True sponsors:Texan extremists & Military Industrial compex vs eastern establishment

[Vasilios Vazakas]

This is what Donald Gibson thought of the Oglesby book.
"According to Oglesby JFK was killed by a rightist conspiracy formed out of Anti-Castro Cuban exiles, the syndicate and a Cowboy Oligarchy supported by renegade CIA and FBI agents. The Cowboys were killing a Yankee President. Oglesby defined Yankee as Wall St., the CFR and Ivy League. Among the leading Yankees according to Oglesby were David Rockefeller and the Dulles brothers. This is a ludicrous idea. It is probably worse than that."
Donald Gibson, Assassination cover up, page 232

So i insist on my Global Power Corporation explanation given previously.

[Vasilios Vazakas]

I don't know enough to commend on the Chicago plot but i think the rest of your model is probably very close to the truth.

[Seamus Coogan]

This is what Donald Gibson thought of the Oglesby book.
"According to Oglesby JFK was killed by a rightist conspiracy formed out of Anti-Castro Cuban exiles, the syndicate and a Cowboy Oligarchy supported by renegade CIA and FBI agents. The Cowboys were killing a Yankee President. Oglesby defined Yankee as Wall St., the CFR and Ivy League. Among the leading Yankees according to Oglesby were David Rockefeller and the Dulles brothers. This is a ludicrous idea. It is probably worse than that."
Donald Gibson, Assassination cover up, page 232

So i insist on my Global Power Corporation explanation given previously.

Its a shame Gibson had to say that.

Ogelsby was writing at a point in time in the 1970's when there was a lot of confusion about what was actually going on. He didn't have the luxury of the wealth of information available to him that Gibson had, to the best of my knowledge he moved away from JFK related stuff in the mid 90's anyhow.

Furthermore, Ogelsby was putting across (more or less) a philosophical treatise at the time and for my money Ogelsbys punt wasn't a bad one. In the sense he shows the differing factions residing within the United States power structure. Where Gibson (a researcher I greatly admire I might add and his book is excellent) I feel goes slightly overboard (and I agree that it was elements of the Eastern Establishment who were up to their neck in all this) is that its a bit dangerous I feel to put them all in agreement or having some sort of knowledge. I also get a little worried about this CFR sort of thing in particularly if people like Alex Jones start hammering it.

It was a group within these groups that had the say.

To his credit Ogelsby was always deeply critical of the 'Mob' line and one of the few at the time writing about it, indeed he predicted the direction the HSCA would go quite before any body else did. He also evolved his thoughts over the years and from what I have read he doesn't let the Dulles's off the hook in the slightest. Thus for Gibson too take a swipe at an HSCA era book that never pretended to be authoritative is a little obtuse.

Trust me there's kooks and cranks out there! Hell I've written at length about them but Ogelsby is certainly not one. Indeed he's one of the most rational and thoughtful people on the subject. Hence my quote at the bottom of the page. It's also interesting to note (now I maybe incorrect here) that I think Webster Tarpley (okay he's pretty cranky at times) but whose work on Bush Snr was a clever study free of BS and Jim Hougan found Ogelsby's book quite insightful in some cases.

When I get the time I'll try and find some links of his.

[Vasilios Vazakas]

Hi Seamus

Thank you for providing a little info on the background of Ogelsby.
It was very interesting to learn all these. We should congratulate him for being a pioneer during the difficult 70s. This doesn't mean that i will agree with him that the cowboys killed a Yankee.

[Seamus Coogan]

Hi Seamus

Thank you for providing a little info on the background of Ogelsby.
It was very interesting to learn all these. We should congratulate him for being a pioneer during the difficult 70s. This doesn't mean that i will agree with him that the cowboys killed a Yankee.

I agree. It's good to kind of think of it as a pioneering sort of work. I can see where he's coming from and yes probably nowadays considering what we know it's a little inaccurate and dare I say it 'Torbitt' document like. But damn I saw Ogelsby in the early 90's clearly say the assassination of Kennedy primarily involved the CIA. I'd forgo the Kennedy angle in it but read I'd it for the examination and seperation of the power apparatus. It's one thing that annoys me immensely is how people think the elites pull in the same directions all the time they really don't. There's a lot of accounts about the Bilderbergers and the CFR and other similar organisations having disagreements and what have you lol and I'm sure there were elites who were set to do quite well out of JFK and would have been bummed out about his assasination.

