Last night I delivered the concluding presentation in our conference “The National Security State and the Kennedy Assassination.” We’ll be posting it online within a few days. If you missed it, I would invite you to watch it. It is around 2 1/2 hours long. It is the most complete singular presentation I have ever made on Kennedy assassination.
Ever since I wrote my book The Kennedy Autopsy, I have said to people who are new to the assassination: Don’t spend time studying what happened in Dealey Plaza — bullet trajectories, witnesses, etc. Instead, just focus on the autopsy that was conducted on President Kennedy’s body. It will lead you directly to what happened on November 22, 1963.
Last night, I made what I believe is an irrefutable case for a fraudulent autopsy. I am convinced that anyone who watches my presentation will arrive at the same conclusion. My presentation is reenforced by almost 100 Apple Keynote slides.
Who conducted the autopsy? That would be the U.S. national-security establishment. That is an irrefutable fact, one that everyone agrees with.
Why is a fraudulent autopsy important? Because there is no innocent explanation for a fraudulent autopsy. None. No one has ever come up with one. No one ever will. The plan for a fraudulent autopsy, which was launched at Parkland Hospital in Dallas and then carried out at the military’s Bethesda Naval Medical Center, leads directly to the national-security establishment as the orchestrator of the assassination.
My presentation also detailed the vicious war that was being waged between Kennedy and the national-security establishment over the future direction of America. Their respective visions were irreconcilable. There was going to be a winner and a loser in this war. In the end, Kennedy proved to be no match for the overwhelming power of the national-security establishment.
As I pointed out last night, the same phenomenon occurred ten years later in Chile. The Chilean national-security establishment, with the full support of the Pentagon and the CIA, forcibly removed their democratically elected president, Salvador Allende, from office. The reason? The Chilean national-security establishment deemed Allende to be a grave threat to Chilean national security. If the national-security establishment had not acted, the argument goes, Chile would have become another Cuba — a country under tight communist control.
That was the same justification for removing Kennedy from office ten years before — that his policies for the future direction of America would end up bringing about a communist takeover of the United States.
After the Bay of Pigs disaster, where the CIA had defrauded Kennedy, he was so angry that he fired CIA Director Allen Dulles and is reputed to have vowed to “splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter them to the winds.” That necessarily means Kennedy was determined to eradicate the CIA from American life. But the CIA would not go quietly into the night. It fought back, and it won.
Why are there so many people who are reluctant to delve into the Kennedy assassination? I believe there are two reasons: One, there is a deep fear of being labeled a “conspiracy theorist.” Some people feel that if they are considered to be a “conspiracy theorist,” their lives will be over. The smearing of people as “conspiracy theorists” has proven to be one of the most successful propaganda campaigns in CIA history.
My hunch though is that another reason is that people don’t want to face the prospect of living in a world without the CIA. After all, isn’t that the logical consequence of concluding that the CIA orchestrated the assassination of a U.S. president? How can we justify leaving a vicious and malevolent agency that assassinated a U.S. president and that continues its coverup of that evil deed in existence? Once one comes to the conviction that a regime-change operation took place on November 22, 1963, that inevitably leads to a conclusion that the CIA should be splintered into a thousand pieces and scattered to the winds.
Unfortunately, however, a life without the CIA scares some people. Thus, they would rather not know about the evil actions carried out by the CIA, especially the extremely discomforting ones, like the assassination of a U.S. president based on protecting “national security.” Thus, they consciously choose not to be aware.
As I pointed out last night, however, if we are going to get our country back on the right track — toward freedom, peace, prosperity, and harmony — it is imperative that we confront America’s dark legacy as a national-security state. To do that, we must not fear to seek the truth and speak the truth.
ADDENDUM: We had problems with Douglas Horne’s video presentation last week. And so he re-did it. In doing so, he actually created an entirely new presentation, one that is now twice as long as his Zoom presentation. We will be posting it today. Also, Doug will be participating in next week’s Q&A session.