https://web.archive.org/web/20230911120756/https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/09/new-jfk-assassination-revelation-upend-lone-gunman

New: Sixty years after the death of President John F. Kennedy, a new book from former Secret Service agent Paul Landis could upend the long-held “lone gunman” theory of the assassination. https://t.co/AeWsCD4e48

— VANITY FAIR (@VanityFair) September 9, 2023

https://web.archive.org/web/20230911205916/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/09/us/politics/jfk-assassination-witness-paul-landis.html

Sixty years later, one of the Secret Service agents with JFK in Dallas breaks his silence and in at least one key respect, his account differs from the official version in a way that may change the understanding of what happened in Dealey Plaza. https://t.co/rpcFCrTty7

— Peter Baker (@peterbakernyt) September 10, 2023

I saw today that Jackie’s Secret Service agent, now 88 y sea old, broke his silence, destroying the myth of the “magic bullet”. He claims that he found the pristine bullet on the back seat of limo after JFK had been rushed into Parkland. He put it on JFK’s stretcher, which was next to Connally’s. This is further evidence of another gunman as the foundation of the Warren Report is built on the premise of a “magic bullet”. Arlen Spector’s legal team came up with this ridiculous theory. He was well rewarded with a lifetime appointment.

Could this be the beginning of a the end?

lmao.

Man, I know Israel owns our foreign policy now (along with the Saudis and ChiChoms) but please remember that this was the late 1960s before the Yom Kippur War, when Israel was not seen even by American Jews as particularly interesting.

Your denial of the fierce communist infiltration of our government and Oswald’s psycho-communist motives is noted, little liar.

Please note that everything Truth Vigilante wrote is straight out of the Communist playbook of deflection via a plant of an Richard Spencer anti-semite. Blame the Jews even when there is nothing to pin on them. “RFK didn’t want Israel to have nukes, so they nuked him!” is a major stretch, especially since Israel was not the # 1 issue on any Americans mind.

No, most do not believe/know the communists did it. Because Oswald’s massive communist history was largely kept quiet to the general public. JFK had been belligerent with the commies (Castro and the Soviets) in his short reign and confrontation with communists was all the rage (Berlin air lift, Cuban Missile Crisis, Bay of Pigs). Had it been promoted that Oswald shot because he’d defected to the USSR and hated anti-communists we might have been at war with the USSR before 1964 election.

On the 50th anniversary, the NY Times liars tried to claim that JFK was shot by right-wingers and made no mention of Oswald being a fierce psych commie.

IF Stone’s dismissal of the JFK Assassination and its skeptics is effortlessly explained by a simple “Early Life” check on Wikipedia.

FDR seized all the gold in the U.S. at market price then once he had it, raised the price. An interesting twist on creating money from nothing. Of course going off the gold standard made the Depression a breeeeeeze.

The audit of the gold in Fort Knox makes for interesting reading. Wait, what’s that? It’s never been audited? Nevermind.

Israel had Kennedy killed. Zapruder filmed it and Rubinstein cleaned up the loose end.

There are two perfectly acceptable interpretations of the Kennedy assassination for me.

1 Oswald was a stochastic left wing terrorist, just as the Specter/Warren Commission said. This is the official government view.

2. Israel had an inconvenient goy leader killed because Kennedy was thwarting Jewish development of the Atomic Bomb. Virtually no published conspiracy theorist even mentions this obvious angle cohencidently.

I can live with both interpretations. There’s no particular contradiction between 1 and 2 though.

Great Depression?
How’d your Gold Standard handle that, Truth?
Then there were the Crashes of 1907, 1893, 1873

The ‘crashes’ of 1873 and 1893 were blips that were easily overcome as prosperity and wealth raced ahead in the aftermath of these short lived corrections.
There is evidence that the 1907 ‘crash’ was engineered on purpose by the small hats, and later used as an excuse for the creation of the Federal Reserve.

Similarly, the Great Depression was entirely the creation of the ZOG owned Federal Reserve.
But, despite the Fed precipitating the stock market crash, it would have been over and done with in a short time frame if the markets were allowed to sort out the imbalances.

However, two successive interventionists (Hoover and FDR), couldn’t leave well enough alone – especially the latter, who was responsible for turning what would have been a short and sharp recession into a prolonged Depression.
Watch the following short video (titled: ‘Hoover and FDR Prolonged the Great Depression with Big Government’) and see for yourself how two Big Government profligate interventionists were responsible for dragging out and exacerbating the Great Depression:

SUMMARY: The Gold Standard had nothing to do with either starting or prolonging ANY recession or economic downturn.
No matter what monetary system a nation adopts, there will ALWAYS be recessions because businesses and private citizens will, from time to time, engage in speculative excesses, and over-invest in certain industries/areas of the economy based on future projections that don’t come to fruition.

All the demonisation of the Gold Standard comes from one sources. ie: ZOG.
That’s because ZOG hates the Gold Standard with a passion. In a Fiat Monetary system they can print/digitally conjure all the money they want to infinity, and dole it out to themselves.
However, on a Gold Standard they are unable to print gold.

Eddie, the fact that you lapped up ZOG’s smears of the Gold Standard without critical analysis, is proof that you’re a very naive fellow indeed.

Watch this 1 min video below as Dr Ron Paul grills the then Jewish Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on the role of gold in the monetary system:

Notice how evasive Bernanke is. He just won’t admit that gold [and silver] is, and has always been, the ONLY sound money alternative in all of recorded history.
Any other form of money is Talmudic chicanery dressed up as money.

The idiots are the people who believe there was a massive conspiracy in the assassination of President Kennedy when there’s absolutely no evidence.

Even under the bastardised Gold Standards between the wars and post Bretton Woods, the monetary system of the world functioned well enough.

Great Depression?
How’d your Gold Standard handle that, Truth?
Then there were the Crashes of 1907, 1893, 1873, …

Mr. Unz,

I have only read two books on the Kennedy assassination:

Regicide: The Official Assassination of John F. Kennedy – by Gregory Douglas
and
Primary Target: JFK – How the Cia Used the Chicago Mob to Kill the President – by Pamela Ray

Both are fascinating portrayals, tell-alls from people allegedly involved.

Douglas befriended Robert Trumbull Crowley, former head of Clandestine Operations of the CIA, who essentially makes a death-bed confession of CIA involvement, using the Mob to procure assassins.

Pamela Ray similarly befriended James Files, who was in prison on other charges. Files claims to have worked with both the CIA and the Chicago Mob during his career. He claims he took the fatal head shot from the grassy knoll using a Remington Fireball, a shot that entered from the front and exited the rear of Kennedy’s head. He says he was the backup shooter for another Mob shooter. There were also other CIA personnel in the vicinity.

If you haven’t read them, I recommend them. Would love to know what you think.

Actually, he had good reasons to do it because the Kennedys had been working hard trying to assassinate him.

US-sponsored assassination attempts against Fidel Castro had been carried out before JFK entered the White House and continued decades after JFK had been himself murdered and buried.

It is a safe bet to assume that JFK had nothing to do with them, and that possibly both men had been the targets of the same, immutable, permanent Powers.

Well, at least Fidel Castro was right, because he played an important role in the plot to assassinate Kennedy

From General De Gaulle’s very early declarations, made just after he came back from JFK’s funerals, we know that the conspiracy to kill JFK was organised and covered up by ((( American))) powers. That was obvious from the start, in the 2 closely-successive attempts made to silence Oswald: a first that failed, a second that succeeded.

We’d be lucky to be living in holes in the ground if we were still on the Gold Standard

Only a fool, ignorant of monetary history, would make such a clueless assertion.

When the world was on the Classical Gold Standard during the 19th century, more people were lifted out of subsistence poverty into the middle classes and beyond ( in the first world nations. ie: western Europe, U.S, Canada, Australia etc) as a percentage of their populations, than at any* time either before or since.

(*China may have lifted more millions of its populace out of poverty in the last 40 years in nominal terms, but as a percentage of its population most Chinese still have per capita GDP no better than nations like Albania and Moldova).

Even under the bastardised Gold Standards between the wars and post Bretton Woods, the monetary system of the world functioned well enough.

