Hackers

Knowing the truth about the Kennedy Assassination is understanding America today.

Moderators: Bob, Phil Dragoo, Dealey Joe, kenmurray, dankbaar

Postby Billy Boggs » Sat Mar 25, 2006 12:14 pm

From my research the Kennedy family were in fact a bunch of spoiled brats fed by Joes money dishonestly gaind by insider trading from the Federal Reserve just before the great crash, BUT, they were not traditional Satanists as todays leaders that have far greater crimes under their belt.

Some people want to use the Kennedy (imoral) legacy as reason to discontinue the research and possible litigation of JFK's murder with a mindset that the dirty ba$terd got what he deserverd.

My own opinion is that JFK was in fact a dirty ba$tered, but he was a dirty ba$tered that was on the verge of giving this country back to the people by disbanding the CIA and Federal Reserve.

Good,bad Beautiful, or ugly, John Kennedy was starting a revolution, a richly desrved revolution.
Billy Boggs
 
Posts: 212
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 9:25 pm

JFK's Performance

Postby Tim Carroll » Sat Mar 25, 2006 4:03 pm

Bruce Patrick Brychek wrote:Tim and Terry, the sentiment of many at the time during the early 1960'S was very strongly anti JFK among many groups, government, military, intelligence, and organized crime. I am not saying that they were right, however there existed pure hatred by some for the Kennedy's, and JFK. Some openly stated that he should be taken out in an alley and shot in the head like a mad dog in heat. Not far from what happened is it?

There absolutely was a very strong anti-JFK sentiment during his less than three year presidency, not only among groups like the "government, military, intelligence, and organized crime," but also revealingly by the KKK, John Birch Society, Minutemen and right-wing extremists, generally. What kind of balls would it take to make those kinds of enemies? Remember the "Wanted For Treason" flyer circulated throughout Dallas (a.k.a. "Hate City") the day of the assassination?

Bruce Patrick Brychek wrote:Tim, take a look at The Dark Side Of Camelot, by Seymour Hirsch. I got it recently, but have not yet finished it. Let me know what you think of it.

I have taken more than a close look at Hersh's book. I don't have a problem with characterizations of JFK as a degenerate, drug-using philanderer. I do take exception to the book's ill-advised over-reliance on SS Agent Underwood, whose stories change like the weather, depending upon whose paying.

Billy Boggs wrote:My own opinion is that JFK was in fact a dirty ba$tered, but he was a dirty ba$tered that was on the verge of giving this country back to the people by disbanding the CIA and Federal Reserve. Good, bad Beautiful, or ugly, John Kennedy was starting a revolution, a richly desrved revolution.

This is the point: Kennedy was consolidating his charismatic authority such that it threatened the established institutional authorities. That would be sufficient by itself to piss off many powers that be. But in the context of the early years of the nuclear age, when the momentum toward a first strike preemptive war had been developed under Eisenhower, it took all of Kennedy's unconventional lack of respect for the so-called experts and authorities to withstand the pressure to preside over a nuclear conflagration.

Regarding many of the issues mentioned in this thread, such as civil rights, the war on organized crime and fealty to the military industrial complex, these issues are individually worthy of extensive study and debate. Civil Rights, for example, can't be discussed without the context of time. When Kennedy came to office, he was determined to put off submitting the civil rights legislation until his second term, but events moved faster than anticipated, and Kennedy chose to lead rather than follow. When he submitted the legislation, as he'd anticipated, it stopped all of the rest of his legislative initiatives. So my position is that the issues that are important to understanding Kennedy's legacy are complex and should be extensively examined and debated on a case-by-case basis.

Tim
Tim Carroll
 

Postby dankbaar » Sat Mar 25, 2006 4:51 pm

My two cents:

JFK was GREAT in terms of his policies. But privately he and his brother were as shrewd as any other politician in protecting their careers. I do believe they had Marilyn killed for example, for she was planning to spill the beans and ruin their careers. I also believe that is why the Kennedy family has been so silent. For the people that killed them could simply give the family the choice. What do you want? The skeletons in your closet exposed or your legacy living on?

Nevertheless I think the Kennedy brothers meant the best for the world ..... in all their naivity.

Wim
Last edited by dankbaar on Sun Mar 26, 2006 9:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
dankbaar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1473
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 8:27 pm

Postby Moo Cow » Sat Mar 25, 2006 9:40 pm

dankbaar wrote:My two cents:

JFK was GREAT in terms of his policies. But privately he and his brother were as shrewd as any other politician in protecting their careers. I do believe they had Marilyn killed for example, for she was planning to spill the beans and ruin their careers. I also believe that is why the Kennedy family has been so silent. For the people that killed them could simply give the family the choice. What do you want? The sketons in your closet exposed or your legacy living on?

Nevertheless I think the Kennedy brothers meant the best for the world ..... in all their naivity.

Wim

Hello Wim,

Not so. I beg to differ with you. It was said that he Kennedy brothers said they would never kill, and Giancana's own nephew wrote a book saying that Giancana confessed to the murder(his nephew overheard him) and that Anthony Spiltro was involved. My dad was a JFK fan , and he always said that politics was a dirty business and people were out to smear the Kennedys. I discovered that their name was the Rockefellers..see my postings under'A History Lesson on Money'... :oops: :oops: :oops: :cry:
Moo Cow
Moo Cow
 
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 8:23 pm

Re: TIM CARROLL AND TERRY SUMMERS:

Postby Moo Cow » Sat Mar 25, 2006 9:47 pm

Bruce Patrick Brychek wrote:Dear Messers. Tim Carroll, and Terry Summers,

I have received, and reviewed your emails.

I will make copies for Jimmy, and myself.

I respect the fact that you support JFK. Overall, I could not disagree with both of you more. I don't think JFK actually accomplished much, or completed much. Everyone now feels sorry for him because he was assassinated, and he and his wife were a cute couple. Therefore, anything that he said or did of value is grossly over-rated.

Tim and Terry, the sentiment of many at the time during the early 1960'S
was very strongly anti JFK among many groups, government, military, intelligence, and organized crime. I am not saying that they were right,
however there existed pure hatred by some for the Kennedy's, and JFK.
Some openly stated that he should be taken out in an alley and shot in the head like a mad dog in heat. Not far from what happened is it ?
Also, there were numerous other assassination sites, for a President that was supposedly so beloved ?

If JFK had accomplished anything of value, or had any real supporters,
then where were they when the Second Crime, the bigger crime occurred, and continues to this day, the cover up, and burrying of the JFK assassination ?

I think that JFK wrote, and read good speeches. He, and Jackie were a handsome couple, and very charismatic. He used the growing press, and
relatively new concept of color T.V. very well.

However, JFK was a personal, and professional fraud. Covered up, and annulled his first marriage. (My daddy made me do it.) Womanized openly, and notoriously with numerous women. No value for his alleged Catholic vows, and certainly none for his marriage vows. Broke his word on the altar of God, and to his wife, but we are expected to believe that he functioned honorably ? Profiles In Courage, his alleged great book was in fact written by a ghost writer, paid for by Joe Kennedy. Just like Ted Kennedy getting kicked out of Harvard for paying a class mate to take a final exam because he was hung over. Drinking, gambling, and openly womanizing with The Rat Pack, Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, Sammy Davis, Jr., Joey Bishop, Peter Lawford, et., al., in Las Vegas with actual, and direct ties to Organized Crime, all while President ? Sharing a sex partner with Sam Giancana, the Second In Command of the Chicago Mafia ? All while Bobby was attacking Hoffa and The Mob.

I would strongly disagree with what he "actually" accomplished.
JFK talked a good game. But he failed to heed Eisenhower's warnings, and directly, or indirectly created some of the holes that he had to dig himself out of. Yes, he avoided military action at The Bay of Pigs, but he failed to prepare properly, did not do all of his homework, as was his trade mark in high school, and college, and to a degree increased the problem. Then to save face "agreed to pull our missles out of Turkey," which we were going to do anyway because they were obsolete, as a trade off for Russia to remove missles from Cuba. A total charade for the media. But not until he had given mixed signals to the military, and the C.I.A., because he failed to grasp the situation, and hundreds of Americans and Cubans loyal to America were tortured, and murdered at the Bay of Pigs. Tortured by Casto's Infamous Torture Squads.

Yes, I agree that the black population wrongly thinks that JFK helped them. But actually Bobby, and LBJ actually did the accomplishing. JFK just made a few good speeches between visits to Las Vegas. The Civil Rights Act was actually accomplished by LBJ. JFK made a few good speeches, thats it. Bobby Kennedy actually began taking on Civil Rights in earnest, as Bobby took on Hoffa and The Mob in earnest, while JFK was partying, and getting laid with friends of Hoffa, and The Mob. Maybe JFK was undercover ?

JFK was all smoke and mirrors. If he was so great, he should have won by a landslide, instead of having Joe Kennedy fix the election with the Chicago Mob.

Tim, most of the time I agree with you. This time, I could not disagree with you more. No disrespect intended. Reasonable men can disagree.
I'm sure that you'll have a great response. Fire away.

Tim, take a look at The Dark Side Of Camelot, by Seymour Hirsch. I got it recently, but have not yet finished it. Let me know what you think of it.

Respectfully,
Bruce Patrick Brychek.

Hello Bruce,

CAN YOU CAST THE FIRST STONE AT HIM?

BOBBY KENNEDY ADMITTED HE WASN'T jACK WHEN GIVING SPEECHES. HE WAS SO DIS-HEARTENED BY HIS CLOSE BROTHERS''S DEATH. :oops: :cry:

THANK YOU FOR SHARING WITH US YOUR ENLIGHTENING INSIGHTFUL EXPRESSIONS BUT BRYAN, TRY HARDER NEXT TIME
Moo Cow
Moo Cow
 
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 8:23 pm

JFK's Real Supporters

Postby Tim Carroll » Sat Mar 25, 2006 11:46 pm

Bruce Patrick Brychek wrote:If JFK had accomplished anything of value, or had any real supporters, then where were they when the Second Crime, the bigger crime occurred, and continues to this day, the cover up, and burrying of the JFK assassination?

The reason this forum exists is that many recognize the significance of the murder of JFK, not as a game of assassination trivial pursuit, but because Dallas represented a coup d'etat in America. That wouldn't be the case if JFK had done nothing to make any difference for the world.

I am grateful that Wim's loyalty to James Files doesn't determine his judgment of JFK's role in history. His promotion of public awareness about the terrorists amongst us, most especially including Luis Posada Carilles, is demonstration that he understands that truthfulness, as is possibly the case with Files, does not equate to righteousness.

Tim
Tim Carroll
 

Postby Bob » Sun Mar 26, 2006 1:23 am

There is no doubt that JFK had his faults. But ask yourself this question, what kind of world we would live in had George W. Bu$h been President during the Cuban Missile Crisis. There is no doubt in my mind the incompetent idiot would have started WWIII. The way JFK handled the crisis was very cautious, yet correct. RFK deserves a lot of credit for the strategy as well. The Joint Chiefs wanted to invade Cuba badly. They didn't care about the consequences. They got their war in Vietnam after JFK was gunned down in Dallas. The civil rights legislation that Johnson is given credit for was put into place by LBJ, but it was developed by JFK. JFK also had an aura about him that is rare in Presidents. A charisma if you will. Bill Clinton (love him or hate him) and Ronald Reagan also had this attribute. Yes, John F. Kennedy was not perfect. Far from it. But he kept us from the impending mushroom cloud that certainly was inevitable if certain "leaders" like Bu$h would have been in office. He wanted to de-escalate the Vietnam war. He was busting up the CIA. He was changing laws that would severely affect the power elite in oil and the profits that they would make. He wouldn't attack Cuba. He was attempting to change the Federal Reserve. His brother Bobby was going after the mob with tenacity. These are the reasons he died that Friday in Dallas.
User avatar
Bob
 
Posts: 5766
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:39 pm
Location: Florida/Wisconsin

JFK's Greatness

Postby Tim Carroll » Sun Mar 26, 2006 6:15 am

Bob wrote:There is no doubt that JFK had his faults. But ask yourself this question, what kind of world we would live in had George W. Bu$h been President during the Cuban Missile Crisis. There is no doubt in my mind the incompetent idiot would have started WWIII. The way JFK handled the crisis was very cautious, yet correct. RFK deserves a lot of credit for the strategy as well. The Joint Chiefs wanted to invade Cuba badly. They didn't care about the consequences. They got their war in Vietnam after JFK was gunned down in Dallas. The civil rights legislation that Johnson is given credit for was put into place by LBJ, but it was developed by JFK. JFK also had an aura about him that is rare in Presidents. A charisma if you will. Bill Clinton (love him or hate him) and Ronald Reagan also had this attribute. Yes, John F. Kennedy was not perfect. Far from it. But he kept us from the impending mushroom cloud that certainly was inevitable if certain "leaders" like Bu$h would have been in office. He wanted to de-escalate the Vietnam war. He was busting up the CIA. He was changing laws that would severely affect the power elite in oil and the profits that they would make. He wouldn't attack Cuba. He was attempting to change the Federal Reserve. His brother Bobby was going after the mob with tenacity. These are the reasons he died that Friday in Dallas.

Excellent post, and historically precise. I particularly like the phraseology that "he kept us from the impending mushroom cloud." Especially when one studies the details of the free reign given to the Military Industrial Complex during Eisenhower's presidency, it becomes apparent that standing up to nut jobs like Curtis LeMay was no small accomplishment.

The only minor exception I would make is that JFK submitted the Civil Rights legislation, and was paying a heavy price for it in the Congress and in public opinion polls. LBJ rode the legislation into history on the coattails of JFK's assassination. Before Kennedy died, LBJ was adamently opposed to sending the bill to Capitol Hill, and deserves no credit for its passage.

Tim
Tim Carroll
 

Previous

Return to Who shot JFK, and why?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests