Those young demonstrators had come of age seeing continual — and effective — protests during the civil rights movement and national mourning after the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Senator Robert F. Kennedy and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. A year earlier King staked out his opposition to the war, saying that while he wasn’t attempting “to make North Vietnam or the National Liberation Front paragons of virtue,” he wanted to underscore his belief “that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money, like some demonic, destructive suction tube.” He said he was “compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and attack it as such.”
Archiv: John F. Kennedy
Like his father and Martin Luther King Jr., RFK Jr. believes that violence abroad is linked to violence on our streets and in our schools. Only when America ceases its endless wars will we restore peace at home.
Wie John F. Kennedy erschossen wurde: Sehen Sie genau hin
(19.11.2013)
Vor 50 Jahren filmte Abraham Zapruder die Ermordung des Präsidenten der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika. Bizarrerweise haben in Deutschland die Meisten diese Aufnahmen bis heute nie gesehen. So ging es den U.S.-Amerikanern noch bis 1975, elfeinhalb Jahre nach dem Attentat.
Zapruder, heute bei Wikipedia der arme Mann mit dem Albtraum, hatte nach dem Attentat sofort erkannt, was sein Film wert war. Noch am Abend der Ermordung John F. Kennedys, am 22. November 1963, saß er in einem Interview beim TV-Sender WFAA, nahm sich einen Anwalt und ließ alle interessierten Journalisten seinen Film in einer geschlossenen Vorführung ein einziges Mal ansehen, um ihn meistbietend zu verkaufen. Sofort nach der Filmvorführung trat der Journalist Dan Rather, nach eigener Aussage noch vor allen anderen, vor die Kamera und erklärte, der Zapruder-Film habe gezeigt, wie der Kopf des Präsidenten durch einen von hinten erfolgten Schuss „violently“ (heftig) nach vorne geschleudert worden sei (die Aussage Rathers ist zwischen viel Werbung noch in Teil 5 der Doku „50 Jahre Kennedy-Attentat – Geheimnisse einer amerikanischen Dynastie“ in der VOX Mediathek zusehen).
Danach kaufte das Time Life Magazin von Abraham Zapruder alle Rechte an dessen Film und ließ diesen im Archiv verschwinden. Seit dem Mord an John F. Kennedy waren gerade einmal zwei Tage vergangen.
Bis 1969 wurde die Filmaufnahmen von der Ermordung des U.S.-Präsidenten unter Verschluss gehalten. Dann erzwang der Staatswalt Jim Garrison im Rahmen eines Gerichtsverfahrens vom Time Life Magazine die Herausgabe des Zapruder-Films und war so in der Lage, die Aufnahmen von Kennedy-Attentat wenigstens den Geschworenen zu zeigen. Der Öffentlichkeit wurden die Aufnahmen erst am 6. März 1975 zugänglich gemacht, durch Ausstrahlung im TV Sender ABC (Kino oder Fernsehsender waren damals die einzige Möglichkeit Filmaufnahmen effektiv zu verbreiten).
(…)
Hier nun der Zapruder-Film. Sehen Sie genau hin. Damit fing und fängt alles an.
JFK Assassination – Mark Bell Film
The Film By Mark Bell.
The ZAPRUDER film HQ real HQ
The ZAPRUDER film HQ real HQ
60 Jahre später: Warum das Kennedy-Attentat bis heute nachwirkt
(22.11.2023)
Die Schüsse kamen aus dem sechsten Stock des Schulbuchlagers an der Dealey Plaza, abgefeuert vom 24-jährigen Lee Harvey Oswald – so hat es die Warren Commission, die staatliche Untersuchungskommission in ihrem Abschlussbericht zehn Monate nach dem Attentat festgestellt.
Dass Oswald der alleinige Täter war, glaubt auch Joe Carter, allen Verschwörungstheorien zum Trotz…
Kennedy assassination remembered 60 years later by surviving witnesses to history
Just minutes after President John F. Kennedy was fatally shot as his motorcade rolled through downtown Dallas, Associated Press reporter Peggy Simpson rushed to the scene and immediately attached herself to the police officers who had converged on the building from which a sniper‘s bullets had been fired….
CIA Document 1035-960 – Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report
(01. April 1967)
Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission‘s report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse results.
(…)
Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.
3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active, however, addresses are requested:
a. To discuss the publicity problem with liaison and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.
b. To employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (I) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories.
(…)
4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:
a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider. The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim Joesten and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case; however, unlike that case, the attack on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence, no new culprits have been convincingly identified, and there is no agreement among the critics. (A better parallel, though an imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire of 1933, which some competent historians (Fritz Tobias, AJ.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt) now believe was set by Vander Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for either Nazis or Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists, but the latter have been more successful in convincing the world that the Nazis were to blame.)
