After following JFKFacts for the past year, I was of course suspicious about the Trump shooting. At first, it seemed like some troubled kid went crazy and did this. The FBI and SS were at first very tight lipped about the events. Then out of nowhere the FBI announced authoritatively " this was a sole gunman"
This was chilling. We know you can't trust the FBI. There is no way the FBI could know if the sole gunman theory is true. The FBI is either tone deaf or hiding something.
Or has more surveillance information than we know. Or - wants to pose as knowing more than they do because it’s their job to prevent things like this, and they failed and are embarrassed by the situation.
As more "facts" come out it becomes more confusing. The SS Increased security because of Iranian threats to kill Trump. The SS director didn't put snipers on the roof because it was dangerous.
I think it is incumbent upon this Substack most of all not to forecast or draw any conclusions whatsoever about the facts of what happened here until we know what those facts are - and I mean down to the last detail, like even how we know that Crooks was the shooter (who were the witnesses, what is the physical evidence, what is the basis of saying he was a suspect?, etc.). No hunches, no suppositions about the likelihood of this or that having happened, and so on.
I said this yesterday but it bears repeating: if we are to learn anything from the JFK assassination it is that we must ruthlessly insist on evidence of every single claim that comes out about this event, especially (for obvious reasons) from "authorities" like the FBI, but also from any quarter anywhere. We must all become defense attorneys in order to reclaim our democratic right to know, and to reality. This is not at all an unreasonable posture to assume at this point, nor does it commit one to any so-called conspiracy theory. It is simply to execute the proposition that "claims without evidence may be [must be] dismissed without evidence".
Accordingly, what is the evidence thus far that tells anyone that Crooks was the shooter? I don't know. I haven't had the chance to read everything about what is known and what its basis is. But I have still not heard of a single eyewitness to the shooting, or evidence of any bullet having been recovered. There is circumstantial evidence thus far only, unless something has changed from yesterday. Please enlighten me.
"What is the evidence that Crooks was the shooter?
How about:
(1) he was seen and filmed climbing onto the outside of the building before the shooting.
(2) He was carrying an AK-15 semi-automatic rifle.
(3) The counter-snipers shot him on the roof of the building in the act of shooting.
(4) He was identified by tracing the registration of the rifle to his father, who confirmed that he had given Crooks posession of the rifle that morning to visit a target range.
(6) They took his dead ass from the roof of the building to the morgue, where he was identified as Thomas Crooks.
You, sir, are, with all due respect, a flat earther.
I agree 110%. I was let down in a way when President Biden said he was going to appoint a special commission to investigate the failed Trump assassination. Let down because it reminds me of President Johnson announcing a special commission to investigate the Kennedy assassination. The Warren Commission. They were appointed to put the citizens of the United States and the world at ease by telling the “true story” of what happened in Dallas November 22, 1963.
What we got was “The Single Bullet Theory”.
Sad and scary when a United States citizen doesn’t really believe much of what his government tells him.
Ironically, the requirement of the complex and concealed back story of the JFK coup d’etat, indeed the resulting training for us all from the cover-up, was for careful and measured thinking and review of the facts prior to making a statement. Grandiose and reactive claims regarding the assassination would get you disregarded or disrespected, or named a conspiracy theorist. The antidote to that is to base an analysis on factual data then, and in American society now as well. The muscle of measured reason is one that desperately needs exercise in today’s world is never more apparent in the evaluation of the motives or even the idea of an infrastructure behind Trump’s gunman. The emotional drama and reactivity that lends neurotransmitter ‘fuel’, and feelings of self-righteous social glue that becomes the mob, that shuts down our capacity to reason, is one of the real dangers of modern times. I really appreciate the antidote to that as represented here at JFK Facts, and demonstrated through the careful writing of its lead contributors. It models a methodology that leads us into growth and dialogue as a nation, and suggests a way through the current morass toward a more hopeful future.
The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars but in ourselves. There are more nuts out there than there are bolts. We create sciences to explain away that which is unacceptable. I've lived long enough to see that the more we study the bad, the more we get of the bad. Allowing politicians to pontificate while questioning Ms. Cheatle is a waste of time. She should only be held responsible for not firing some of the SS agents who were at the Butler scene. If she is unable to do that, she is not competent to run the agency.
I have no idea if she was competent or incompetent. There’s no getting around that her agency is the one primarily responsible for preventing the incident, and was also a failure of many systemic and organizational factors. However, like Biden, taking responsibility and getting out is taking one for the team. I frankly respect both decisions.
It is to whip a dead horse as we consider this former director. Her hearing demonstrated the serious reservations many have regarding why some ascend to higher positions in a governmental bureaucracy. There will be another like her one of these days. Further, we will have others like our current president and we will have legions of supporters who rejoice in the qualities they imagine future presidents possess.
The surgeon allegedly told Trump that a quarter of an inch made the difference between life and death. Had he not turned his head, he would have been killed.
Jimmy Dore and the Due Dissidence guys discuss the discrepancies in the corporate news narrative.
Tucker Carlson made a similar observation that Trump became a target when he came out against endless wars (e.g. Ukraine) .
When Lindsey Graham stated "They've (Russia) lost according to estimates and there are up to 300,000 killed or wounded and we haven't lost one soldier." I was stunned.
Most people I know (left, middle, and right) are horrified at such an evil statement. Blinken and Biden keep bragging about how wealthy the US is because of all the arms being sent to Ukraine are American made!
JFK was most probably killed by those in the military industrial complex.
The military-industrial complex does not have that power.
People like you may be moved to tears after reading John Newman's book "JFK and Vietnam," but the military-industrial complex is a weak lobby for the president.
You should read ”Dereliction of Duty” by Herbert McMaster.
The fact that the Vietnam War was led not by military personnel but by civilians like
McＮnara proves the weakness of the military-industrial complex.
Although it is a conspiracy book, "The JFK Assassination From the Oval Office to Dealey Plaza" clearly denies the theory that the military-industrial complex is the mastermind.
You should start from the basics.
Even I, a Japanese, have read the Vietnam chapter of "The Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) series" regarding the Vietnam War.
President Eisenhower's farewell address(1961) - "This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. . . .Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. . . . In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
I was 17 and joined the military in 1964. My neighbor next door died in Viet Nam in 1968. Several of my high school classmates died there. Since then we've lost thousands of young people to wars. Sec. Blinken brags about 100s of thousands of Russians killed by American made arms in Ukraine. There is a military industrial complex that promotes these wars. JFK threatened both the CIA and the military industrial complex by trying to get a nuclear disarmament treaty with the USSR. He also angered many by not supporting the Bay of Pigs disaster.
My favorite book on this subject is the one recommended by RFK jr.
This is my most paranoid explanation. It's the result of watching videos from Redacted, Jimmy Dore, and others.
Could the cops and the SS be complete and total eff-ups? Sure. The bell curve is a thing.
Key questions. Why didn't the counter-snipers take the guy out before he got a shot off? Why did they wait until he fired, what, five to eight times? Why didn't the SS immediately remove Trump from the stage when (presumably) the local cop radioed the presence of a gunman? Why didn't the local cop engage the shooter instead of retreating? How likely is it that all these things failed to occur?
I think you need to realize that your "What Jane Roman Said" colleague, John M. Newman, is probably right in his 2022 book, "Uncovering Popov's Mole," when he says Bruce Leonard Solie (look up my Wikipedia draft article on him) in the CIA's Office of Security was a KGB* "mole," and that he sent (or duped his confidant, protégé and mole-hunting subordinate, James Angleton, into sending) JFK's future assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, to Moscow in 1959 as an ostensible "dangle" in a planned-by-Solie-to-fail hunt for "Popov's Mole" (Solie) in the wrong part of the CIA -- the Soviet Russia Division.
You can take a deep breath, Jeff, because the above doesn't necessarily mean that the KGB* was behind the assassination of JFK -- Oswald probably did it all by his psychologically disturbed, self-described-Marxist self to Advance the Marxist-Leninist Dialectic. Either that, or because he was very, very angry that he wasn't "getting any" from his Russian wife (whom KGB true defector Pyotr Deriabin said a couple of days after the assassination had to have been at least a low-level KGB informant to be allowed to marry her Handsome Prince Charming and leave The Worker's Paradise with him).
While you're at it, please realize that sharpshooting Oswald killed JFK by firing three shots at him over 10.32 seconds in the echo chamber known as Dealey Plaza, and that the only reason his first shot missed everything was because it was a steeply-downward-angled one that necessitated his standing and awkwardly leaning forward while firing it.
Of course, Vladimir Putin, who cherishes your you-know-what, hopes you don't, and that you continue tearing our body politic, institutions and society apart.
In the movie "JFK," three assassination teams were supposed to shoot Kennedy after receiving instructions over the radio, but if there was a radio operator, the timing of the order to fire was too odd. Therefore, the fact that the first shot missed is almost absolute proof that there were no multiple snipers or conspiracies.
Moreover, the bullet missed the limousine by a large margin, which is the ultimate absolute proof that the sniper was an amateur at killing. Those who believe in conspiracy theories make a big fuss about the sniper being a mafia sniper or a CIA assassin, but in what world would a professional assassin be so inept that he didn't even graze the limousine? There are far too many cases of people who have studied the Kennedy assassination going mad, but this is a typical example.
Also, as is clearly shown in recent research books, researchers are keenly aware that the first shot miss buries the conspiracy theory. For example, in his debut book, Brothers (2007, 2007), David Talbot, who has appeared in Stone's latest documentary, presents testimony from Congressman Ralph Yarborough, who was in the parade car, and Kennedy's Irish Mafia aides Kenneth O'Donnell and David Powers, that the shooting was a crossfire (crossfire = multiple shooters), but gives no explanation for why the first shot missed. His next film, The Devil's Chessboard (2015, 2016), also describes the start of the shooting like this: "When Kennedy's limousine passed upstaged Abraham Zapruder, an upholsterer, at Daily Square, he was filming an inappropriate home movie. The footage captured Kennedy in grotesque detail as he was hit by gunfire, and showed bullets coming from the front as well as the rear toward the presidential parade, as described by dozens of witnesses" (page 563).
The story goes like this in Mark North's "BETRAYAL in DALLAS" (2013), which argues for the Mafia's collusion with Johnson. "The trap was set, and the presidential car was showered with firearms from the rear and right front. John Kennedy's head moved backward and to the left, and a halo of blood and brain fragments erupted" (page 68).
Lamar Waldron, who has written four books (two co-authored titles) and two books (hardcover and paperback) on the incident, omits the first shot that missed the limousine in all his books, and in his latest book, the paperback "The Hidden History of the JFK Assassination" (2013), he writes:
"12:30:12 p.m.: One shot was fired at the presidential limousine. JFK raised both hands to his throat" (page 351).
