Talbot has an eye for quotes, and one memorable one is derived from the memoirs of French President Charles de Gaulle’s information minister, Alain Peyrefitte. Talbot quotes at some length from the words de Gaulle spoke upon his return from the Kennedy funeral. After talking insightfully about the assassination – de Gaulle was a recent target himself – the French president observed the possibility of great upheaval in America, but concluded that it would all be swept under the rug: “But you’ll see. All of them together will observe the law of silence … They don’t want to know. They don’t want to find out. They won’t allow themselves to find out.”
Source: Mary Ferrell Foundation on The Devil’s Chessboard
Just curious as to why my comment of December 1, 2015 at 8:25 am is still awaiting moderation. Given the nature of some of the discourse that’s been cleared in this thread, I cannot believe I violated any posting rules.
(30) J. Edgar Hoover: “There was a story that this fellow had been in this nightclub that is a striptease joint, that he had. But that has not been able to be confirmed. Now this fellow Rubenstein is a very shady character, has a bad record-street brawler tighter, and that sort of thing-and in the place in Dallas, if a fellow came in there and couldn t pay his bill completely, Rubenstein would beat the very devil out of him and throw him out of the place… He didn’t drink, didn’t smoke boasted about that. He is what I would put in a category of one of these – egomaniacs. Likes to be in the limelight. He knew all the police in that white-light district… and he also let them come in, see the show, get food, liquor, and so forth. That s how, I think, he got into police headquarters. Because they accepted him as kind of a police character, hanging around police headquarters They never made any moves, as the pictures show, even when they saw him approaching this fellow and got up right to him and pressed his pistol against Oswald s stomach. Neither of the police officers on either side made any move to push him away or grab him. It wasn’t until after the gun was fired that they then moved.”
* * * * * * * *
The third recorded telephone conversation between Hoover & Johnson 1.40 pm on 29th November
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1909
\\][//
Jack Ruby is a conundrum to the LN crew. (I won’t call them “buffs,” like Professor McAdams).
He is in Dealy Plaza at 12:30 on 11/22, placing his ad for the Carousel Club at the Dallas Morning News, but does not bother to step outside and see his beloved JFK pass by.
Shortly thereafter he is observed by reporter Seth Kantor at Parkland Hospital. Seth knew Ruby from his days as a Dallas reporter. The WCC concludes, without any evidence, that Kantor must have been mistaken.
Ruby goes on to stalk LHO at the Dallas police station on Friday and Saturday, finally shooting him on Sunday.
Why was Ruby at Parkland on the afternoon of 11/22? Was it to shoot somebody? (He did just that 48 hours later). If so, whom? Maybe LHO, in case he got shot and survived and was brought to Parkland. Maybe JFK, in case he didn’t expire from the shooting in Dealy Plaza.
Or maybe, as the late Gary Mack contended, it was all “just a coincidence.
“Once is happenstance. Twice is a coincidence. Three times is enemy action.” – Ian Fleming.
One thing I love about the WC’s dealing with the Ruby/Kantor encounter is that they say the SK/Ruby meeting actually happened a number of hours later at Dallas Police headquarters, and that Kantor simply misremembered the time and location. SK stated that Ruby asked him if he knew what the President’s condition was, and whether SK thought he should close his nightclub for the weekend. Neither of these questions make any sense if the two men spoke late that night at Police HQ. By that time everyone knew Kennedy was dead, and Ruby had gotten ads announcing that the Carousel Club was closed into the late editions of the newspapers.
‘SK stated that Ruby asked him if he knew what the President’s condition was, and whether SK thought he should close his nightclub for the weekend. Neither of these questions make any sense if the two men spoke late that night at Police HQ.’ — fearfaxer
I think we have to factor in Hal Hendrix’ phone call to Seth Kantor, his fellow Scripps Howard reporter, when he advised Kantor of Oswald’s personal history within hours of the assassination. Jeff Morley has introduced an interesting component to this episode as reflected on “Spartacus” Education Forum – that Hendrix viewed a news report out of New Orleans about Oswald and provided Kantor with a heads up (simplification and paraphrasing on my part). I urge those interested to do their own research but to take into consideration early suspicions that Hendrix was a conduit for the CIA in Miami and that he phoned his Scripps Howard colleague, Seth Kantor in Dallas to feed him the first profile of the “lone assassin”.
I think it’s incumbent on our host, Jeff Morley to weigh in on this conversation. A credible researcher has recently insisted that Hal Hendrix was a bit of a buffoon (my words not his) and that his employment with International Telephone & Telegraph post-assassination should not be considered as a quid pro quo following 11.22.63, in spite of the fact that former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency John A. McCone sat on the board of ITT when Hendrix was hired. And in spite of the fact that this timing coincides with the coup in Chile.
I think I need to add the de Gaulle quote to this page:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/opinions.htm
The old saying is: “opinions are like assholes, everybody has one, and they all stink.”
Mr. McAdams
I thought your post was somewhat vulgar and then I recalled one of JFK’s favorite public intellectuals, Andre Malraux.
Malraux was interviewed by Bruce Chatwin and during the interview Malraux asserted that all views are, in effect, the autobiography of their authors…
And then I laughed my bleeping bleep off !!!
Well John I’d guess your comment is directed to Conspiracy Realists. If so I’d say look in the mirror and if the shoe fits wear it. How’s life after Marquette?
John McAdams,
Your comment above reminds me of this quote by George Orwell:
“Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”
Your pretense that your opinions don’t stink is especially hypocritical in this instance.
\\][//
Charming, Assistant Professor McAdams, truly charming. Parents struggling to afford an exclusive Catholic education at Marquette for their children will be reassured.
Maybe those who have followed your disinformation campaign over the years will appreciate the following link. Skip to the last window to appreciate just how valued you are by your academic superiors as your career draws to a close:
excerpt: “your [Assistant Professor McAdams] conduct clearly and substantially fails to meet the standards of personal and professional excellence that generally characterizes university facilities …. as a result, your value to this academic institution is substantially impaired …. [academic colleague Abbate is] a person to be treated respectfully and with dignity .. [Mcadams] used her as a tool to further his agenda ….”
I urge any who fell prey to the ‘academic freedom of speech’ defence of Marquette Asst. Prof. McAdams on this site to study carefully the circumstances of the Abbate case. If he was willing and able to orchestrate at the very least obfuscations of a relatively minor incident (albeit hugely significant to the parties involved) on his campus, where has he drawn the line over the years in the investigation into the assassination of US President John F. Kennedy?
http://cdn.knightlab.com/libs/timeline3/latest/embed/index.html?source=1nQMZxEcscsCoc5V-0jfP8g3i9vONgLJRQUpmAfflxvU&font=Default&lang=en&initial_zoom=2&height=650
You think you can drive me away with ad hominem attacks?
Are you so livid at me for disagreeing with you on the JFK assassination that you want me fired?
Anybody interested in my case from the perspective of people who believe in academic freedom can check he following:
https://www.thefire.org/?s=John+McAdams
“You think you can drive me away with ad hominem attacks?”~John McAdams
Ms Sharp is merely recounting known history of the shameful event you are involved in.
As far as pleading to the testimonials of your fellow propagandists, it is in no sense an impressive tactic to the candid world.
\\][//
No John but anyone not familiar with your reputation or termination should have the opportunity to read any of these many articles and decide for themselves what to think of your opinions.
http://www.prouty.org/mcadams/
Ronnie Wayne
November 30, 2015 at 12:40 pm
http://www.prouty.org/mcadams/
McAdams commits daily academic fraud …McAdams has neither the educational preparation nor the ability for such a position — his language skills are abysmal; his analytical skills non-existent. Not only has he done no research whatsoever on the historical question he pretends to study, he has no knowledge of even the basics of a research methodology. Thus, McAdams himself argues against long established historical facts; on the other hand, he is incapable of doing the research necessary to either confirm or dispute such facts. – Debra Hartman
I wish Debra was with us here today so she could describe to us why if what she says is true;
1. Harvard accepted Doctor McAdams into their program. An honor in itself.
2. Harvard awarded Doctor McAdams with a Ph.D. How much more “educational preparation” can a person get in America?
3. Marquette University had long employed Doctor McAdams, even awarded him tenure.
The page is made even more BS by the likes of Prouty and DiEugenio. Good grief.
The fact is if not for the silly political correct fools this crap wouldn’t have got past the head of the department. How silly can academia become? I suspect many here have kids or grandkids that we hope attend college at a later date. If so you should be terrified at Marquette’s attempt to roll over tenure so quickly. If they can take it away at will it really doesn’t mean much.
I am disappointed in this attack on Dr. McAdams here, about something that doesn’t even pertain to the subject of this site. This wasn’t pretty.
“I am disappointed in this attack on Dr. McAdams here, about something that doesn’t even pertain to the subject of this site. This wasn’t pretty.”
~Bill Clarke
Dr. McAdams, in attending this site makes himself a “subject on this site” as much as it makes you and I subjects on this site.
If you find McAdams’ argumentation reasonable, that is most certainly your right to your own opinion.