Protect RFK Jr. – Protect Democracy: Urge President Biden to Provide RFK Jr. Secret Service
For democracy to function, the public must know that elections, and not violence, will decide who takes public office. That is why the United States has granted Secret Service protection to all major Presidential candidates.
Last Wednesday, for the second time this election season, an intruder entered Robert F. Kennedy Jr.‘s home in Los Angeles. He had written hundreds of emails to the campaign, which were included in its application for Secret Service protection, one of which made mention of a „bullet in [Mr. Kennedy‘s] brain.“ A month earlier, a man had showed up to one of Mr. Kennedy‘s campaign events carrying loaded weapons and posing as a U.S. Marshal.
In both cases, the individuals were apprehended by Mr. Kennedy‘s private security detail and turned over to the police. But the incidents demonstrate the necessity for Secret Service protection for Mr. Kennedy. Withholding protection puts him and members of the public who attend campaign events at risk. Furthermore, it would be incredibly destabilizing for our nation if another Kennedy came to harm in the course of Presidential politics.
You can‘t have a functioning democracy when candidates aren‘t safe. Whether or not you support my campaign, please sign this petition urging the White House to grant me Secret Service protection. #Kennedy24
SIGN HERE security.kennedy24.com
CIA Document 1035-960 – Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report
(01. April 1967)
Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission‘s report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse results.
(…)
Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.
3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active, however, addresses are requested:
a. To discuss the publicity problem with liaison and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.
b. To employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (I) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories.
(…)
4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:
a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider. The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim Joesten and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case; however, unlike that case, the attack on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence, no new culprits have been convincingly identified, and there is no agreement among the critics. (A better parallel, though an imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire of 1933, which some competent historians (Fritz Tobias, AJ.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt) now believe was set by Vander Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for either Nazis or Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists, but the latter have been more successful in convincing the world that the Nazis were to blame.)
Cable Sought to Discredit Critics of Warren Report
(December 26, 1977, Page 32)
“Conspiracy theories,” the cable went on, “have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material for countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit circulation of such claims in other countries.”
The C.I.A. was careful to caution its stations overseas not to initiate a discussion “of the assassination question” where such a discussion was “not already taking place.” But where such discussions were under way, C.I.A. officers abroad were directed to “discuss the publicity problem with liaison and friendly elite contacts, especially politicians and editors,” and to “employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics.”
DER 11. SEPTEMBER: Duplikat, Drone, Plan
(12. September 2014)
Bereits vor Jahrzehnten entwickelte das Militär der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika den Plan ein eigenes ziviles Passagierflugzeug in der Luft gegen eine unbemannte „Drone“ auszutauschen, um diese dann selbst zur Explosion zu bringen und einen Abschuss vorzutäuschen. Ebenso wurde der Plan einer „Terrorkampagne“ in der eigenen Hauptstadt Washington, sowie die Versenkung eines US-Kriegsschiffes autorisiert. Ziel war es, diese Vorfälle einer feindlichen Macht zu unterstellen, vor der Weltöffentlichkeit das Opfer zu spielen und nachfolgend eine Invasion starten zu können.
Jahr der Entwicklung des Plans: 1962. Zielobjekt: Kuba.
Operation Northwoods
(March 13, 1962)
c. Commence large scale United States military operations.
3. A „Remember the Maine“ incident could be arranged in several forms:
a. We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba.
b. We could blow up a drone (unmanned) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters. We could arrange to cause such incident in the vicinity of Havana or Santiago as a spectacular result of Cuban attack from the air or sea, or both. The presence of Cuban planes or ships merely investigating the intent of the vessel could be fairly compelling evidence that the ship was taken under attack. The nearness to Havana or Santiago would add credibility especially to those people that might have heard the blast or have seen the fire. The US could follow up with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters to „evacuate“ remaining members of the non-existent crew. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.
4. We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington.
The terror campaign could be pointed at refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans en route to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized. Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement, also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government.
Declassified Papers Show Anti-Castro Ideas Proposed to Kennedy
(19. November 1997)
“We could blow up a US warship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba,“ the memorandum said.
“We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington,“ it continued. “The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida (real or simulated).“
The records show that on March 13, 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff endorsed these ideas as “suitable for planning purposes.“ No evidence exists that they were carried out.
