John F.Kennedy  1917 - 1963   

Jos olet vielä siinä harhaluulossa, että Lee Harvey Oswald ampui Kennedyn, sinun on aika tutustua tosiasioihin. Aloitetaan vaikka tästä filminpätkästä, josta kiistatta ilmenee, että henkivartijoiden päällikkö komentaa Kennedyn henkivartijat pois suojelemasta presidenttiä; 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5770984395481454022&q=jfk

Tästä toisesta käy ilmi että ampujia oli vähintään 2 kpl,  todennäköisimmin 3 kpl; 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6772585564431596301&q=kennedy+assassination

Ei ole pienintäkään epäilystä siitä, että Oswald oli vain syntipukki kuten hän itse mainitsi.

1.

Yksi ensisijaisista syistä, miksi JFK joutui salamurhan uhriksi, oli se että hän tosiasiassa julkesi sekaantua voimien/vallan runkoon.  Kennedy oli vakaasti päättänyt käyttää ÄÄNESTYKSESSÄ saamaansa valtaa eikä sallinut tiedusteluyhteisön voima-hysteerikoiden anastaa sitä. JFK uhkasi "pirstoa CIA:n tuhannen p:n päreiksi, ja ripotella sen tuuleen".  Oli neljä asiaa, jotka täyttivät CIA:n raivolla ja sinetöivät hänen kohtalonsa; JFK erotti Allen Dullesin, oli perustamassa paneelia tutkimaan CIA:n lukuisia rikoksia, rajoitti CIA:n leveyttä ja laajuutta sekä rajoitti niiden kykyä toimia kansallisen turvallisuusmuistin 55 alla.

One of the primary reasons John F. Kennedy was assassinated had to do with the fact he dared to interfere in the framework of power.  Kennedy was intent on exercising his ELECTED powers and not allowing them to be usurped by power-crazed individuals in the intelligence community, threatening to "splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the wind."  There were four things that filled the CIA with rage and sealed his fate; JFK fired Allen Dulles, was in the process of founding a panel to investigate the CIA's numerous crimes, put a damper on the breadth and scope of the CIA, and limited their ability to act under National Security Memoranda 55.

2.

JFK halusi purkaa yksityisten pankkimiesten hallitseman FEDin eli keskuspankin yksityisomistuksen ja siirtää sen takaisin valtiovallan hallintaan niinkuin sen kuuluisi olla.

3.

Rauhantahtoisuus suhteissaan Kuubaan, Neuvostoliittoon ja Vietnamiin. Yhdysvallat oli läsnä lähi-idässä Kennedynkin aikana mutta ei osallistunut sotatoimiin vaan Kennedy oli määrännyt sotajoukot poistumaan alueelta vuoden 1965 loppuun mennessä. JFK seuraaja; illuminati johnsson toimi täysin päinvastoin ja vei yhdysvallat täysimittaiseen ja katkeraan Vietnamin sotaan jo v.1964

4.

Kansalaisoikeuksien eteenpäin ajaminen mm. rajoittamalla KKK (klukluxklan) ym. rasististen ääriliikkeiden toimintaa.

5.

Uskonto; JFK oli katolinen eikä kirkko hyväksynyt lainkaan vapaamuurareita sun muita illuminaatteja.

Kennedyn murha kuuluu samaan sarjaan kuin veljensä Robert Kennedyn, Martin Luther Kingin ja Malcom X:n murhat. Siis se joka on nousemassa merkittäväksi yhteiskunnalliseksi vaikuttajaksi aikomuksenaan korjata yhteiskunnallisia vääryyksiä; lahjontaa, korruptiota, jne ja joka ei ole illuminatin ohjattavissa: tapetaan tiettyjen rituaalien mukaisesti.

Kuvassa kongressimies albert thomas iskee silmää lyndon b johnsonille, joka on juuri vannonut presidentin virkavalan. Vähän aikaisemmin hän oli mukana salaliitossa tappamassa Kennedyä. Vierellä leski, Jackie Kennedy. Toivottavasti johnson palaa helvetissä. Tämä albert thomas muuten kuului vaikutusvaltaiseen F8 ryhmään ja asemansa puolesta pystyi ohjailemaan valtion "ase-urakoita" firmalle Brown & Root, josta sittemmin tuli halliburton eli cheneyn firma. *Eli samanlaista kähmintään vuosikymmenestä toiseen.                      KBR, Inc. (formerly Kellogg, Brown and Root)

Illuminatit järjestivät Kennedyn murhan näytöstyyliin. Mukana george w.bush, JFK:n seuraajaksi tullut lyndon johnson, j.edgar hoover, allen dulles ja nelson rockefeller mm. jne. Ensi töikseen presidenttinä johnson käski Dallasin poliisia lopettamaan murhan tutkimukset, mikä oli tietysti laitonta. Presidentillä ei ole oikeutta puuttua asiaan.

Filmi, jossa turvamiehet komennetaan pois auton takapuskureilta presidenttiä suojaamasta;

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5770984395481454022

Kuvassa yksi Kennedyn tappamisen organisaattoreista eli pres. bush senior

Kansa kuitenkin vaati vastauksia jolloin jouduttiin nimittämään tutkimuskomissio mutta mukaan valittiin illuminaatin jäseniä eli vapaamuurareita ja masoneita ja muita yhtymän miehiä, joten oikeasti oli kyseessä nollatutkimus kuten 11-9. Hale Boggs arvosteli kovin sanoin komission työskentyä, joten hänen lentokoneensa putosi ja katosi Alaskan yllä 16.10.1972.

Sama kohtalo oli monilla muilla, jotka todistivat virallista teoriaa vastaan mm. siitä paljonko laukauksia oli ja mistä suunnasta ammuttiin. Kaikkiaan 177 ihmistä, jotka eivät hyväksyneet virallista sellitystä, tapettiin.

Tämä oli illuminaatin voimainnäytös; teloitetaan presidentti keskellä kirkasta päivää eikä kukaan voi asialle mitään, jälkeenpäinkään.

"Jos elämä riistetään lähellä 33. leveyspiiriä, tämä sopii vapaamuurarien demoniseen mytologiaan, jossa he osoittavat maailmallisen valtansa vuodattamalla ihmisverta ennaltamäärätyssä paikassa." Siis monet Illuminaateille tärkeät sodat, salamurhat ja murhat ovat tapahtuneet 33. leveyspiirissä tai sen lähellä. Niihin kuuluu presidentti John Kennedy'n salamurha, joka oli joutunut pahasti Illuminaatin epäsuosioon. Kennedy tapettiin Dealey Plaza'ksi kutsutulla vapaamuurarillisella paikalla; presidenttiä iskettiin eli ammuttiin kolme kertaa täsmälleen samaan kohtaan ruumiissaan (selkään, kaulaan ja päähän), kuin vapaamuurarien legendaa Hiram Abiff´ia Häntä kerrotaan isketyn kolmen "räyhääjän" toimesta, jotka halusivat estää häntä paljastamasta "Mestarimuurarien salaisuudet".

Kun Illuminaatti salamurhasi presidentti Kennedyn, hänet tapettiin numeron 11 "okkulttisen allekirjoituksen" mukaan. Hänet tapettiin 11. kuussa, 22. päivänä ja 33. leveyspiirillä. Hänet lisäksi tapettiin vapaamuurarillisella Dealey Plaza'lla, joka on maailman voimakkain salaseura tänä päivänä ja jolle numero 11 on äärimmäisen tärkeä. Siis 22.11.1963 Dallasissa (33 leveyspiiri)

Lisää juttua Kennedyn murhasta ja mm. ihmeluodista tutkimuskomissio sivulla.

Tässä puhe heti virkakauden alussa 1961, jossa hän varoittaa salaseuroista.

Tässä puheen pääkohdat suoraan nettisivulta, tämä kannattaa katsoa vaikkei englantia paljon osaisikaan !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ru4TbL8aweE

Tässä muutama pääkohta puheesta ensin pienellä englanniksi ja sitten yritän kääntää, tosi vaikeaa kielenkäyttöä luontevasti käännettäväksi.

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.

Sana "salaisuus" on vastenmielinen vapaassa ja avoimessa yhteiskunnassa; ja me olemme kansana luonnostaan, ja historiallisesti vastustaneet salaseuroja,  salaisia valoja ja salaisia menettelytapoja. Me päätimme kauan sitten, että, asiaankuuluvien tosiasioiden liiallisen ja tarpeettoman salaamisen vaarat, ovat paljon petollisemmat kuin, vaarat  joita siteerataan antamaan sille oikeutuksen. Vielä tänään suljetun yhteisön uhkan vastustamisessa jäljittelemällä sen mielivaltaisia rajoituksia on pieni arvo. Ja vielä tänään meidän valtiomme hengissä pysymisen vakuuttamisessa on pieni arvo, jos meidän perinteemme eivät selviydy sen kanssa. Ja on olemassa hyvin vakava vaara, jossa sen merkitys kaappaa kohonneen turvallisuuden julkistetun tarpeen, niille jotka ovat halukkaita laajentamaan virallisen sensuurin ja salaamisen aivan äärirajoille. Sitä en aio sallia siinä määrin, joka on minun kontrollissani. Ja ei kenenkään minun hallitukseni virkailija, olkoon hänen arvonsa korkea tai matala, siviili tai sotilas, pitäisi tulkita minun sanojani täällä tänä iltana tekosyynä uutisten sensuroimiselle, erimielisyyksien tukahduttamiselle, peittääkseen meidän erehdyksemme tai evätäkseen lehdistöltä ja yleisöltä tosiasiat, jotka ne ansaitsevat tietää.

