Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 33

Thread: Marked for Assassination

  1. Default Marked for Assassination

    I'd be interested to hear from members of the forum as to when you think the order came to assassinate President Kennedy was given. And, why at that time?

    Doesn't the Adele Edisen story tell us that the plan to kill JFK was in full swing in April of '63?

    Did the planning start right after the Cuban Missile Crisis?

    I am most curious to hear your thoughts on this.

    When was the order given? Why at that time?

  2. #2

    Default

    My guess, Stan -- and it's just that: an informed hypothesis which by definition makes a leap of faith unsupported by the totality of the evidence -- is that JFK may have been identified pre-election as something other than a mortal lock in terms of his willingness to stay on-script.

    When did the "take him out" conversations begin? When did it all move from conversational to operational?

    On the other hand ...

    Was it pre-ordained that a President Kennedy would be taken out regardless of relatively superficial policies?

    Was he created to be taken out?

    Was an unimaginably darker game afoot?

    In other words, were the creation and assassination of an Arthurian president essential components in a larger plan to support continued physical and metaphysical dominance?

    And would such a "plan" in its entirety have been fully under conscious control?

    Cue the spooky music ...

  3. Default

    Charles,

    Could you explain what you meant by this:
    And would such a "plan" in its entirety have been fully under conscious control?
    If we are to believe Adele Edisen - and I do - there was an elaborate plan to kill JFK in full swing of April of '63.

    I have often thought that after the Cuban Missile Crisis, the origins of the plot began, President Kennedy being marked as dealing with the Communists and a threat to national security.

    I do not think that was the real motivation behind the assassination, but the reasoning was used on key members of the military and Secret Service it would take to execute the order.

    Now...I'm re-thinking how and why the plot began. We are way beyond the question of whether there was a conspiracy. I'm not even sure "who" is in doubt. But, the "why" and "when" linger.

    If Kennedy was marked for assassination after the Missile Crisis why take so long (over a year) to kill him? If he was such a threat, why not have the job done quickly and be done with it?

    Or, is it all grand theater, the Missile Crisis, the Bay of Pigs, the assassination, everything?

    Were we really on the brink of war (in the Missile Crisis) as we have taught? Or was that a theatrical production to be used in conjunction with the assassination later?

    Was the Bay of Pigs part of the play, introducing a leading character in the drama of the Kennedy presidency? A tension building device to engage the audience and to set the back drop?

    The part of Edisen's story that I find most chilling (and it's all spooky as hell): Rivera predicted the loss of the Kennedy's unborn child, Patrick. How in the world would he have known that unless it was part of a story already written? It is a tip-off to how detailed this story was constructed.

    We are also taught how narrow the Kennedy win in '60 was, that he used his father's vast wealth and influence to secure his victory. We have seen the saga of the LBJ side of things played out this forum with much passion. Is that part of the story as well, part of this theater?

    Did JFK win because he was supposed to? Did he react to key events in his presidency as he was predicted to? And, was he slaughtered right on schedule in the place it was always supposed to happen?

    Is looking at the assassination in the context of times another tip-off? Was it the initial surge into the splitting of the American psyche, a further fracturing/fragmenting of consciousness?

    The message: It is hopeless. You are powerless. You have no control. You welcome the need for authority in your life.

  4. #4

    Default

    Michael Collins Piper theorizes the impetus to kill Kennedy was driven by David Ben Gurion and his relationship to those forces that most hated Kennedy. Hate to say it, but the timing is right for this and is in sequence with the move on grounding the JM/WAVE Cubans in Miami.

    I'm beginning to sense this foreign source so tightly connected to the interests of the US government was the last straw that broke the resistance to commit treason within the US government.

    Israel liaison Angleton had helped form Mossad and was actively bypassing Kennedy's prohibition of nuclear weapons for Israel by supplying Dimona with blueprints and materials behind Kennedy's back. This covert relationship and concomitant interests then backfilled through the French Connection 'trade' route eventually entering the US through Meyer Lansky who was pretty much synonymous with the US syndicate. I don't know who gave the orders but I have to imagine that once those inside the US realized they had reached equilibrium with this foreign power, that would make sure there were no international financial repercussions for killing Kennedy, this gave confidence to the CIA renegades that they now constituted a stronger 'government' than the formal one Kennedy embodied.

    As politically sensitive as this is, if you are looking for the initiating cause of Kennedy's assassination you can't ignore this cabal. They had already enforced old world military order through the OAS by trying to take a shot at DeGaulle with their jackals.


    .

  5. #5

    Default

    Hi Stan,

    Quote Originally Posted by Stan Wilbourne View Post
    Charles,

    Could you explain what you meant by this:

    And would such a "plan" in its entirety have been fully under conscious control?
    It has to do with what might best be referenced as -- apologies to Messrs. Jung and Guyatt -- world-historic influences.

    Archetypal processes -- again, my term -- in part seem to be self-generating and evolutionary.


    Quote Originally Posted by Stan Wilbourne View Post
    If we are to believe Adele Edisen - and I do - there was an elaborate plan to kill JFK in full swing of April of '63.
    One needn't pass positive judgment on the Edisen story to conclude that, by April of 1963, the plot against JFK was well advanced. Such a "revelation" would fall into the "no shit Sherlock" category.


    Quote Originally Posted by Stan Wilbourne View Post
    I have often thought that after the Cuban Missile Crisis, the origins of the plot began, President Kennedy being marked as dealing with the Communists and a threat to national security.
    "Began"?

    No.


    Quote Originally Posted by Stan Wilbourne View Post
    I do not think that was the real motivation behind the assassination ... [
    Agreed.


    Quote Originally Posted by Stan Wilbourne View Post
    ... but the reasoning was used on key members of the military and Secret Service it would take to execute the order.
    Agreed.


    Quote Originally Posted by Stan Wilbourne View Post
    Now...I'm re-thinking how and why the plot began. We are way beyond the question of whether there was a conspiracy. I'm not even sure "who" is in doubt. But, the "why" and "when" linger.
    This is an important and instructive paragraph.

    "We are way beyond the question ... of conspiracy" is my mantra. No more debate.

    "I'm not even sure 'who' is in doubt."

    Which "who"? Sponsors? Facilitators? Mechanics? Sorry, but all too many "who's" remain unidentified. Don't conflate "who" with "how" or "why".


    Quote Originally Posted by Stan Wilbourne View Post
    If Kennedy was marked for assassination after the Missile Crisis why take so long (over a year) to kill him? If he was such a threat, why not have the job done quickly and be done with it?
    He wasn't.

    Far from a "threat," JFK was the indispensable player in the larger drama.

    If JFK hadn't existed, they would have invented him.


    Quote Originally Posted by Stan Wilbourne View Post
    Or, is it all grand theater, the Missile Crisis, the Bay of Pigs, the assassination, everything?
    Unless I miss my guess.


    Quote Originally Posted by Stan Wilbourne View Post
    Were we really on the brink of war (in the Missile Crisis) as we have taught? Or was that a theatrical production to be used in conjunction with the assassination later?
    Or with a benign operation to scare the hell out of the world as a precursor to disarmament?

    Or with the plan to stimulate JFK's moral growth -- a spiritual fattening of the pig before slaughter?


    Quote Originally Posted by Stan Wilbourne View Post
    Was the Bay of Pigs part of the play, introducing a leading character in the drama of the Kennedy presidency? A tension building device to engage the audience and to set the back drop?
    "Part of the play"? Absolutely. But whose play? How many plays?


    Quote Originally Posted by Stan Wilbourne View Post
    The part of Edisen's story that I find most chilling (and it's all spooky as hell): Rivera predicted the loss of the Kennedy's unborn child, Patrick. How in the world would he have known that unless it was part of a story already written? It is a tip-off to how detailed this story was constructed.
    Does the term "high strangeness" ring a bell? Archetypal processes at work?

    Think about the impact of the loss of his son on JFK's spiritual evolution. Note the manner in which his public interactions with his wife changed after that fact. The pig swells.


    Quote Originally Posted by Stan Wilbourne View Post
    We are also taught how narrow the Kennedy win in '60 was, that he used his father's vast wealth and influence to secure his victory. We have seen the saga of the LBJ side of things played out this forum with much passion. Is that part of the story as well, part of this theater?
    Intentionally on the part of the playwrights or not, yes.


    Quote Originally Posted by Stan Wilbourne View Post
    Did JFK win because he was supposed to? Did he react to key events in his presidency as he was predicted to? And, was he slaughtered right on schedule in the place it was always supposed to happen?
    Yes. No. Yes and no.


    Quote Originally Posted by Stan Wilbourne View Post
    Is looking at the assassination in the context of times another tip-off? Was it the initial surge into the splitting of the American psyche, a further fracturing/fragmenting of consciousness?
    "Initial" surge? Hardly.

    "American" psyche? Too limited.

    "A further fracturing/fragmenting of consciousness"? Make that "human consciousness" and we're in business.


    Quote Originally Posted by Stan Wilbourne View Post
    The message: It is hopeless. You are powerless. You have no control. You welcome the need for authority in your life.
    Add: It has been thus since we emerged from the ooze, and shall be always thus.
    Last edited by Charles Drago; 03-01-2011 at 01:09 PM.

  6. #6
    Mark Stapleton Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Albert Doyle View Post
    I'm beginning to sense this foreign source so tightly connected to the interests of the US government was the last straw that broke the resistance to commit treason within the US government.

    Israel liaison Angleton had helped form Mossad and was actively bypassing Kennedy's prohibition of nuclear weapons for Israel by supplying Dimona with blueprints and materials behind Kennedy's back. This covert relationship and concomitant interests then backfilled through the French Connection 'trade' route eventually entering the US through Meyer Lansky who was pretty much synonymous with the US syndicate. I don't know who gave the orders but I have to imagine that once those inside the US realized they had reached equilibrium with this foreign power, that would make sure there were no international financial repercussions for killing Kennedy, this gave confidence to the CIA renegades that they now constituted a stronger 'government' than the formal one Kennedy embodied.

    As politically sensitive as this is, if you are looking for the initiating cause of Kennedy's assassination you can't ignore this cabal. They had already enforced old world military order through the OAS by trying to take a shot at DeGaulle with their jackals.


    .
    Far and away the most likely answer.

    "The Jews are our new backers" said Homer Echevarria on November 21, 1963. Homer then promptly dropped off the radar--nearly.

    Judging by LBJ's frenetic behaviour in the preceeding 6 or 7 weeks I think Homer was a little behind the game but he was right nonetheless.

    Israel (and its partners in the weapons manufacturing cabal) was the only party which made a tangible gain from JFK's murder.

    Today we see Israel's psychopathy in full bloom but in 1963 no one would have suggested their involvement, let alone their sponsorship of this crime.

    Israel was the prime mover in JFK's assassination, beyond reasonable doubt.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Stapleton View Post
    Israel was the prime mover in JFK's assassination, beyond reasonable doubt.

    You won't see many jump to comment on this because it has been set-up as a landmine that blows-up on anyone who touches it. But you then have to say that these kind of forbidden subjects usually reveal their value as evidence. In other words, that which everyone is afraid to touch is probably that which has the most value as evidence.

    I have a very strong feeling that justification was contrived by means of the logic that Kennedy threatened the survival of the recipient of the illicit Banc Du Credit Internacional CIA/mob funds - that is, Israel. Angleton and Clay Shaw rubbed elbows with all the original Mossad members and taught them the business. Mossad was a direct OSS asset that was literally created by them. In fact, Israel's coming into being at the same time as CIA isn't a coincidence. Kennedy could easily be portrayed as a traitor by this underground group for not only threatening the formation of Israel, but also teaming-up with Khrushchev against his own military. Poor Jack lost the race of who would form first, Kennedy's new democracy or CIA's Military Industrial Complex international monster.

    Miami is important because it was not only the hometown of the JM/WAVE CIA members Kennedy "betrayed" but also a crossroads for the Cuban exiles and, most importantly, Meyer Lansky as he oversaw the return flow funds route for mob money through dirty Miami and Bahamian banks on its way to Tibor Rosenbaum's dirty Swiss bank.

    Clearly the "follow the money" admonition lands squarely on this doorstep.


    .

  8. Default

    Albert & Mark, who is the power behind "Israel?"

    Does the heart of that lead to the Rothchild Empire?

  9. Default Piper

    While I have no doubt that Isreal and Zionism played a kaior part in the assassintion of JFK Mr Michael Collins Piper is not a very god source. In the eary editions of his book, Final Judgement he showed that he was unfamiliar with much of the assassination story. First he prints as fact that Moe Dalitz Cleveland mobster and Vegas big shot and killed in Vegas, which he took this from a fictional account of the underworld wrtten by ex FBI man William Roemer, second the early editions contain about 300 pages, yet he never mentions the Chicago based Crown family. He quotes the Torbitt Document many times and Torbitt places Henry Cown as a key player in bankrolling the assassination. To me the early editions of Final Judgement were nothing but a paste job. His later editions have been much better. He started with a paste job, but as gotten better, Professor Scott is a source he quotes quite a bit.

    IMHO JFK was marker for death he he won the election, if not before.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenneth Kapel View Post
    While I have no doubt that Isreal and Zionism played a kaior part in the assassintion of JFK Mr Michael Collins Piper is not a very god source.

    I totally disagree. Piper is such a good source that he needs to be ignored. He's not being ignored because he made a few minor mistakes in Final Judgment. He's being ignored because he's the sole source for a hot sector of the conspiracy. If we took your logic above and applied it to Oliver Stone's JFK we could dismiss both Stone and his movie as you are doing with Piper. But it doesn't work that way however. Piper's main thesis, that you don't mention in your criticisms, is the strong CIA/Organized Crime money network associated with both Israel and conspiracy. If we compare Stone's JFK with the Warren Commission, JFK is much closer to the real conspiracy than the Warren Report. And if we compare Piper to conventional conspiracy theory, Final Judgment is the progressive cutting edge that fleshes-out the full international range of the forces involved and their influences.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •