khrushchev (something we have no record of), progressed and created a whole new series of reactions that eventually led to the assassination.

Somewhere amongst this rolling series of events a collective resentment built up that ended up setting off a decision somewhere that directly led to the formation and planning of the assassination plot. Somewhere there was a shadow group of men with enough covert power to carry out an assassination and be able to get away with it because of their ability to control enough of the valid government to keep anyone from exposing or prosecuting them. It would be interesting to know who exactly that was and which series of acts against their perceived interests triggered it? I have no doubt these people perceived Kennedy had bent the rules against the trust placed in him and that they were simply returning the favor. These people could justify it by accessing already existing rules of "plausible deniability" already justified by their 'patriotic' intentions.

Albert, by this time I think you've come to know how much I value your participation here at DPF. But in this instance you're self-contradictory. The plotters at all cost would have avoided correlation between NSAM perfidy and the assassination.

I'm trying to show a final fall-back level of diabolical framing possibly existed that is evidenced in other parts of the conspiracy. Oswald's pre-knowledge of Eusebio Azcue's transfer from the Cuban consulate was either gotten by CIA wiretaps or a double agent like Silvia Duran. In my mind what this tells you is Oswald is being set-up as having an ear on internal communist doings.

No, just the opposite. You're missing the point Charles. The "NSAM perfidy" you say would have been construed as a real and intended act by Kennedy that Bundy confirmed as being approved by the president. The deep plotters would have claimed that Oswald, or the people controlling him, had covert knowledge of Kennedy's "betrayal" of Khrushchev by reversing his neutralization promise on Viet Nam. What I'm trying to tell you is - just like with Ruby's tight-timing at the Western Union - the tight-timing of the NSAM alteration was meant to imply a direct relationship between it and the assassination. The suggestion being that Kennedy was killed by KGB because he betrayed his ongoing secret negotiations with Khrushchev by reversing on Viet Nam. The reward CIA would get for this would be the intense prosecution of the Viet Nam War in order to fulfill and revenge the final wishes of the assassinated president as indicated in NSAM 273. A final wish he ended up giving his life for according to the intended deception.

The timing of the NSAM swap is so close to the assassination that it necessarily gets drawn in to the actual mechanics of the assassination event itself. The NSAM swap is a moving part that was a direct member of the actual killing machinery on the day of the assassination, with other moving parts kept hidden in the shadows in order to blame Oswald as acting on behalf of the Soviets in reaction to this device. In my opinion you are seeing the fur grain of a very shadowy light-footed CIA cat showing up here.

Not "self-contradictory" at all...


.

[Greg Burnham]

Albert,

My take on the significance of the DRAFT of NSAM 273, particularly the fact that it was written and signed by Bundy the day before the assassination, is simple. It is a "bridge document" intended to deceive historians for generations by falsely linking the JFK Vietnam Policy of withdrawal to the LBJ Vietnam Policy of escalation, which followed immediately after the assassination as a first step on November 26th. The culmination of the policy reversal occurred in March 1964 with the signing of NSAM 288.

Again, the fact that Bundy authored NSAM 263 in such a way as to obscure the "meat" of the policy directive speaks volumes. The policy directive is contained in the ONLY portion of the entire McNamara-Taylor Report that was approved by the president. That section is unequivocally ordering the winding down of US involvement in Vietnam by aggressively developing a program to train the Vietnamese to assume all of the functions that were (as of that time) still being performed by US personnel with the forward looking goal of withdrawing from the Delta region by the end of 1964 and a complete withdrawal by the end of 1965. Yet, when one reads the document (NSAM 263) without knowing the section of the McNamara-Taylor Report being referenced as approved by the president, one does not know that it calls for withdrawal! In fact, without digging up the McNamara-Taylor Report section referenced, NSAM 263 is quite vanilla and almost without significance.

However, withdrawal from Vietnam was the standing policy of the USGOV as of October 11, 1963 when NSAM 263 was signed--and was still in effect on November 21, 1963--the day the DRAFT of NSAM 273 was written and signed by Bundy. This is a smoking gun for several reasons, the very least of which includes the implication of Bundy in the perfidy before the fact.

I tend to agree with Charles on this one. I don't believe the contents and significance of these documents were intended to be made public. I think the timing of the draft document is intended to obscure the fact that LBJ did, in fact, reverse Kennedy's withdrawal policy allowing his new policy to appear to be a continuation of the former when, in fact, it was anything of the sort.

