Убиството на Џон Ф. Кенеди, и сознанијата 54 години подоцна

Ciudad Juarez

rothschild
Член од
18 март 2015
Мислења
385
Поени од реакции
403
Првиот дел е изваден од контекст и се однесува на економијата, поточно на монополите, а не на било што друго.

Еве го во целост.



Вториот дел го нема кажано, туку е изманипулиран како тој да го кажал.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Federal_Reserve_Act#Woodrow_Wilson_Quote

Извадокот од Рузвелт е исто така надвор од контекст. Се работи за писмо до некој економист. Целото писмо:



Повеќе среќа наредниот пат...
Јасно е за кого зборува Вудроу Вилсон во првиот дел бе друже !!!
Која сила би била толку моќна за најголемите бизнисмени од Америка да се плашат од нејзе ?
Прочитај како ја опишува таа сила.

Википедија воопшто не ја земам во предвид за овие работи.
Да те прашам нешто:А од каде пак ти толку сигурен дека никогаш не го кажал вториот дел ?
Само поради тоа што во википедија така пишува ?

Вакви изјави на познати личности за приватните банкари имаш стотици,стотици.
Нормално,мејнстрим медијата секогаш ќе ги релативизира:
Дел од нив не биле точни,дел воопшто не биле кажани,дел биле извадени од контекст,бла,бла...
Ако ти изнаредам уште дестина,верувам дека за секоја посебно ќе ископаш некоја рачка на интернет.

Знам,знам,те сфаќам.
И јас некогаш пратев мејнстрим.[DOUBLEPOST=1511675896][/DOUBLEPOST]
И што сеа, на некој што му се сонило ние све ќе земаме во предвид? Во теориите на заговори има точни работи но поголем број се булшит, и затоа народот им се смее на тие што веруваат во све и свашта.
Не верувам во се,никој не рече такво нешто.
Самиот кажа дека некои работи се точни.
Самите они пуштаат смешни,глупави теории на заговор се со цел да наидат на исмејување кај луѓето,па така луѓето нема да можат да разграничат во таква ситуација кои работи се точни,а кои се навистина теории на заговор.
Да се разбереме брат:Едни се глупостите на Дејвид Ајк кога зборува за рептилите,а друго е некој кога зборува за банкарската елита.
Во вториов случај правиме муабет за реална работа.
 
Последно уредено:
Член од
28 март 2006
Мислења
17.734
Поени од реакции
12.165
Интересни и прилично голем број информации кои досега не сум ги читал. Штета @Vanlok одамна не постирал во темава од извори од каде црпи информации. Во секој случај има многу нелогичности во однос на официјалните информации ама сила се, јбг, па веројатно се ќе си остане како што е. Сепак секој има право да ја дознае и другата вистина.
 

Vanlok

deus ex machina
Член од
30 мај 2009
Мислења
23.449
Поени од реакции
31.353




Speculations about the circumstances and motivations behind the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy, rife at the time the tragedy occurred, have never stopped. While Kennedy’s murderer was declared soon after the assassination to have worked alone, one insider claimed to Fox News host Tucker Carlson that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was directly involved with JFK’s assassination.



Carlson noted that questions about the Kennedy assassination have been circulating since it happened, simply because there were a lot of details that didn’t add up or seemed too coincidental and the CIA refused to release its documentation on the killing.


President Lyndon B. Johnson released a report the year after JFK’s untimely death declaring that both Kennedy’s killer, Lee Harvey Oswald, and Oswald’s killer, Jack Ruby, were acting alone. About 50 years later the CIA admitted it had withheld evidence–but why is still publicly unknown. Carlson said that the term “conspiracy theory” was first brought into everyday American lexicon by the media following JFK’s assassination due to the many rumors and suspicions flying about. The phrase then–as now, of course–was used to label anything and everything contrary to a government pronouncement–both plausible questions and far-out kookiness–as pure nonsense.

Carlson cited one potentially suspicious circumstance, saying that psychiatrist Louis Jolyon West declared in April 1964 that Jack Ruby was insane after visiting Ruby in jail. West wrote that Ruby was in need of psychiatric hospitalization, even though no one encountering Ruby before had diagnosed him as insane. West was a contract psychiatrist and mind control expert working for the CIA at the time. He was involved in the CIA MK Ultra program, which gave powerful psychiatric drugs to some Americans without telling them about it. U.S. media has never investigated why a CIA psychiatrist who specialized in uninformed mind control was diagnosing Ruby. Therefore, the reasons behind West’s selection remain lost to history.

In 1976, the U.S. House of Representatives reopened an investigation into the Kennedy assassination with a special bipartisan committee, and concluded that JFK was “almost certainly murdered as the result of a conspiracy.” What was not decided: whose conspiracy? Carlson boldly called the CIA an “obvious suspect.” He explained his reasoning: “Why else would the agency withhold critical evidence from the investigators?” There was a 1992 congressional law mandating all JFK assassination-related documentation be released by 2017, which ultimately did not happen. Former CIA director Mike Pompeo convinced then-President Donald Trump not to release all the documents even though all the people involved are dead. The reason is unknown, and Pompeo declined to appear on Carlson’s show.

The Biden administration released thousands of pages of previously secret government documents regarding the JFK assassination today. It is unclear how many remain secret.

Carlson believes he knows why the JFK files were not released in 2017, however. He said he talked with someone who has access to and familiarity with the still-secret Kennedy documentation, and asked, “Did the CIA have a hand in the murder of [President] John F. Kennedy?” According to Carlson, the insider replied, “The answer is yes. I believe they were involved. It’s a whole different country from what we thought it was. It’s all fake.” Carlson admitted that the response was “jarring,” but insisted the unnamed source is no “conspiracy theorist … this is someone with direct knowledge of the information.”

Carlson invited viewers, regardless of their feelings about the JFK assassination and his own new report, to consider the ramifications of what his source said. Based on what Carlson’s source stated, there are forces inside the U.S. government entirely beyond the control of the electorate (which in fact is true, simply because America has so many unelected bureaucrats). Carlson explained his understanding of the situation: “These forces can affect election outcomes. They can even hide their complicity in the murder of an American president. In other words, they can do pretty much anything they want. They constitute a government within a government.” Which is a pretty explosive accusation. Carlson noted that Americans no longer trust their government, but added that the government may be even less trustworthy than is publicly apparent.

The situation Carlson described is truly terrifying. Unfortunately, until all the CIA documentation on Kennedy’s assassination is released, the American public cannot judge for themselves if the insider on Carlson’s show was telling the truth or not.
 

jamajka

mode: Calm
Член од
28 април 2007
Мислења
18.811
Поени од реакции
26.375
Нема врска, Џон Кенеди се самоубил, ама да не пукне брука ЦИА му организирала атентат.
 
Член од
8 јануари 2012
Мислења
10.123
Поени од реакции
15.068
Секој што фатил во рака пушка иста со таа што наводно го убиле Кенеди, знае дека е тоа лага
 

The xx

Russia state-affiliated bot. ☑️
Член од
8 април 2013
Мислења
6.404
Поени од реакции
12.135
Нема врска, Џон Кенеди се самоубил, ама да не пукне брука ЦИА му организирала атентат.
Не е битен Кенеди.
Битно е дека се лизгале на сапун по дома критичарите на Путин а колективен запад еве во туга је паднат.
 

Vanlok

deus ex machina
Член од
30 мај 2009
Мислења
23.449
Поени од реакции
31.353
Секој што фатил во рака пушка иста со таа што наводно го убиле Кенеди, знае дека е тоа лага
Дап.

"Craig Roberts was a former Marine sniper who later wrote a book on the JFK assassination called “Kill Zone.” Roberts visited the 6th floor window of the Texas School Book Depository and instantly realized that Oswald could not have performed the shooting feat because he knew that he himself could not. And he was a professional."
(1) Unlike Oswald, who failed to qualify on the rifle range in Boot Camp, and who barely qualified "Marksman"-the lowest of three grades-on a later try, I was a trained and combat-experienced Marine sniper. I had spent a year in Vietnam, during which time I had numerous occasions to line up living, breathing human beings in the crosshairs of my precision Unertl scope and squeeze the trigger of my bolt-action Model 70 Winchester and send a .30 caliber match-grade round zipping down range.

Here I was, a professional police officer and writer, looking down at the most famous ambush site in history through the eyes of a sniper. A strange feeling came over me. A feeling of calm, dampening my anger. The trained investigator inside me surfaced and took over my emotions. I began to scrutinize what my senses were absorbing.

First, I analyzed the scene as a sniper. In the time allotted, and in the distance along the street in which the rounds had impacted the target from first report to final shot, it would take a minimum of two people shooting. There was little hope that I alone, even if armed with the precision equipment I had used in Vietnam, would be able duplicate the feat described by the Warren Commission. So if I couldn't, I reasoned, Oswald couldn't.

Unless he had help.

I looked at the engagement angle. It was entirely wrong. The wall of the building in which the windows overlooked Dealey Plaza ran east and west. By looking directly down at the best engagement angle-which was straight out the window facing south-I could see Houston Street. Houston was perpendicular to the wall and ran directly toward my window. This is the street on which the motorcade had approached and would have been my second choice as a zone of engagement. My first choice was directly below the window, at a drastic bend in the street that had to be negotiated by Kennedy's limousine. It would have to slow appreciably, almost to a stop, and when it did, the target would be presented moving at its slowest pace. The last zone of engagement I would pick would be as the limo drove away toward the west-and the Grassy Knoll. Here, from what I could see, three problems arose that would influence my shots. First, the target was moving away at a drastic angle to the right from the window, meaning that I would have to position my body to compete with the wall and a set of vertical water pipes on the left frame of the window to get a shot. This would be extremely difficult for a righthanded shooter. Second, I would have be ready to fire exactly when the target emerged past some tree branches that obscured the kill zone. Finally, I would have to deal with two factors at the same time: the curve of the street, and the high-to-low angle formula-a law of physics Oswald would not have known.

Even if I waited for the target to pass the primary and secondary engagement zones, and for some reason decided to engage instead in the worst possible area, I still had to consider the fact that Oswald made his farthest, and most difficult shot, last. I estimated the range for this shot at between 80 and 90 yards. It was this final shot that, according to the Warren Commission, struck Kennedy's head.

As an experienced sniper, something else bothered me. Any sniper knows that the two most important things to be considered in selecting a position are the fields of fire, and a route of escape. You have to have both. It is of little value to take a shot, then not be able to successfully get away to fight another day. Even if the window was a spot that I would select for a hide, I had doubts about my ability to escape afterwards. According to what little I had read, the elevator was stuck on a floor below at the time in question, and only the stairway could have been used as a means of withdrawal. And there were dozens of people-potential witnesses-below who would be able to identify anyone rushing away from the scene. Not good.

But Oswald was not a trained or experienced military sniper. He was supposed to be little more than some odd-ball with a grudge. And for whatever reason, had decided to buy a rifle and shoot the President of the United States. Or so the Warren Commission would have us believe.

(2) Knoll and the Picket Fence, which I had purposely saved for last. I walked up the slope and around the fence, arriving in a parking lot that was bordered on the northwest by train tracks. I walked the length of the fence, stopping at a spot on the eastern end.

I looked over the fence at Elm Street and froze. This is exactly where I would position myself if I wanted the most accurate shot possible considering the terrain I had explored. It had some drawbacks-it was close to witnesses, and prone to pre-incident discovery-but the advantages far outweighed the disadvantages for a determined assassin. The target vehicle would be approaching instead of moving away, thereby continually decreasing the range; the shot would be almost flat trajectory, making the down-angle formula a mute point; the deflection (right/left angle) would change little until the car passed a freeway sign on the north curbline; and finally, it offered numerous escape route possibilities. Behind me, to the north and west, was a parking lot full of cars, a train yard full of boxcars, and several physical terrain features to use as cover during withdrawal. It was by far the best spot.

Looking almost due east, across the grassy open park-like Plaza, I could see two multi-story office-type buildings approximately the same height as the Depository. The roof tops of either building would be excellent firing positions for a trained rifleman with the proper equipment, and would be the places I would select if I wanted the best possible chance of not being detected in advance. Without going to the roofs of each, I could not determine the accessibility of escape routes. But for firing platforms, they were ideal.

Then, considering the possibility of multiple-snipers (which meant a conspiracy), I had to ask myself how I would position the shooters to cover the kill zone in front of the Grassy Knoll?

My military training once again took over. I would use an area within the Plaza that would afford the best kill zone for either a crossfire or triangulated fire. Simply put, I would position my teams in such a way that their trajectory of fire converged on the most advantageous point to assure a kill. In the military, single snipers are seldom used. Normally, the smallest sniper team consists of two men, a sniper and his spotter/security man. Even in police SWAT teams, a marksman has an observer who is equipped with a spotting scope or binoculars to help pick and identify targets and handle the radio communications.

In this case, I would position at least one team behind the Picket Fence (more if I wanted to secure the rear against intruders), another on one or both of the two office buildings (which I later found to be the Dallas County Records Building and the County Criminal Courts Building), and possibly a team on a building across the street north of the Records Building known at the time as the Dal-Tex building. I would have never put anyone in the School Book Depository with so many locations that were much more advantageous unless I needed diversion. If I did, it would be a good place for red herrings to be observed by witnesses.
Автоматски споено мислење:

Објасни, те молам
 

The Savior

Is with me
Член од
29 јули 2021
Мислења
4.766
Поени од реакции
9.362
Шоферот го убива Кенеди. Кој гледа убаво ќе види дека истрелот е во глава и од близу. Се сомневам дека во тоа време некој снајперист може да нишани толку прецизно за да погоди мета која е во движење.
 

Vanlok

deus ex machina
Член од
30 мај 2009
Мислења
23.449
Поени од реакции
31.353
^^ До другите: Не загризувајте.
Автоматски споено мислење:

Туку едниот од фотографија погоре, веднаш до ЏФК, го препознавте?
Пошто ликот потоа кариерата ја продоложува како директор на СIА и нашироко се зборува дека бил вмешан во целата работа. Има добар документарец, ама малку познат пошто search алгоритмите го избегнуваат. Без името на насловот или директен линк нема случајно да налетате на филмов. И да, се разбира дека е со ограничен пристап на јутјуб/гугл:



Алтернативен извор (тапа резолуција, ама употребливо):
 
Член од
29 јуни 2014
Мислења
24.492
Поени од реакции
40.404
Темава ми даде флешови од минатото кога прв пат @Bafra почна да ми збори како шоферот му ја разнесе главата на Кенеди. Еве сега Зурла во истото е убеден
 

The Savior

Is with me
Член од
29 јули 2021
Мислења
4.766
Поени од реакции
9.362
Колку треба да е луд човек за да верува дека е убиен со Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5mm во тоа време?
Screenshot_2022-12-19-10-42-37-34_40deb401b9ffe8e1df2f1cc5ba480b12.jpg
Автоматски споено мислење:

Да погодиш мета во движење со Mannlicher Carcano 6.5mm?
Screenshot_2022-12-19-10-50-20-29_40deb401b9ffe8e1df2f1cc5ba480b12.jpg
 
Последно уредено:
Член од
29 јуни 2014
Мислења
24.492
Поени од реакции
40.404
у целава работа многу посумливо е тоа што Освалд е елиминиран брзо по апсењето, не тоа што он го застрелал Кенеди. Иначе еве слика од Освалд со пушката пред атентатот.



Првиот метак



Другиот метак



Све тоа достапно на Википедија.


 

The Savior

Is with me
Член од
29 јули 2021
Мислења
4.766
Поени од реакции
9.362
Се објавува убиство на претседател на Си Би Ес и одма потоа следи реклама за Нескафе со пендулум:pos:
Screenshot_2022-12-19-11-11-23-66_f9ee0578fe1cc94de7482bd41accb329.jpg
Автоматски споено мислење:

у целава работа многу посумливо е тоа што Освалд е елиминиран брзо по апсењето
По сомнително е тоа што е веднаш уапсен после убиството на Џ.К а тоа што е убиен е за да не проговори.
Автоматски споено мислење:

Наместено убиство на невин човек...
Screenshot_2022-12-19-11-28-20-40_cbf47468f7ecfbd8ebcc46bf9cc626da.jpg
Автоматски споено мислење:

Да планираш убиство на претседател а да немаш план како да избегаш. Сомнително... А што ако убиениот во автомобилот не е ЏФК?
 
Последно уредено:

Vanlok

deus ex machina
Член од
30 мај 2009
Мислења
23.449
Поени од реакции
31.353


Why Allen Dulles Killed the Kennedys
By David Swanson | Nov 13, 2015

Why Allen Dulles Killed the Kennedys

Allen Dulles (public domain)

There's not nearly as much disagreement regarding what happened to John and Robert Kennedy as major communications corporations would have you believe.
By now there’s not nearly as much disagreement regarding what happened to John and Robert Kennedy as major communications corporations would have you believe. While every researcher and author highlights different details, there isn’t any serious disagreement among, say, Jim Douglass’ JFK and the Unspeakable, Howard Hunt’s deathbed confession, and David Talbot’s new The Devil’s Chessboard.

Jon Schwarz says The Devil’s Chessboard confirms that “your darkest suspicions about how the world operates are likely an underestimate. Yes, there is an amorphous group of unelected corporate lawyers, bankers, and intelligence and military officials who form an American ‘deep state,’ setting real limits on the rare politicians who ever try to get out of line.”
For those of us who were already convinced of that up to our eyeballs, Talbot’s book is still one of the best I’ve seen on the Dulles brothers and one of the best I’ve seen on the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Where it differs from Douglass’ book, I think, is not so much in the evidence it relates or the conclusions it draws, but in providing an additional motivation for the crime.

JFK and the Unspeakable depicts Kennedy as getting in the way of the violence that Allen Dulles and gang wished to engage in abroad. He wouldn’t fight Cuba or the Soviet Union or Vietnam or East Germany or independence movements in Africa. He wanted disarmament and peace. He was talking cooperatively with Khrushchev, as Eisenhower had tried prior to the U2-shootdown sabotage. The CIA was overthrowing governments in Iran, Guatemala, the Congo, Vietnam, and around the world. Kennedy was getting in the way.


The Devil’s Chessboard depicts Kennedy, in addition, as himself being the sort of leader the CIA was in the habit of overthrowing in those foreign capitals. Kennedy had made enemies of bankers and industrialists. He was working to shrink oil profits by closing tax loopholes, including the “oil depletion allowance.” He was permitting the political left in Italy to participate in power, outraging the extreme right in Italy, the U.S., and the CIA. He aggressively went after steel corporations and prevented their price hikes. This was the sort of behavior that could get you overthrown if you lived in one of those countries with a U.S. embassy in it.

Yes, Kennedy wanted to eliminate or drastically weaken and rename the CIA. Yes he threw Dulles and some of his gang out the door. Yes he refused to launch World War III over Cuba or Berlin or anything else. Yes he had the generals and warmongers against him, but he also had Wall Street against him.
Of course “politicians who ever try to get out of line” are now, as then, but more effectively now, handled first by the media. If the media can stop them or some other maneuver can stop them (character assassination, blackmail, distraction, removal from power) then violence isn’t required.
The fact that Kennedy resembled a coup target, not just a protector of other targets, would be bad news for someone like Senator Bernie Sanders if he ever got past the media, the “super delegates,” and the sell-out organizations to seriously threaten to take the White House. A candidate who accepts the war machine to a great extent and resembles Kennedy not at all on questions of peace, but who takes on Wall Street with the passion it deserves, could place himself as much in the cross-hairs of the deep state as a Jeremy Corbyn who takes on both capital and killing.

Accounts of the escapades of Allen Dulles, and the dozen or more partners in crime whose names crop up beside his decade after decade, illustrate the power of a permanent plutocracy, but also the power of particular individuals to shape it. What if Allen Dulles and Winston Churchill and others like them hadn’t worked to start the Cold War even before World War II was over? What if Dulles hadn’t collaborated with Nazis and the U.S. military hadn’t recruited and imported so many of them into its ranks? What if Dulles hadn’t worked to hide information about the holocaust while it was underway? What if Dulles hadn’t betrayed Roosevelt and Russia to make a separate U.S. peace with Germany in Italy? What if Dulles hadn’t begun sabotaging democracy in Europe immediately and empowering former Nazis in Germany? What if Dulles hadn’t turned the CIA into a secret lawless army and death squad? What if Dulles hadn’t worked to end Iran’s democracy, or Guatemala’s? What if Dulles’ CIA hadn’t developed torture, rendition, human experimentation, and murder as routine policies? What if Eisenhower had been permitted to talk with Khrushchev? What if Dulles hadn’t tried to overthrow the President of France? What if Dulles had been “checked” or “balanced” ever so slightly by the media or Congress or the courts along the way?

These are tougher questions than “What if there had been no Lee Harvey Oswald?” The answer to that is, “There would have been another guy very similar to serve the same purpose, just as there had been in the earlier attempt on JFK in Chicago. But “What if there had been no Allen Dulles?” looms large enough to suggest the possible answer that we would all be better off, less militarized, less secretive, less xenophobic. And that suggests that the deep state is not uniform and not unstoppable. Talbot’s powerful history is a contribution to the effort to stop it.
 

Kajgana Shop

На врв Bottom