Over the years, I have read quite a few books on the Kennedy assassination, seen many TV documentaries, etc., but those that impressed me the most were by Mark Lane. I recommend "Rush to Judgement" and the one that answers best who killed Kennedy is "Plausible Denial" also by Lane. The best film, "Executive Action" was written by Lane and Donald Freed (author "Killing Time" on the O.J. case.)
The best book on all the assassinations is "The Taking of America 1-2-3, and you can read it free online. It puts everything in perspective so that you can see the big picture. It even explains what is going on right now.
Complete Book: "THE TAKING OF AMERICA, 1-2-3", 1985 http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ToA/ToA.html#TOC
To take over a real democracy without letting the people know it has been taken over is a fantastic achievement. A list of the accomplishments of the power control group illustrates the point. Since 1963, they have:
Assassinated John F. Kennedy;
Controlled Lyndon B. Johnson as president;
Forced LBJ out of the presidency;
Assassinated Robert F. Kennedy, assuring Nixon's election in 1968;
Assassinated Dr. Martin Luther King;
Eliminated Ted Kennedy as a contender in the 1972 elections by framing him at Chappaquiddick and threatening his children;
Stopped George Wallace's campaign, assuring Nixon's election in 1972;
Knocked Edmund Muskie out of the 1972 election campaign by using dirty tricks;
Covered up all of the above;
Controlled the 15 major news media organizations;
Made Gerald Ford vice president and then president;
Insured continuity of the cover-ups by forcing Ford to pardon Nixon;
Murdered about 100 witnesses and participants in the three assassinations and one attempted assassination;
Blocked efforts by private citizens and organizations to reveal the take-over; discredited, ruined or infiltrated these individuals or groups; murdered or were accomplices to the murders of the operating assassins;
Blocked efforts by members of the Senate and House to initiate investigations of the assassinations and attempted to whitewash, ridicule or eliminate these efforts (their influence and infiltration has been particularly effective in the Church Committee and in the House Rules Committee);
Controlled the presidential election procedure since 1964 by eliminating the candidates who might expose the truth and insuring the election or appointment of candidates already committed to covering up the truth about the take-over.
Thanks for the link. That was an informative read!
This makes a great template to how the CIA controls the government at every level. Stealth, duplicity, media control, an control of politicians being destroyed and CIA men put in the positions of the men that are destroyed.
I will be reading THE SECRET TEAM. The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the United. States and the World. L. FLETCHER PROUTY. Col., U.S. Air Force (Ret.).
Prouty was in a level of government that was privy to t he interworkings.
P.S. I forgot to mention that I had a subscription to "Probe," DiEugenio's AARB publication. It was so difficult to read and so detailed, I never got around to really reading it. I am quite satisfied that the CIA "did it." as proved by Mark Lane in "Plausible Denial" about the case E. Howard Hunt brought against Liberty Lobby. He deposed many former heads of the CIA along with Hunt, all top men in the CIA. I thought the testimony of Marita Lorenz was great, though it was done in absentia. I also have followed "The Spotlight" which had a lot of information in it. Have you fellows read about Frank Sturgis trying to kill Marita Lorenz and how Jim Rothstein was called on that case? So interesting!
Debates are great, real long debates. Entertaining because it is infirmative. Also debates sharpens arguments and reduces sloppy research memes that grow like fungus in the truth movement. Be self critical, we say stuff that we really cant prove that we heard over and over again and believe to be true because everyone says so. Like JFK and greenbacks, Im very suspicious about the stories of how JFK would take the money printing monopoly away from fedres. Listening to this I enjoy the privilige of not having to decide who is right, I just learn more. Thank you mr Fetzer for your service to mankind, truth and destiny of mankind.
Bill Still answers that one for you on Jim Fetzer's show!! Just search "Bill Still" at the top of this page! I think it was the May 22 show, PS: I'm glad you enjoyed the debate! Gary King
Gary, Bill Still is right on many points, but not on this. JFK thought that it was insane to pay a private consortium of banks to print the currency of the United States and directed it be done by the Department of the Treasury. Still is wrong.
I'm on it! Let me do a little research and I will get back to you, this certainly is another topic that must be resolved before the 50th! Uh ohh, I smell a 10 min. mini debate between Bill Still vs Jim Fetzer on JFK and The Federal reserve! I can honestly say I've heard both sides but never really looked into it! I guess I will have to do the same thing I did for 911, be a one man unbiased jury and listen to both sides. The last time I did that, Dr. Fetzer... building 7 changed my life and you were certainly right!
i have listened to hankey many times and really enjoyed his 2 videos on the Kennedy ass. I have heard J Eu hundreds of hours on Blackop .... All i can say anyone too big a wuss to debate someone they attack w/o facing them, proves to me he is a farce as a man.
I'm sorry, but after fifty years, it seems as though we've gotten nowhere in the JFK case. Egos are still clashing over details. Isn't it time to move on?
Gary has a great talent for creating audios. I really appreciate his work. These debates are cleverly put together and fun to listen to.
The Secret Team - By Fletcher Prouty.pdf - preterhuman.net THE SECRET TEAM. The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the United. States and the World. L. FLETCHER PROUTY. Col., U.S. Air Force (Ret.).
I was the first author to point out that the CIA's most important "Cover Story is that of an "Intelligence" agency. Of course the CIA does make use of "intelligence" and "intelligence gathering", but that is largely a front for its primary interest, "Fun and Games." The CIA is the center of a vast mechanism that specializes in Covert Operations...or as Allen Dulles used to call it, "Peacetime Operations". In this sense, the CIA is the willing tool of a higher level Secret Team, or High Cabal, that usually includes representatives of the CIA and other instrumentalities of the government, certain cells of the business and professional world and, almost always, foreign participation. It is this Secret Team, its allies, and its method of operation that are the principal subjects of this book. ..........Fletcher Prouty, The Secret Team
Joan, Have you kept up with research on the alteration of the X-rays, the substitution of someone else's brain for that of JFK, or the fabrication of the Zapaurder film? I have three books about these developments.
More recently, are you aware of the mass of evidence that implicates the Altgen6 as the subject of alteration to conceal that Lee Oswald was actually standing in the doorway as Jack and Jackie passed by? The latest on this is http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/08/22/jfk-the-cartha-deloach-fbi-memorandum-and-the-altgens6/
Check out other of my dozens of articles on JFK at "Veterans Today, Jim Fetzer". I would like to have your take on the current state of research when you are familiar with its current state. Thanks for posting, but we have gone far beyond what Fletch Prouty had to say in relation to scientific research on JFK.
Hi Joan, you mentioned above and I quote "Egos are still clashing over details. Isn't it time to move on?" I agree! But after the 50th! That's why I have decided to have debates among proponents of different views about JFK. If you would list two or more researchers with opposing views, I will do my best to arrange a debate between them. If one doesn't want to show, maybe I could piece together audio similar to the Jim D vs John Hankey debate or play cricket sounds in a debaters absence . Or if you would like to challenge a particular researcher, then I would invite you or anyone else to get off of the sidelines and step into the ring. Judging from your comments posted above you would be a formidable opponent. I would certainly pick you in a sandlot football game! Gary King PS: I would also like to add, I feel there is something to be gained from a proponent not showing up...
I was 6 when JFK was assassinated, I watched Oswald murdered on television, and I remember it all like it was yesterday. I think it is very important to focus on it this year.
I would like to hear an entire show, or debate, on Tippet. Some allege he was a Kennedy look-alike and that it may have been his dead body and not Kennedy's used for certain purposes.
Who shot Tippet and why? To what extent may he have been involved in the plot? Was he set up in advance, to be killed as part of the plan? Did something go wrong?
This aspect of the Kennedy assassination seem under-examined. Why?
Hey 44, Who do you think is the most knowledgeable living researcher on the Tippet portion of the assassination? Are there Tippet researchers with opposing views? Bernard, seems to know his stuff, in the comment post below. can you point me to the research about the Kennedy look-alike? Was it Morningstar?.... I agree, The Tippet murder needs further investigation.
Mr. 44, It seems like between Bernard's post's and the new book "Into the Nightmare" which has been on Black Op Radio lately, there isn't many drastic opposing views on the Tippet murder that I am aware of but it would be a great subject for a "Round Table" instead of a face to face debate. Maybe I can make that happen! Gary King
Tippet was looking for Oswald after the shooting but the man Tippet stopped was not Oswald. It was Oswald's double who was in that area at the time. Tippet's encounter with this Oswald double was not an accident. It had been planned. Tippet had been set up and was to be murdered by the Oswald double so that the "cop killer" label could be pinned on the real Oswald.