[video=vimeo;17699759]http://vimeo.com/17699759[/video]

[video=vimeo;17700009]http://vimeo.com/17700009[/video]

[Albert Doyle]

I tend to agree with Charles on this one. I don't believe the contents and significance of these documents were intended to be made public.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I'm not sure what that has to do with what I wrote? The contents of the private letters between Khrushchev and Kennedy weren't supposed to be made public either but they were probably THE most influential documents in Kennedy history.

I think the timing of the draft document is intended to obscure the fact that LBJ did, in fact, reverse Kennedy's withdrawal policy allowing his new policy to appear to be a continuation of the former when, in fact, it was anything of the sort.

We're not saying anything different there. The fact the changed entry was used as a bridge for LBJ's policy doesn't change anything I said. Like many other pieces of evidence in this case, the changed entry (possibly) served a double purpose.

What I'm trying to say here is Kennedy's secret letters to Khrushchev may have been used to show a secret traitorous relationship between JFK and Khrushchev. We already know CIA deliberately misrepresented things in other places in this case. So they could easily have done that with the private letters as well.

In this context they then set-up alleged KGB insider status in Oswald by showing he had internal KGB intelligence connections through his pre-knowledge that Cuban Consulate employee Azcue would be transferred. The reason CIA included Oswald's pre-knowledge of Azcue's transfer in the letter to the Soviet embassy was to try to establish this deep status in Oswald.

What I'm trying to express here is that CIA was trying to create the image that ongoing-traitor Kennedy had betrayed his secret cooperation with Khrushchev by reversing his Viet Nam policy in NSAM 273. And that the timing of the assassination was supposed to look like the KGB's response to Kennedy's betrayal. In other words as soon as KGB detected Kennedy had reversed on Viet Nam they sent their creepy little commie traitor and double agent Lee Harvey Oswald, whose KGB assassination contact was Kostikov, in to kill the man who had betrayed them.

The CIA deliberately planted the change in NSAM 273 24 hours before they were to kill Kennedy because they knew he would be busy with a whirlwind tour and not be able to see the scheme that was happening in time to affect it. This government document alteration was done with such timing that it would be used, at a covert level, to say it actually caused the assassination. The Oswald revenging for a betrayed KGB and Khrushchev scenario would then be available if somehow the cover-up failed and a last layer fabricated hang-out was needed. Or it was a straight plan like many of the other crazy set-ups we see happening all around.

[Greg Burnham]

Albert,

I was agreeing with Charles' statement that:

Charles Drago said: The plotters at all cost would have avoided correlation between NSAM perfidy and the assassination.

I agree with that position. Perhaps I missed your meaning, but I thought you were saying that the guilty parties had supplied themselves with a "fall back" position, which would have included the introduction of "Plan B" (so to speak) that would have caused a perceived betrayal of Khruschev by Kennedy due to "his" NSAM 273.

I agree that such a scenario is possible and it is also quite intriguing. I am in no position to deny that possibility, but IMHO, it seems unlikely. Even though the traitors are acting treasonously toward the president, I agree that they most likely believed they were acting patriotically toward the country in some sick, twisted sense of the word. Yet, for them to actually believe that they could convince the public that:

1) Khruschev became aware of the top secret discussions on Vietnam that took place at the Honolulu Conference--ostensibly leading to the DRAFT of NSAM 273 being drawn up--apparently from a traitor inside the upper levels of the USGOV who reported the conference to the Kremlin;

2) Khruschev was relatively certain that Kennedy would sign such a document;

3) Khruschev felt betrayed by the reversal of policy;

4) Khruschev therefore ordered Lee Harvey Oswald to kill JFK the next day

... is a real stretch.

[Albert Doyle]

1) Khruschev became aware of the top secret discussions on Vietnam that took place at the Honolulu Conference--ostensibly leading to the DRAFT of NSAM 273 being drawn up--apparently from a traitor inside the upper levels of the USGOV who reported the conference to the Kremlin;

Well, that was the only potential flaw I could think of as well. However, remember Angleton was like Gene Hackman in The Conversation. He was going crazy trying to find his mole. But what if that mole didn't exist? What if he was a Mr McGuffin designed to take the blame for these "leaks" that weren't leaks at all but were instead intentionally-created subterfuges like the NSAM betrayal motive where the mole was never found but was blamed for the result that was framed around him? The best mole Angleton could create would be one that didn't exist because he could control his moves, and he would never make a mistake, and could never be caught because he didn't exist. People capable of creating NSAM alterations are probably quite capable of producing alleged leaks. A "far stretch"? Like I said, look around in this conspiracy and you'll see some pretty crazy stuff like Oswald doubles running around with brown paper packages, etc.. I guess if they tried to frame Kennedy as a traitor it wouldn't be that far a stretch to say he had others around him who helped.

4) Khruschev therefore ordered Lee Harvey Oswald to kill JFK the next day

... is a real stretch.

I think this was already established as one of CIA's decoy plans.

You have to think like they do. It doesn't have to be Khrushchev, it could be Oswald - a person who they've already established nut credentials for.


.

[Bernice Moore]

Did The Kennedy Speech on No Secret Societies Seal His Fate?

The assassination of John F. Kennedy remains more than just a pastime for conspiracy theorists. Kennedy himself, in fact, was one that looked to stamp out what he perceived as powerful secret societies within the U.S. government. Two years before his assassination, JFK delivered a powerful speech at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York. Speaking with the National News Publishers Association on April 27, 1961, Kennedy called for an end to secret societies in government.
http://www.topsecretwriters.com/2011/07/...-his-fate/

[Ed Jewett]

See also https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...es-Secrets

[Seamus Coogan]

I have to go along with Charles on this people. This is from Part II of my Alex Jones critique on CTKA.

III.4 The Hives of Tyrants
Bermas's film was spoiled right off the batthree minutes and forty-two seconds into the productionby his misappropriating Kennedy's April 27, 1961 speech made to the American Newspaper Publishers Association. Granted, Kennedy does discuss the need for a free and open society, and yes, he does speak out against secret societies, secret oaths and the potential power of government taking advantage of any given situation and imposing censorship. It's powerful stuff. In particular, Kennedy's prophetic jibes at the "trivialization" and "tabloidization" of the media, which few people seem to note, are arguably the most important part of his speech.

What is alarmingly dishonest, however, is that Bermas has used an edited version of this speech to make it appear as if Kennedy is rallying against a Jonesian-style secret society, when in point of fact, he clearly is not. In his speech, before Kennedy famously states "We are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy," Bermas has removed three contextually related paragraphs which precede this famously quoted line, and which, to all but the most imaginative thinkers, make it quite clear that Kennedy is referring not to some collusive NWO conspiratorial-style cabal, but rather to the conventional Cold War forces of communism. And sadly, there are more than a few wishful thinkers out there. Places like YouTube (where it's quite likely Bermas picked this up from) abound with edited versions of "The speech that got Kennedy killed" or "JFK New World Order Illuminati Speech." No one realizes (least of all Bermas) that Kennedy delivering a speech to the likes of Henry Luce about secret groups is akin to Mowgli giving a warning to Shere Khan about his human diet. Thus, Bermas, without even knowing it, stands guilty of "cutting the cloth to suit the fit," in much the same way as John Hankey inventively turns John Connally into an arch-conspirator and has George Bush threatening Hoover with a dart gun in his Hoover's FBI office.


The most important parts of the speech In my opinion were his comments about the 'trivialisation' and 'tabloidisation' of the media. In particularly with the recent bullshit being advocated about JFK and UFO's in the mainstream media this year.:hobbyhorse:The most powerful 'conspiratorial' thing about the speech is the irony of it after the fact.

[Seamus Coogan]

The CIA deliberately planted the change in NSAM 273 24 hours before they were to kill Kennedy because they knew he would be busy with a whirlwind tour and not be able to see the scheme that was happening in time to affect it. This government document alteration was done with such timing that it would be used, at a covert level, to say it actually caused the assassination. The Oswald revenging for a betrayed KGB and Khrushchev scenario would then be available if somehow the cover-up failed and a last layer fabricated hang-out was needed. Or it was a straight plan like many of the other crazy set-ups we see happening all around.

I'd be intrigued to get Gregs take on this. It's a compelling point Al. By the way Greg, it was a very interesting presentation cheers for putting it up.

[Charles Drago]

Seamus,

I don't want the blood to boil again on this topic, but the quote in your previous post is beyond absurd.

That aside, JFK was talking about "secret" societies as in "closed" societies as in communist societies.

What would there have been to gain by him publicly addressing the Skull and Bones of the world publicly?

The term of art "secret society" as we use it today to refer to "them" was not in use during JFK's lifetime. At least not in the pop cultural vernacular.

And JFK would have been delivering a subtle message this way -- unless I'm wrong, and you can tell me why he'd use such a forum.