JFK two-minute piece of film

[Derek]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Derek</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-size: 11pt">Anyone who thinks Oswald killed JFK should watch this short video.
It shows a secret service man, assigned to protect the president, PROTESTING as he is ORDERED to back off from the presidential car and leave JFK unprotected, just before the car reaches the kill zone.</span>
I would like someone on here to provide a sensible explanation to what they saw.</span> </div></div>
<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XY02Qkuc_f8"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XY02Qkuc_f8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>
Or did Oswald order them to leave the car?

[Cultcha]

Re: JFK two-minute piece of film

[johnnycakes]

Re: JFK two-minute piece of film

Are you trying to say that somehow some BAD people were and possibly still are at the top of the U.S government?

I'm shocked! shocked!!!


If the sainted Jack Kennedy was nothing more than another Cold War president or if he were indeed assassinated for trying to get out of Viet Nam ( for being weak on fighting communism), it does not matter today.

If it was done secretly, no president after JFK would know of the danger of being weak on communism so the assassination would have no deterrent effect on them and the assassins would have no way of guaranteeing that the parties would nominate only rabid anti-communists.

As it now stands, the Empire is still doing its thing although hanging on by its fingernails.

The king is dead. long live the new king.

Meet the new boss, the same as the old boss.

[Derek]

Re: JFK two-minute piece of film

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kotch_Foot_Milo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> </div></div>

Any comments?

[Cultcha]

Re: JFK two-minute piece of film

I am not saying one way or the other, but from what I am reading bout this interesting turn of events is that the order for the secret service agents not to ride on the bumper was a request made from the president himself.

However, I have to wonder what the protocol is. Does the president have the authority to supervise his own bodyguards? I would kind of doubt it. I would think that the head of the security detail would have the final say over the president concerning any security issues and if he was doing his job correctly that day there would have been secret service on the back of that limo. So your point is an interesting one.

Like you said, all this would be rehursted so why the sudden change of plans at the last second?

[Derek]

Re: JFK two-minute piece of film

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kotch_Foot_Milo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am not saying one way or the other, but from what I am reading bout this interesting turn of events is that the order for the secret service agents not to ride on the bumper was a request made from the president himself.</div></div>
That is not true.
And don't you think the secret service of all people would have been aware of such a request?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kotch_Foot_Milo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">However, I have to wonder what the protocol is. Does the president have the authority to supervise his own bodyguards? I would kind of doubt it. I would think that the head of the security detail would have the final say over the president concerning any security issues and if he was doing his job correctly that day there would have been secret service on the back of that limo. So your point is an interesting one. </div></div>
Indeed.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kotch_Foot_Milo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Like you said, all this would be rehursted so why the sudden change of plans at the last second? </div></div>
The answer lies less than five minutes after that piece of footage.

[R00TS]

Re: JFK two-minute piece of film

I watched this last week and also looked around and found the same as Milo. I also thought it a crock that he would request that.
JessiebVentura did a piece on JFK friday night. He spoke of Geo H Bush not remembering where he was at the time was later found to be in TX at the time.
G.Ford and Nixon also played in the cover up. He even suggested watergate being a set up to dump Nixon
The truth will surface slowly.

[johnnycakes]

Re: JFK two-minute piece of film

If there was some sort of inside-the-government conspiracy to kill JFKthat idea begs the question: what would the purpose be ?.
Since JFK had refused overt US military aid in the Eisenhower administration planned Bay of Pigs invasion and reportedly was planning on getting out of the U.S war in Vietnam and this at the height of the Cold War, it might be supposed that it was done because JFK was perceived as being weak on anti-communism.

What doesn't make sense in that sort of thinking is that JFK WAS extremely anti-communist and most definitely pro-capitalism even if he were soft on the overseas invasion strategy. The entire rest of the government was rabidly anti-communist and pro-capitalism and JFK would have had serious difficulty in doing much in the time he had left in office to seriously disrupt that long term U.S. foreign policy of fighting socialism and enforcing capitalism on the world.

Things were a lot different 50 years ago and what is a liberal today was a moderate Republican then and the anti-communist mood and and the propaganda machine were at their high points bordering on hysteria..

[Derek]

Re: JFK two-minute piece of film

JFK was murdered because:

He wanted to take the printing of money away from the Federal Reserve.
The Fed is a private company that prints money, sells it to the government and charges interest. That interest is paid by Americans and it is called Tax. Those Fed notes are not backed by gold or anything: they are basically worthless, so these private companies are making money from Americans out of nothing.

JFK wanted currency backed by a commodity - in this case silver - as per the US Constitution.



JFK also wanted to pull out of Vietnam, which was America's biggest business worth $200 billion a year. First National Bank, Bell Helicopter, General Dynamics and a host of corporations stood to lose big time.



Bush Snr and Nixon were in Dallas on 22nd November.


I have been studying and researching this for more than 20 years.

Here's an interesting video - ideal bedtime viewing. If you want to know who decided JFK had to go - it certainly wasn't Oswald.

JFK was made an example of for future presidents to know who really is boss around here.

<embed style="width:425px; height:350px;" id="VideoPlayback" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=4330031689287456187#&hl=en" flashvars=""></embed>

[Derek]

Re: JFK two-minute piece of film

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R00TS</div><div class="ubbcode-body">G.Ford and Nixon also played in the cover up. He even suggested watergate being a set up to dump Nixon
The truth will surface slowly. </div></div>

Ford was on the Warren Commission. Nuff said.
JFK fired CIA Director Allen Dulles after the Bay of Pigs fiasco.
Nixon fired CIA Deputy Director Richard Helms because Helms wouldn't 'help' Nixon.

You can't go around firing powerful CIA men, but at least Nixon's head wasn't blown off. Instead, the Watergate burglars were set up to get caught and for Nixon to be implicated.

[johnnycakes]

Re: JFK two-minute piece of film

I don't see it.

How many people would stand to lose so much if JFK went to backing currency with silver that they'd feel the need to kill him? Even if JFK managed to get this through Congress, why wouldn't those with the money and power to kill him just do the traditional thing and fool the people into thinking JFK was not the best for the country and expend the effort in the political arena to get a president to their liking.?
At worst the difficulties for those hurt by anything JFK did would last until he was a lame duck president.


As for Vietnam, that war was started under Truman, then Eisenhower and then JFK and at the same time the U.S was maintaining a strict Monroe Doctrine in the hemisphere and about to help kill 500,000 communists in Indonesia and a whole host of other overt and covert anti-communist activities. Those who made their money from war were in no danger of losing their businesses. The war budget didn't shrink under JFK because the anti-socialist U.S. foreign policy was firmly in place and had been since at least 1917,. JFK was an imperialist no less, than most of his contemporaries. U.S. foreign policy and domestic policies that work to the benefit of the rich remained unchanged under JFK.
We, on the left certainly did not see JFK as a comrade and I think he was as much a lefty as the current occupant of the White House..

Like Obama JFK was certainly vetted by those at the top levels of the Democrat Party whose job it was to make sure that any candidate they put up thought and acted as they would have them do.
JFK's political and social views were no secret. It was not like Fidel Castro with his surprise &quot;I am a communist&quot; announcement when the Revolution took power.


The government is not like the Mafia.
The people who finance the political parties don't have to kill anyone to get them to do what is in the best interests of their sponsors for a couple of reasons.

Those who finance the political campaigns of a president make it clear that they expect payback or there will not be campaign funds in the next election. It's the legal bribery that has kept U.S. politicians in line for at least a century. It works fine.

Secondly, JFK was a member of a very wealthy family and himself a firm believer in capitalism and U.S. imperialism. He didn't want to tear down or even seriously change anything.
Like Obama today and all presidents before in the 20th century had he been of a mind to be anything other than loyal to what the party and its bosses wanted, he would never have gotten the nomination.

Presidents do not come into office and turn left. If they have any notions of doing so they are quickly disabused of those thoughts when the reality of empire is presented to them and they swing right.

All presidents have always know who the real boss is and JFK, no more and no less than any of them.

That's my opinion

[Derek]

Re: JFK two-minute piece of film

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: johnnycakes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't see it. </div></div>
Fine. So Oswald killed Kennedy with three bullets?


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: johnnycakes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The people who finance the political parties don't have to kill anyone to get them to do what is in the best interests of their sponsors for a couple of reasons.</div></div>
I'll just comment on this piece. The Kennedys did not need financing - therefore influence - from anyone else.
The idea was: two terms for JFK, two for Bobby, two for Ed. One family in the White House for all those years would have been like a monarchy - and frightening to outsiders.

[johnnycakes]

Re: JFK two-minute piece of film

&quot;One family in the White House for all those years would have been like a monarchy - and frightening to outsiders.&quot;

Derek,
I don't get who the &quot;outsiders&quot; would be.
F.D.R. served four terms and had he lived would have probably been elected the fifth time and nobody had a problem with that.

The Kennedys were members of the U.S. elite and were certainly no threat to the status quo, the ruling elite, the military industrial complex but rather like rock stars whose images of youth and vigor carried them in elections.

U.S. post-WWII imperial foreign policy has not wavered up to the present
and I'm sure JFK would have spoken eloquently and persuasively in order to justify pulling out of a lost cause in southeast Asia.

As said, there were many, many, many other places in the world where U.S. imperial policies both overt and covert went on outside of southeast Asia so that the crazy right would have been content.

Given the times, the height of the Cold War, Kennedy had to be &quot;tough on communism&quot; or he never would have been nominated by his party.

In context, both the Bay of Pigs fiasco and the POSSIBILITY that JFK intended to pull out of Vietnam in no way pointed to anything like a turnaround for the consistent and then 50 year old fight against socialism.

Of course, that's my perspective and it comes from the far left for whom the difference between a Kennedy, a Reagan or an Obama are trifling.

[Derek]

Re: JFK two-minute piece of film

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: johnnycakes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">&quot;One family in the White House for all those years would have been like a monarchy - and frightening to outsiders.&quot;

Derek,
I don't get who the &quot;outsiders&quot; would be.</div></div>

How about the Bush family and the Republicans?

[Derek]

Re: JFK two-minute piece of film

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: johnnycakes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Kennedys were members of the U.S. elite and were certainly no threat to the status quo, the ruling elite, the military industrial complex but rather like rock stars whose images of youth and vigor carried them in elections. </div></div>

True but they had their own ideas and agendas - unlike future presidents.
Pulling out of Vietnam, for example, was a BIG threat to the military/industrial complex's earnings potential. Why do you think the US is in Iraq and Afghanistan today?