I think if we look on the Tippet / "Oswald" encounter as a well scripted staged event and not a chance meeting. I think this begins to explain what was going on. Several witnesses said the guy who shot Tippet didn't even look like Oswald. My own view is that this didn't really matter. The object of the plan was to kill Tippet and brand Oswald a cop killer. A minor detail such as Oswald perhaps not even being there at the scene was not important. This shows the utter cynicism of those who planned the assassination of JFK. Oswald was the designated patsy from the start go and nothing was going to ruin the script or disrupt the plan.
To conclude, I repeat - in order to understand the murder of Tippet, we must view it as performance - a piece of theater - - a real life (and death) tragedy played out by a cast of murderous 'actors" on the streets of Dallas.
Thank you for those kind and generous words, Gary. Just a final point - actually it's a question and the question is this:
IF it was Oswald and IF the encounter was planned
and not accidental then how the hell did Tippet end up dead and "Oswald" still alive? In my view this is what may have happened: IF it was Oswald surely the conspirators would have killed Oswald there and then. This would have eliminated the president's "assassin" who had been shot dead resisting arrest. This would have been an ideal story. The president's assassin shot dead by Tippet who tragically also died from his wounds in the shoot out. But it didn't happen that way. Tippet dies and "Oswald" survives. The question we have to ask is how and more importantly why? Aequilla Clemmons claimed a bushy haired man shot Tippet and waved at "Oswald" to keep going. This seems very strange. Why didn't the guy who shot Tippet also shoot "Oswald"? Surely this was an ideal opportunity to kill the president's "asssassin"? The assasination circle would've been squared there and then. Tippet dead. Oswald dead. But it didn't happen. "Oswald" is waved on. Why was Oswald waved on by the guy who Clemmons said shot Tippet? There can be only one explanation.
The guy who Tippet's assassin waved on was NOT Oswald.
In my view the sole reason for the staged encounter with the Oswald double was the elimination or more to the point the murder of Tippet. Tippet was lured to his death using the Oswald double. The fact that the Oswald double is waved on by Tippet's assassin is proof alone that this Oswald double was merely the bait to lure Tippet to his death. There is no way that the Oswald double was going to be shot. He had done his bit but there was more to do. Tippet was dead. Oswald is now a cop killer. Job done.So what happens? The Oswald double goes onto his next task. To the Texas Theater where...guess what...the real Oswald has been during the time this drama has been played out.The Oswald double attracts as much attention as he can and arrives at the theater..goes upstairs to the balcony as the real Oswald is downstairs.The real Oswald is arrested downstairs and taken out the front while the Oswald double is later taken from the balcony put in a car and disappears forever but not before being seen by several witnesses.
It all fits if we understand:
1/ The "Oswald"/ Tippet encounter was a staged event where Tippet was unknowingly (to Tippet) lured to his death by the Oswald double.
2/ Lee Harvey Oswald was in the Texas Theater when this dance of death was being played out.
Jim, thank you for the question and the link. I've been so busy with 9/11 this past decade that I've not had time to revisit the JFK assassination and check out the new research. You've really done a lot of work on this and I have read some of it mostly on the doorway picture. I still say that guy looks like Lovelady. In the past, I've read many of the details of the crime and knew the brain was missing. I've also seen scores of documentaries and open discussions on TV when there was much more freedom than today.
But, I am not a researcher. I'm not one of the community--just a consumer of what you researchers do. Also, I'm almost a decade older than you which may account for a slightly different perspective on this.
I would like, in my lifetime, to see the MSM, PBS and the Left gatekeepers like Chomsky, admit Oswald was not the so called "lone assassin" or assassin for that matter, and that Kennedy intended to pull out of Vietnam which they keep denying. I hope the research community comes up with a powerful case for the CIA's role in the murder and vindicates Oswald on the grounds there exists no proof, no evidence, that he was the shooter or even a shooter. (See the video of Garrison answering the slanderous NBC in a rebuttal in which he states there is absolutely no evidence proving Oswald shot Kennedy and he names the CIA. This is in 1967 just as he was launching his trial of Clay Shaw.)
Even if you can link GHW Bush and Johnson to the assassination, what does that really prove? Presidents are just servants of the wealthy class that presides over the CIA. Would the CIA stop everything and do the bidding of Johnson? Those who participated in the Bay of Pigs were also players in Watergate as well as JFK. E. Howard Hunt stands out among them all as the worst and the biggest liar.. I would not trust his "deathbed confession" nor his son Saint John Hunt.
Of all the writers on JFK, I treasure the work of Mark Lane and his "Plausible Denial" which is practically a transcript of the case Hunt brought against Liberty Lobby in a real court case in Miami in the late 80/s. I cannot understand why researchers seldom cite his work and the statements of all the witnesses he deposed. Also, why is the testimony of Marita Lorenz always ignored? She was Castro's mistress and had a son with him. She was part of the team led by Hunt to kill Kennedy in Dallas but backed out at the last minute when she realized what the hit was going to be. Frank Sturgis tried to kill her for testifying at the Miami trial which Lane won BTW, and went on to prove the CIA was involved in the assassination.
Ivy League New Yorker, field man for CLA in Latin America, Spain, Far East.
Wrote 45 novels for the CIA -- science-fiction, detective, short stories. Pseudonyms: Robert Dietrich, John Baxter, Gordon Davis. Senior member of a Special Task Force during two periods of national emergency; participant in White House conferences on security matters.
Planning director for Bay of Pigs invasion; worked closely with Barker, conduit of funds for Bay of Pigs.
Developed and guided media operations abroad and negotiated with senior officials of foreign countries for CIA.
Defense Department counsel, 1957-1960.
Military service, Navy Reserve, U.S. Army Air Corps.
Conservative republican.
White House consultant, 1971-72 on Pentagon Papers and Narcotics Intelligence.
Shared offices with Robert Bennett of Mullen & Company. Bennett, through 75-90 "dummy" organizations, raised the secret $10-million for Nixon's Committee.
Spoke up against radicals, black protestors at Brown University alumni; deplored "the lack of patriotism in youth."
Left Washington, New York, maybe the U.S. after his friends were arrested.
White House desk, examined by FBI after he fled, contained a pistol and two walkie-talkies that could connect to the walkie-talkies confiscated at the time of the Watergate arrests.
Worked in offices of Robert Bennett of Mullen & Company, public relations firm, in 1969, while still with CIA. Close friend and attorney Douglas Caddy shared the same offices; Caddy was co-founder of Young Americans for Freedom. Robert Mullen alleged to be CIA, as well as Caddy. Close links of CIA and Spiro Agnew through this office.
Business partner of Bernard Barker in Nicaragua, Santa Domingo.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hunt and Chappaquiddick. White House Librarian Ms. Schleicher told a Washington Post reporter that Howard Hunt was doing research while at the White House on Ted Kennedy's Chappaquiddick accident.
(The entire affair was CIA-staged for the purpose of removing Ted Kennedy as Democratic candidate. Pages 262-3 of Jack Olsen's Book, The Bridge at Chappaquiddick, indicate that the water pressure would have made it impossible to open the car door, so that Ted Kennedy could not have been driving, or even inside. The National Safety Council has not a single case in its records of any person ever escaping from a submerged automobile.)
Gary said: If you would list two or more researchers with opposing views, I will do my best to arrange a debate between them. If one doesn't want to show, maybe I could piece together audio similar to the Jim D vs John Hankey debate or play cricket sounds in a debaters absence ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I would love to hear from people like Gerald Posner and Vincent Bugliosi who have made our lives so miserable calling us conspiracy theorists and holding for Oswald as the lone assassin. Are those two still living? How about getting Mark Fuhrman of OJ fame to come on and defend his book? He could debate Jim. I think that would be a real fun debate.
Hi Joan, The idea of contacting Gerald Posner is more than a little creepy, and worse for Vince... I had complete trust in him until he dropped a 40lb disinfo-bookbomb on our heads. I think it would be impossible to extract any truth from them, However! It would be child's play putting together a montage of clips of the dynamic duo putting there feet in their mouths, Why don't we get together and make a debate just like the Jim D. vs John Hankey one! I want you to slam these turkeys with a boxing glove of truth! You can take your time and I will edit it until it's great! I promise. and we can air it on WGSO 990AM Hit me back, Joan! PS: I detected modesty in your post. I am a guitar player and also know that when Chet Atkins was asked if he could play the guitar he would always say " I know a couple chords"
Joseph McBride in his new book " Into the Nightmare: My Search for the Killers of President John F. Kennedy and Officer J. D. Tippit" has done great research and has discovered a new fact about Tippit. Tippit suffered from a chronic disability and a disability which for an ordinary individual would have been debilitating but for a policeman like Tippit could have proved fatal and cost him his life: Tippit was incapable of looking anyone in the eye. Could this disability have played a role in Tippit's death? Tippit meets "Oswald" in a set up but fails to realize that it is not the real Oswald. Tippit is then shot (by the bushy haired man) leaving the Oswald double to continue on his way to the Texas Theater and at the same time leading the police to the real Oswald who was already there.
@ Gary, I think I first heard the Tippet-Kennedy look-alike theory on a Project Camelot interview. I have no idea who might be an expert on anything, if anyone.
@Bernard, thanks for the very interesting analysis.
Now, how and why did Oswald end up at the theatre? Did he simply get off early that day as had been previously scheduled and then decide to take in a matinee after having watched the President get his head blown off? Was he instructed to go to the theatre? By whom, for what purpose exactly? At what point did Oswald realize he was the patsy? At what point might or should he have suspected it? Are his actions consistent with someone knowing they are the patsy? Is it possible he knew all along he would at first be the patsy, but then be deemed innocent. Did Oswald think he was playing a part in setting up his double only to be double-crossed?
If I am not mistaken, Jim has talked about a photograph that appears to show Oswald outside watching the motorcade at the time of the assassination. Altgen 6?
Yes. But JFK's head had not yet been blown off at that instant in the Altgens photograph and JFK's head being blown would not have been visible from the doorway anyway. Besides Oswald had most likely returned to his lunch.
When exactly do you believe Oswald was in a position from where he could have seen JFK's head being "blown off"?
I think James Douglass in his book JFK and the Unspeakable mentions that the Oswald Tipppit encountered may have been an Oswald double. Douglass goes into detail on a possible Oswald double who was seen by a car mechanic sitting in a parked car in the car park of a restaurant near the scene of the Tippit shooting.The mechanic took the registration number and the car turned out to belong to a friend of Tippit's wife. Douglass also mentions the strange sightings of another possible Oswald double by Ralph Yates two days before the assassination and a sighting by Robert Vinson on the day of the assassination. For full details read James Ddouglass' book.
Hey Bernard, Would you like to participate in a "Round Table" or friendly debate on my radio show about Tippet with Stooy44, Doug Arnold? If we do a good job who knows, maybe Dr. Fetzer would air it on one of his shows! hit me back! Gary King
? JFK II - The Bush Connection (2003) Complete Documentary - YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZNRDOPR2dM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ http://www.ctka.net/2010/hanky.html The Dark Legacy of John Hankey ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Alex Jones and John Hankey
Alex Jones is the perennial king of internet conspiracy mongering. He has views on innumerable events. Even those he knows little about. The Kennedy assassination is but one subject he knows little about. For instance, Jones has endorsed the very suspicious Barr McClellan and his book of "faction" Blood, Money and Power. He has also chosen to endorse a video on the Kennedy case. This is called JFK 2: The Bush Connection. The original – which can still be found online – is a low-budget, poorly produced production by a self-proclaimed 30, 40 or 50 year researcher named John Hankey. Hankey has cobbled together footage from Oliver Stone's film JFK, the series The Men Who Killed Kennedy, the PBS program Nova, and other productions. The latest version – Dark Legacy – is more slickly done and has some newer information in it. But since the original has been around much longer and is available online, I will concentrate my critique on that.
Hankey has rehashed his product a number of times. JFK 2 seems to have been re-edited at least 3, and possibly as many as 4 times. This is the version I have utilized in my review.
I should note: there are at least two other versions of this first production available. One of them gives more credit for source material and cleans up some crude language. Another version spends about 20 more minutes toward the end on Oswald and the FBI. We will discuss that version later.
Hankey and Prescott Bush
In JFK 2 it is implied that Prescott Bush was the main – or one of the main – architects of the CIA, and its operations to overthrow foreign governments and assassinate foreign leaders. In an earlier version of the film, Hankey used Howard Hunt's connections to Averill Harriman and Nixon to link him to Prescott Bush. Then, Hankey detailed the overthrow of three prominent leaders via CIA-Prescott Bush (?) backed coups.
Thus after viewing Hankey's video, reading his comments, and listening to his views with regard to political happenings, it would seem wise to take what he says or writes with caution. I mean, how could anyone take a guy who is pals with 'Henry Makow PHD' seriously? Makow is an advocate of the ancient conservative conspiracy theories in which Feminism is seen as an integral part of the new world order, that the Rockefellers are socialists and the classic one about Freemasons controlling the world banking system. Those interested in high comedy can visit his website and or read about his banking thesis in his 2008 book entitled Illuminati: The Cult that Hijacked the World.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary, I should have read the CTKA piece as well as Hankey's video, JFK II, before commenting. DiEugenio is so into the assassination on a scientific level that he is impossible to follow. If you listen to the tape, it is really very boring without a background in the material I've listed above. It is really not a debate, rather it is Hankey answering his critics. I doubt if anyone can follow it. I retract my complaint about researchers not using Mark Lane's work and trial brought by E. Howard Hunt against Liberty Lobby and Willis Carto. Hankey makes good use of this excellent material and testimony.
The debate between Jim and Eastman on the topic of planes or no planes on 9/11 was a true debate and I hope the next one you do will follow that pattern. Again, I'm sorry for jumping to conclusions on Hankey. DiEugenio is a very weird and rude person judging from his review above of Hankey's work, sad to say.
PS. I love Peter Jennings remark that "there is no evidence to support the theoty that the assassination of JFK was a conspiracy." Did Jennings know that there is no evidence to support the theory Lee Harvey Oswald was JFK's assassin?
Don't forget, the government is making the claim that Oswald killed JFK, but there is no evidence to support that just as there is no evidence to support the government's claim of planes and hijackers on 9/11. Those making the claim must bear the burden of proof. Check out the work of Elias Davidsson--see Jim's interviews with him. Also, listen to Jim Garrison's rebuttal to NBC on YouTube.
? JFK II - The Bush Connection (2003) Complete Documentary - YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZNRDOPR2dM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ http://www.ctka.net/2010/hanky.html The Dark Legacy of John Hankey ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Alex Jones and John Hankey
Alex Jones is the perennial king of internet conspiracy mongering. He has views on innumerable events. Even those he knows little about. The Kennedy assassination is but one subject he knows little about. For instance, Jones has endorsed the very suspicious Barr McClellan and his book of "faction" Blood, Money and Power. He has also chosen to endorse a video on the Kennedy case. This is called JFK 2: The Bush Connection. The original – which can still be found online – is a low-budget, poorly produced production by a self-proclaimed 30, 40 or 50 year researcher named John Hankey. Hankey has cobbled together footage from Oliver Stone's film JFK, the series The Men Who Killed Kennedy, the PBS program Nova, and other productions. The latest version – Dark Legacy – is more slickly done and has some newer information in it. But since the original has been around much longer and is available online, I will concentrate my critique on that.
Hankey has rehashed his product a number of times. JFK 2 seems to have been re-edited at least 3, and possibly as many as 4 times. This is the version I have utilized in my review.
I should note: there are at least two other versions of this first production available. One of them gives more credit for source material and cleans up some crude language. Another version spends about 20 more minutes toward the end on Oswald and the FBI. We will discuss that version later.
Hankey and Prescott Bush
In JFK 2 it is implied that Prescott Bush was the main – or one of the main – architects of the CIA, and its operations to overthrow foreign governments and assassinate foreign leaders. In an earlier version of the film, Hankey used Howard Hunt's connections to Averill Harriman and Nixon to link him to Prescott Bush. Then, Hankey detailed the overthrow of three prominent leaders via CIA-Prescott Bush (?) backed coups.
Thus after viewing Hankey's video, reading his comments, and listening to his views with regard to political happenings, it would seem wise to take what he says or writes with caution. I mean, how could anyone take a guy who is pals with 'Henry Makow PHD' seriously? Makow is an advocate of the ancient conservative conspiracy theories in which Feminism is seen as an integral part of the new world order, that the Rockefellers are socialists and the classic one about Freemasons controlling the world banking system. Those interested in high comedy can visit his website and or read about his banking thesis in his 2008 book entitled Illuminati: The Cult that Hijacked the World.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary, I should have read the CTKA piece as well as Hankey's video, JFK II, before commenting. DiEugenio is so into the assassination on a scientific level that he is impossible to follow. If you listen to the tape, it is really very boring without a background in the material I've listed above. It is really not a debate, rather it is Hankey answering his critics. I doubt if anyone can follow it. I retract my complaint about researchers not using Mark Lane's work and trial brought by E. Howard Hunt against Liberty Lobby and Willis Carto. Hankey makes good use of this excellent material and testimony.
The debate between Jim and Eastman on the topic of planes or no planes on 9/11 was a true debate and I hope the next one you do will follow that pattern. Again, I'm sorry for jumping to conclusions on Hankey.
? JFK II - The Bush Connection (2003) Complete Documentary - YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZNRDOPR2dM ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ http://www.ctka.net/2010/hanky.html The Dark Legacy of John Hankey ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Gary, I should have read the CTKA piece as well as Hankey's video, JFK II, before commenting. DiEugenio is so into the assassination on a scientific level that he is impossible to follow. If you listen to the tape, it is really very boring without a background in the material I've listed above. It is really not a debate, rather it is Hankey answering his critics. I doubt if anyone can follow it. I retract my complaint about researchers not using Mark Lane's work and trial brought by E. Howard Hunt against Liberty Lobby and Willis Carto. Hankey makes good use of this excellent material and testimony.
Have you thought about being involved in a Posner/Bugliosi vs Joan Edwards virtual debate? I know you would be great! Check out your post on August 24, 2013 at 11:44 PM above and my invitation.
I fail to see any connection between Oswald's decision to go watch a movie and his having seen or not having seen JFK's head being blown off. Are you the kind of individual who needs to see someone's head being blown off before you decide to go to the cinema?
Hey Doug, Would you like to participate in a "Round Table" or friendly debate on my radio show about Tippet with Bernard, Stooy44? If we do a good job who knows, maybe Dr. Fetzer would air it on one of his shows! hit me back! Gary King
Hey 44, Would you like to participate in a "Round Table" or friendly debate on my radio show about Tippet with Bernard, Doug Arnold? If we do a good job who knows, maybe Dr. Fetzer would air it on one of his shows! hit me back! Gary King
If we look at the JFK assassination as a three act play, each act separate self-contained and essential to the overall plot we get:
Scene I Act I
Assassination of JFK
Scene I Act II
Murder of Tippit
Scene I Act III
Capture and murder of Oswald
Each act is carefully planned before hand.
The assassination of JFK goes as planned. The shooters escape and the patsy Oswald is in place. Act II calls for another murder. Tippit who may have a different perception of what is really happening is lured to his death by an Oswald double. Tippit attempts to arrest or shoot the Oswald double (this was Tippit's understanding of what was to happen) instead Tippit is shot by either the double or the "bushy haired man". The real Oswald is in the Texas Theater trying to make contact with his CIA handler*. The Oswald double scatters shells around the scene of the murder leaving a trail that will lead rightly and definitely wrongly to the totally innocent CIA asset Oswald.
Act III calls for another murder. Oswald is to be shot on sight in the Texas Theater but there is confusion. The cops are perplexed: they have two Oswalds. Which one are we supposed to gun down? What happens if they kill the wrong Oswald? The conspiracy will unravel there and then. They cops delay. Delay turns to cancellation - for now anyway. The real Oswald is finally taken out the front and the Oswald douuble is taken out the back. Oswald willl have to wait for a few days to be murdered.
* The question is often asked why did Oswald go to the Texas Theater in the first place? To see a movie? Perhaps but his main purpose going there was to meet someone. It's not improbable to believe that Oswald was a CIA operative who thought he was working to prevent the assassination. It is equally not improbable that Oswald was the only CIA operative in the TSBD on 22 November 1963. So why did Oswald go to the Texas Theater? Simple: he was told to go there. Imagine this scenario: The president has been shot. The very thing Oswald was there to prevent has happened. There are two possibilities 1/ Oswald goes to the Theater because he knows his CIA handler will be there. But why would Oswald feel the need to go at all? Because Oswald is with the CIA and if it is discovered that the CIA are remotely involved then all hell will break loose. Oswald must make himself scarce and get the hell out of there. 2/ Oswald is somehow informed that he must go to the Texas Theater immediately to meet his CIA handler who will tell him how to proceed.Perhaps another CIA senior operative told Oswald to go.The question may asked: What about other CIA operatives who were there? Where did they go? It doesn't really matter where they or if they went. They could stay - confident that no one would be asking any questions. Again the important thing was to get Oswald to where he was supposed to be and if that meant some CIA operative lying to Oswald about getting himself to the Texas Theater pronto - who cared?
DEBATE: Was George H.W. Bush involved in the JFK assassination? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ So much for anyone caring whether GHW Bush was involved in the JFK assassination judging from the comments. Maybe we need a refresher course on JFK put together by Gary?
Maybe we have put that baby to rest? After Hankey presented his case, maybe it's settled. Just wait for the LBJ debate being put together between Dr. Fetzer, Hankey and Myself, It's gonna be good! PS: Joan, please read my invitation above, don't worry, because the show is prerecorded and you can redo a take as many times as you like. GK
Gary! Great innovative idea! You have redefined the word "interview". Perhaps we need a new word for a new concept! The word "interview" just doesn't cut it any more!
Let me think.....How about "telinterview"? "tel" as in "telegraph" - far, long distance. or "absinterview" - "ab" as in "absent". Or "blinterview" as in "blind" (the interviewees can't see each other. Or "ablinterview" ( a combination of "absent" and "blind"- the interviewees are absent and can't see each other. Hey! Let's go the whole hog! Call it "teleblinterview"!!! Drop the "a" of "ab" so the "b" stands for the "b" of "absent" and the first letter of the word "blind".
Teleblinterview!!!
Whatever you call it, it's a great new idea!!
Whaddya say, Gary? More important, Gary...Whaddya think?
I think your really on to something!!! I have noticed that JFK researchers have no problem beating the living daylights out of another researcher as long as the one getting clubbed to death isn't there to defend him or herself. I did everything in my power to make it a live debate but as usual, a great Idea was stumbled upon. PS: I had to catch my breath for about 5 minutes from laughing to hard after reading your post! By the way! Who do you think won the "teleblinterview?" Everyone reading this post, please let us know who won! Hankey or Jim D. did you learn from the exchange?
Bernard! your amazing, I will make a slide show to go with the Teleblinterview of the Hankey/Jim D. I guess we have 12 debates to set up! Live or memorex! Great start with the first video! Come on everybody! Pile on! Gary King
Hi, Bernard! Glad to see you liked my idea so much you stole it. Good thing I'm not the vindictive type, Bernard or I'd be on you like a mongoose on a snake.
Hi Joan, I have looked into the Hastings fiasco and the official story is a hoax but really happened. There is a difference between the official story being a hoax AND the event being a hoax. The fact that journalist are being targeted mean the 1st amendment os history
Hey, Gary!! I was thinking maybe "Blinterview" would be the colloquial kind of short version for everyday use and maybe save "Teleblinterview" for more formal official use as in advertising material, official announcements and radio introductions etc., etc., etc.
Examples-
" Hey, Joan! Did you catch the latest blinterview on Black Op Radio?!"
" My name's Len Osanic. Our latest Teleblinterview today features Joseph McBride, Noam Chomsky, John McAdams Joan Edwards, Gerald Posner, Gary Mack and Jim Fetzer........"
The 1st amendment to the JFK research community Constitution is to NEVER say Gerald Posner, Gary Mack, John McAdams, in the same breath as Len Osanic, Jim Fetzer and watch it buddy! I have a crush on Joan Edwards!
Over the years, I have read quite a few books on the Kennedy assassination, seen many TV documentaries, etc., but those that impressed me the most were by Mark Lane. I recommend "Rush to Judgement" and the one that answers best who killed Kennedy is "Plausible Denial" also by Lane. The best film, "Executive Action" was written by Lane and Donald Freed (author "Killing Time" on the O.J. case.)
ReplyDeleteThe best book on all the assassinations is "The Taking of America 1-2-3, and you can read it free online. It puts everything in perspective so that you can see the big picture. It even explains what is going on right now.
Complete Book: "THE TAKING OF AMERICA, 1-2-3", 1985
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ToA/ToA.html#TOC
To take over a real democracy without letting the people know it has been taken over is a fantastic achievement. A list of the accomplishments of the power control group illustrates the point. Since 1963, they have:
Assassinated John F. Kennedy;
Controlled Lyndon B. Johnson as president;
Forced LBJ out of the presidency;
Assassinated Robert F. Kennedy, assuring Nixon's election in 1968;
Assassinated Dr. Martin Luther King;
Eliminated Ted Kennedy as a contender in the 1972 elections by framing him at Chappaquiddick and threatening his children;
Stopped George Wallace's campaign, assuring Nixon's election in 1972;
Knocked Edmund Muskie out of the 1972 election campaign by using dirty tricks;
Covered up all of the above;
Controlled the 15 major news media organizations;
Made Gerald Ford vice president and then president;
Insured continuity of the cover-ups by forcing Ford to pardon Nixon;
Murdered about 100 witnesses and participants in the three assassinations and one attempted assassination;
Blocked efforts by private citizens and organizations to reveal the take-over; discredited, ruined or infiltrated these individuals or groups; murdered or were accomplices to the murders of the operating assassins;
Blocked efforts by members of the Senate and House to initiate investigations of the assassinations and attempted to whitewash, ridicule or eliminate these efforts (their influence and infiltration has been particularly effective in the Church Committee and in the House Rules Committee);
Controlled the presidential election procedure since 1964 by eliminating the candidates who might expose the truth and insuring the election or appointment of candidates already committed to covering up the truth about the take-over.
Must read this chapter.
ReplyDeleteChapter 17, 1985: The House Select Committee (2), THE FINAL COVER UP: How The CIA Controlled The House Select Committee On Assa
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ToA/ToAchp17.html
Thanks for the link. That was an informative read!
DeleteThis makes a great template to how the CIA controls the government at every level. Stealth, duplicity, media control, an control of politicians being destroyed and CIA men put in the positions of the men that are destroyed.
I will be reading THE SECRET TEAM. The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the United. States and the World. L. FLETCHER PROUTY. Col., U.S. Air Force (Ret.).
Prouty was in a level of government that was privy to t he interworkings.
P.S. I forgot to mention that I had a subscription to "Probe," DiEugenio's AARB publication. It was so difficult to read and so detailed, I never got around to really reading it. I am quite satisfied that the CIA "did it." as proved by Mark Lane in "Plausible Denial" about the case E. Howard Hunt brought against Liberty Lobby. He deposed many former heads of the CIA along with Hunt, all top men in the CIA. I thought the testimony of Marita Lorenz was great, though it was done in absentia. I also have followed "The Spotlight" which had a lot of information in it. Have you fellows read about Frank Sturgis trying to kill Marita Lorenz and how Jim Rothstein was called on that case? So interesting!
ReplyDeleteDebates are great, real long debates. Entertaining because it is infirmative. Also debates sharpens arguments and reduces sloppy research memes that grow like fungus in the truth movement. Be self critical, we say stuff that we really cant prove that we heard over and over again and believe to be true because everyone says so. Like JFK and greenbacks, Im very suspicious about the stories of how JFK would take the money printing monopoly away from fedres. Listening to this I enjoy the privilige of not having to decide who is right, I just learn more. Thank you mr Fetzer for your service to mankind, truth and destiny of mankind.
ReplyDeleteBill Still answers that one for you on Jim Fetzer's show!! Just search "Bill Still" at the top of this page! I think it was the May 22 show, PS: I'm glad you enjoyed the debate! Gary King
DeleteGary, Bill Still is right on many points, but not on this. JFK thought that it was insane to pay a private consortium of banks to print the currency of the United States and directed it be done by the Department of the Treasury. Still is wrong.
DeleteI'm on it! Let me do a little research and I will get back to you, this certainly is another topic that must be resolved before the 50th! Uh ohh, I smell a 10 min. mini debate between Bill Still vs Jim Fetzer on JFK and The Federal reserve! I can honestly say I've heard both sides but never really looked into it! I guess I will have to do the same thing I did for 911, be a one man unbiased jury and listen to both sides. The last time I did that, Dr. Fetzer... building 7 changed my life and you were certainly right!
DeleteAnother guy who would know a lot about this subject is monetary historian Andrew Gause.
Deletei have listened to hankey many times and really enjoyed his 2 videos on the Kennedy ass. I have heard J Eu hundreds of hours on Blackop .... All i can say anyone too big a wuss to debate someone they attack w/o facing them, proves to me he is a farce as a man.
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting this, Jim.
Nothing like an American male exercising his 1st Amendment rights! Hats off Mr. Colin
DeleteRuss Baker's site has an interesting piece up on the names of the two transport ships in the Bay of Pigs operation:
ReplyDeletehttp://whowhatwhy.com/2013/04/01/clearing-the-bushes-on-at-least-one-thing/
I'm sorry, but after fifty years, it seems as though we've gotten nowhere in the JFK case. Egos are still clashing over details. Isn't it time to move on?
ReplyDeleteGary has a great talent for creating audios. I really appreciate his work. These debates are cleverly put together and fun to listen to.
The Secret Team - By Fletcher Prouty.pdf - preterhuman.net
THE SECRET TEAM. The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the United. States and the World. L. FLETCHER PROUTY. Col., U.S. Air Force (Ret.).
I was the first author to point out that the CIA's most important
"Cover Story is that of an "Intelligence" agency. Of course the CIA does
make use of "intelligence" and "intelligence gathering", but that is largely
a front for its primary interest, "Fun and Games." The CIA is the center of
a vast mechanism that specializes in Covert Operations...or as Allen
Dulles used to call it, "Peacetime Operations". In this sense, the CIA is the
willing tool of a higher level Secret Team, or High Cabal, that usually
includes representatives of the CIA and other instrumentalities of the
government, certain cells of the business and professional world and,
almost always, foreign participation. It is this Secret Team, its allies, and
its method of operation that are the principal subjects of this book.
..........Fletcher Prouty, The Secret Team
Joan, Have you kept up with research on the alteration of the X-rays, the substitution of someone else's brain for that of JFK, or the fabrication of the Zapaurder film? I have three books about these developments.
DeleteMore recently, are you aware of the mass of evidence that implicates the Altgen6 as the subject of alteration to conceal that Lee Oswald was actually standing in the doorway as Jack and Jackie passed by? The latest on this is http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/08/22/jfk-the-cartha-deloach-fbi-memorandum-and-the-altgens6/
Check out other of my dozens of articles on JFK at "Veterans Today, Jim Fetzer". I would like to have your take on the current state of research when you are familiar with its current state. Thanks for posting, but we have gone far beyond what Fletch Prouty had to say in relation to scientific research on JFK.
Hi Joan, you mentioned above and I quote "Egos are still clashing over details. Isn't it time to move on?" I agree! But after the 50th! That's why I have decided to have debates among proponents of different views about JFK. If you would list two or more researchers with opposing views, I will do my best to arrange a debate between them. If one doesn't want to show, maybe I could piece together audio similar to the Jim D vs John Hankey debate or play cricket sounds in a debaters absence . Or if you would like to challenge a particular researcher, then I would invite you or anyone else to get off of the sidelines and step into the ring. Judging from your comments posted above you would be a formidable opponent. I would certainly pick you in a sandlot football game! Gary King PS: I would also like to add, I feel there is something to be gained from a proponent not showing up...
ReplyDeleteI was 6 when JFK was assassinated, I watched Oswald murdered on television, and I remember it all like it was yesterday. I think it is very important to focus on it this year.
ReplyDeleteI would like to hear an entire show, or debate, on Tippet. Some allege he was a Kennedy look-alike and that it may have been his dead body and not Kennedy's used for certain purposes.
Who shot Tippet and why? To what extent may he have been involved in the plot? Was he set up in advance, to be killed as part of the plan? Did something go wrong?
This aspect of the Kennedy assassination seem under-examined. Why?
Hey 44, Who do you think is the most knowledgeable living researcher on the Tippet portion of the assassination? Are there Tippet researchers with opposing views? Bernard, seems to know his stuff, in the comment post below. can you point me to the research about the Kennedy look-alike? Was it Morningstar?.... I agree, The Tippet murder needs further investigation.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteMr. 44, It seems like between Bernard's post's and the new book "Into the Nightmare" which has been on Black Op Radio lately, there isn't many drastic opposing views on the Tippet murder that I am aware of but it would be a great subject for a "Round Table" instead of a face to face debate. Maybe I can make that happen! Gary King
DeleteMy own take on Tippet's murder is this:
ReplyDeleteTippet was looking for Oswald after the shooting but the man Tippet stopped was not Oswald. It was Oswald's double who was in that area at the time. Tippet's encounter with this Oswald double was not an accident. It had been planned. Tippet had been set up and was to be murdered by the Oswald double so that the "cop killer" label could be pinned on the real Oswald.
I think if we look on the Tippet / "Oswald" encounter as a well scripted staged event and not a chance meeting. I think this begins to explain what was going on. Several witnesses said the guy who shot Tippet didn't even look like Oswald. My own view is that this didn't really matter. The object of the plan was to kill Tippet and brand Oswald a cop killer. A minor detail such as Oswald perhaps not even being there at the scene was not important. This shows the utter cynicism of those who planned the assassination of JFK. Oswald was the designated patsy from the start go and nothing was going to ruin the script or disrupt the plan.
To conclude, I repeat - in order to understand the murder of Tippet, we must view it as performance - a piece of theater -
- a real life (and death) tragedy played out by a cast of murderous 'actors" on the streets of Dallas.
Hi Bernard, I agree with every word in your post, every word! Good Job! Kinda like a mini article from a magazine. Well done! Gary King
DeleteThank you for those kind and generous words, Gary. Just a final point - actually it's a question and the question is this:
ReplyDeleteIF it was Oswald and IF the encounter was
planned
and not accidental then how the hell did Tippet end up dead and "Oswald" still alive?
In my view this is what may have happened:
IF it was Oswald surely the conspirators would have killed Oswald there and then. This would have eliminated the president's "assassin" who had been shot dead resisting arrest. This would have been an ideal story. The president's assassin shot dead by Tippet who tragically also died from his wounds in the shoot out. But it didn't happen that way. Tippet dies and "Oswald" survives. The question we have to ask is how and more importantly why? Aequilla Clemmons claimed a bushy haired man shot Tippet and waved at "Oswald" to keep going. This seems very strange. Why didn't the guy who shot
Tippet also shoot "Oswald"?
Surely this was an ideal opportunity to kill the
president's "asssassin"?
The assasination circle would've been squared
there and then. Tippet dead. Oswald dead. But it didn't happen. "Oswald" is waved on. Why was Oswald waved on by the guy who Clemmons said shot Tippet? There can be only one explanation.
The guy who Tippet's assassin waved on was NOT Oswald.
In my view the sole reason for the staged encounter with the Oswald double was the elimination or more to the point the murder of Tippet. Tippet was lured to his death using the Oswald double. The fact that the Oswald double is waved on by Tippet's assassin is proof alone that this Oswald double was merely the bait to
lure Tippet to his death. There is no way that the Oswald double was going to be shot. He had done his bit but there was more to do. Tippet was dead. Oswald is now a cop killer. Job done.So what happens? The Oswald double goes onto his next task. To the Texas Theater where...guess what...the real Oswald has been during the time this drama has been played out.The Oswald double attracts as much attention as he can and arrives at the theater..goes upstairs to the balcony as the real Oswald is downstairs.The real Oswald is arrested downstairs and taken out the front while the Oswald double is later taken from the balcony put in a car and disappears forever but not before being seen by several witnesses.
It all fits if we understand:
1/ The "Oswald"/ Tippet encounter was a staged
event where Tippet was unknowingly (to Tippet) lured to his death by the Oswald double.
2/ Lee Harvey Oswald was in the Texas Theater
when this dance of death was being played out.
I hope this makes sense.....
Jim, thank you for the question and the link. I've been so busy with 9/11 this past decade that I've not had time to revisit the JFK assassination and check out the new research. You've really done a lot of work on this and I have read some of it mostly on the doorway picture. I still say that guy looks like Lovelady. In the past, I've read many of the details of the crime and knew the brain was missing. I've also seen scores of documentaries and open discussions on TV when there was much more freedom than today.
ReplyDeleteBut, I am not a researcher. I'm not one of the community--just a consumer of what you researchers do. Also, I'm almost a decade older than you which may account for a slightly different perspective on this.
I would like, in my lifetime, to see the MSM, PBS and the Left gatekeepers like Chomsky, admit Oswald was not the so called "lone assassin" or assassin for that matter, and that Kennedy intended to pull out of Vietnam which they keep denying. I hope the research community comes up with a powerful case for the CIA's role in the murder and vindicates Oswald on the grounds there exists no proof, no evidence, that he was the shooter or even a shooter. (See the video of Garrison answering the slanderous NBC in a rebuttal in which he states there is absolutely no evidence proving Oswald shot Kennedy and he names the CIA. This is in 1967 just as he was launching his trial of Clay Shaw.)
Even if you can link GHW Bush and Johnson to the assassination, what does that really prove? Presidents are just servants of the wealthy class that presides over the CIA. Would the CIA stop everything and do the bidding of Johnson? Those who participated in the Bay of Pigs were also players in Watergate as well as JFK. E. Howard Hunt stands out among them all as the worst and the biggest liar.. I would not trust his "deathbed confession" nor his son Saint John Hunt.
Of all the writers on JFK, I treasure the work of Mark Lane and his "Plausible Denial" which is practically a transcript of the case Hunt brought against Liberty Lobby in a real court case in Miami in the late 80/s. I cannot understand why researchers seldom cite his work and the statements of all the witnesses he deposed. Also, why is the testimony of Marita Lorenz always ignored? She was Castro's mistress and had a son with him. She was part of the team led by Hunt to kill Kennedy in Dallas but backed out at the last minute when she realized what the hit was going to be. Frank Sturgis tried to kill her for testifying at the Miami trial which Lane won BTW, and went on to prove the CIA was involved in the assassination.
http://www.maebrussell.com/Mae%20Brussell%20Articles/Why%20Was%20Martha%20Mitchell%20Kidnapped%20-%201.html
ReplyDelete1. Howard Hunt, alias "Eduardo"
Worked in CIA for 21 years.
Ivy League New Yorker, field man for CLA in Latin America, Spain, Far East.
Wrote 45 novels for the CIA -- science-fiction, detective, short stories. Pseudonyms: Robert Dietrich, John Baxter, Gordon Davis. Senior member of a Special Task Force during two periods of national emergency; participant in White House conferences on security matters.
Planning director for Bay of Pigs invasion; worked closely with Barker, conduit of funds for Bay of Pigs.
Developed and guided media operations abroad and negotiated with senior officials of foreign countries for CIA.
Defense Department counsel, 1957-1960.
Military service, Navy Reserve, U.S. Army Air Corps.
Conservative republican.
White House consultant, 1971-72 on Pentagon Papers and Narcotics Intelligence.
Shared offices with Robert Bennett of Mullen & Company. Bennett, through 75-90 "dummy" organizations, raised the secret $10-million for Nixon's Committee.
Spoke up against radicals, black protestors at Brown University alumni; deplored "the lack of patriotism in youth."
Left Washington, New York, maybe the U.S. after his friends were arrested.
White House desk, examined by FBI after he fled, contained a pistol and two walkie-talkies that could connect to the walkie-talkies confiscated at the time of the Watergate arrests.
Worked in offices of Robert Bennett of Mullen & Company, public relations firm, in 1969, while still with CIA. Close friend and attorney Douglas Caddy shared the same offices; Caddy was co-founder of Young Americans for Freedom. Robert Mullen alleged to be CIA, as well as Caddy. Close links of CIA and Spiro Agnew through this office.
Business partner of Bernard Barker in Nicaragua, Santa Domingo.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hunt and Chappaquiddick. White House Librarian Ms. Schleicher told a Washington Post reporter that Howard Hunt was doing research while at the White House on Ted Kennedy's Chappaquiddick accident.
(The entire affair was CIA-staged for the purpose of removing Ted Kennedy as Democratic candidate. Pages 262-3 of Jack Olsen's Book, The Bridge at Chappaquiddick, indicate that the water pressure would have made it impossible to open the car door, so that Ted Kennedy could not have been driving, or even inside. The National Safety Council has not a single case in its records of any person ever escaping from a submerged automobile.)
Gary said: If you would list two or more researchers with opposing views, I will do my best to arrange a debate between them. If one doesn't want to show, maybe I could piece together audio similar to the Jim D vs John Hankey debate or play cricket sounds in a debaters absence
ReplyDelete~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I would love to hear from people like Gerald Posner and Vincent Bugliosi who have made our lives so miserable calling us conspiracy theorists and holding for Oswald as the lone assassin. Are those two still living? How about getting Mark Fuhrman of OJ fame to come on and defend his book? He could debate Jim. I think that would be a real fun debate.
Hi Joan, The idea of contacting Gerald Posner is more than a little creepy, and worse for Vince... I had complete trust in him until he dropped a 40lb disinfo-bookbomb on our heads. I think it would be impossible to extract any truth from them, However! It would be child's play putting together a montage of clips of the dynamic duo putting there feet in their mouths, Why don't we get together and make a debate just like the Jim D. vs John Hankey one! I want you to slam these turkeys with a boxing glove of truth! You can take your time and I will edit it until it's great! I promise. and we can air it on WGSO 990AM Hit me back, Joan! PS: I detected modesty in your post. I am a guitar player and also know that when Chet Atkins was asked if he could play the guitar he would always say " I know a couple chords"
DeleteJoseph McBride in his new book " Into the Nightmare: My Search for the Killers of President John F. Kennedy and Officer J. D. Tippit" has done great research and has discovered a new fact about Tippit. Tippit suffered from a chronic disability and a disability which for an ordinary individual would have been debilitating but for a policeman like Tippit could have proved fatal and cost him his life: Tippit was incapable of looking anyone in the eye. Could this disability have played a role in Tippit's death? Tippit meets "Oswald" in a set up but fails to realize that it is not the real Oswald. Tippit is then shot (by the bushy haired man) leaving the Oswald double to continue on his way to the Texas Theater and at the same time leading the police to the real Oswald who was already there.
ReplyDelete@ Gary, I think I first heard the Tippet-Kennedy look-alike theory on a Project Camelot interview. I have no idea who might be an expert on anything, if anyone.
ReplyDelete@Bernard, thanks for the very interesting analysis.
Now, how and why did Oswald end up at the theatre? Did he simply get off early that day as had been previously scheduled and then decide to take in a matinee after having watched the President get his head blown off? Was he instructed to go to the theatre? By whom, for what purpose exactly? At what point did Oswald realize he was the patsy? At what point might or should he have suspected it? Are his actions consistent with someone knowing they are the patsy? Is it possible he knew all along he would at first be the patsy, but then be deemed innocent. Did Oswald think he was playing a part in setting up his double only to be double-crossed?
We could go on and on here.
How could Oswald watch JFK's head being blown off? Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunch room eating his lunch.
DeleteIf I am not mistaken, Jim has talked about a photograph that appears to show Oswald outside watching the motorcade at the time of the assassination. Altgen 6?
DeleteYes. But JFK's head had not yet been blown off at that instant in the Altgens photograph and JFK's head being blown would not have been visible from the doorway anyway. Besides Oswald had most likely returned to his lunch.
DeleteWhen exactly do you believe Oswald was in a position from where he could have seen JFK's head being "blown off"?
Maybe he did not, but the question as to what prompted him to take in a matinee remains.
DeleteI think James Douglass in his book JFK and the Unspeakable mentions that the Oswald Tipppit encountered may have been an Oswald double.
ReplyDeleteDouglass goes into detail on a possible Oswald double who was seen by a car mechanic sitting in a parked car in the car park of a restaurant near the scene of the Tippit shooting.The mechanic took the registration number and the car turned out to belong to a friend of Tippit's wife. Douglass also mentions the strange sightings of another possible Oswald double by Ralph Yates two days before the assassination and a sighting by Robert Vinson on the day of the assassination. For full details read James Ddouglass' book.
Hey Bernard, Would you like to participate in a "Round Table" or friendly debate on my radio show about Tippet with Stooy44, Doug Arnold? If we do a good job who knows, maybe Dr. Fetzer would air it on one of his shows! hit me back! Gary King
Delete
ReplyDelete? JFK II - The Bush Connection (2003) Complete Documentary - YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZNRDOPR2dM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.ctka.net/2010/hanky.html
The Dark Legacy of John Hankey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Alex Jones and John Hankey
Alex Jones is the perennial king of internet conspiracy mongering. He has views on innumerable events. Even those he knows little about. The Kennedy assassination is but one subject he knows little about. For instance, Jones has endorsed the very suspicious Barr McClellan and his book of "faction" Blood, Money and Power. He has also chosen to endorse a video on the Kennedy case. This is called JFK 2: The Bush Connection. The original – which can still be found online – is a low-budget, poorly produced production by a self-proclaimed 30, 40 or 50 year researcher named John Hankey. Hankey has cobbled together footage from Oliver Stone's film JFK, the series The Men Who Killed Kennedy, the PBS program Nova, and other productions. The latest version – Dark Legacy – is more slickly done and has some newer information in it. But since the original has been around much longer and is available online, I will concentrate my critique on that.
Hankey has rehashed his product a number of times. JFK 2 seems to have been re-edited at least 3, and possibly as many as 4 times. This is the version I have utilized in my review.
I should note: there are at least two other versions of this first production available. One of them gives more credit for source material and cleans up some crude language. Another version spends about 20 more minutes toward the end on Oswald and the FBI. We will discuss that version later.
Hankey and Prescott Bush
In JFK 2 it is implied that Prescott Bush was the main – or one of the main – architects of the CIA, and its operations to overthrow foreign governments and assassinate foreign leaders. In an earlier version of the film, Hankey used Howard Hunt's connections to Averill Harriman and Nixon to link him to Prescott Bush. Then, Hankey detailed the overthrow of three prominent leaders via CIA-Prescott Bush (?) backed coups.
Thus after viewing Hankey's video, reading his comments, and listening to his views with regard to political happenings, it would seem wise to take what he says or writes with caution. I mean, how could anyone take a guy who is pals with 'Henry Makow PHD' seriously? Makow is an advocate of the ancient conservative conspiracy theories in which Feminism is seen as an integral part of the new world order, that the Rockefellers are socialists and the classic one about Freemasons controlling the world banking system. Those interested in high comedy can visit his website and or read about his banking thesis in his 2008 book entitled Illuminati: The Cult that Hijacked the World.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary, I should have read the CTKA piece as well as Hankey's video, JFK II, before commenting. DiEugenio is so into the assassination on a scientific level that he is impossible to follow. If you listen to the tape, it is really very boring without a background in the material I've listed above. It is really not a debate, rather it is Hankey answering his critics. I doubt if anyone can follow it. I retract my complaint about researchers not using Mark Lane's work and trial brought by E. Howard Hunt against Liberty Lobby and Willis Carto. Hankey makes good use of this excellent material and testimony.
The debate between Jim and Eastman on the topic of planes or no planes on 9/11 was a true debate and I hope the next one you do will follow that pattern. Again, I'm sorry for jumping to conclusions on Hankey. DiEugenio is a very weird and rude person judging from his review above of Hankey's work, sad to say.
PS. I love Peter Jennings remark that "there is no evidence to support the theoty that the assassination of JFK was a conspiracy." Did Jennings know that there is no evidence to support the theory Lee Harvey Oswald was JFK's assassin?
ReplyDeleteDon't forget, the government is making the claim that Oswald killed JFK, but there is no evidence to support that just as there is no evidence to support the government's claim of planes and hijackers on 9/11. Those making the claim must bear the burden of proof. Check out the work of Elias Davidsson--see Jim's interviews with him.
Also, listen to Jim Garrison's rebuttal to NBC on YouTube.
? JFK II - The Bush Connection (2003) Complete Documentary - YouTube
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZNRDOPR2dM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.ctka.net/2010/hanky.html
The Dark Legacy of John Hankey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Alex Jones and John Hankey
Alex Jones is the perennial king of internet conspiracy mongering. He has views on innumerable events. Even those he knows little about. The Kennedy assassination is but one subject he knows little about. For instance, Jones has endorsed the very suspicious Barr McClellan and his book of "faction" Blood, Money and Power. He has also chosen to endorse a video on the Kennedy case. This is called JFK 2: The Bush Connection. The original – which can still be found online – is a low-budget, poorly produced production by a self-proclaimed 30, 40 or 50 year researcher named John Hankey. Hankey has cobbled together footage from Oliver Stone's film JFK, the series The Men Who Killed Kennedy, the PBS program Nova, and other productions. The latest version – Dark Legacy – is more slickly done and has some newer information in it. But since the original has been around much longer and is available online, I will concentrate my critique on that.
Hankey has rehashed his product a number of times. JFK 2 seems to have been re-edited at least 3, and possibly as many as 4 times. This is the version I have utilized in my review.
I should note: there are at least two other versions of this first production available. One of them gives more credit for source material and cleans up some crude language. Another version spends about 20 more minutes toward the end on Oswald and the FBI. We will discuss that version later.
Hankey and Prescott Bush
In JFK 2 it is implied that Prescott Bush was the main – or one of the main – architects of the CIA, and its operations to overthrow foreign governments and assassinate foreign leaders. In an earlier version of the film, Hankey used Howard Hunt's connections to Averill Harriman and Nixon to link him to Prescott Bush. Then, Hankey detailed the overthrow of three prominent leaders via CIA-Prescott Bush (?) backed coups.
Thus after viewing Hankey's video, reading his comments, and listening to his views with regard to political happenings, it would seem wise to take what he says or writes with caution. I mean, how could anyone take a guy who is pals with 'Henry Makow PHD' seriously? Makow is an advocate of the ancient conservative conspiracy theories in which Feminism is seen as an integral part of the new world order, that the Rockefellers are socialists and the classic one about Freemasons controlling the world banking system. Those interested in high comedy can visit his website and or read about his banking thesis in his 2008 book entitled Illuminati: The Cult that Hijacked the World.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary, I should have read the CTKA piece as well as Hankey's video, JFK II, before commenting. DiEugenio is so into the assassination on a scientific level that he is impossible to follow. If you listen to the tape, it is really very boring without a background in the material I've listed above. It is really not a debate, rather it is Hankey answering his critics. I doubt if anyone can follow it. I retract my complaint about researchers not using Mark Lane's work and trial brought by E. Howard Hunt against Liberty Lobby and Willis Carto. Hankey makes good use of this excellent material and testimony.
The debate between Jim and Eastman on the topic of planes or no planes on 9/11 was a true debate and I hope the next one you do will follow that pattern. Again, I'm sorry for jumping to conclusions on Hankey.
? JFK II - The Bush Connection (2003) Complete Documentary - YouTube
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZNRDOPR2dM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.ctka.net/2010/hanky.html
The Dark Legacy of John Hankey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary, I should have read the CTKA piece as well as Hankey's video, JFK II, before commenting. DiEugenio is so into the assassination on a scientific level that he is impossible to follow. If you listen to the tape, it is really very boring without a background in the material I've listed above. It is really not a debate, rather it is Hankey answering his critics. I doubt if anyone can follow it. I retract my complaint about researchers not using Mark Lane's work and trial brought by E. Howard Hunt against Liberty Lobby and Willis Carto. Hankey makes good use of this excellent material and testimony.
Have you thought about being involved in a Posner/Bugliosi vs Joan Edwards virtual debate? I know you would be great! Check out your post on August 24, 2013 at 11:44 PM above and my invitation.
DeleteI fail to see any connection between Oswald's decision to go watch a movie and his having seen or not having seen JFK's head being blown off.
ReplyDeleteAre you the kind of individual who needs to see someone's head being blown off before you decide to go to the cinema?
Hey Doug, Would you like to participate in a "Round Table" or friendly debate on my radio show about Tippet with Bernard, Stooy44? If we do a good job who knows, maybe Dr. Fetzer would air it on one of his shows! hit me back! Gary King
DeleteThanks for the offer, Gary.
DeleteI don't really know much about it, Gary.
I'm a bit of a dabbler.
Thanks again.
There is no connection, the question is this: Why did Oswald decide to take in a movie? Who, if anyone, instructed him to do so, and why?
ReplyDeleteHey 44, Would you like to participate in a "Round Table" or friendly debate on my radio show about Tippet with Bernard, Doug Arnold? If we do a good job who knows, maybe Dr. Fetzer would air it on one of his shows! hit me back! Gary King
DeleteOf course there is NO connection but it was YOU who made the connection!!
DeleteYour words:
"Did he simply get off early that day.....and then decide to take in a matinee after having watched the President get his head blown off?"
Why did YOU make the connection?
I ask the question again:
When and where was Oswald in a position
to watch the President get his head blown off?
Thank you Gary, but I know nothing about the subject and would not be able to contribute intelligently.
ReplyDeleteIf we look at the JFK assassination as a three act play, each act separate
ReplyDeleteself-contained and essential to the overall plot
we get:
Scene I Act I
Assassination of JFK
Scene I Act II
Murder of Tippit
Scene I Act III
Capture and murder of Oswald
Each act is carefully planned before hand.
The assassination of JFK goes as planned. The shooters escape and the patsy Oswald is in place. Act II calls for another murder. Tippit who may have a different perception of what is really happening is lured to his death by an Oswald double. Tippit attempts to arrest or shoot the Oswald double (this was Tippit's understanding of what was to happen) instead Tippit is shot by either the double or the "bushy haired man". The real Oswald is in the Texas Theater trying to make contact with his CIA handler*. The Oswald double scatters shells around the scene of the murder leaving a trail that will lead rightly and definitely wrongly to the totally innocent CIA asset Oswald.
Act III calls for another murder. Oswald is to be shot on sight in the Texas Theater but there is confusion. The cops are perplexed: they have two Oswalds. Which one are we supposed to gun down? What happens if they kill the wrong Oswald? The conspiracy will unravel there and then. They cops delay. Delay turns to cancellation - for now anyway. The real Oswald is finally taken out the front and the Oswald douuble is taken out the back. Oswald willl have to wait for a few days to be murdered.
* The question is often asked why did Oswald go to the Texas Theater in the first place? To see a movie? Perhaps but his main purpose going there was to meet someone. It's not improbable
to believe that Oswald was a CIA operative who thought he was working to prevent the assassination. It is equally not improbable that Oswald was the only CIA operative in the TSBD on 22 November 1963. So why did Oswald go to the Texas Theater? Simple: he was told to go there. Imagine this scenario: The president has been shot. The very thing Oswald was there to prevent has happened. There are two possibilities 1/ Oswald goes to the Theater because he knows his CIA handler will be there.
But why would Oswald feel the need to go at all? Because Oswald is with the CIA and if it is discovered that the CIA are remotely involved then all hell will break loose. Oswald must make himself scarce and get the hell out of there.
2/ Oswald is somehow informed that he must go to the Texas Theater immediately to meet his CIA
handler who will tell him how to proceed.Perhaps another CIA senior operative told Oswald to go.The question may asked:
What about other CIA operatives who were there? Where did they go? It doesn't really matter where they or if they went. They could stay - confident that no one would be asking any questions. Again the important thing was to get Oswald to where he was supposed to be and if that meant some CIA operative lying to Oswald about getting himself to the Texas Theater pronto - who cared?
That's it. A few typos. Make what you will of it.
ReplyDeleteI have done my best.
I am done.
God Bless America!!!
DEBATE: Was George H.W. Bush involved in the JFK assassination?
ReplyDelete~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So much for anyone caring whether GHW Bush was involved in the JFK assassination judging from the comments.
Maybe we need a refresher course on JFK put together by Gary?
Maybe we have put that baby to rest? After Hankey presented his case, maybe it's settled. Just wait for the LBJ debate being put together between Dr. Fetzer, Hankey and Myself, It's gonna be good! PS: Joan, please read my invitation above, don't worry, because the show is prerecorded and you can redo a take as many times as you like. GK
DeleteGary! Great innovative idea! You have redefined the word "interview". Perhaps we need a new word for a new concept! The word "interview" just doesn't cut it any more!
DeleteLet me think.....How about "telinterview"? "tel" as in "telegraph" - far, long distance. or "absinterview" - "ab" as in "absent".
Or "blinterview" as in "blind" (the interviewees can't see each other. Or "ablinterview"
( a combination of "absent" and "blind"- the interviewees are absent and can't see each other. Hey! Let's go the whole hog! Call it
"teleblinterview"!!! Drop the "a" of "ab" so the "b" stands for the "b" of "absent" and the first letter of the word "blind".
Teleblinterview!!!
Whatever you call it, it's a great new idea!!
Whaddya say, Gary? More important, Gary...Whaddya think?
Neat or what??!!
I think your really on to something!!! I have noticed that JFK researchers have no problem beating the living daylights out of another researcher as long as the one getting clubbed to death isn't there to defend him or herself. I did everything in my power to make it a live debate but as usual, a great Idea was stumbled upon. PS: I had to catch my breath for about 5 minutes from laughing to hard after reading your post! By the way! Who do you think won the "teleblinterview?" Everyone reading this post, please let us know who won! Hankey or Jim D. did you learn from the exchange?
Delete@ Bernard, interesting ideas! You offer possible reasons that lead Oswald to take in a movie.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone know what happened with the body of Tippet? Was he just unlucky to be chosen for death? Was he himself a possible CIA asset?
DeleteSee my brand new YouTube channel "Teleblinterview"!!
Dedicated to your great new idea!!!
Bernard! your amazing, I will make a slide show to go with the Teleblinterview of the Hankey/Jim D. I guess we have 12 debates to set up! Live or memorex! Great start with the first video! Come on everybody! Pile on! Gary King
DeleteHankey.
ReplyDeleteBut maybe if DiEugenio had been sitting in the chair, he would have won.
Who knows?
The moral of the story is - if you want to win on the teleblinterview -
ReplyDeleteSit in the chair and talk to Gary!!!
YouTube Teleblinterview
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9qFmulsAadX8VPVlZjstXw
Hi, Bernard! Glad to see you liked my idea so much you stole it. Good thing I'm not the vindictive type, Bernard or I'd be on you like a mongoose on a snake.
ReplyDeleteI suppose I should feel honored and grateful.
Good luck, Bernard.
I bid you good day.
Woops, It was your idea! A great idea is a great idea, let's all three men get together and make it work! my email is sirgaryking@gmail.co m
DeleteGary,
ReplyDeleteFor your collection of media hoaxes. Could this be yet another example?
Impossible physics of the Michael Hastings hoax (Corrected) - YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WkJg0g4EaI
Hi Joan, I have looked into the Hastings fiasco and the official story is a hoax but really happened. There is a difference between the official story being a hoax AND the event being a hoax. The fact that journalist are being targeted mean the 1st amendment os history
DeleteHey, Gary!! I was thinking maybe "Blinterview" would be the colloquial kind of short version for everyday use and maybe save "Teleblinterview" for more formal official use as in advertising material, official announcements and radio introductions etc., etc., etc.
ReplyDeleteExamples-
" Hey, Joan! Did you catch the latest blinterview on Black Op Radio?!"
" My name's Len Osanic. Our latest Teleblinterview today features Joseph McBride, Noam Chomsky, John McAdams Joan Edwards, Gerald Posner, Gary Mack and Jim Fetzer........"
Your views, Gary?
The 1st amendment to the JFK research community Constitution is to NEVER say Gerald Posner, Gary Mack, John McAdams, in the same breath as Len Osanic, Jim Fetzer and watch it buddy! I have a crush on Joan Edwards!
ReplyDeleteI watched the videos and I think they are great!
ReplyDelete