Looking back... The JFK Assassination. An inside job?

I'm not going to sit here and argue that there was another shooter on the grassy knoll or that the limo driver turned around and shot him point blank in the head, as to such arguments are insignificant and irrelevant. I believe you should look at the picture as a whole to find the truth of the matter. So I will say this; I know this topic is long, just bear with me, it makes perfect since.

President John F. Kennedy gave this speech at the President and the Press meeting in April, 1961.

"The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.

I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed."

Needless to say JFK was speaking out against the secret societies. On November 22, 1963, President Kennedy was assassinated during a trip to Dallas, Texas by Lee Harvey Oswald by a fatal sniper shot.

Sgt. Davis, of the Dallas Police Department, had prepared the most stringent security precautions in the city's history. But Winston Lawson of the Secret Service, who was in charge of the planning, told the Dallas Police not to assign its usual squad of experienced homicide detectives to follow immediately behind the President's car. This police protection was routine for both visiting presidents and for motorcades of other visiting dignitaries. Police Chief Jesse Curry later testified that had his men been in place, the murder might have been prevented, because they carried submachine guns and rifles to take out any attackers.

Oswald was found and arrested by Dallas police in a theater just hours after the assassination. He was charged with the murder of a police officer and the assassination of the president. While he was being apprehended, he told his arresting officers he was a patsy, or someone who was meant to take the blame for an action.

(continued)

[edit on 8-12-2007 by do_not_ask]

Part II

To make matters worse, Oswald was fatally shot while being escorted from the Dallas Police Department to the nearby county jail, where he would await his court date. He was shot by Jack Ruby, who was convicted shortly afterwards for the murder of Oswald and sentenced to death.

During the six months following the Kennedy assassination, Ruby repeatedly asked, orally and in writing, to speak to the members of the Warren Commission. Only after Ruby's sister Eileen wrote letters to the Warren Commission (and after her writing letters to the commission became publicly reported) did the commission agree to talk to Ruby. In June 1964, Chief Justice Earl Warren, Representative Gerald R. Ford of Michigan and other commission members went to Dallas and met with Ruby. Ruby begged Warren several times to take him to Washington D.C., because he feared for his life and those of his family members, claiming among other things that "a whole new form of government is going to take over this country, and I know I won't live to see you another time." Warren refused Ruby's request. Ruby said he wanted to convince President Johnson that he was not part of any conspiracy to kill JFK. Eventually, the appellate court agreed with Ruby's lawyers for a new trial, and on October 5, 1966, ruled that his motion for a change of venue before the original trial court should have been granted. Ruby's conviction and death sentence were overturned, although two months after which, Ruby was emitted into the hospital for pneumonia, where he was diagnosed with several forms of cancer and died.

Coincidences? What are the chances of Oswald being killed before his court date, before he could explain what he meant by being a fall back guy? Even worse, what are the chances of Oswald's killer, Ruby, dying shortly after he made the comments to the Warren Commission?

[edit on 8-12-2007 by do_not_ask]

I didnt read all your post... I am a slow reader, and that would have taken me all day! However I believe that JFK was a president that the secret societies could not control. It became evedent during the cuban missle crises, when he would not attact. They could not control him, and they killed him. I believe that is when our country went down hill. except Ragan.. every other president has been a week person, with no backbone!

[edit on 8-12-2007 by Smokinbbl]

The assaination of JFK was nothing short of a coup d'etat. The big-money oil men of Texas facilitated the murder on behalf of the "money changers."

Please visit my thread on the subject JFK Killed for $5 Billion ???

Thank you "do not ask" for starting this thread. The speech was indeed startling and gives great insight. We have come to accept it as gibberish when a politician speaks, but one should not ignore the words of a President. I don't think his words were metaphorical as they would probably be interpreted today by most people. Up until then, Presidents meant exactly what they said, and JFK was not the first to make public warning of conspiracy and clandestine infiltration of the American system.

reply to post by Smokinbbl


Reagan was an actor, nothing more. His entire Presidency was dictated to him. Reagan swore he would not take any running mate that was a member in a secret society. Yet he came out in the middle of the night at the Republican convention to announce that George H.W. Bush would be his vice-President.

There is also evidence that Bush may have been complicit in the attempted assasination of Reagan. The brother of the would-be asassin had a dinner date that night with the Bush family. The family of the John Hinckley Jr. were also heavily involved in Bush's primary campaign against Reagan.

Also of note, was the reaction of Jimmy Carter after a secret meeting that took place the day after his Inaguration. His first real day of work that is. I'll quote my from my post on another thread:

A small group of people held a meeting with him to basically "reveal the secrets." These were the top dogs, head of CIA etc., and some with titles and names you've never heard of. Of course, no one knows what was said in that meeting, but the new President emerged from that meeting crying and trembling.

"theebdk" posted this:

I could not find any story about this meeting. But I reviewed the Jimmy Carter diary which is online through his library. Day one of his presidency appears to contain all the normal trappings of inauguration day. But day two is interesting. On Friday January 21 1977 he had a meeting in the afternoon with the acting CIA Director. What is interesting is that the time is blanked out with a ? and the participants, with the exception of the acting CIA Director, have been blacked out by the library. Could this be the meeting you speak of. Interesting at the very least.

Was Jimmy Carter told, "You will do what we tell you to do," in that meeting? What could have shaken him up so? Unless maybe they told him the truth about the UFO that he saw.

I hope I'm not getting too far off subject here, but I think the office of the Presidency is has become "window dressing" since JFK was asassinated.

I completely agree. Personally, I believe the role of the president is pointless to say at least. He just acts like a news bearer. All of his decisions and actions are handed down to him from the many societies that have a death grip on this country, running the entire nation without the knowledge or approval from the people. This, in the end, will result in tragedy.

I really hope more people take a minute to read this thread. You get a star and a flag from me "do not ask."

To make a speech like that, JFK certainly knew what he was up against, and probably knew he would be killed for it.

For some reason, each Kennedy has been hesitant to take up the lead role in their family ever since Joe Jr. was killed in a top-secret mission during WWII. I don't think this is humility as much as the family knows that they are/were the newcomers in a tyrannical realm of secrets. Ted has learned not too push too hard against those clandestine forces which his brothers had tried to shed the light of day upon.

As someone who has had the misfortune of studying american politics in academia for 6 years and about to embark on a PhD in the matter, I see no evidence of conspiracy or presidential control by anything other than the national political parties and interest groups. But the fact that the political party of the president and the major national interest groups steer national policy is well known to everyone who studies American politics.

In fact, there are several times that outside forces completely throw the status quo out of line - and this is why most political scientists describe our policy shifts as being characterized by punctuated equilibrium. For example, the simple fact that accused "terrorists" recently received a hearing before the Supreme Court clearly shows forces outside the normal suspects are operating to shift policy.

But again, I find no evidence of conspiracy theory, just the clusterf**ck that is American politics.