People who learn about the incident by reading these books will never know that the sniper missed the first shot, but can they really be called assassination research books? In the history books of authoritarian countries, a person's history is rewritten to suit the interests of the powerful at the time, and fallen politicians are removed from press photographs, but assassination research books have the same structure in that as soon as a particular event is found to be inconvenient for a conspiracy theory, it is removed from subsequent publications. My book(Japanese version,soon publish U.S. version) as a whole will expose these historical falsifications and the concealment of anti-conspiracy information by researchers.
Looking at the overall picture of the incident, it is clear that it was not a professional sniper in other respects as well. In the conspiracy book Who Shot Kennedy? (2007), author Robin Ramsey points out something that is difficult for researchers to say:
"If we assume that the Kennedy assassination was a conspiracy, there are obvious problems. For example, if a national organization like the CIA was behind it, why would they launch an ambush attack in broad daylight like in the Wild West? Shooting a slow but moving target from a long distance carries the risk of the bullet missing, and in that case, the accomplices in the attack would be subject to the wrath of the president, who holds enormous national power." (Summary)
In the history of American presidential assassinations, the Lincoln assassination (1865) and the Truman assassination (1950), both of which have been confirmed as having conspiracies, were planned by snipers to approach the president themselves and fire their shots. The former was successful and the latter failed, but the Secret Service was killed. In the cases of presidential candidate George Wallace, who was a single shooter, the attempted assassination of President Reagan, and many other incidents, the sniper shot from close range and hit his target, leaving him partially paralyzed or seriously injured.
Neither the Mafia nor the CIA would have devised a plan to shoot a president from a long distance in the middle of broad daylight during a massive parade. Some say that this incident was a plot by the Mafia and CIA to assassinate Castro, but with Kennedy as the target instead, but when the CIA proposed to the Mafia to shoot him with a rifle in the plot they had hatched, the Mafia rejected it, saying it was too dangerous. An actual plan for an attack by far-right figures during the Kennedy administration also involved shooting him as he came out of a building. In essence, the Kennedy assassination was a solo act by the crazy Oswald, with no background, meticulous planning, accomplices or professional calculations for success.
I don't know WHO came up with the "BlueAnon" name for Democrats and the left, but I find it outrageous to compare RATIONAL, intelligent, sane, Democratic questioners of the JFK assassination with the totally INSANE crackpots of right-wing fascist, authoritarian Trump worshiping QAnon, who believe JFK, Jr is still alive (or coming back from the dead?) to take charge!
Jeff, you should also be asking WHO came up with "BlueAnon"? IMO, probably the CIA who also came up with the smear job of "conspiracy theorist" which we are burdened with to this day! I don't think we should be feeding into that by using the term, which is exactly what I feel the CIA hopes will happen! Paint us as crazy! As a proud, lifelong true, blue Democrat and lifelong JFKA researcher, I find it wholly offensive!
I think it refers to the years long Democratic establishment "psy-op" regarding Biden's mental acuity. They got the normie Democratic voter to savage anyone who said it was time for him to go, until they could not deny it any longer. It mimics the brain zombie defenders of Trump's
About the Lennon Assassination: read David Whelan's recent book about the many disturbing links between intelligence spooks and Mark Chapman. You might change your mind about his "lone gunman" status, or whether he was the gunman at all.
Mr. Morley's view is well taken but I tend to think more than one person was monitored by American intelligence agencies for four years. Since none of them has yet been identified as potential Kennedy killers, is it necessary to include this aspect of Oswald as being representative of his guilt. I find a stronger association with the coverup than with the assassination so maybe that signifies a pre-assassination association between Oswald and intelligence.
I think it’s a foregone conclusion that the CIA was monitoring more than Oswald. The point is, that they hid any prior relationship and allowed the painting of Oswald as a lone nut and Anti-Castro leftist. I’m sure that others were concealed. We already know that as in the case of the Cuban anti-castro clan. And there are others of course, and I’m pretty sure that can be found in the Mary Farrell archives. But you raise a point that I think is right - that the clear connection of the CIA and the JFK coup d’etat, is the cover-up. I haven’t yet seen evidence of any orders from our intelligence infrastructure - but of course that would be something to never put in writing.
Not only did they allow the painting of Oswald as a lone nut, they helped produce the notion. I'm not certain Oswald was painted as an anti-Castro advocate but he was involved in the Carlos Bringuier thing. Simultaneously, we have the Fair Play For Cuba profile. Nevertheless, intelligence ignored evidence as it released the Oswald legend. Ironically, the murder of Oswald may have been the result of a lone nut which left the FBI and Dallas Police with few loose ends. Under this potential scenario, it could be that those in charge did not want the American population to believe one can kill the president and get away with it. I do not pretend to have any answers but I am skeptical of everything governmental.
My surmise is that Ruby was told what he had to do by the mob infrastructure and Oswald knew too much. Ruby did too for that matter, and he met is own early end. There’s a description by HL Hunt’s right hand man John Curington being called to Hunt’s house at 2 am or so the evening of the 22nd. Curington was told to request a local mob boss to go to Hunt’s residence asap. Was that where Ruby’s marching orders got initiated?