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. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

Se vaatii muutosta katsantokannassa, muutosta taktiikassa, muutosta elämäntehtävässä – hallituksen toimesta, ihmisten toimesta, jokaisen liikemiehen tai työväen johtajan toimesta ja jokaisen sanomalehden toimesta.

Sillä meitä vastustaa joka puolella monoliittinen ja armoton salaliitto, jonka ensisijaisena päämääränä on salamyhkäisesti levittää vaikutusvaltaansa, solutuksella maahanhyökkäyksen sijasta, kumouksellisuudella vaalien sijasta, pelottelulla vapaan valinnan sijasta, sisseillä yöllä armeijoiden sijasta päivällä.

Se on järjestelmä, joka on kutsunut palvelukseen laajasti inhimilliset ja aineelliset resurssit tiukasti yhteen nivoen. Se on erittäin tehokas kone, jossa yhdistyvät sotilaalliset, diplomaattiset, tiedustelu, taloudelliset, tieteelliset ja poliittiset operaatiot.

Sen valmistelut kätketään, ei julkaista. Sen erehdykset haudataan, ei uutisoida. Sen toisinajattelijat on vaiennettu, ei ylistetty. Mitään kuluja ei epäillä, mitään huhuja ei paineta, mitään salaisuutta ei paljasteta. Se johtaa kylmää sotaa, lyhyesti sanottuna, sota-ajan kuri, johon mikään demokratia ei koskaan toivoisi tai ei haluaisi mukautua.

Tässä yksi filmi Kennedyn salamurhasta, kuudes ja uusin osa filmisarjasta.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=58659498316845631&q=the+men+who+killed+kennedy+part+2

 

Tässä pari asiakirjaa, jotka todistavat, että vanhempi george bush oli CIA:n töissä Kennedyn murhan aikaan ja työmatkalla Dallasissa 22.11.1963

Eli hänellä oli sormet pelissä Kennedynkin murhassa, kuten myös muilla illuminateilla; seuraajaksi tullut lyndon johnson, j.edgar hoover, allen dulles ja nelson rockefeller mm. jne.

Kennedyn puhe salaseuroista kokonaisuudessaan 27.4.1961

The President and the Press: Address before the American Newspaper Publishers Association President John F. Kennedy Waldorf-Astoria Hotel New York City, April 27, 1961

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:

I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.

You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.

You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.

We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the "lousiest petty bourgeois cheating."

But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.

If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper man.

I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight "The President and the Press." Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded "The President Versus the Press." But those are not my sentiments tonight.

It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.

Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.

Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.

If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.

On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses that they once did.

It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one's golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man.

My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.

I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future--for reducing this threat or living with it--there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security--a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.

This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.

I

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.

But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.

Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.

If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self- discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.

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. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.

For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.

The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.

The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.

On many earlier occasions, I have said--and your newspapers have constantly said--that these are times that appeal to every citizen's sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.

I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.

Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national security?" And I hope that every group in America--unions and businessmen and public officials at every level-- will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.

And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.

Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.

II

It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation--an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people--to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well--the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.

No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but 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.

I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it.

III

It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.

And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.

Edited by HolyKnight on 06/25/06 07:22 PM.

JFK Murder Plot "Deathbed Confession" Aired On National Radio Former CIA agent, Watergate conspirator E. Howard Hunt names the men who killed Kennedy Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet Monday, April 30, 2007

 

The "deathbed confession" audio tape in which former CIA agent and Watergate conspirator E. Howard Hunt admits he was approached to be part of a CIA assassination team to kill JFK was aired this weekend - an astounding development that has gone completely ignored by the establishment media.

Saint John Hunt, son of E. Howard Hunt, appeared on the nationally syndicated Coast to Coast Live radio show on Saturday night to discuss the revelations contained in the tape.

Hunt said that his father had mailed cassette the tape to him alone in January 2004 and asked that it be released after his death. The tape was originally 20 minutes long but was edited down to four and a half minutes for the Coast to Coast broadcast. Hunt promises that the whole tape will be uploaded soon at his website.

Click here to listen to a clip of the tape.

E. Howard Hunt names numerous individuals with both direct and indirect CIA connections as having played a role in the assassination of Kennedy, while describing himself as a "bench warmer" in the plot. Saint John Hunt agreed that the use of this term indicates that Hunt was willing to play a larger role in the murder conspiracy had he been required.

Hunt alleges on the tape that then Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson was involved in the planning of the assassination and in the cover-up, stating that LBJ, "Had an almost maniacal urge to become president, he regarded JFK as an obstacle to achieving that."

Asked if his father followed the conspiracy theories into the Kennedy assassination, Saint John said the elder Hunt did follow the work of AJ Weberman, a New York freelance writer, who in the early 70's first accused Hunt of being one of three bums who were arrested in Dealy Plaza. The so-called bums (pictured above) were interrogated and later released by authorities shortly after the assassination. Weberman, one of the founders of the Youth International Party, the Vippies, published photographs of the tramps and found that two of them bore striking similarities to Hunt and Frank Sturgis, also named by Hunt in the tape as having been played a role in the assassination conspiracy.

Asked for his opinion as to whether his father was indeed one of the Dealy Plaza tramps, Saint John, in a stunning revelation, said one of the tramps indeed looked much like his father did in 1963 (see comparison above).

CIA operative Frank Stugis' striking resemblance to one of the "tramps".

Other researchers believe the "Hunt tramp" to really be Chauncey Holt, who apparently later confessed to the fact. Charles Harrelson was allegedly identified as the third tramp.

Saint John Hunt said that shortly before his death, his father had felt "deeply conflicted and deeply remorseful" that he didn't blow the whistle on the plot at the time and prevent the assassination, but that everyone in the government hated Kennedy and wanted him gone in one way or another. Kennedy's promise to "shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter the remnants to the wind" was being carried out and this infuriated almost everyone at the agency.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Internet leader in activist media - Prison Planet.tv. Thousands of special reports, videos, MP3's, interviews, conferences, speeches, events, documentary films, books and more - all for just 15 cents a day! Click here to subscribe! Find out the true story behind government sponsored terror, 7/7, Gladio and 9/11, get Terror Storm!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hunt also said that his mother's death in a December 8, 1972 plane crash in Chicago was suspicious and that there was evidence of a White House cover-up surrounding the circumstances of the alleged accident.

Investigators discovered $10,000 dollars in her luggage and Hunt alleged that his mother traveled around the country using Nixon campaign money to payoff the families of the Watergate burglars to keep them quiet about the involvement of the Nixon White House in the Watergate break-in and cover-up.

Hunt cited numerous coincidences surrounding the aftermath of the crash, including Nixon's appointment of his henchman, Egil Krough, to the National Transportation Safety Board which investigates plane crashes, the very day after the incident.

Eyewitnesses reported that the plane exploded above treetop level before it had even hit the runway.

Hunt said that "at least 20-25 FBI members," as well as numerous DIA agents were at the scene of the crash within minutes before rescue personnel had even arrived, and that this fact was attested to in a letter sent by the head of the Chicago FBI to investigator Sherman Skolnick.

Hunt said that his safety was guaranteed by the dissemination of the tape and that he had several copies and had mailed others to addresses both abroad and in the U.S.

"Once this information is out there's really no point in anyone trying to do me in or do me wrong - someone may try to discredit me but I have no skeletons in my closet," said Hunt.

As we have previously reported, the night before the Kennedy assassination, Lyndon Baines Johnson met with Dallas tycoons, FBI moguls and organized crime kingpins - emerging from the conference to tell his mistress Madeleine Duncan Brown that "those SOB's" would never embarrass him again.

Though Brown first went public on her 21-year relationship with Johnson in the early 80's, to this day her shocking revelations about how he had told her the Kennedy's "would never embarrass me again" the night before the assassination are often ignored by the media who prefer to keep the debate focused on issues which can't definitively be proven either way (or at least can be spun and whitewashed).

George Herbert Walker Bush was also pictured at the scene of the crime in Dealy Plaza.

In addition, Barr McClellan, father of former White House press secretary Scott McClellan and a partner in the Austin law firm that represented Johnson, wrote in his 2003 book that LBJ was a key player in the organization of the assassination and its cover-up. McClellan's revelations were the subject of a subsequent History Channel documentary called The Guilty Men.