I personally find McAdams to be one of the most obvious propaganda agents in the field of JFK Assassination studies.
I find your slurs against Fletcher Prouty and DiEugenio disgraceful. You cannot hold a candle to Prouty or John Newman when it comes to military history…[in my obligatory ‘humble opinion’]
\\][//
As a Harvard guy I can tell you with some accuracy that dropping the H-bomb to shore up someone’s credibility is a lame practice. We never do that amongst ourselves if we can at all help it. Like the real H-Bomb, it is only dropped when you have nothing else left.
Yes, it’s a wonderful place with lots of good people but it is still human and still mortal. Some spectacular crooks, frauds, traitors, murderers, war criminals and kooks have been Harvardians. No, I am not just refering to those went on to teach at Yale. (Sorry Jeff! 😉
I take no position on McAdams the academic as I have not spent even five minutes examining his recent troubles. Nothing of his that I have previously read, nor his online demeanor suggested that it would be worth my time.
I responded to his vulgarity with and what I had hoped was a measure of humor and learned wit. I would encourage McAdams to do the same.
“I am disappointed in this attack on Dr. McAdams here, about something that doesn’t even pertain to the subject of this site. This wasn’t pretty.” — Bill Clarke
I’m sorry you feel that way Bill, but I would ask whether or not you have studied carefully the Abatte case. You cannot appreciate the relevance until you do. It speaks to promotion of an agenda – as Marquette emphasized in their letter (see excerpt in my Nov. 28 comment) – at any cost, that the ends justifies the means. I have yet to grasp how it can be cloaked in an argument for academic freedom, a concept I highly respect having known some activist professors in my time. Likewise, promoting the agenda of the Warren Commission in light of what we now know can hardly be considered the highest academic standard. Remember, the professor has taught courses on the assassination.
IS THIS SITE MODERATED??!!
Ad hominem is what buffs use when they can’t actually address the issues raised.
You guys got taken to task for treating De Gaulle’s mere opinion as evidence. And then for treating Farewell America as a serious source.
And you turned to ad hominem when you could not deal with that.
Willy Whitten
November 30, 2015 at 4:35 pm
I find your slurs against Fletcher Prouty and DiEugenio disgraceful.
I find Pouty, DiEugenio and Newman to be disgraceful. So…..
You cannot hold a candle to Prouty or John Newman when it comes to military history…[in my obligatory ‘humble opinion’]
Of course, Willy. They don’t bother with the truth so it is very easy for them. I try to use the truth but it takes longer.
And you’ve never had a “humble opinion”.
“Ad hominem is what buffs use when they can’t actually address the issues raised.”~McAdams
Since when is a personal opinion “Ad hominem”?
Ad hominem (at the man) is only applicable if it is used in a particular argument of fact.
That is not the case as I expressed my opinion. The topic was already yourself, as framed by Mr Clarke. I was merely offering my own opinion to do with yourself, as a reply to Mr Clarke.
\\][//
No, John, I do not want you fired related to your opinion of the Warren Commission Report because it is and has long been simply that – an opinion.
I believe you should be dismissed from Marquette because of what you did to a colleague. It was unconscionable in my opinion.
Your recent (and as Charles noted somewhat vulgar) quote that launched this particular thousand ships is reflective of your lack of respect for humanity other than those you serve politically and philosophically.
This issue relates directly to the Kennedy assassination debate on this site because you have exhibited similar disdain for any who disagree with you here just as you did toward Ms. Abatte; you propagate an agenda that fails the assassination research transparency test and you use this site to do so . In a similar manner you attempted to propagate an agenda at Marquette using a colleague no less but Marquette called you on it. Jfkfacts.org is either a rough and tumble level playing field of it’s not.
More ad hominem from a buff.
It’s clear you folks would rather attack me than discuss the assassination, when when you do the latter, you find yourself on the defensive.
Typical of the Professor: “I’m always right, you’re always wrong, anyone disagreeing with me is guilty of making unfair personal attacks against me and ought to be censored!!!!!” It is fascinating to see someone so completely lacking in self-awareness that he fails to realize that what he takes to be brilliant putdowns are in fact making him look like a crass, vulgar nitwit. His worst enemy couldn’t do a better job of blowing his credibility to smithereens. With every word, his reputation dies.
Mr. McAdams,
There is NO bigger “personal attacker” than you on the matter of the JFK murder. To pretend otherwise is as disingenuous as you saying the CIA had nothing to do with the assassination. Opinions are indeed like assholes. And, the opinion of the WC by most intelligent people in this country is that it is the one that STINKS the most. All you do is cite the WC, a report the very writers of the report no longer believe is accurate. That is a FACT. I would LOVE to discuss the facts of this case with you. Let us start with these:
1. Why did the CIA destroy the pictures and voice recordings of LHO in MC?
2. Why was NO ONE in the CIA or FBI called to testify under oath with JAIL TIME lurking for PERJURY?
3. Why wasn’t James Hosty jailed for destruction of evidence?
4. Why weren’t JEH and Gerald Ford censured and Ford removed from the WO for having a back channel of communication, when it was supposed to be an “independent investigation?”
Let’s discuss the ACTUAL CASE, Mr. McAdams. I don’t wish to discuss the WO report as it so full of errors and omissions as to be utterly useless.
Let me leave you with a quote from someone involved with the SECOND investigation of JFK’s death, since the first one was so AWFUL as to be laughable.
“The Agency unilaterally deprived the commission of a chance to obtain the full truth, which will now never be known.
Significantly, the Warren Commission’s conclusion that the agencies of the government co-operated with it is, in retrospect, not the truth.
We also now know that the Agency set up a process that could only have been designed to frustrate the ability of the committee in 1976-79 to obtain any information that might adversely affect the Agency.
Many have told me that the culture of the Agency is one of prevarication and dissimulation and that you cannot trust it or its people. Period. End of story.
I am now in that camp.”
I would love to discuss the case with you, John.
John McAdams, I am not a hobbyist.
Nor am I in the public eye. You must surely know by now that when you position yourself as an authority within the public arena, let alone academe, your opinions will not and in fact cannot be separated from your personal history. You offered a link related to your defence in the Abatte case: https://www.thefire.org/?s=John+McAdams Readers should know, if they don’t already, that the Koch Brothers have contributed $1m to that .org thus far. With that full disclosure, the reader can decide for themselves whether or not your support and possibly your defence is being funded by private interests with an agenda. An attorney listed as speaking on your behalf can be traced to having provided services to Koch-related interests, and Koch has a record of major contributions to Marquette University over the years.
If in-depth research of Koch family history beginning in the Texas Panhandle did not reveal the shadow of fomenting hatred in the lead up to Dallas 11.22.63 via the JBS, this would not be the appropriate forum to raise these questions; however, they do, and this is a legitimate platform to challenge you and yours over the last five decades.
If I challenge the climate data presented by Senator James Inhofe, by necessity I would speak not only to his fallacious argument but to his personal history, his agenda, his political funding which as everyone knows comes primarily from the oil & gas industry including the Koch Brothers. Is that an ad hominem attack? I think not. You cannot hide behind this meme forever, professor, unless you want to acknowledge your argumentum ad ignorantiam (the official version of the assassination is true until it can be proven false) or your baseless attacks on marginalized communities, etc. etc.
Now you are giving yourself away as motivated by leftist political opinions.
Shall I associate you with George Soros?
Since we are dealing in ad hominem, why not?
They destroyed no photos. The only ones they had were of the mystery man whom they thought was Oswald, but was not.
And the tapes were recycled after the transcripts were made. The “tapes not of Oswald’s voice factoid has been debunked:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/clueless3.htm
None committed perjury.
In the first place, it’s not at all clear he could have been prosecuted, since Oswald was dead, and the note was not evidence in any criminal case.
But more importantly, the whole affair did not come out until the 70s.
There is nothing at all wrong with having a “back channel.” Earl Warren was a “back channel” to Drew Pearson. Some staff were suspected of reporting to Bobby Kennedy.
Where did you get all this stuff?
‘Now you are giving yourself away as motivated by leftist political opinions.’ — John McAdams
You have no idea what my politics are so this is classic mirroring . . . it is you who persistently reveals your extreme right wing motivation to perpetuate the cover up the Coup of ‘63. Denying our democracy collapsed that day is poor citizenship and the fact you taught courses on the Kennedy assassination from a subjective perspective is all the more egregious.
If you believe that the Koch Brothers represent a political party you are being mislead; they represent their private interests on a global scale which transcend partisan American politics; they buy support and incite the gullible – those who have been fooled into believing the Koch’s are concerned for their welfare. At the most fundamental level, our planet is in peril and the Kochs and their minions do everything they can to impede solutions. The only politics in that scenario is the James Inhofe’s of our government who carry the water for the Koch’s and their industry, not the Republican Party that elected them The Kochs symbolize the oligarchy which steadily replaced democracy following the Coup d’état.
A widely distributed editorial on August 28, 1967: OILMAN’S FRIEND The oil millionaires are counting upon reliable Wilbur Mills, D-Ark., chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, to keep the tax loopholes wide open during the pressure to raise more revenue to pay for the Vietnam war. Thus the oil boys, who wave the flag a lot to distract attention from their failure to share the financial burden of the fight against communism, will be able to continue to enjoy their Cadillacs while others pay for the tanks and planes. An estimated $2.5 billion escapes from the treasury every year through the 27 l/2per cent oil depletion loophole alone. Only this past March, an adjustment in the investment tax went into effect that will save the oil and gas companies more millions. In other words, the oil millionaires are given still another tax break while their former champion, Lyndon B. Johnson, is asking the rest of the taxpayers to pay 10 per cent more. It was Wilbur Mills who largely blocked a partial plugging of the oil tax loopholes AFTER THE LATE PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY, FOR A REFRESHING MOMENT IN HISTORY, SPOKE OUT AGAINST OIL TAX PRIVILEGES AND CALLED FOR A REDUCTION IN THE DEPLETION ALLOWANCE. Mills flew out to Oklahoma to assure the oil crowd that President Kennedy’s reforms would be safely sidetracked by his committee. He has now repeated these assurances. Queried by this column. Mills had no comment. But his office stated: “The chairman has nothing to add to what he has said in the past 20 years on tax equalization, and you know his position.”
Not everybody has a sense of humor, however.
And de Gaulle did have one:
O lysias, most noble speechwriter of Athens,
Will you give a translation of de Gaulle’s quips, plaisir? There’s some subtlety there that I don’t get, and I love old Charles, especially his humor.
PS: As a Classical Greek, do you think Ephialtes was the victim of a right-hand man assisted assassination like JFK, as I do?
Roy W Kornbluth
December 3, 2015 at 5:27 am
“To ex-Asst. Professor McAdams, Charles de Gaulle was one of a handful of the greatest heroes of WWII”
He doesn’t make the Top 10.
“THEN, for heroism, he topped that in the 50s and 60s: 1. got France out of Nam;”
No, the communist ran France out of Vietnam.
“2. fought the French right-wing to bring social benefits to his people and to give independence to their colonies;”
The French government had a strong odor of Communism in it after WWII.
Can you please give me an example of France giving any of their colonies independence? The fight in Algeria was so bitter it caused a revolt by their generals and threatened a civil war in France itself.
Bill C.,
Your last paragraph, “Can you please give me an example…?” has me stumped because you give the best example right there, Algeria. France gave them their independence July 1962, if memory serves. The next month saw The Day of the Jackal, when de Gaulle’s limo was turned into Swiss cheese and all the tires were shot out.
The French general who led the “revolt” (Trans: treason) in Algeria (and France) flew to Paris and surrendered when de Gaulle and nearly the entire nation said “Boo.” What was his name? Anyway, deplaning, he fell down the last few steps on his hands and knees. That was one scared right-wing traitor. He expected to be tortured and executed, but no. His betters were nothing like he and his amis.
My second favorite part of that saga was that the entire French nation, well all but the holdover Vichy and OAS Nazis, rose up as one. A general strike and seizing the airports. My favorite part: a few of the good French fought fire with fire. Led by Vietnamese exiles, both French and Asian, they visited the right-wing terror tactics back on the fascists. Blew them up, shot them, poisoned them in their own dens.
To ex-Asst. Professor McAdams, Charles de Gaulle was one of a handful of the greatest heroes of WWII, first fighting both the German and French (Vichy) Nazis from underground, then finishing the job to the bitter end. THEN, for heroism, he topped that in the 50s and 60s: 1. got France out of Nam; 2. fought the French right-wing to bring social benefits to his people and to give independence to their colonies; 3. withstood dozens of serious assassination attempts without living in a bunker, echoing Caesar’s “Living in fear is not living.”; 4-100, space prevents.
Early in her husband’s presidency and in his defense, Jackie Kennedy once called de Gaulle arrogant because she felt he talked down to Jack. Which he did because Kennedy was so (relatively) young. It’s not true that de G called JFK “wet behind the ears,” (as reported in some right-wing provocateur rags) but that’s the right idea of how he acted. Both Jackie and Charles changed their opinion later. Anyway, if de Gaulle WAS arrogant, he had a right to BE arrogant more than any other homo sapiens of his time.
to get back to Talbot’s use of that telling quote from Charles DeGaulle, it was one of many revelatory moments in ‘Devil’s Chessboard.’ another is Talbot’s interviews with Ruth and Michael Paine who continue to deny their respective families’ manifold intelligence connections, including direct interaction with Allen Dulles himself. another is Talbot’s careful documentation and analysis of the Dulles brothers’ profitable allegiance to Nazi Germany via their law firm.
best book of the year!
De Gaulle called it right from the start. His sources, mostly French intell, and his thoughts about the end of Kennedy are heavily featured in Farewell America by James Hepburn (pseudonym). That book was not allowed in this country for a long time. I believe it was ex-FBI William Turner who got part of a shipment that was being held up in Montreal, and sold it out of his garage. Joachim Joesten is another who had the big picture early on, also out of Europe, also not allowed here.
“The law of silence”, our sheer apathy and fear, is scariest. It’s worse than the Third Reich. Paul Simon wrote “The Sound of Silence” immediately after we shot Kennedy’s brains out in the middle of the day in the middle of the street. Then PS went to Europe. The song didn’t become a hit for two years, until after Bob Dylan’s studio band electrified it. An inside joke in Dylan’s circle: whenever someone would walk into a room in those days, and say/sing, “Hello darkness, my old friend,” they’d bust out laughing because they didn’t cotton to sadness in the face of a bloody civil war. No one laughs that “no one dared disturb the sound of silence” because “silence like a cancer grows.” No one laughs about the Big C, Chickens**t AmerryCaCa.
JFK and the WC reminds me of The Beatles asserting the Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds was NOT about LSD but based on a drawing of Lennon’s son. Everyone more or less accepted that explanation or not, but the commercial interests were satisfied, radio stations could still play it, all that was needed was plausible deniability.
Today the backstory is known about Lennon’s trouble with the FBI, and his immigration status and consequently a strong motive to lie about the song. Promoting illegal drug use was grounds for deportation. In 2015 no one can listen to Lucy and be so naive to deny the LSD meaning.
Charles,
You can kick my dog and beat my children, but please do not compare the perfidy of what the WC did to JFK to Beatles’ PR about LSD, the song or the drug.
First the easy part. Julian’s drawing of a school-chum he was sweet on, Lucy, pre-dates the song and the album, Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band (which btw ushered in the Summer of Love, 1967), by more than a year. Lennon took copious pictures of it, on and off his refrigerator. Did that rascal John get a kick out of the acronym LSD? Sure. Why can’t it be both? They all talked about ‘cid, esp. avant-garde big-mouth Paul who probably took the least.
L in the S with D was never played on commercial radio; the spooky Moog prevented that. Now, college FM stations played the hell out of the whole album.
The last song on Sgt. Pepper, “A Day in the Life,” is a lot about our dear Jack. “He blew his mind out in a car. He didn’t notice that the lights had changed.”
At a press conference for Lennon winning legal status, he had the best quip when asked about Nixon, (who had just resigned and whose FBI had hounded Ono-Lennon), “Time wounds all heels.”
OK, Charles, you’ve made me pull a few Beatle books off the shelves, interrupting more important things. I hope you’re happy.
Something more important: the War Con, “Accessories after the fact,” gave time and cover to the most rotten, malevolent coup d’etat in history. If they had done their job, there would have been no Vietnam War and no explosion in American crime and debt and riots. Charles, you young people don’t know and probably can’t imagine: it was a civil war that destroyed this country and just about destroyed my generation.
Of course it’s both, the point is John NEVER conceded that. Didn’t play on commercial radio? It sure as heck did in my country which is likely not yours. As for comparing apples and oranges: guilty as charged. I was only interested in the architecture of social conventions and credibility.
Admit it…you enjoyed pulling those books off the shelf!
No, it was never “not allowed.”
You seem to have read Warren Hinckle’s If You Have a Lemon, Make Lemonade. It’s the best source on the subject.
The only issue was the payment of customs duties. Those were paid, and Turner did sell the book out of his garage to anybody who wanted a copy. Nobody disallowed the book.
Hinckle also makes it clear that the book was disinformation. From whom, nobody can be entirely sure.
Farewell America by James Hepburn, yea Roy. I have that book, it is very deep and goes where very few books have gone since then. There was a lot of trouble getting it past customs. There are of course the usual excuses given now as to what caused those troubles. But anyone who has read the book knows why, as it explains a certain interlocking directorate of the people involved in the planning, carrying out and then covering up the assassination.
Censorship by any other name stinks all the same.
\\][//
Thanks, Willy W. How true that “it is very deep and goes where very few books have gone since then.” Especially considering how soon after the assassination it was compiled.
I devoured it on-line about a year ago. It’s on a PDF. I had heard of it but thought it was one of those urban legends. How surprised I was. What’s that line in it more than once? — “It was the work of magicians,” referring to the assassination and the cover-up. I do not wholeheartedly agree with that. The murder itself was high-tech sophisticated, sure. And why not? They had practically unlimited time, info, and funding to go along with their many motives and opportunities. But it started unraveling almost immediately to the eye of anyone who cared. Not much went “right” for them, according to their plan. And the long-term coup d’etat could have been carried out nowhere but here. The whole rest of the world saw what it was from thousands of miles away. Very soon after, both conspiracies were as sloppy and obvious as a band of particolored Mardi Gras drunks wallowing in a pool of their own vomit.
Willy, I can’t find it right now (big Thanksgiving, 23 for dinner, many overnight guests, etc.), but another recent comment of yours was the work of a magician, you. How did you figure out that our colleague Photon is “a graduate of an apple less”? Though it ain’t the Naval Academy. I won’t give anyone’s name, but I will give some info that I came across, and I’m a bit steamed about it, esp. seeing the mess on here the last few days. A very good friend of Photon, with whom we both went to school, is: 1. very closely related to an author who wrote another of the great books in the JFK oeuvre (so he’s well-acquainted with the genre, and went to the dark side of it, rebelling against his relative); 2. a highly-paid mouthpiece for the far-right (fascist, let’s not kid ourselves) media; and 3. is feeding Photon high-tech, sophisticated red herrings and smoke screens. In effect, our Photon is the mouthpiece of a network of anti-Kennedy conspirators who don’t want the truth to become public for anything.
But you probably figured that out, Willy. What you may not have figured out is that the far-right is seriously scared that the dam is cracking, the dam holding back common, general knowledge that it was purely a right-wing domestic conspiracy that continues to this day.
I left out the obvious conclusion: they’re afraid of losing the “good” thing they have going on, which is good only for them.
“But you probably figured that out, Willy. What you may not have figured out is that the far-right is seriously scared that the dam is cracking, the dam holding back common, general knowledge that it was purely a right-wing domestic conspiracy that continues to this day.”
~Roy W Kornbluth
Wonderfully picturesque commentary Roy, BROVO!
I appreciate your take on all of this, and the insights on our happy-go-lucky light particle.
I have a slightly different conclusion here however, one that takes into account the Hegelian Dialectic. Another deep well of reflections on complex ripples that have spread out in complex patterns through time.
The main sources I would cite for the position I take are Carroll Quigley and Antony Sutton. This is a bit deep for this forum, I think…I mean as far as saying much more about it here.
\\][//
I don’t think it was a botched operation. The conspirators had two objectives: (1) for there to be a cover story that they could feed the public; but also (2) for it to be clear to all the insiders what had really happened, so that they would be intimidated. They succeeded in (2), even if (1) didn’t work perfectly.
2) for it to be clear to all the insiders what had really happened, so that they would be intimidated – lysias
I hear a resonance of Vince Salandria’s prescient declaration that the murder of President Kennedy in broad daylight was meant to send a message. But I’ve never considered the possibility that the message was meant for “insiders”.
Why don’t you read ” The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion”? That also came out of Russia and was similarly sourced-most likely a creation of the Czarist secret service.
This “book” was nothing but a propaganda attempt at disinformation, revealed years ago. And you are still falling for it now.
Well, if that is your level of research I can understand how you can believe some of the things that you do.Do you consider Baker and Brown credible girlfriends?
“Why don’t you read ” The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion”?”~Photon
I have read them Photon, have you? Or are you just parroting the mainstream line that everyone and their dog has heard all their lives?
* * * * * * *
“Those who control the Past control the Future. Those who control the Present control the Past.” ~ George Orwell
The authenticity of the Protocols is contained in their predictive or prophetic capacity.
The only way to successfully predict the future is to engineer it. ~Willy Whitten
https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2015/07/05/scragged-again/
\\][//
My God, Willy. I am just totally shocked that in 2015 you could even contemplate such a position.
The silence on this site in regards to Mr. Witten’s statement above is deafening -and profoundly disappointing.
He appears to support the most revolting anti-Semitic blood libel of the 20th Century, proven as fraud since the 1920s. Perhaps the moderators should do a Google search of Mr. Witten’s history of posting on anti-Semitic websites- it is quite illuminating.
I have no desire to participate in a forum with an individual who believes that the world is run by a Jewish cabal headed by the House of Rothschild and that Zionists are responsible for all of the ills of the World. Those who do should really search their consciousnesses about how their belief in a conspiracy allows them to support such an individual who literally believes that the Protocols of Zion is a Genuine Zionist blueprint to affect world affairs.