Your thinking is congruent to where I was some time ago. My thinking was altered when a very prominent acquaintance of mine told me he knew Jack Ruby and he then went on to describe him. Oswald did know too much since he knew there was more than one shooter. It does not necessarily follow that Ruby was instructed to eliminate Oswald (though this is a logical consideration and one I still have) when Ruby's apparent personality is brought into the equation. Arguing Ruby's role now can not lead to the truth until more evidence surfaces.
I have read and analyzed the entire Ruby trial transcript. Ruby's murder of Oswald eliminates the possibility of a conspiracy. Have you read the trial transcript?
The fact that the suspect, Oswald, was murdered in a police station just two days after the Kennedy assassination shocked the public, and has been regarded as circumstantial evidence of a huge conspiracy ever since. There have been various theories about the murder, including a murder to silence the suspect, a plot to keep the case unsolved, a plot to frame him as the real culprit, and an unmistakable plot to bury the president and the "culprit" together.
Japanese newspapers at the time also reported it as an "abnormal situation," and everyone probably thought so.
However, when we take into account what happened after the three other presidential assassinations in history, namely Lincoln, Garfield, and McKinley, we can see that nothing abnormal had happened.
There were four assassins who murdered the president, and all of them were attacked after the incident (hereafter "after the incident" is omitted), and two of them died. Three were attacked by civilians, three were shot, and two were shot in detention facilities.
Oswald was "attacked and shot to death by civilians in a detention facility," the fourth case of attack, the third case of being attacked by civilians, the third case of being shot, the second case of someone being shot in a detention facility, and the second case of someone being shot to death, so statistically it was not a rare case or an unusual occurrence.
In U.S.A, where people are allowed to carry guns and there are many patriots who worship the president, the person who kills our leader becomes a wanted man as soon as his identity is revealed. After Lincoln's assassination, the killer, John Booth, was shot to death by cavalry after fleeing, and look-alikes were subsequently attacked all over the United States. If we include this case as a precedent, Oswald's case becomes even more commonplace. Also, in 1968, during the presidential primary elections, immediately after the assassination of former Attorney General Robert Kennedy, the sniper Sirhan Sirhan was beaten up and the crowd began chanting "lynch him, lynch him!", so a quick-thinking campaigner saved him by forcing him into a car, but if nothing had been done, he would have been beaten to death.
Looking at the cases of Ruby and Oswald, after his arrest, voices in the United States grew louder that the president's assassin would never be forgiven, and there were death threats and intimidation against Oswald, and the Dallas police department also considered the possibility of an attack and changed the way they transported him several times. After Oswald's murder, Ruby was inundated with hundreds of letters and telegrams from all over the world, most of which were praising him, and donations were also sent. Here are some of the telegrams and letters. "You did what all patriotic citizens wanted," "You have inspired many people who loved Kennedy," "I send you my best compliments. He died so soon," "You did a great job. You are a great man, Jack Ruby," "Dear Jack, I congratulate you and say you were extremely lucky to have been able to shoot him. I hope I can be of help to you," "Oswald is a nasty rat in human form," etc. Most of the letters from that time were handwritten, but many of them were written at length. There were countless people across the United States who wanted to shoot Oswald, and someone would have done it even if Ruby hadn't done it. Some of the contents of these telegrams, letters, and donations of praise to Ruby can be found in committee documents and research books, but all of them were filed in the Dallas City Archives.
If you look at the newspapers from the time of the incident, you can see that there was an excited crowd around when he was arrested at the Texas Theater, but this fact is not often reported, as it seems inconvenient for researchers.
Ruby's murder of Oswald is a common occurrence following the assassination of a president, and the my opinion is that it is "a common occurrence" and "not something that warrants cries of 'evidence of a conspiracy.'"
Rather than comment on the effect anonymous letters to Ruby may have in determining the certainty of history, I suggest you read "This One Mad Act" before asserting that previous assassinations have an effect on future ones. I compliment you on having an interest in history.
After following JFKFacts for the past year, I was of course suspicious about the Trump shooting. At first, it seemed like some troubled kid went crazy and did this. The FBI and SS were at first very tight lipped about the events. Then out of nowhere the FBI announced authoritatively " this was a sole gunman"
This was chilling. We know you can't trust the FBI. There is no way the FBI could know if the sole gunman theory is true. The FBI is either tone deaf or hiding something.
Or has more surveillance information than we know. Or - wants to pose as knowing more than they do because it’s their job to prevent things like this, and they failed and are embarrassed by the situation.
As more "facts" come out it becomes more confusing. The SS Increased security because of Iranian threats to kill Trump. The SS director didn't put snipers on the roof because it was dangerous.
Then I read this: https://thefederalist.com/2024/07/16/bidens-team-deliberately-kneecapped-trumps-security-to-allow-an-assassination-attempt/
The Washington Post reports https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/police-snipers-were-inside-building-as-trump-rally-shooter-fired-from-roof-above/ar-BB1q5KQ4
LOL!
I think it is incumbent upon this Substack most of all not to forecast or draw any conclusions whatsoever about the facts of what happened here until we know what those facts are - and I mean down to the last detail, like even how we know that Crooks was the shooter (who were the witnesses, what is the physical evidence, what is the basis of saying he was a suspect?, etc.). No hunches, no suppositions about the likelihood of this or that having happened, and so on.
I said this yesterday but it bears repeating: if we are to learn anything from the JFK assassination it is that we must ruthlessly insist on evidence of every single claim that comes out about this event, especially (for obvious reasons) from "authorities" like the FBI, but also from any quarter anywhere. We must all become defense attorneys in order to reclaim our democratic right to know, and to reality. This is not at all an unreasonable posture to assume at this point, nor does it commit one to any so-called conspiracy theory. It is simply to execute the proposition that "claims without evidence may be [must be] dismissed without evidence".
Accordingly, what is the evidence thus far that tells anyone that Crooks was the shooter? I don't know. I haven't had the chance to read everything about what is known and what its basis is. But I have still not heard of a single eyewitness to the shooting, or evidence of any bullet having been recovered. There is circumstantial evidence thus far only, unless something has changed from yesterday. Please enlighten me.
"What is the evidence that Crooks was the shooter?
How about:
(1) he was seen and filmed climbing onto the outside of the building before the shooting.
(2) He was carrying an AK-15 semi-automatic rifle.
(3) The counter-snipers shot him on the roof of the building in the act of shooting.
(4) He was identified by tracing the registration of the rifle to his father, who confirmed that he had given Crooks posession of the rifle that morning to visit a target range.
(6) They took his dead ass from the roof of the building to the morgue, where he was identified as Thomas Crooks.
You, sir, are, with all due respect, a flat earther.
You sir are abysmal. When I asked the question little of what you just wrote was completely clear, and none of it negates my larger point.
You need to read more carefully
What part was unclear?
Who do you think did the shooting?
The Iranians? The tooth fairy?
I may be abysmal, but you are ungrounded (in facts).
I agree 110%. I was let down in a way when President Biden said he was going to appoint a special commission to investigate the failed Trump assassination. Let down because it reminds me of President Johnson announcing a special commission to investigate the Kennedy assassination. The Warren Commission. They were appointed to put the citizens of the United States and the world at ease by telling the “true story” of what happened in Dallas November 22, 1963.
What we got was “The Single Bullet Theory”.
Sad and scary when a United States citizen doesn’t really believe much of what his government tells him.
Ironically, the requirement of the complex and concealed back story of the JFK coup d’etat, indeed the resulting training for us all from the cover-up, was for careful and measured thinking and review of the facts prior to making a statement. Grandiose and reactive claims regarding the assassination would get you disregarded or disrespected, or named a conspiracy theorist. The antidote to that is to base an analysis on factual data then, and in American society now as well. The muscle of measured reason is one that desperately needs exercise in today’s world is never more apparent in the evaluation of the motives or even the idea of an infrastructure behind Trump’s gunman. The emotional drama and reactivity that lends neurotransmitter ‘fuel’, and feelings of self-righteous social glue that becomes the mob, that shuts down our capacity to reason, is one of the real dangers of modern times. I really appreciate the antidote to that as represented here at JFK Facts, and demonstrated through the careful writing of its lead contributors. It models a methodology that leads us into growth and dialogue as a nation, and suggests a way through the current morass toward a more hopeful future.
The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars but in ourselves. There are more nuts out there than there are bolts. We create sciences to explain away that which is unacceptable. I've lived long enough to see that the more we study the bad, the more we get of the bad. Allowing politicians to pontificate while questioning Ms. Cheatle is a waste of time. She should only be held responsible for not firing some of the SS agents who were at the Butler scene. If she is unable to do that, she is not competent to run the agency.
I have no idea if she was competent or incompetent. There’s no getting around that her agency is the one primarily responsible for preventing the incident, and was also a failure of many systemic and organizational factors. However, like Biden, taking responsibility and getting out is taking one for the team. I frankly respect both decisions.
It is to whip a dead horse as we consider this former director. Her hearing demonstrated the serious reservations many have regarding why some ascend to higher positions in a governmental bureaucracy. There will be another like her one of these days. Further, we will have others like our current president and we will have legions of supporters who rejoice in the qualities they imagine future presidents possess.
The surgeon allegedly told Trump that a quarter of an inch made the difference between life and death. Had he not turned his head, he would have been killed.
Jimmy Dore and the Due Dissidence guys discuss the discrepancies in the corporate news narrative.
https://youtu.be/mCu0WutXE2Y?si=4Mq_YVlY9kzDonuM
Why did the counter-sniper wait 42 seconds before killing the assassin thus allowing him to fire numerous times?
https://youtu.be/5t9Qc3MOPww?si=t-HgFILzBZfAuqAV
It's a miracle Trump is alive. They almost pulled it off (again). There almost was another Zapruder film complete with blood and brains.
When Trump spoke against the Ukraine war in Las Vegas, my immediate thought was that he is definitely a target now, literally a target.
Can they afford to try again without looking too obvious? They don't want Trump in the oval office again. Peace might break out.
Remember what Schumer said about the intelligence agencies. They have multiple ways of getting back at their political enemies.
Great country we live in.
Tucker Carlson made a similar observation that Trump became a target when he came out against endless wars (e.g. Ukraine) .
When Lindsey Graham stated "They've (Russia) lost according to estimates and there are up to 300,000 killed or wounded and we haven't lost one soldier." I was stunned.
Most people I know (left, middle, and right) are horrified at such an evil statement. Blinken and Biden keep bragging about how wealthy the US is because of all the arms being sent to Ukraine are American made!
JFK was most probably killed by those in the military industrial complex.
The military-industrial complex does not have that power.
People like you may be moved to tears after reading John Newman's book "JFK and Vietnam," but the military-industrial complex is a weak lobby for the president.
You should read ”Dereliction of Duty” by Herbert McMaster.
The fact that the Vietnam War was led not by military personnel but by civilians like
McＮnara proves the weakness of the military-industrial complex.
Although it is a conspiracy book, "The JFK Assassination From the Oval Office to Dealey Plaza" clearly denies the theory that the military-industrial complex is the mastermind.
You should start from the basics.
Even I, a Japanese, have read the Vietnam chapter of "The Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) series" regarding the Vietnam War.
President Eisenhower's farewell address(1961) - "This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. . . .Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. . . . In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
Thanks your reply.
But this is a typical mislead or cover-up.
The first half of Eisenhower's farewell speech preaches the necessity of the military-industrial complex, and the second half is a warning.
This is a misleading story that Garrison started and continues to this day. It's stupid.
You should read the full speech
I was 17 and joined the military in 1964. My neighbor next door died in Viet Nam in 1968. Several of my high school classmates died there. Since then we've lost thousands of young people to wars. Sec. Blinken brags about 100s of thousands of Russians killed by American made arms in Ukraine. There is a military industrial complex that promotes these wars. JFK threatened both the CIA and the military industrial complex by trying to get a nuclear disarmament treaty with the USSR. He also angered many by not supporting the Bay of Pigs disaster.
My favorite book on this subject is the one recommended by RFK jr.
Unspeakable.
If "Unspeakable" is "JFK and Unspeakable",this book is worst one.
Author James Douglass cannot distinguish between lies and truth.
As a JFK assassination research book,this book is worst one.
This book especially sucks for presenting lying eyewitness stories as fact.
Spot on The neocons are indeed horrifying and evil.
https://x.com/shadowofezra/status/1813291239808119204?s=42&t=GjuruzZA1L1TDpcRW6aNdQ
The excuses the cops and the SS director are making reveal them to be Uvalde-level fools, morons, and cowards at the very least.
Who is ‘they’? That’s a pretty big assumption I think.
They being the national security state. Okay, I'm a conspiracy theorist.
Honesty - a healthy thing. And yes contextualizes your comment.
See my response to Chris Rehr below.
We don't have all the facts yet, but I highly doubt your scenario.
This is my most paranoid explanation. It's the result of watching videos from Redacted, Jimmy Dore, and others.
Could the cops and the SS be complete and total eff-ups? Sure. The bell curve is a thing.
Key questions. Why didn't the counter-snipers take the guy out before he got a shot off? Why did they wait until he fired, what, five to eight times? Why didn't the SS immediately remove Trump from the stage when (presumably) the local cop radioed the presence of a gunman? Why didn't the local cop engage the shooter instead of retreating? How likely is it that all these things failed to occur?
Great summary, thanks!
Excellent
There are many testimonies that say there was no sniper for Knoll.
Vince Palamara's book "HONEST ANSWERS ABOUT THE MURDER OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY" references over 1,200 books.
Among those books, there are many testimonies that say there was no sniper for Knoll.
But he ignores them.
The entire assassination research industry is involved in suppressing anti-conspiracy information.
Dear Jefferson,
I think you need to realize that your "What Jane Roman Said" colleague, John M. Newman, is probably right in his 2022 book, "Uncovering Popov's Mole," when he says Bruce Leonard Solie (look up my Wikipedia draft article on him) in the CIA's Office of Security was a KGB* "mole," and that he sent (or duped his confidant, protégé and mole-hunting subordinate, James Angleton, into sending) JFK's future assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, to Moscow in 1959 as an ostensible "dangle" in a planned-by-Solie-to-fail hunt for "Popov's Mole" (Solie) in the wrong part of the CIA -- the Soviet Russia Division.
You can take a deep breath, Jeff, because the above doesn't necessarily mean that the KGB* was behind the assassination of JFK -- Oswald probably did it all by his psychologically disturbed, self-described-Marxist self to Advance the Marxist-Leninist Dialectic. Either that, or because he was very, very angry that he wasn't "getting any" from his Russian wife (whom KGB true defector Pyotr Deriabin said a couple of days after the assassination had to have been at least a low-level KGB informant to be allowed to marry her Handsome Prince Charming and leave The Worker's Paradise with him).
While you're at it, please realize that sharpshooting Oswald killed JFK by firing three shots at him over 10.32 seconds in the echo chamber known as Dealey Plaza, and that the only reason his first shot missed everything was because it was a steeply-downward-angled one that necessitated his standing and awkwardly leaning forward while firing it.
Of course, Vladimir Putin, who cherishes your you-know-what, hopes you don't, and that you continue tearing our body politic, institutions and society apart.
*Today's SVR and FSB
-- Tom
Oh!Mr Graves's comment always nice!
In the movie "JFK," three assassination teams were supposed to shoot Kennedy after receiving instructions over the radio, but if there was a radio operator, the timing of the order to fire was too odd. Therefore, the fact that the first shot missed is almost absolute proof that there were no multiple snipers or conspiracies.
Moreover, the bullet missed the limousine by a large margin, which is the ultimate absolute proof that the sniper was an amateur at killing. Those who believe in conspiracy theories make a big fuss about the sniper being a mafia sniper or a CIA assassin, but in what world would a professional assassin be so inept that he didn't even graze the limousine? There are far too many cases of people who have studied the Kennedy assassination going mad, but this is a typical example.
Also, as is clearly shown in recent research books, researchers are keenly aware that the first shot miss buries the conspiracy theory. For example, in his debut book, Brothers (2007, 2007), David Talbot, who has appeared in Stone's latest documentary, presents testimony from Congressman Ralph Yarborough, who was in the parade car, and Kennedy's Irish Mafia aides Kenneth O'Donnell and David Powers, that the shooting was a crossfire (crossfire = multiple shooters), but gives no explanation for why the first shot missed. His next film, The Devil's Chessboard (2015, 2016), also describes the start of the shooting like this: "When Kennedy's limousine passed upstaged Abraham Zapruder, an upholsterer, at Daily Square, he was filming an inappropriate home movie. The footage captured Kennedy in grotesque detail as he was hit by gunfire, and showed bullets coming from the front as well as the rear toward the presidential parade, as described by dozens of witnesses" (page 563).
The story goes like this in Mark North's "BETRAYAL in DALLAS" (2013), which argues for the Mafia's collusion with Johnson. "The trap was set, and the presidential car was showered with firearms from the rear and right front. John Kennedy's head moved backward and to the left, and a halo of blood and brain fragments erupted" (page 68).
Lamar Waldron, who has written four books (two co-authored titles) and two books (hardcover and paperback) on the incident, omits the first shot that missed the limousine in all his books, and in his latest book, the paperback "The Hidden History of the JFK Assassination" (2013), he writes:
"12:30:12 p.m.: One shot was fired at the presidential limousine. JFK raised both hands to his throat" (page 351).
People who learn about the incident by reading these books will never know that the sniper missed the first shot, but can they really be called assassination research books? In the history books of authoritarian countries, a person's history is rewritten to suit the interests of the powerful at the time, and fallen politicians are removed from press photographs, but assassination research books have the same structure in that as soon as a particular event is found to be inconvenient for a conspiracy theory, it is removed from subsequent publications. My book(Japanese version,soon publish U.S. version) as a whole will expose these historical falsifications and the concealment of anti-conspiracy information by researchers.
Looking at the overall picture of the incident, it is clear that it was not a professional sniper in other respects as well. In the conspiracy book Who Shot Kennedy? (2007), author Robin Ramsey points out something that is difficult for researchers to say:
"If we assume that the Kennedy assassination was a conspiracy, there are obvious problems. For example, if a national organization like the CIA was behind it, why would they launch an ambush attack in broad daylight like in the Wild West? Shooting a slow but moving target from a long distance carries the risk of the bullet missing, and in that case, the accomplices in the attack would be subject to the wrath of the president, who holds enormous national power." (Summary)
In the history of American presidential assassinations, the Lincoln assassination (1865) and the Truman assassination (1950), both of which have been confirmed as having conspiracies, were planned by snipers to approach the president themselves and fire their shots. The former was successful and the latter failed, but the Secret Service was killed. In the cases of presidential candidate George Wallace, who was a single shooter, the attempted assassination of President Reagan, and many other incidents, the sniper shot from close range and hit his target, leaving him partially paralyzed or seriously injured.
Neither the Mafia nor the CIA would have devised a plan to shoot a president from a long distance in the middle of broad daylight during a massive parade. Some say that this incident was a plot by the Mafia and CIA to assassinate Castro, but with Kennedy as the target instead, but when the CIA proposed to the Mafia to shoot him with a rifle in the plot they had hatched, the Mafia rejected it, saying it was too dangerous. An actual plan for an attack by far-right figures during the Kennedy administration also involved shooting him as he came out of a building. In essence, the Kennedy assassination was a solo act by the crazy Oswald, with no background, meticulous planning, accomplices or professional calculations for success.
I don't know WHO came up with the "BlueAnon" name for Democrats and the left, but I find it outrageous to compare RATIONAL, intelligent, sane, Democratic questioners of the JFK assassination with the totally INSANE crackpots of right-wing fascist, authoritarian Trump worshiping QAnon, who believe JFK, Jr is still alive (or coming back from the dead?) to take charge!
Jeff, you should also be asking WHO came up with "BlueAnon"? IMO, probably the CIA who also came up with the smear job of "conspiracy theorist" which we are burdened with to this day! I don't think we should be feeding into that by using the term, which is exactly what I feel the CIA hopes will happen! Paint us as crazy! As a proud, lifelong true, blue Democrat and lifelong JFKA researcher, I find it wholly offensive!
I think it refers to the years long Democratic establishment "psy-op" regarding Biden's mental acuity. They got the normie Democratic voter to savage anyone who said it was time for him to go, until they could not deny it any longer. It mimics the brain zombie defenders of Trump's
insane demeanor.
Who was the man in the grey suit that told local police to send all photos of the dead assassin, to a cell phone purportedly an ATF number?
Was this a clue or was it the "black umbrella" fake out?
About the Lennon Assassination: read David Whelan's recent book about the many disturbing links between intelligence spooks and Mark Chapman. You might change your mind about his "lone gunman" status, or whether he was the gunman at all.
Mr. Morley's view is well taken but I tend to think more than one person was monitored by American intelligence agencies for four years. Since none of them has yet been identified as potential Kennedy killers, is it necessary to include this aspect of Oswald as being representative of his guilt. I find a stronger association with the coverup than with the assassination so maybe that signifies a pre-assassination association between Oswald and intelligence.
I think it’s a foregone conclusion that the CIA was monitoring more than Oswald. The point is, that they hid any prior relationship and allowed the painting of Oswald as a lone nut and Anti-Castro leftist. I’m sure that others were concealed. We already know that as in the case of the Cuban anti-castro clan. And there are others of course, and I’m pretty sure that can be found in the Mary Farrell archives. But you raise a point that I think is right - that the clear connection of the CIA and the JFK coup d’etat, is the cover-up. I haven’t yet seen evidence of any orders from our intelligence infrastructure - but of course that would be something to never put in writing.
Not only did they allow the painting of Oswald as a lone nut, they helped produce the notion. I'm not certain Oswald was painted as an anti-Castro advocate but he was involved in the Carlos Bringuier thing. Simultaneously, we have the Fair Play For Cuba profile. Nevertheless, intelligence ignored evidence as it released the Oswald legend. Ironically, the murder of Oswald may have been the result of a lone nut which left the FBI and Dallas Police with few loose ends. Under this potential scenario, it could be that those in charge did not want the American population to believe one can kill the president and get away with it. I do not pretend to have any answers but I am skeptical of everything governmental.
My surmise is that Ruby was told what he had to do by the mob infrastructure and Oswald knew too much. Ruby did too for that matter, and he met is own early end. There’s a description by HL Hunt’s right hand man John Curington being called to Hunt’s house at 2 am or so the evening of the 22nd. Curington was told to request a local mob boss to go to Hunt’s residence asap. Was that where Ruby’s marching orders got initiated?
Your thinking is congruent to where I was some time ago. My thinking was altered when a very prominent acquaintance of mine told me he knew Jack Ruby and he then went on to describe him. Oswald did know too much since he knew there was more than one shooter. It does not necessarily follow that Ruby was instructed to eliminate Oswald (though this is a logical consideration and one I still have) when Ruby's apparent personality is brought into the equation. Arguing Ruby's role now can not lead to the truth until more evidence surfaces.
I have read and analyzed the entire Ruby trial transcript. Ruby's murder of Oswald eliminates the possibility of a conspiracy. Have you read the trial transcript?
The fact that the suspect, Oswald, was murdered in a police station just two days after the Kennedy assassination shocked the public, and has been regarded as circumstantial evidence of a huge conspiracy ever since. There have been various theories about the murder, including a murder to silence the suspect, a plot to keep the case unsolved, a plot to frame him as the real culprit, and an unmistakable plot to bury the president and the "culprit" together.
Japanese newspapers at the time also reported it as an "abnormal situation," and everyone probably thought so.
However, when we take into account what happened after the three other presidential assassinations in history, namely Lincoln, Garfield, and McKinley, we can see that nothing abnormal had happened.
There were four assassins who murdered the president, and all of them were attacked after the incident (hereafter "after the incident" is omitted), and two of them died. Three were attacked by civilians, three were shot, and two were shot in detention facilities.
Oswald was "attacked and shot to death by civilians in a detention facility," the fourth case of attack, the third case of being attacked by civilians, the third case of being shot, the second case of someone being shot in a detention facility, and the second case of someone being shot to death, so statistically it was not a rare case or an unusual occurrence.
In U.S.A, where people are allowed to carry guns and there are many patriots who worship the president, the person who kills our leader becomes a wanted man as soon as his identity is revealed. After Lincoln's assassination, the killer, John Booth, was shot to death by cavalry after fleeing, and look-alikes were subsequently attacked all over the United States. If we include this case as a precedent, Oswald's case becomes even more commonplace. Also, in 1968, during the presidential primary elections, immediately after the assassination of former Attorney General Robert Kennedy, the sniper Sirhan Sirhan was beaten up and the crowd began chanting "lynch him, lynch him!", so a quick-thinking campaigner saved him by forcing him into a car, but if nothing had been done, he would have been beaten to death.
Looking at the cases of Ruby and Oswald, after his arrest, voices in the United States grew louder that the president's assassin would never be forgiven, and there were death threats and intimidation against Oswald, and the Dallas police department also considered the possibility of an attack and changed the way they transported him several times. After Oswald's murder, Ruby was inundated with hundreds of letters and telegrams from all over the world, most of which were praising him, and donations were also sent. Here are some of the telegrams and letters. "You did what all patriotic citizens wanted," "You have inspired many people who loved Kennedy," "I send you my best compliments. He died so soon," "You did a great job. You are a great man, Jack Ruby," "Dear Jack, I congratulate you and say you were extremely lucky to have been able to shoot him. I hope I can be of help to you," "Oswald is a nasty rat in human form," etc. Most of the letters from that time were handwritten, but many of them were written at length. There were countless people across the United States who wanted to shoot Oswald, and someone would have done it even if Ruby hadn't done it. Some of the contents of these telegrams, letters, and donations of praise to Ruby can be found in committee documents and research books, but all of them were filed in the Dallas City Archives.
If you look at the newspapers from the time of the incident, you can see that there was an excited crowd around when he was arrested at the Texas Theater, but this fact is not often reported, as it seems inconvenient for researchers.
Ruby's murder of Oswald is a common occurrence following the assassination of a president, and the my opinion is that it is "a common occurrence" and "not something that warrants cries of 'evidence of a conspiracy.'"
Rather than comment on the effect anonymous letters to Ruby may have in determining the certainty of history, I suggest you read "This One Mad Act" before asserting that previous assassinations have an effect on future ones. I compliment you on having an interest in history.