Why was JFK Murdered?

[tom jeffers]

do to the recent disclosures by the following:edgar mitchell, astronauthttp://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/6245/E ... 2008/Clark McClelland (nasa scientist for period of 1958 to 1974)http://www.stargate-chronicles.com/home.htmlthe reason I am bringing this into the arena is that if we believe that there are people behind the scenes controlling events and information and in essence controlling our lives then wouldn't it make sence that they would also want to control any alien technology and keep it all a secret so they can continue to charge us $5 a gallon for gas when there is free energy available etc.These two guys are well respected and have recently come out with their disclosures that in essence prove the cover up. Isn't that what we are trying to do here is get full disclosure? We are lied to about everything. Now this is sensitive stuff and it shows that Kennedy was poking around the subject and trying to share our information with the soviets. I think it is worth examining. If I am wrong, Wim can delete it if he wants, it is his website not ours. I know that others will see it as a crackpot theory but it makes perfect sence to me.



JFKLetter.jpg (48.08 KiB) Viewed 15200 times

[tom jeffers]

continued



MJ5200directive.jpg (15.6 KiB) Viewed 15194 times

[tom jeffers]

continued



MJScorchedTabFcropped.jpg (7.84 KiB) Viewed 15183 times

[bob franklin]

I recall reading about ARTICHOKE somewhere, Tom. I'm thinking this project either became MK-ULTRA, or the other way 'round. ... Just found this on wiki:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_ARTICHOKE

[tom jeffers]

thanks bob

[Billy Boggs]

Before the Internet we had a system called "packets" and bulletin board systems, BBS for short. I remember seeing something about Kennedy being told by a insider that alien bases were bing built with black ops money, black money. I believe, and I could be wrong, but Kennedy was very upset that when the black money dried up, and the CIA resorted to selling drugs on the street to make up for the lost revenues from congress.Now I'm not going to take this subject in the UFO direction. But when it comes to money, and how it is obtained, I see it as fair game. I know there is a sub group of people who have take the whole subject of UFOs and turned it into something it isn't, and have profited from this. They have no problems with moral issues because as I see them, they are soulless. They did a great deal in perverting the entire subject of UFOs out of reality, they created fiction and sold it to the American people, and to the Intelligence organizations around the world.Kennedy saw this corruption seeping into the CIA, and being a true patriotic American citizen, tried to stop it. But again, he didn't know who and what he was really dealing with. Jack Ruby ( Rubinstein ) knew a portion of the "Operation" and even tried to warn us in his statementJack Ruby Press conference http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we2eucWXqjg Yes, if given time Kennedy would have exposed the truth about the UFOs, and the corruption that had covertly infiltrated not only the US government, but many Governments around the world.

[tom jeffers]

it is because of those other "KOOKS" that this subject is so forbidden when talking about the assassination.

[John Zeroski]

Bob,I would like to make a suggestion regarding your selection of a title for this post. It is simply this-the title is actually a very broad question that can be replied to in an almost infinite number of ways, while the material covered in the post is actually a very limited theory of the assassination, which, if people of the forum were asked to keep on topic, would involve responses which might include subject matter like questions regarding just who represents this Shadow Government, etc, etc.While I know and understand how easy it becomes to drift off-topic, I am guilty of this myself, I think you open the door yourself to off-topic theories when you post a very broad title as you have done.Of course, from another point of view, some people would realize, if they have something to contribute to the topic under discussion, your title, while broad, is merely a title, and it is the subject matter that needs to be responded to, and not the title.It seems just plain common sense that if anyone wants to respond to your title with different theories, all that needs to be done is to start another thread.I think someone should remove the distracting posts on this topic and begin another thread. This thread concerns an elitist theory of the assassination, and I think anyone who would like to make a contribution along this line should be encouraged to do so.

[Billy Boggs]

I would agree with starting a new thread about secondary issues, but disagree with removing anything from this one. This is one of the major problems with research, "Compartmentalization", and that is exactly what a new thread would do.The whole subject can be paralleled with a "Spiders Web". You cant see the whole picture if you cut it into a thousand smaller pictures. People will get stuck or trapped on one section, never knowing there is a greater area to explore. Its all tied together, in the middle, and that is the most guarded and secretive of the whole web.

[Bob]

John Zeroski wrote:Bob,I would like to make a suggestion regarding your selection of a title for this post. It is simply this-the title is actually a very broad question that can be replied to in an almost infinite number of ways, while the material covered in the post is actually a very limited theory of the assassination, which, if people of the forum were asked to keep on topic, would involve responses which might include subject matter like questions regarding just who represents this Shadow Government, etc, etc.While I know and understand how easy it becomes to drift off-topic, I am guilty of this myself, I think you open the door yourself to off-topic theories when you post a very broad title as you have done.Of course, from another point of view, some people would realize, if they have something to contribute to the topic under discussion, your title, while broad, is merely a title, and it is the subject matter that needs to be responded to, and not the title.It seems just plain common sense that if anyone wants to respond to your title with different theories, all that needs to be done is to start another thread.I think someone should remove the distracting posts on this topic and begin another thread. This thread concerns an elitist theory of the assassination, and I think anyone who would like to make a contribution along this line should be encouraged to do so.The title of the thread was because it's the name of the story that accompanies the post. This is a very broad subject that has MANY twists and turns as to why this murder happened. I agree with Billy that discussing this issue is important because of the underlying reasons that this crime was allowed to happen. I also agree that any and all reasons for the murder should be investigated and discussed, including the Majestic program about UFOs.