[Vasilios Vazakas]

That's true there is an equilibrium of power, a balance between different interests and factions, but they do have a common goal despite their disagreements. They are shifting the power balance as in a large corporate board.

[Stan Wilbourne]

Hello Seamus,

I agree with that: Among the elite there is divergent opinion.

But, when the big dog wags his tail the other dogs move back and give him some room.

Who has been the "big dog" in the American political/economic/financial landscape for the last hundred plus years?

That's why I don't think H.L. Hunt or Clint Murchinson (and certainly not LBJ) were big enough dogs to get this done. They hated President Kennedy, but did they have the power to kill him and cover it up and know there would never be any repercussions?

When the "big dog" makes a decision, the rest get in line. What could they do otherwise?

I've recently been reading some of what Lisa Pease has written about the potential involvement of the Howard Hughes machine in the RFK murder. We see Henry Crown's fingerprints all around the JFK assassination. Vasilios compared it to fingers on a glove. More like tentacles on a octopus.

But, what is the face of it? The tentacles have had our attention for the last fifty years.

Could the plot, as we know it, have worked with one conversation between two men?

I think so.

All the layers. All the intricacies. One conversation.

Who has that kind of power?

The list isn't very long. At least as I currently know it.

[James Lewis]

"Who has the power" is a good question.

Who had the power to pull Secret Service from Kennedy at the last minute?

Who had the power to change the motorcade route at the VERY last minute?

Who had the power to erase the original motorcade route from the front page of the Dallas Morning News and replace it with a blank sheet of gray?

Who had the power to order elements of the military, who would have ordinarily been at the ready for protection, to stand down that day?

If you can answer those questions, along with some others, you'll be very close to an answer to the crime of the century.

Hello Seamus,

I agree with that: Among the elite there is divergent opinion.

But, when the big dog wags his tail the other dogs move back and give him some room.

Who has been the "big dog" in the American political/economic/financial landscape for the last hundred plus years?

That's why I don't think H.L. Hunt or Clint Murchinson (and certainly not LBJ) were big enough dogs to get this done. They hated President Kennedy, but did they have the power to kill him and cover it up and know there would never be any repercussions?

When the "big dog" makes a decision, the rest get in line. What could they do otherwise?

I've recently been reading some of what Lisa Pease has written about the potential involvement of the Howard Hughes machine in the RFK murder. We see Henry Crown's fingerprints all around the JFK assassination. Vasilios compared it to fingers on a glove. More like tentacles on a octopus.

But, what is the face of it? The tentacles have had our attention for the last fifty years.

Could the plot, as we know it, have worked with one conversation between two men?

I think so.

All the layers. All the intricacies. One conversation.

Who has that kind of power?

The list isn't very long. At least as I currently know it.

[Charles Drago]

"Who has the power" is a good question.

Who had the power to pull Secret Service from Kennedy at the last minute?

Who had the power to change the motorcade route at the VERY last minute?

Who had the power to erase the original motorcade route from the front page of the Dallas Morning News and replace it with a blank sheet of gray?

Who had the power to order elements of the military, who would have ordinarily been at the ready for protection, to stand down that day?

If you can answer those questions, along with some others, you'll be very close to an answer to the crime of the century.

You are asking after the work of the assassination's Facilitators.

None of the answers would include Sponsors.

[Seamus Coogan]

That's true there is an equilibrium of power, a balance between different interests and factions, but they do have a common goal despite their disagreements. They are shifting the power balance as in a large corporate board.

What makes me disagree with the hypothesis they are all 'in it' is that idiots like say Daniel Estulin, Joseph Farrell and Alex Jones go down that avenue. Power does reside within the corporate structure with out a doubt but it's not hocus pocus its just cold hard cash!!!