“My God, Willy. I am just totally shocked that in 2015 you could even contemplate such a position.”~Photon
And precisely what position is that Photon?
You obviously do not know my position even though I gave a link to my blog that gives my position in great detail.
Yes it is 2015 Photon, it is no longer the 20th Century wherein many of the powerful myths and the libels and slurs spawned from them have the magic like powers that they once did. Like the slur of shouting, “Conspiracy Theorist!!” has lost its power to shame and banish; so too the slur of “Antisemitic!” has lost much of its power to wilt the opposition before it.
As Mr Kornbluth has made a beginning at explaining; Zionism and Judaism are distinct propositions and entities. Zionism has nothing to do with Judaism other than use it as a cover for it’s vile propaganda.
Zionism is a political ideology based on Realpolitik. Judaism is one of the original religions to emerge in what is refered to as “The Holy Land”. And although the nomenclature of Judaism is used for Zionist propaganda, it is simply a ploy.
I advise anyone who is interested in what my actual position is to read the article ‘Scragged Again’ at:
https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2015/07/05/scragged-again/
And to do so before turning this issue into another “Photon’s Weird Neck” and wasting more time and space on JFKfacts on an issue somewhat removed from the JFK Assassination.
\\][//
Oops. Logically, legally speaking, that second sentence should have been, “Equating Zionism with Jews is like equating Torquemada with Jesus.”
Roy,
If I let you do it, I gotta permit any commenter in the future to accuse another commenter to an extreme, and for the purposes of posting comments on jfkfacts.org, irrelevant extent, for the most part. Here we comment on the articles and a public figure commenting under his or her own identity can
expect to be pressed a bit more vigorously by commenters who disagree with them. But that is as far as it should go. If a commenter chooses to post under a pseudonym, there is a trade off resulting from wearing a mask. You get to weigh the credibility and sincerity of every other commenter. You have the choice to engage or to ignore. If one of your comments does not appear, moderate your next try.
Tom S.,
You are so right, for the sake of this site, and maybe even my conscience. That was way over the line. Muchos, muchos gracias.
Trying again:
Oh Pho,
Equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism is like equating anti-Inquisition with anti-Christian.
The calling card of a certain type of propaganda is to do what you just did: call anyone who dares make a peep against the worst atrocities of Mossad and the Zionist fascists, an anti-Semite. Please, there’s always time to turn back. You’re too good for that bunch.
The dupes in the Kennedy assassination, a necessary part of it, were such as you. The puppetmasters convinced them, variously, that: 1.JFK was anti-Semitic because he didn’t want Israel to acquire nukes; 2. JFK was anti-Southern because he wanted the former slaves to have equal opportunity and equal treatment under the law; 3. JFK was anti-Texas because he thought the oil barons should pay some tax since the workingman had to shoulder their burden; 4. JFK was anti-military because he didn’t want our sons maimed and killed in civil conflicts in SE Asia. Well, you should get the picture.
Anxiously awaiting your reply…
Well it is to be expected that Photon would lunge at the opportunity to frame me as “Antisemitic”. And his hysterical charges are framed in the most extreme rhetorical phraseology to attempt full effect in defaming me for daring to explain the distinctions between a political movement and a religion.
I am certainly not shocked, nor am I unprepared for Photon’s attempt to turn another issue into a weapon in his arsenal of disingenuous toy guns.
\\][//
Yo Pho,
Let me get this straight. Because “Protocol of Zion” has been imputed to Czarist Russian secret service, “Farewell America” is also Russian???? There are several leaps of logic there that I don’t get. Farewell is as French as a bagette. And then you leap to “Baker and Brown [as] credible girlfriends.” This all is beyond non sequitur. How about giving us a transition once in a while, or at least a new paragraph.
Though thanks for giving me the opportunity to remark on something that is woefully unnoticed: that the Confederate faction in this country is behind the American hatred/fear of all things Russ. Russia has saved our bacon several times. And the time that you and the KKK confederates hate — the Russian navy blockaded Confederate trade at critical times, especially King Cotton.
So you think that Warren Hinckle, Editor in Chief of Ramparts, which published a huge number of pro-conspiracy articles, is covering up for that sinister “interlocking directorate?”
But why not? It seems The Evil Minions of The Conspiracy include even editors of left-wing magazines.
Or, as Mark Twain put it:
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.
I wasn’t going to review the book in any sense until I’d finished it but as many others have, since I’m close to half way through…
I’d never read of the CIA’s role in the Assassination or Coup attempts on DeGaule (under Dulles) or France over Algeria.
Nor of his proposal to Assassinate Stalin.