SUMMARY: A Gold Standard ensures fiscal and monetary discipline. The Fiat monetary experiment, that both Eddie and ZOG favours, entails profligacy without limit.

It ALWAYS ends in tears and runaway inflation. It always ensures that wealth is transferred from the lower classes to the small hats.
There is NO EXCEPTION to that outcome in all of recorded history.

The system you favour Eddie, will certainly entail that most will end up living in a hole in the ground. So it’s ironic that you should be saying that about the Gold Standard, the ONE system that has PROVEN itself to create prosperity for all demographics, like no other system known to man

.

Hmm, didn’t know Castro was a Jew.

You know you’re contradicting Saint Files, right?

“figures such as Nikita Khrushchev, Charles DeGaulle, and Fidel Castro all immediately concluded that a political plot had been responsible for Kennedy’s elimination.”

Well, at least Fidel Castro was right, because he played an important role in the plot to assassinate Kennedy. Actually, he had good reasons to do it because the Kennedys had been working hard trying to assassinate him.

It’s just quite peculiar that an ethnic group that makes up less than 1% of the population wrote most of the libertarian ideology.

It would be peculiar if it was true. But of course it isn’t.
The other week I made a list in another UR thread of the most prominent individuals that were the foundation of Libertarianism – more than a dozen of them were Gentiles, with only two Jews in the mix.

You were listing pre-Rand laissez faire capitalists. Those aren’t libertarians.

Advocates of free market capitalism from the 1800s would not have supported legal crack, race denial or open borders to the third world. They would have been horrified by the existence of abortion let alone the LP’s stance that 9 month abortions are acceptable.

Rand, Rothbard, Von Mises, Friedman.

All secular Jews and libertarian websites will ban anyone that points this out. Why would they ban the discussion of this historical fact if libertarians are “objectivists” and supposedly study reality? The libertarian cult stinks to high heaven.

For example, if Libertarianism was founded by the likes of you John’s Johnson, Dov Zakheim, Larry Silverstein and Chuck Schumer for example (all of these being depraved and dishonest malevolent Jews), then there would indeed be cause for worry.

I’m not Jewish and unlike you I don’t rely on secular Jews to do the thinking for me.

Ayn Rand, by her own admission, was NOT a Libertarian and she had countless shouting matches/disgreements with them.

We’ve gone over this many times. Rand didn’t like the libertarian party of her time but the founders were her fans and modeled the party after her beliefs.

Do tell which pre-1960s political philosopher promoted race denial, abortion, an end to all government regulation and also the legalization of all drugs. What is their inspiration if not Rand? Which Anglo conservative thinker advocated 9 month abortions and over the counter heroin?

The libertarian party platform espouses everything that Rand demanded. Open borders, legal drugs, and end to EPA/FDA and strangely 9 month abortions for any reason.

I recall you posting a comment the other day claiming that the likes of Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman were Libertarians

Here is a libertarian organization describing Friedman as the godfather of libertarian conservatism:
https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/milton-friedman-forgotten-history-godfather-of-american-conservative-libertarianism/

Maybe go rail at them like a drunk and call them uneducated.

Friedman and Rand are heroes to libertarians. It’s your cult and not mine.

One thing we do know, and that is that you were indoctrinated to hate Libertarianism in that yeshiva you attended,

I lost faith in libertarians after reading both sides. I side with critics that getting rid of the FDA and legalizing crack are simply stupid ideas. I also oppose abortion as birth control while libertarians want absolutely zero regulation.

But keep on defending your 9 month abortion open borders cult founded by secular Jews while accusing me of promoting Jewish interests. I’m sure it makes sense in your head.

We’d be lucky to be living in holes in the ground if we were still on the Gold Standard, Truth.

#351 : You need to give up that “less than 1%” lie, bitch. That would be 3 million. The actual figure is in the neighborhood of ……. 6 million.

It’s just quite peculiar that an ethnic group that makes up less than 1% of the population wrote most of the libertarian ideology.

It would be peculiar if it was true. But of course it isn’t.
The other week I made a list in another UR thread of the most prominent individuals that were the foundation of Libertarianism – more than a dozen of them were Gentiles, with only two Jews in the mix.
This has been explained to you many, MANY times before, but seeing as you’re thick-as-a-brick, you are unable to absorb this simple fact.
Importantly, the two Jews on the list (Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard), were RIGHTEOUS Jews. They were individuals that constantly pointed out the malfeasance of the ZOG owned Federal Reserve, and for that reason they were shunned and demonised by your benefactors (ie: Malevolent International Jewry).

You also wrote:

I guarantee libertarian support would drop if the website openly stated that the founders were nearly all secular Jews.

At the end of the day, support for any belief system or ideology rests not on the proportion of its founders that were either Jews or otherwise.
What matters is whether or not said entities were decent and honest people.

For example, if Libertarianism was founded by the likes of you John’s Johnson, Dov Zakheim, Larry Silverstein and Chuck Schumer for example (all of these being depraved and dishonest malevolent Jews), then there would indeed be cause for worry.

Similarly, let’s assume Libertarianism was founded by the likes of goys like Dick Cheney, John McCain, Joe Biden, Adam Schiff and Lindsey Graham, does that mean it’s OK because they’re all ‘one of ours ?’.

Filth is filth – no matter what tribe you come from.

I recall you posting a comment the other day claiming that the likes of Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman were Libertarians – despite the fact that it has been explained to you several times that Ayn Rand, by her own admission, was NOT a Libertarian and she had countless shouting matches/disgreements with them.
This all DOCUMENTED. What is wrong with you J & J to be this stupid to not absorb that ?

Milton Friedman was similarly NOT a Libertarian. He was a MONETARIST of the Chicago School, and thus clashed with the Austrian School Libertarians.

Got it now J & J ?

This is indicative of how uneducated you are. You have all manner of beliefs on a variety of issues (no doubt the product of that sub standard yeshiva you attended in your Jewish youth), which explains why you’ve been dead wrong on everything, from the Ukraine proxy war, to the Covid Psyop, to not knowing a thing about Libertarianism.

One thing we do know, and that is that you were indoctrinated to hate Libertarianism in that yeshiva you attended, because it is the one philosophy/ideology MORE THAN ANY OTHER, that has exposed the criminality and chicanery of your beloved ZOG owned Federal Reserve Bank.

As you were always taught to ask at school before supporting any initiative:

‘First, is it good for the Jews ?’

Answer: Libertarianism is good for all races and creeds of the world who are honest and have integrity.
But it most assuredly is not for depraved small hats like you John’s Johnson.

She was killed as a result of a spontaneous uprising by significant bodies of workers, an uprising which she had in no way instigated and had been critical of.‘

She supported the 1918 revolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartacist_uprising

Which means she supported violently overthrowing the state.

But I give your manipulative left-wing professor skills a 9/10. Definitely ahead of the curve. I mean that. Not sure why you are bothering here when you could be paid 6 figures for that type of dishonest Marxist apologetics.

As far as what may occur in the future, I won’t speculate too much. I could imagine a scene where Pol Pot marches on Hollywood to empty the cities out and move the populace to the countryside and put them to work picking grapes. I very well might support that. But I’m not going fantasize too much about the future.

I honestly wish we were dealing with an old left that cared about labor. The modern anti-White left is mostly White women talking while labor is maligned and denigrated by both sides.

One people’s opinions will not change because Jews share them or even pioneered them.

Not true at all.

People are more likely to question their beliefs when they learn the origin is not what they assumed.

Both leftists and libertarians assume their ideologies are collective works by a variety of people.

It’s not so much anti-Jewish as it is unexpectedly irregular which leads to suspicion. It’s just quite peculiar that an ethnic group that makes up less than 1% of the population wrote most of the libertarian ideology. And they were all secular Jews which is even smaller.

I guarantee libertarian support would drop if the website openly stated that the founders were nearly all secular Jews.

It would creep people out. The same would be true if the founders were freemasons, Mormons or some other small minority.

Libertarians will ban discussions on the Jewish origins of libertarianism because they know damn well that it isn’t a selling point. Nothing good will come of it. Most conservative websites will also ban such discussions.

> However if revolution came back around I would help give any red the Rosa Luxemburg outdoor spa treatment.

As I’ve noted before here, that event did more than anything else to congeal support around the idea of “Bolshevizing” a party. Rosa Luxemburg had been one of the earliest critics of Lenin on the European Left. She was very specific that the newly forming German party which belonged to should not join Lenin’s International but should define its own path. She was killed as a result of a spontaneous uprising by significant bodies of workers, an uprising which she had in no way instigated and had been critical of. But whereas a professional ally of Lenin’s such as Radek had strongly advised that the leaders of the Left should disassociate themselves from what had been a reckless unplanned wave of strikes, Luxemburg felt that she needed to be near the ordinary people who had launched this ill-planned uprising. So, she was easily picked off and subsequently the new party turned towards Zinoviev for “Bolshevization.” It would have been better if she had simply been arrested for a few months and then allowed to go back to being a labor leader with her stance apart from Moscow.

As far as what may occur in the future, I won’t speculate too much. I could imagine a scene where Pol Pot marches on Hollywood to empty the cities out and move the populace to the countryside and put them to work picking grapes. I very well might support that. But I’m not going fantasize too much about the future.

Sorry, I miswrote: “one people’s opinions” should rather be “one person’s opinions”.

One people’s opinions will not change because Jews share them or even pioneered them. Jews are not in a zero-sum game against the rest of the world.

Which means you are an actual Trotsky red

Like I said, the real Trotsky would consider me as a dilettante simply because I’ve never been willing to join a party.

Well there really isn’t a viable Marxist party that has a chance in hell of going anywhere.

I think you are a red that is smart enough to not raise your hand and declare yourself as one.

I’m an anti-leftist but I don’t take your presence personally.

You have some interesting contributions here and there.

However if revolution came back around I would help give any red the Rosa Luxemburg outdoor spa treatment.

A better question is to ask his followers why they need a Jewish Communist from the era of Stalin to do their thinking for them.

Trotsky predates Stalin you stupid idiot. I know books don’t exist and are difficult but maybe try reading one once in a while.

Trotsky and Stalin are one year apart in age. Interestingly they were both short and small statured men that believed they should rule over others through violence.

His ideological split occurred during the time of Stalin.

Have a look at how much he wrote from 1929-1940 when he was exiled:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/

He gained followers over his rejection of Stalinism and not during the period where he supported Lenin. Communism obviously didn’t work out as he intended (note ice axe to head from Stalin).

Trotsky followers idealize him as a force against Stalinism and Communist totalitarianism. The view him as “the good Communist” that lost satisfaction with the revolution and questioned certain tenets of Marxism that he led to Stalin.

Both Stalin and Trotsky expected the revolution to go worldwide eventually. Both agreed that the Soviet economy needed to be developed in the meantime, before the revolution went worldwide. This was not really a point of dispute by itself. When Stalin spoke of ‘socialism in one country’ he was not rejecting the idea that socialism was to eventually spread across the world. When Stalin attacked Stalin for claiming to have built ‘socialism in one country’ he was not disavowing the goal of industrializing Russia before then.

The ideological differences between them can seem trivial to modern-day observers because there is a tendency for people to describe any kind of taxation or social subsidies as ‘socialism.’ The way that these earlier figures used the word ‘socialism’ to identify a grand stage of historical development is hard to understand in the modern world. But that was the theological basis of their division.

Behind the theology, there was the more pragmatic political rivalry. Trotsky, like all of the other party members apart from Stalin, had a poor grasp of political rivalry as a thing in itself. This was where Lenin had more in common with Stalin. Lenin appreciated Marxist theory but had a grasp of politics as a struggle for power. Stalin shared the latter quality, while being weak on Marxist theory. But the other party members were generally prone to leap into Marxism while blinding themselves to how political fights work. That was why Stalin won.

A totally silly characterization. For example, Trotsky’s stance of World War II was that it was an inter-imperialist war which needed to be treated as such by all working-class organizations:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1939/09/guilty.htm

—–
Who Is Guilty of Starting the Second World War?

Written: 5 September 1939.

… Diplomatic machinations, juggling with the formula: democracy versus fascism, sophism concerning the responsibility, can not make us forget that the struggle is going on between the imperialist slave-holders of different camps for a new division of the world. According to its ends and methods the present war is a direct prolongation of the past great war, only with much greater rottenness of the capitalist economy, and with much more terrible methods of destruction and extermination.

Consequently, I don’t see the slightest reason for changing those principles in relation to the war which were elaborated between 1914 and 1917 by the best representatives of the workers’ movement under the leadership of Lenin. The present war has a reactionary character on both sides. Whichever camp is victorious, humanity will be thrown far behind…
—–

Nothing about the stance on issues taken here has very much to do with Jews at all. You’re just rambling about something which you’ve never looked at.

Trotsky predates Stalin you stupid idiot. I know books don’t exist and are difficult but maybe try reading one once in a while.
…

Trotsky wanted Communism to go worldwide and Stalin thought it should stay more parochial. He was happy with 11 time zones.

Blah blah blah. Address that.

> Which means you are an actual Trotsky red

Like I said, the real Trotsky would consider me as a dilettante simply because I’ve never been willing to join a party. Although I don’t like the idea of drawing associations between myself and historical figures, if I had to pick out anyone from that time that I have some parallel to it would be Boris Souvarine. Souvarine had been a founding member of the French Communist Party, then was kicked out in 1924 because he had expressed some sympathy with Trotsky. But he never joined with Trotsky’s attempt to build a Fourth International and instead Trotsky criticized Souvarine as a journalist rather than a revolutionary. While I really wouldn’t place myself with Souvarine, he is the sort whose style is more consistent with my own.

I spent some time 3 decades ago looking to see if there was any actual party that I could become devoted to. It became obvious that there wasn’t, not even when looking on the fringes. I’m willing to vote for the occasional fringe party if I consider their stance better than the major candidates. But there really isn’t any party, no matter how small, that I could honestly devote myself to. Trotsky would certainly characterize me as a “dilettante academic” on those grounds. But that’s the way the modern environment is.

> Trotsky wanted Communism to go worldwide and Stalin thought it should stay more parochial.

I would say their dispute centered how the term “socialism” is to be used. That may seem absurd to outsiders, but it was a big deal among the fully invested ideologues.

Trotsky was the one first began advocating and formulating the idea of a “Five-Year Plan” for developing the Soviet economy. He especially argued that “price scissors” were the central problem to be addressed. Since the Bolsheviks had first seized administrative power in November 1917, they had faced the problem that urban industry was in a state of collapse from the previous 3+ years of war. This meant that either urban residents were bound to flee to the countryside (as many did), or else the attempts to preserve the cities meant taking crops from the rural areas for which the cities had little to trade. Trotsky saw the priority of the first Five-Year Plan as one of building industries which could provide farms with equipment that would reduce the agrarian labor force and bring more people from the countryside to the urban work-force.

But he still did not claim that this meant the imminent creation of ‘socialism’ as that term was understood in classical Marxism. For Trotsky (as well as Marx) the true birth of socialism could only happen in the advanced industrial world. This aim of industrializing Russia which Trotsky laid out in the 1920s was not seen as bringing about the imminent creation of socialism in Russia, but simply a necessary first step towards tending to Russian backwardness.

Stalin actually began the year 1924 with a statement that ‘socialism’ as Marxists understood the term could not be imminently created in Russia. But then at the end of the year he switched around to saying that socialism in one country could be built within Russia. At the same time, he rejected Trotsky’s call for an industrialization plan and remained aligned with Bukharin. After Trotsky had been politically defeated and expelled from the party, Stalin then moved against Bukharin and now began advocating for a Five-Year Plan of industrialization.

Stalin moved to “out-Left” Trotsky by arguing that rather than focusing on building an industry of agricultural goods and bringing people from the rural to urban areas the way that Trotsky had wanted, the Soviet plan should instead focus on building factories which produced capital-goods for more industry. Meanwhile, the countryside was to be rapidly collectivized. That led to urban-rural conflicts which Trotsky had hoped would be reduced by the making of agricultural industry before any collectivization was attempted.

But it was certainly never at odds with Trotsky’s program to develop Soviet industry before any other revolutions had occurred elsewhere in the world. The crux of the argument there was over whether the primitive agricultural country that was attempting to quickly industrialize should be regarded as “socialist” (Stalin’s terminology) or as a “bureaucratically degenerated workers’ state” (Trotsky’s favored phrase). There was no real dispute that the USSR had to industrialize. It was more like a big pissing match over when can it be called ‘socialism’ as opposed to something else.

He had a bullet exit the front of his head that blew his brains out. You think it would be strange for a man to have some holes in his face after a bullet goes through his skull?
Where did the bullet hole in the back of his head come from?
Are you going to claim that was an exit wound?

First John’s Johnson posts (in comment # 275) the bogus ZOG conjured drawing claiming that the bullet to JFK’s head came from behind, coupled to a bogus depiction of the back of JFK’s head which appears intact and unblemished (the reality is that there was a HUGE hole to the back of JFK’s head caused by the frangible/expanding bullet – as one would expect from an EXIT wound using that sort of a round).

And now J & J is at it again in this comment with yet more ZOG misdirection.

J & J, the UR readers all get it that your controllers in the Negev Desert in Occupied Palestine insist that you keep repeating the ‘bullet to JFK’s head and throat both came from behind’ nonsense.
In the minds of your controllers, they believe that if you repeat this lie often enough, that somehow, perhaps subliminally, some readers may be sucked in by it.

But the UR readers are too smart to fall for that J & J. Save it for your inbred pals at your Judeo-Masonic lodge. They’ll fall for anything.
(They did, after all, fall for the Holohoax fable, so not the brightest of individuals that we’re dealing with here).

Have a look at the following video featuring Dr Crenshaw (one of the doctors at Parkland Hospital in Dallas that witnessed JFK’s head wounds in the immediate aftermath of the assassination).
Especially focus on the few minutes from 2:50 – 7:30:

SUMMARY: The doctors that treated JFK were unanimous that the bullet wound to JFK’s head and throat came from the FRONT.
Of course that explanation did not fit in with the predetermined narrative that the bullet came from behind (as it would have had to if they were going to claim that a lone gunman in the TSBD was the assassin).
So the doctors in Parkland Hospital were threatened/intimidated to STFU for decades and not question the official narrative.

The video above featuring Dr Crenshaw was from the early 90’s – around 30 years after the JFK coup d’etat, when many of the doctors that treated JFK were more confident they could come out with the truth, and not suffer the consequences (seeing as Oliver Stone’s film ‘JFK’ had come out in 1991 and it was demonstrating that the kill shots all came from the front).

So John’s Johnson, we get it that you have to lie on behalf of your ZOG controllers.
But if you’re going to lie, at least start with something that is partially believable, that has a smidgen of reality about it.
As opposed to the ‘bullets from behind striking the head and throat’ B.S, which only a fool would believe.

Dr Crenshaw himself states that the wound to JFK’s throat was very tiny indeed – proof positive that it was an ENTRY wound, as exit wounds are always larger.
All the doctors testified that there was a HUGE HOLE in the back of JFK’s head – as would be expected from a frangible and/or hollow-point (possibly mercury filled) expanding bullet.

In the photo below is a Jacketed hollow-point (JHP) round on the right, and a Jacketed soft-point (JSP) round on the left:

This was a bullet DESIGNED to expand on impact and blow away half of JFK’s brain – as opposed to a conventional full metal jacket bullet that makes a smallish entry wound and an only slightly larger exit wound in most instances.

It’s a black and white photograph.
That’s not a white suit.
Look at his shirt.
That’s a white shirt.
Gay.

Explosive bullet?
Gay.

Files?
Liar.
Gay.

You don’t put a wounded oozing (no bleeding post mortem) corpse bare into a casket. Kennedy would already have been in a body bag.
Gay.

#327 @john johnson:

A better question is to ask his followers why they need a Jewish Communist from the era of Stalin to do their thinking for them.

Trotsky predates Stalin you stupid idiot. I know books don’t exist and are difficult but maybe try reading one once in a while.

#335 :

Sock Pupprt Alert. I seem to remember a similar wrting and (non)thinking style linked to another handle about 5 years ago.

Never had another handle. Had to petition St. John of Derbyshire for this one because for homebrewed website Unzian reasons I was unable to establish one. If you want your problem ignored, post it on the “Bugs & Suggestions” thread. Do a search in Derbyshire’s work on this site and you’ll see the request. Me? Not doing your research for you.

Saying “sock puppet” other than to deride saying “sock puppet” is a sure indicator of faggotry. Are you a faggot Fawker? I have nipples, can you milk me?

#336 @Robbi B:

Fireball refers to the bullets, not the gun. .221 Fireball.

Wrong times infinity. It also refers to the gunS, both rifle and pistol, chambered for that round. Common usage, bitch. Take it up with lying liar Files who while lying lied about saying that he said “I want to take the Fireball.” His lying words, not mine. Have you never heard someone or a nigger refer to a pistol as a nine millimeter? Or a normal person refer to a .22 rifle as a 22? Or a 1911 pistol as a 45? My guess is right now your mother is researching historic abortion laws and time travel.

Gay.

(…) who followed the teachings of a German-Jew named Marx (…)

Sociopolitical movements are much more dynamic than religious ones, so I wouldn’t characterize them as people following anyone’s “teachings”, but if you want to put it in such simplistic terms, a more accurate description of the purported followees would be “a German named Marx whose parents were Christian converts of Jewish ethnicity and a Gentile named Engels”.

Leftists constantly churn out papers where they describe their analysis as being from a Marxist perspective. McNalley is a follower of Trotskysim which is a branch of Marxism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotskyism

How is saying that they are “From a Trotsky perspective” that much different than writing one is “From a Christian perspective”.

They are followers of Trotsky and Marx. They follow the teachings of both.

Trotsky is reformed Marxism much like reformed Judaism.

“a German named Marx whose parents were Christian converts of Jewish ethnicity and a Gentile named Engels”.

You are implying that calling him a German-Jew is inaccurate? Einstein is referred to as Jewish even though he was German and not a follower of the religion. What is the difference?

Marx was Jewish by Jewish standards. Or maybe you can explain how Einstein and Oppenheimer are Jews but not Marx.

I referred to him as a German-Jew to denote his split ethnicity. But according to Jewish standards it is fine to call him a Jew. He would qualify for the state of Israel.

It’s funny that you once replied to a comment of mine in those terms

The Jew rants at Unz go off the deep end but I think the Jewish angle to Communism is worth discussing and especially in the company of actual Marxists like McNally. I have the same question for libertarians which is why do you follow secular teachings that are so heavily Jewish. It just seems quite peculiar to depict yourself as on the side of the working class while anchoring yourself to the failed ideas of a heavily Jewish ideology. Why not simply advocate for the working class? Wokechoke sees a Jewish conspiracy everywhere while I’m more for questioning why someone would wed themselves to these ideas.

I take a third rail position on the Jews. I don’t hold them responsible for the modern left but I also think it is fair to discuss the origin of the left and how there really were a lot of Jews involved in the Russian revolution. It really was a Jewish intellectual/Slavic working class alliance with the exception of Lenin. I can dig up an article from a Jew that describes it as such. I can also dig up an internal note from the US Communist party that requests finding leaders that aren’t Jewish. They simply had too many.

These discussions are of course banned in the mainstream but I think they are fair and in fact help undermine both libertarian and Marxist ideologies. We have libertarians here that had no idea that Rand, Mises and Rothbard and Friedman were all Jewish. I don’t think it is healthy to follow ideologies that were written by a group of people that normally put a foreign country first. Rand openly admitted that Israel doesn’t have to follow her rules. US/EU are supposed to have open borders but not Israel.

If Libertarians and Marxists are aware of all the aforementioned and want to continue their ideologies then that is fine. I don’t have a problem with that. Most people however are shocked to find out these secrets as I once was. I was taught in school that any Jewish/Communist association was entirely created by Hitler.

You’ve some eyebrow raisers in your posts, too.

Fireball refers to the bullets, not the gun. .221 Fireball.

Sock Pupprt Alert. I seem to remember a similar wrting and (non)thinking style linked to another handle about 5 years ago.

There’s absolutely no credible evidence that Ruby and Oswald had ever met each other just like there’s no evidence of a conspiracy in the assassination of President Kennedy.

Once again, what might be a worthwhile discussion about the Kennedy assassinations is under assault by the usual suspects and trolls in an attempt to derail it, so I’m going to use Ron’s worthwhile ‘ignore’ feature to eliminate some of the background noise, and return again to a point he made in his article:

Certainly there was immediate and total skepticism overseas, with few foreign leaders ever believing the story, and figures such as Nikita Khrushchev, Charles DeGaulle, and Fidel Castro all immediately concluded that a political plot had been responsible for Kennedy’s elimination. Mainstream media outlets in France and the rest of Western Europe were equally skeptical of the “lone gunman theory,” and some of the most important early criticism of U.S. government claims was produced by Thomas Burnett, an expatriate American writing for one of the largest French newsweeklies. But in pre-Internet days, only the tiniest sliver of the American public had regular access to such foreign publications, and their impact upon domestic opinion would have been nil.

First, the American public certainly had other ways of gaining information beyond the foreign press, and as I pointed out above, Gallup Polls have consistently shown that the majority of the American public has always believed Pres. Kennedy was killed as the result of a conspiracy, reaching 81% in 1976, and again in 2001, meaning 4 out of 5 Americans in those Gallup Polls attributed JFK’s death to a conspiracy.

After Oswald was rubbed out in the Dallas police station by underworld thug Jack Ruby, it didn’t take much political awareness to know the whole thing stunk to high heaven.

Second, both Khrushchev and De Gaulle expressed their belief that JFK had been assassinated by a right-wing plot.

Later, in May 1964, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev met influential Washington newspaper columnist Drew Pearson in Cairo, Egypt, and told him that he thought a right-wing conspiracy was behind the killing, according to another intelligence report.

Khrushchev told Pearson he could not believe the conclusion investigators had reached at that time: that both Oswald and Jack Ruby, the nightclub owner who fatally shot Oswald, had acted alone.

“He did not believe that the American security services were this inept,” according to a CIA report of the discussion.

https://www.rferl.org/a/soviets-claimed-us-right-wing-lyndon-johnson-behind-kennedy-assassination-files-show/28820677.html

“What happened to Kennedy is what nearly happened to me,” said de Gaulle, the target of a CIA coup attempt in 1961 orchestrated by Allen Dulles. “His story is the same as mine…The security forces were in cahoots with the extremists.”

https://jjmilt.substack.com/p/french-president-charles-de-gaulles

Oswald had a lot of contact with Jews in New York as a teenager. This was a Trotskyite safe haven at the time. Oswald after visiting the SU became an armed radical revolutionary very much in the mold of Lev Bronstein.

It’s a Jewish communist more or less. Or a communist who is biased favorably to Jewish interests beyond universalist principles.

He was in contact with psychiatrists in the Juvie system in New York. I’d assume he got on the radar then. It’s a common enough recruiting ground. Orphans, alienated bright but limited, inclined to radicalism. Jews would have thought him useful.

(…) who followed the teachings of a German-Jew named Marx (…)

Sociopolitical movements are much more dynamic than religious ones, so I wouldn’t characterize them as people following anyone’s “teachings”, but if you want to put it in such simplistic terms, a more accurate description of the purported followees would be “a German named Marx whose parents were Christian converts of Jewish ethnicity and a Gentile named Engels”.
Many of Marx’s works were actually signed by him and Engels jointly, with Engels sometimes being suspected of having produced the greater part of the work (e.g. The German Ideology). Granted, much of the formal theorizing work was Marx’s individually (e.g. The Capital), but I don’t see why that part would have had an outsize importance for Trotsky.
It’s funny that you once replied to a comment of mine in those terms:

Some of us would actually like commentary that doesn’t devolve into rants about the Jews.

https://www.unz.com/isteve/its-an-isteve-world-at-least-on-nbc-news-in-chicago/#comment-5677204
My comment to which you replied simply pointed out that Steve Sailer — who, I now add, likes to self-style the *noticer* of things — didn’t *notice* the controversy involving Kanye West and the Jews.

Based on the well-known characteristic of glass hit by a projectile, Glanges at Parkland and Whitaker at River Rouge were able to identify the direction of the bullet’s travel through the windshield, which was front to back, with a small hole in, and a big hole out, producing the classical cone-shaped defect.

You’re back to the same two eyewitnesses and neither are forensics experts.

Glanges was a surgeon.

You went from saying that it was a clean hole from a fast bullet and now you are stating it was cone shaped. Your own narrative here isn’t consistent.

So you aren’t going to deny that a slow moving bullet can create a small hole?

When embalming fluid was applied to JFK’s cadaver, it leaked out through tiny holes in JFK’s face, providing further macabre evidence and confirmation that glass fragments struck JFK’s face after being blown out by the bullet that pierced the windshield from the front, and hit JFK in the throat.

He had a bullet exit the front of his head that blew his brains out. You think it would be strange for a man to have some holes in his face after a bullet goes through his skull? Where did the bullet hole in the back of his head come from? Are you going to claim that was an exit wound?

Nobody has ever been able to put a gun in any shooter’s hand on the 6th floor of the TSBD at the time JFK was shot.

That’s because he carried it in concealed and left it after the shooting. What would you expect him to do? Walk around with a rifle? Make sure he gets on camera? He left the rifle with a palm print which matched to him.

There were witnesses that put him in the tower. Or do eyewitness accounts only matter for the glass?

Oswald also had gunpowder on his hands:
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/White%20%20Files/Warren%20Commission-Subject/Oswald/Oswald,%20Paraffin%20Tests.pdf

We know that Oswald bought the rifle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_rifle

A mail order rifle that used an odd European caliber.

His wife testified that he tried killing Edwin Walker with the same gun.

Are you claiming the rifle was never his? There is a picture of him holding it.

but Oswald wasn’t even on the 6th floor at the time of the assassination!

You haven’t explained the sharp angle of the bullet to JFK’s back or how the front of his head blew out on camera.

The grassy position makes both the back of the head and jacket shot impossible.

Why don’t you explain what you think happened instead of being insulting. You believe a bullet came from the front window. Well two shots entered Kennedy. Explain how there is a bullet entry wound in his back.

Anyone who accuses Oswald of being “a Trotskyite” is just a dimwitted bint blowing smoke, out of his ass, and may safely be ignored.

And why would that be out of the realm of possible when Oswald at one point described himself as a Communist and defected to the Soviet Union? He also married a Russian and only returned to the US because he found the USSR to be boring. Imagine that.

We don’t know if he was a follower of Trotsky but we do know he was highly impressionable and had some Communist connections. I think he was a patsy that had showed up on someone’s radar. Someone knew he could be talked into this type of crime.

People love to say “Trotskyite”. It’s like “salsa”. Ask them to define it.

A better question is to ask his followers why they need a Jewish Communist from the era of Stalin to do their thinking for them. Why can they not simply advocate for the working class? Why bring in Marxists of the past who obviously had completely unrealistic and poorly thought out plans?

Communism had completely failed by the time Trotsky took an ice axe to the head in 1940. The evil system of Marxism eventually came for him. A system he in part created.

Trotsky opposed democracy during the revolution and only later decided that it might not be such a great idea to give some asshole like Stalin total power. A point that his followers don’t like to discuss. Before the revolution he left the Mensheviks who wanted to reconcile with Russian reformers. Meaning he didn’t believe that Marxists should share power with any other groups. This also means he fully bought into Marxism and the belief that it must be forced on everyone through violence.

Well he got what he deserved. The violence he supported eventually came back for him.

In the end you could say that his devotion to Marxism amounted to one big headache.

I have voted for the Socialist Equality Party which runs the World Socialist Website.

Which means you are an actual Trotsky red trying to lecture WokeChoke on Jewish influence within left-wing parties.

Wow.

Trotsky was a Jew.

Lemme summarize your position:

“those Jewish Communist spies aren’t followers of my Jewish Communist hero Trotsky who followed the teachings of a German-Jew named Marx so stop conflating Jews with Communism.”

I’d say Chief Fritz wasn’t bringing Oswald out into the basement until Jack Ruby was present, and since he knew he was the Guest Of Honor, Ruby kept them waiting while he tied up a few loose ends of his life.

Once again, you are correct.

I will quickly explain how it was done in practice.
A few years back, I was advised by a long-term UR commenter, the lovely Mr Chuck Orloski, to read David Lifton’s “Best Evidence” book on the JFK assassination. It is, by far, one of the most important contribution to the truth.

(Lifton quickly understood and explained how JFK’s body had been swapped over from the official casket into a bodybag during his transport from Dallas. This trick made it possible to somehow clean and camouflage the gaping exit wound at the back of his head, inflicted by the “explosive” bullet fired from the Grassy Knoll, as described by James Files).

In one of his interviews, Lifton highlighted the total incongruency of Dallas police detective Jim Leavelle wearing a white suit while he was handcuffed to Oswald. Who would wear a summery, happy, wedding-like occasion outfit when the entire country was in shock and in mourning? As Lifton put it, who would wear a clown outfit at a funeral?

Jim Leavelle was part of the conspiracy.
In preparation for Oswald’s execution, he stood at the window of the office where the patsy was being interrogated, his white suit well in evidence so Jacob Rubinstein could see it from the street.
When Oswald was to be taken to the police’s underground car park, Leavelle left the window, which was the signal for Rubinstein to make a move. Rubinstein was a fixture of the Dallas Police Department, knew it like the back of his hand and knew how much time he had before getting in position to shoot LHO. To do so, he took a normally-closed emergency exit, and it was never investigated who had opened it for him.

Another important benefit of the white suit is of course that there was less risk of accidentally shooting the distinctively-dressed accomplice.

To give an idea, this is a colorized photo of the murder of Oswald. Leavelle’s white suit really had this colour; it was later displayed at the 6th Floor museum.

People love to say “Trotskyite”. It’s like “salsa”. Ask them to define it. Christopher Hitchens was renowned as our best known [former] Trotskyite but I’m not familiar with his views in those days so couldn’t possibly comment.

One of the major points of disagreement between Stalin and Trotsky was that Trotsky wanted Communism to go worldwide and Stalin thought it should stay more parochial. He was happy with 11 time zones.

Anyone who accuses Oswald of being “a Trotskyite” is just a dimwitted bint blowing smoke, out of his ass, and may safely be ignored.

Thank you for this touching video.

The fact that JFK chose to marry such an intelligent woman, whose intellect was a match to his, is another tribute to his exceptional personality: JFK was enamoured with freedom. A true Irish soul, I guess.

> Are you now or have you ever been a Trotskyite?

Although I’ve never joined any political party (which means that Leon Trotsky would describe me as a dilettante, since that was how he viewed people who failed to join a party), I have voted for the Socialist Equality Party which runs the World Socialist Website. Admittedly, when I vote for such a party it doesn’t reflect any absolute devotion to all of their statements. Heck, I even voted for Trump in 2020 as a kind of protest vote. The SEP seems, like many other groups, to have suffered from Trump Derangement Syndrome and gone into decline as a consequence of this. I can’t say whether I will or won’t write them in on the ballot again in the future, but it’s possible. I can imagine voting for Trump if he is being prosecuted. But I really don’t care for him.

> Oswald was handled by two or perhaps three Jewish truancy and juvie-psych case workers in New York when him and his mom lived there.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with Trotsky or Trotskyism from any perspective at all.

> While he lived in New York as a teen Oswald adopted the cause of the well identified jews Ethel and Julius Rosenberg.

Both of whom were under the direction of the Stalinist apparatus. No hint of Trotskyism in there.

> He could be all at the same time pro-Jewish, pro-Israel, anti-Soviet and pro-Castro anti-Kennedy all the way into 1964 without contradicting the world view of a true believing Trotskyite or Socialist of his type.

You’re obviously just shooting your mouth off on something which you know nothing about. The actual position taken in the Fourth International, January-February 1948, adopted by the International Secretariat of the Fourth International:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/mandel/1947/01/jewish.htm

—–
For all these reasons the revolutionary workers’ movement has always conducted a violent struggle against Zionist ideology and practice. The arguments advanced by the “socialist” representatives of Zionism in favor of their cause are either the classic reformist arguments (“the possibility of gradually improving the situation of the Jewish masses”); or the social-patriotic arguments (“it is first necessary to resolve the national question for all the Jews before approaching the solution of the social problems of the Jewish workers”); or the classic arguments of the defenders of imperialism (“the penetration of Jews into Palestine has developed not only industry but also the workers’ movement, the general culture of the masses, their standard of living, etc.”) – the arguments advanced by the defenders of colonialism in every country.
—–

JFK in Paris:

“Except he wasn’t part of a conspiracy because there wasn’t one.We know Carlin called Ruby at 10:19 and he made the money transfer at 11:17 which was just four minutes before he shot Oswald.”

Jack Ruby had been seen speaking to Lee Oswald in his niteclub in the prior weeks by independent witnesses.
James Files said he saw Ruby meet with hitman Charles Nicoletti the day before the assassination.
Ruby survived 35 years in the Chicago mob by being careful and methodical.

I’d say Chief Fritz wasn’t bringing Oswald out into the basement until Jack Ruby was present, and since he knew he was the Guest Of Honor, Ruby kept them waiting while he tied up a few loose ends of his life.

Except he wasn’t part of a conspiracy because there wasn’t one.We know Carlin called Ruby at 10:19 and he made the money transfer at 11:17 which was just four minutes before he shot Oswald.It’s not just him saying it.

The facts on the ground were that Charles Nicoletti wasn’t provided with the amended motorcade route until 24 hours before the parade.

Fuck that guy. The revised route was published in both Dallas newspapers on November 19. What is this, Lies ‘n’ Excuses ‘r’ Us? Fitting I guess, as you continue to defend the lying liar Files.

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-2.html#motorcade

I was talking about the bullet going 1000 mph. […]

Your case relies on two non-expert eyewitnesses watching a moving vehicle that quickly sped after the shots were fired. Bullet holes do not always create splinters as I already outlined. The witness beliefs of bullet characteristics in glass were based on ignorance.

One last time. Try to concentrate if this part is tricky for you.

Several witnesses saw the hole in the limo’s windshield while it was parked and standing still at Parkland Hospital. The limo wasn’t moving, so it was easy for those eyewitnesses to see the hole in the windshield and examine it at close range, which several people did before they were chased away by Secret Service agents on Nov. 22, 1963.

Similarly, the technician at Ford who later replaced the windshield with the bullet hole was working on a static vehicle. It wasn’t moving. Maintenance on vehicles is so much easier that way.

Based on the well-known characteristic of glass hit by a projectile, Glanges at Parkland and Whitaker at River Rouge were able to identify the direction of the bullet’s travel through the windshield, which was front to back, with a small hole in, and a big hole out, producing the classical cone-shaped defect.

The bullet pierced the limo’s windshield from the front before striking Pres. Kennedy in the throat, and was fired from an assassin in, on or around the South Grassy Knoll area, which includes the Terminal Annex parking lot, where a sniper might have been concealed in or by a vehicle parked there.

Since you brought it up, what were likely glass fragments from the windshield-piercing throat shot were seen by the Franzen family standing along Elm in Dealey Plaza on that fateful day:

Mr. Franzen: advised he and his wife and small son were standing in the grass area west of Houston Street and south of Elm Street at the time the time that the President’s motorcade arrived at that location at approximately 12:30 pm on November 22nd 1963. He said he heard the sound of an explosion which appeared to him to come from the President’s car and noticed small fragments flying inside the vehicle and immediately assumed someone had tossed a firecracker inside the automobile.

https://midnightwriternews.com/the-south-knoll-gunman/

When embalming fluid was applied to JFK’s cadaver, it leaked out through tiny holes in JFK’s face, providing further macabre evidence and confirmation that glass fragments struck JFK’s face after being blown out by the bullet that pierced the windshield from the front, and hit JFK in the throat.

The characteristics described can be applied to Kennedy’s injuries as observed both at Parkland and later by Tom Robinson of Gawlor’s Funeral Home after the autopsy. He said when he applied embalming fluid to the cadaver it leaked through tiny holes in JFK’s face.

— Ibid

Nobody has ever been able to put a gun in any shooter’s hand on the 6th floor of the TSBD at the time JFK was shot. The weapon and cartridges first found there showed obvious signs of being planted, with the cartridge casings all neatly lined up in a row, all the more so when the make of the weapon changed overnight from Mauser to Carcano.

Similarly, the bullet first found at Parkland changed from a pointed tip to a rounded-tipped projectile, which we know as the infamous and notorious Magic Bullet.

All your focus on the 6th floor of the TSBD is part of a relentless effort to pin the crime on the patsy Lee Harvey Oswald, amazingly still ongoing 60 years after the fact, but Oswald wasn’t even on the 6th floor at the time of the assassination!

Other than the planted Magic Bullet, there is no evidence the Carcano allegedly found in the “sniper’s nest” on the 6th floor of the TSBD was even fired on Nov. 22, 1963.

Except for your awesome video game, of course, so keep on sniping dude!

Where the plot unraveled was the plan to murder Lee Oswald and [presumably] call it a suicide and close the case right there.

In support of your comment, it is important to say that General de Gaulle himself stated that Oswald was destined to be killed. His declarations on the JFK assassination were reported by his Culture minister Alain Peyrfitte in his memoirs, published in France but never translated to English.

Here is a translation found in David Talbot’s website:

“What happened to Kennedy is what nearly happened to me,” confided the French president. “His story is the same as mine. . . . It looks like a cowboy story, but it’s only an OAS [Secret Army Organization] story. The security forces were in cahoots with the extremists.”

“Do you think Oswald was a front?” Peyrefitte asked de Gaulle.

“Everything leads me to believe it,” he replied. “They got their hands on this communist who wasn’t one, while still being one. He had a sub par intellect and was an exalted fanatic—just the man they needed, the perfect one to be accused. . . . The guy ran away, because he probably became suspicious. They wanted to kill him on the spot before he could be grabbed by the judicial system. Unfortunately, it didn’t happen exactly the way they had probably planned it would. . .

But a trial, you realize, is just terrible. People would have talked. They would have dug up so much! They would have unearthed everything. Then the security forces went looking for [a clean-up man] they totally controlled, and who couldn’t refuse their offer, and that guy sacrificed himself to kill the fake assassin—supposedly in defense of Kennedy’s memory!

“Baloney! Security forces all over the world are the same when they do this kind of dirty work. As soon as they succeed in wiping out the false assassin, they declare that the justice system no longer need be concerned, that no further public action was needed now that the guilty perpetrator was dead. Better to assassinate an innocent man than to let a civil war break out. Better an injustice than disorder.

“America is in danger of upheavals. But you’ll see. All of them together will observe the law of silence. They will close ranks. They’ll do everything to stifle any scandal. They will throw Noah’s cloak over these shameful deeds. In order to not lose face in front of the whole world. In order to not risk unleashing riots in the United States. In order to preserve the union and to avoid a new civil war. In order to not ask themselves questions. They don’t want to know. They don’t want to find out. They won’t allow themselves to find out.”

https://www.thedavidtalbotshow.com/blog/jfk-and-de-gaulle-the-true-story

As Spartacus points out, the assertion that planning for a professional hit was still taking place several hours before the event.

The facts on the ground were that Charles Nicoletti wasn’t provided with the amended motorcade route until 24 hours before the parade.
Once that was in his hands he consulted with James Files and it was agreed that the North Grassy Knoll and the Dal-Tex Building were the optimal locations for a shot to be fired.
That was the easy part.

Where the plot unraveled was the plan to murder Lee Oswald and [presumably] call it a suicide and close the case right there.
That was more likely due to the incompetence of the Dallas P.D. rather than the fault of Oswald’s would be assassin.

is this the Mark Green of Persecution Privilege and Power?

An excellent and very thoughtful comment. I agree 100%.

There were a few forerunners, such as Congressman Paul Findley with his book, They dare speak out, first published in 1985, third edition in 2003. But you’re right the breakthrough only came in 2008.

It would be interesting to know if Ron was influenced by Findley (probably not) or Piper (yes but when?) or Walt & Mearsheimer (yes but already in 2008?).

And you’re right Chomsky in all likelihood has been gatekeeper. In general the left has never been effective in investigating global Zionism, only local Zionism in Palestine. An after-effect of Hitler.

So yes Michael Collins Piper broke the spell. Unfortunately he died too soon.

Glad to see such thoughtful comments here, after all the trolling by others.

Are you now or have you ever been a Trotskyite? Oswald was handled by two or perhaps three Jewish truancy and juvie-psych case workers in New York when him and his mom lived there. I understand, speaking from memory of the documents that his mother’s landlord at the time was Jewish. That is when Oswald was recruited.

While he lived in New York as a teen Oswald adopted the cause of the well identified jews Ethel and Julius Rosenberg. This is a common age for entry level to party political affiliation and activism. He could be all at the same time pro-Jewish, pro-Israel, anti-Soviet and pro-Castro anti-Kennedy all the way into 1964 without contradicting the world view of a true believing Trotskyite or Socialist of his type.

He was told to shoot the Fascist Kennedy by some jew or other and another jew shot him in turn.

Total Cohencidence.

Please stop… it’s Jacob Leon Rubinstein not “Jack Ruby”. Lee Harvey Oswald actually went around in the Marines with the nickname “Ozzie Rabbit” apparently. We still call him Lee Harvey Oswald so we get a better idea of who he actually was.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ruby

Even Wiki try to hide the early life in the title. He was a Homosexual Jew who worked for Mossad AKA The Yiddish Connection.

> Oswald became left wing oriented after reading a pamphlet protesting the trial and execution of two Jewish atomic spies. Can you guess their names? Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.

Both of whom worked with the Stalinist Communist Party USA. It’s obvious that you would be a worthy competitor with Joseph Stalin when it comes to imagining Trotskyists under your bed. You specifically take two loyal Stalinists, the Rosenbergs, and make them out to be Trotskyist. That’s pure imagination on your part.

For anyone who might be interested in what was the early position towards Middle East affairs of the actual Trotskyist Fourth International, here is an instance of one of their publications from October 1946:

https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/fi/vol07/no10/jewish.htm

—–
We Marxists, that is, scientific socialists, understand that Palestine is an integral part of the Near East; that the fundamental social force in the Near East is the 35-odd million Arabs, who are weighed down under the double oppression of their semi-feudal rulers and the British overlords… Zionism is a reactionary philosophy because it seeks to achieve the salvation of the tortured Jewish peoples by forging an alliance with British imperialism – against its victims, the Arabs.
—–

You can’t rely on human witnesses to tell the direction of an object going 1000 mph. Shooting glass has unpredictable results that I already outlined.

The windshield wasn’t moving at all when seen by those eyewitnesses I’ve cited, let alone going 1000 mph, and glass definitely has predictable results after being hit by a bullet or other projectile.

I was talking about the bullet going 1000 mph.

Your case relies on two non-expert eyewitnesses watching a moving vehicle that quickly sped after the shots were fired. Bullet holes do not always create splinters as I already outlined. The witness beliefs of bullet characteristics in glass were based on ignorance.

Do you claim that either are true in regard to shooting glass:
1. A high speed bullet will always leave a clean hole
2. A slow bullet will always cause a crack

You don’t see your own problem admitting that Oswald was nowhere near the 6th floor of the TSBD, or the rickety Carcano with the misaligned scope, when JFK was shot, so your video game experiences are moot, and have absolutely no bearing on the assassination.

I never said anything about the floor. The shot has been reproduced from the same height and yet you keep going back to “video game” to be derisive and shows you don’t understand how physics modeling works. That seemingly simple game contains a huge amount of math. The shot is possible and does not require a magic bullet or perfect gun.

He fired 3 shots and 2 hit the president. Or are you claiming he never fired at all? Kennedy had a bullet hole in his back that came from a sharp angle. What is your explanation if you are certain the bullet came through the windshield?

Ok, one too many.

You belong to the psychiatrist; I long stopped replying to you because I pity you.

“The ironic part of this is had I not made an illegal turn behind the bus to the parking lot,if I had gone the way I was supposed to straight down Main Street,I would never have met this fate because the difference in meeting this fate was thirty seconds one way or the other.” – Jack Ruby’s final interview

So if someone took part in a conspiracy we can expect them to tell the truth?

Jack Ruby made all kinds of statements. Like this one:

Would you make a strange statement like that if you had simply snapped and killed a man in a fit of rage?

Why did he say that he “did it for the Jews” and then later wouldn’t explain?

Shel: Are you a Yiddischer Bubi? “Conspiracy nonsense”. Right there you give the game away. You are either an idiot or an enemy of the people.

I’m guessing it’s a pretty good weapon for assassins, since James Files was still using one 28 years after he’d sent JFK to the Happy Hunting Ground.

It’s also a terrible weapon for a gun battle with cops. You keep providing evidence of Files’ incompetence. He got caught in a stolen car? You keep providing evidence of Files’ incompentence.

I’m guessing it’s a pretty good weapon for assassins, since James Files was still using one 28 years after he’d sent JFK to the Happy Hunting Ground.

Objection, assumes facts not in evidence. More likely, having been caught with the Fireball, he wove it into his lying story. We already know he lied about the brass and about seeing an Oswald who wasn’t there. At every turn he sets his pants on fire.

Thanks, Ed. You are correct, Spartacus Educational is and has consistently been a disinformation outlet, designed to counter any intelligent research produced by the JFK Truth community.

That’s quite hilarious coming from your mouth, Iris, since it’s obvious both you and Ed Case are peddling disinformation by promoting the liar James Files, who has been completely discredited and debunked.

Furthermore, it’s quite disgusting, Iris, watching you hug, cling, and glom onto President Kennedy – who was my president, but not yours – while you try to spread your lies here about his assassination.

Shouldn’t you be back home cleaning up dog crap in Paris, or doing something worthwhile?

It’s 40 days before Rosh Hashanah. A biblically very significant number. The following is a Jewish New Year’s message to Iris and all people of Goodwill at TUR. You will like the Iconic pictures at the end:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13ytSsPzJAQc9NIStd5rfcOH6i40IsS52/view?usp=drivesdk

He chose a one-shot rifle/pistol for an assassination. Can you say mission-critical?

Files was sentenced to 50 years in 1991 for shooting a policeman while evading arrest.
The weapon used?

Weapons REMINGTON XP-100 .221 FIREBALL BOLT ACTION pistol

Source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Files

I’m guessing it’s a pretty good weapon for assassins, since James Files was still using one 28 years after he’d sent JFK to the Happy Hunting Ground.
What was he doing in a stolen car in 1991?
On his way to another killing would be a fair bet.
Here’s a quote from the Wikipedia Link:

However, psychology professor Jerome Kroth described Files as “surprisingly credible” and said his story “is the most believable and persuasive” about the assassination.

The problem with Files is his lies.

He chose a one-shot rifle/pistol for an assassination. Can you say mission-critical?

James Files was redundancy.
He was only to fire if Charles Nicoletti hadn’t hit JFK in the head while the limo was stopped.
It’s reasonable to assume he was an excellent shot with very steady nerves and this wasn’t the first time he’d shot at a person with intent to kill.

As Spartacus points out, the assertion that planning for a professional hit was still taking place several hours before the event.

Looking at Truth Vigilante’s clip at #124, this was the 5th assassination attrempt since June 3, 1963.
So, after 4 failures, professional murderers were hired.
Keep in mind, the route was changed so that the car would have to slow down to change direction, Files and Nicoletti had the route plan and Secret Service I.D. and there was no Dallas P.D. security alongside the route.

Bullshit.

Oswald became left wing oriented after reading a pamphlet protesting the trial and execution of two Jewish atomic spies. Can you guess their names? Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.

Oswald was specifically radicalised on behalf of two Jews and their involvement in Atomic espionage.

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-7.html

The attempt on General Walker’s life deserves close attention in any consideration of Oswald’s possible motive for the assassination and the trail of evidence he left behind him on that occasion. While there are differences between the two events as far as Oswald’s actions and planning are concerned, there are also similarities that should be considered. The items which Oswald left at home when he made his attack on Walker suggest a strong concern for his place in history. If the attack had succeeded and Oswald had been caught, the pictures showing him with his rifle and his Communist and Socialist Worker’s Party newspapers would probably have appeared on the front pages of newspapers or magazines all over the country, as, in fact, one of them did appear after the assassination.312 The circumstances of the attack on Walker coupled with other indications that Oswald was concerned about his place in history 313 and with the circumstances surrounding the assassination, have led the Commission to believe that such concern is an important factor to consider in assessing possible motivation for the assassination.

In any event, the Walker incident indicates that in spite of the belief among those who knew him that he was apparently not dangerous,314 Oswald did not lack the determination and other traits required to carry out a carefully planned killing of another human being and was willing to consummate such a purpose if he thought there was sufficient reason to do so. Some idea of what he thought was sufficient reason for such an act may be found in the nature of the motive that he stated for his attack on General Walker. Marina Oswald indicated that her husband had compared General Walker to Adolph Hitler. She testified that Oswald said that General Walker “was a very bad man, that he was a fascist, that he was the leader of a fascist organization, and when I said that even though all of that might be true, just the same he had no right to take his life, he said if someone had killed Hitler in time it would have saved many lives.”

Oswald talks like a Jew or someone under the influence of Jews.

Jews and the Abomb turned an already philosemitic Oswald into a radical who was happy to be a shabbos goy.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/8-things-you-may-not-know-about-lee-harvey-oswald/

The problem with Files is his lies.

He chose a one-shot rifle/pistol for an assassination. Can you say mission-critical?
His lie about leaving brass at the site (“Always police your brass”) which hadn’t even been manufactured until years later.
His lie about seeing an Oswald who wasn’t there.
As Spartacus points out, the assertion that planning for a professional hit was still taking place several hours before the event.

You say Spartacus isn’t reliable. I’ve read their entire article on Oswald (it’s quite long) and I don’t share your opinion/assertion.

Who was the “trusted aide”? Are you suggesting that he shot Kennedy or…. what?

Well of course some group in the CIA, though now geriatric might well have an eye kept on anything in Wikipedia which might endanger them but they would almost certainly leave editing history that you could check. But you haven’t have you? Because a discussion like this on UR requires only the blowing of a few comforting brain farts.

BTW does it require me – or the CIA – to make you see that someone who is being shot at is likely to try and twist out of the way?

Thanks, Ed. You are correct, Spartacus Educational is and has consistently been a disinformation outlet, designed to counter any intelligent research produced by the JFK Truth community.

The JFK Truth community is a broad chapel, but Spartacus Educational is definitely not part of it.

Regarding James Files. details of his story used to be available on the “JFKMurderSolved” website, which has now been taken down, probably for the reasons you can guess.

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/

You can still read some of its contents on the Web Archive site:

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/index1.htm

> LHO was a subscriber to Trotskyite (largely Jewish) publications in the 1950s and 1960s that were simultaneously Pro-Israel and Pro-Castro’s Cuba.

Pretty much false on everything but the last point. First, as far as what publications Oswald dabbled with:

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/oswald_myth_mystery_meaning/

—–
When he was 16, he wrote to the Socialist Party, “I am a Marxist and have been studying Socialist Principles for well over five years,” and he requested information about joining their Youth League. He also attempted to persuade a friend to join the youth auxiliary of the Communist Party. He subsequently made membership inquiries to such organizations as the Socialist Workers Party, the Socialist Labor Party, The Gus Hall-Benjamin Davis Defense Committee, the Daily Worker, The Fair Play for Cuba Committee and the Communist Party USA — correspondence that brought him under surveillance by the FBI.
—–