Supporters are sending us screenshots of @YouTube telling users trying to rebroadcast my speech, “Peace and Diplomacy,” that it violates their policy on “medical misinformation.” You can still watch the speech here:
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.‘s Peace and Diplomacy Speech
(June 21, 2023)
Marking the anniversary of President John F. Kennedy‘s 1963 „Peace Speech“ at American University, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. announces a fundamentally new direction for American foreign policy. With his election in 2024, our country’s decades-long journey into military imperialism will be over. We will instead become again the exemplar of peace, freedom, and democracy that once inspired the world.
Watch RFK, Jr.‘s June 20 speech that he delivered at Saint Anselm College in the Dana Center-Koonz Theatre in Goffstown, New Hampshire:
Part 2: The Belly of The Daily Beast and Its Perceptible Ties to the CIA
Part 2 of a two-part series takes a deep dive into the history of the CIA’s central role in orchestrating news and editorial coverage in America’s most influential liberal national media outlets — and its continued hold today.
Part 1: CIA’s Extraordinary Role Influencing Liberal Media Outlets Daily Kos, The Daily Beast, Rolling Stone
Part 1 of a two-part series takes a deep dive into the history of the CIA’s central role in orchestrating news and editorial coverage in America’s most influential liberal national media outlets — and its continued hold today.
Join us for a historic speech by RFK, Jr.
Join RFK, Jr. for a
Major Address
Peace and Diplomacy
Tuesday, June 20, 7 pm
St Anselm College
100 Manchester NH 03102
RFK Jr. to Deliver Major Foreign Policy Speech in New Hampshire
Marking the anniversary of President John F Kennedy‘s peace speech at American University, Mr. Kennedy will announce a fundamentally new direction for American foreign policy. With his election in 2024, our country’s decades-long journey into military imperialism will be over. We will instead become again the exemplar of peace, freedom, and democracy that once inspired the world.
(…)
When
June 20
7:00 PM EST
Where
Saint Anslem College
Dana Center-Koonz Theatre
100 Saint Anselm Drive
Manchester, NH 03102
President John F. Kennedy‘s „Peace Speech“
(…)
Presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. brings campaign to San Diego
Hundreds of supporters came out on Memorial Day to see Democratic presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. speak.
Kennedy touched on everything from the COVID lockdown, to Russia‘s invasion of Ukraine, to his concerns that America‘s middle class is in danger of collapse.
Taking the stage at Humphrey‘s on Shelter Island in San Diego, RKF Jr. paid tribute to all fallen service members by quoting his uncle, John F. Kennedy.
In honoring our fallen we must also keep alive the reason that they fought and died for. John F. Kennedy: “As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them.” We must never let our freedoms as Americans die. We cannot truly remember and honor those who fought and died for us and our way of life without remembering and honoring what they died for, lest it be in vain. I believe as Americans we have a duty to ensure that these freedoms remain for generations to come, to support and defend the U.S. Constitution and American founding principles.
Kennedy campaign reminds me of ’68 race
Though my family were avid followers of politics, they were never Kennedy supporters. In spite of that, I found “Bobby’s” anti-war position both brave and admirable.
In the wee hours of June 5, I watched live coverage of the California primary — the last big ticket to the Democratic nomination. My mother and I stayed up for RFK to give his speech, then turned off the TV and went to bed.
That next morning, my mother would wake me with the awful news: Sen. Kennedy had been shot at the hotel in Los Angeles where we’d seen him on TV just hours earlier.
As a Senator, Joe Biden voted for the Assassination Records Act of 1992, requiring that all documents related to the killing of JFK be released by 2017. But President Biden is still keeping thousands of pages heavily redacted, including 44 pages related to a shadowy CIA agent and a covert program that had contact with Lee Harvey Oswald just months before my uncle was killed.
Nobody should be surprised when Americans are distrustful of a government that refuses to reveal 60-year-old secrets. The American people are entitled to see every document, as the law requires.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: „When my uncle came into office, two months later he was fighting his intelligence apparatus and his military… in the middle of Bay of Pigs, he realized they were lying to him. He realized the function of the intelligence agencies had become to provide the military-industrial complex with a constant pipeline of war… … And so the neocons and CIA got to go into Iraq and do regime change. We spent $8 trillion and what did we get for it? Nothing… Iraq is now much worse off than it was when we went in there. We killed more Iraqis than Saddam Hussein ever did.“
(April 20, 2023)
Wie John F. Kennedy erschossen wurde: Sehen Sie genau hin
(19.11.2013)
Vor 50 Jahren filmte Abraham Zapruder die Ermordung des Präsidenten der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika. Bizarrerweise haben in Deutschland die Meisten diese Aufnahmen bis heute nie gesehen. So ging es den U.S.-Amerikanern noch bis 1975, elfeinhalb Jahre nach dem Attentat.
Zapruder, heute bei Wikipedia der arme Mann mit dem Albtraum, hatte nach dem Attentat sofort erkannt, was sein Film wert war. Noch am Abend der Ermordung John F. Kennedys, am 22. November 1963, saß er in einem Interview beim TV-Sender WFAA, nahm sich einen Anwalt und ließ alle interessierten Journalisten seinen Film in einer geschlossenen Vorführung ein einziges Mal ansehen, um ihn meistbietend zu verkaufen. Sofort nach der Filmvorführung trat der Journalist Dan Rather, nach eigener Aussage noch vor allen anderen, vor die Kamera und erklärte, der Zapruder-Film habe gezeigt, wie der Kopf des Präsidenten durch einen von hinten erfolgten Schuss „violently“ (heftig) nach vorne geschleudert worden sei (die Aussage Rathers ist zwischen viel Werbung noch in Teil 5 der Doku „50 Jahre Kennedy-Attentat – Geheimnisse einer amerikanischen Dynastie“ in der VOX Mediathek zusehen).
Danach kaufte das Time Life Magazin von Abraham Zapruder alle Rechte an dessen Film und ließ diesen im Archiv verschwinden. Seit dem Mord an John F. Kennedy waren gerade einmal zwei Tage vergangen.
Bis 1969 wurde die Filmaufnahmen von der Ermordung des U.S.-Präsidenten unter Verschluss gehalten. Dann erzwang der Staatswalt Jim Garrison im Rahmen eines Gerichtsverfahrens vom Time Life Magazine die Herausgabe des Zapruder-Films und war so in der Lage, die Aufnahmen von Kennedy-Attentat wenigstens den Geschworenen zu zeigen. Der Öffentlichkeit wurden die Aufnahmen erst am 6. März 1975 zugänglich gemacht, durch Ausstrahlung im TV Sender ABC (Kino oder Fernsehsender waren damals die einzige Möglichkeit Filmaufnahmen effektiv zu verbreiten).
(…)
Hier nun der Zapruder-Film. Sehen Sie genau hin. Damit fing und fängt alles an.
JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass review – Oliver Stone returns to the grassy knoll
(24 Nov 2021)
But, exasperatingly, and despite speculation being the order of the day, the film never attempts to name any supposed second or third shooter, to say exactly where these gunmen would have been positioned, and how the inevitable witnesses to their activity would have been suppressed. The old question reasserts itself: can you do this with any historical event? Could you, with enough time, undermine the case against Gavrilo Princip in Sarajevo in 1914?
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. files paperwork to run for president as a Democrat
he 69-year-old is the son of former New York senator, US attorney general and assassinated 1968 presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy and the nephew of the late President John F. Kennedy.
Kennedy Jr. is a longtime vaccine skeptic. He has promoted discredited claims linking vaccines and autism and founded the anti-vaccine organization Children’s Health Defense. He has also railed against the coronavirus vaccine and has criticized the federal government’s handling of the pandemic.
Operation Northwoods
(March 13, 1962)
c. Commence large scale United States military operations.
3. A „Remember the Maine“ incident could be arranged in several forms:
a. We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba.
b. We could blow up a drone (unmanned) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters. We could arrange to cause such incident in the vicinity of Havana or Santiago as a spectacular result of Cuban attack from the air or sea, or both. The presence of Cuban planes or ships merely investigating the intent of the vessel could be fairly compelling evidence that the ship was taken under attack. The nearness to Havana or Santiago would add credibility especially to those people that might have heard the blast or have seen the fire. The US could follow up with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters to „evacuate“ remaining members of the non-existent crew. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.
4. We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington.
The terror campaign could be pointed at refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans en route to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized. Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement, also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government.
Declassified Papers Show Anti-Castro Ideas Proposed to Kennedy
(19. November 1997)
“We could blow up a US warship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba,“ the memorandum said.
“We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington,“ it continued. “The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida (real or simulated).“
The records show that on March 13, 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff endorsed these ideas as “suitable for planning purposes.“ No evidence exists that they were carried out.
Operation Northwoods
(March 9, 2010)
Operation Northwoods was a plan circulated in the U.S. government in 1962 to stage false flag terrorist attacks inside the U.S. and abroad to provoke “military intervention in Cuba”. The plan called for Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or other operatives to commit genuine acts of terrorism in U.S. cities and elsewhere. These acts of terrorism were to be blamed on Cuba in order to create public support for a war against that nation, which had recently become communist under Fidel Castro. One part of the Operation Northwoods plan was to “develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington.” The document was signed by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Lyman Lemnitzer and reportedly presented to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13, 1962.
The previously Top Secret document was originally made public on November 18, 1997, by the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board, a U.S. federal agency overseeing the release of government records related to John F. Kennedy’s assassination.
Wie John F. Kennedy erschossen wurde: Sehen Sie genau hin
(19.11.2013)
Vor 50 Jahren filmte Abraham Zapruder die Ermordung des Präsidenten der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika. Bizarrerweise haben in Deutschland die Meisten diese Aufnahmen bis heute nie gesehen. So ging es den U.S.-Amerikanern noch bis 1975, elfeinhalb Jahre nach dem Attentat.
Zapruder, heute bei Wikipedia der arme Mann mit dem Albtraum, hatte nach dem Attentat sofort erkannt, was sein Film wert war. Noch am Abend der Ermordung John F. Kennedys, am 22. November 1963, saß er in einem Interview beim TV-Sender WFAA, nahm sich einen Anwalt und ließ alle interessierten Journalisten seinen Film in einer geschlossenen Vorführung ein einziges Mal ansehen, um ihn meistbietend zu verkaufen. Sofort nach der Filmvorführung trat der Journalist Dan Rather, nach eigener Aussage noch vor allen anderen, vor die Kamera und erklärte, der Zapruder-Film habe gezeigt, wie der Kopf des Präsidenten durch einen von hinten erfolgten Schuss „violently“ (heftig) nach vorne geschleudert worden sei (die Aussage Rathers ist zwischen viel Werbung noch in Teil 5 der Doku „50 Jahre Kennedy-Attentat – Geheimnisse einer amerikanischen Dynastie“ in der VOX Mediathek zusehen).
Danach kaufte das Time Life Magazin von Abraham Zapruder alle Rechte an dessen Film und ließ diesen im Archiv verschwinden. Seit dem Mord an John F. Kennedy waren gerade einmal zwei Tage vergangen.
Bis 1969 wurde die Filmaufnahmen von der Ermordung des U.S.-Präsidenten unter Verschluss gehalten. Dann erzwang der Staatswalt Jim Garrison im Rahmen eines Gerichtsverfahrens vom Time Life Magazine die Herausgabe des Zapruder-Films und war so in der Lage, die Aufnahmen von Kennedy-Attentat wenigstens den Geschworenen zu zeigen. Der Öffentlichkeit wurden die Aufnahmen erst am 6. März 1975 zugänglich gemacht, durch Ausstrahlung im TV Sender ABC (Kino oder Fernsehsender waren damals die einzige Möglichkeit Filmaufnahmen effektiv zu verbreiten).
(…)
Hier nun der Zapruder-Film. Sehen Sie genau hin. Damit fing und fängt alles an.
CIA Document 1035-960 – Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report
(01. April 1967)
Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission‘s report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse results.
(…)
Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.
3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active, however, addresses are requested:
a. To discuss the publicity problem with liaison and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.
b. To employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (I) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories.
(…)
4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:
a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider. The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim Joesten and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case; however, unlike that case, the attack on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence, no new culprits have been convincingly identified, and there is no agreement among the critics. (A better parallel, though an imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire of 1933, which some competent historians (Fritz Tobias, AJ.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt) now believe was set by Vander Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for either Nazis or Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists, but the latter have been more successful in convincing the world that the Nazis were to blame.)
There‘s a conspiracy theory that the CIA invented the term ‚conspiracy theory‘ – here‘s why
(March 16, 2020)
One may find the CIA’s attempt to influence public opinion problematic. But there is not a single sentence in the document that indicates the CIA intended to weaponise, let alone introduce the term “conspiracy theory” to disqualify criticism. In fact, “conspiracy theory” in the singular is never used in the document. “Conspiracy theories” in the plural is only used once, matter-of-factly in the third paragraph:
Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organisation, for example, by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us.
CIA Document 1035-960 – Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report
(01. April 1967)
1. Our Concern. From the day of President Kennedy‘s assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder. Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report, (which appeared at the end of September 1964), various writers have now had time to scan the Commission‘s published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission‘s findings. In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy, and often they have implied that the Commission itself was involved. Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission‘s report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse results.
(…)
Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.
3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active [business] addresses are requested:
a. To discuss the publicity problem with [?] and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.
b. To employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (I) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories.
(…)
4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:
a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider. The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim Joesten and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case; however, unlike that case, the attack on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence, no new culprits have been convincingly identified, and there is no agreement among the critics. (A better parallel, though an imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire of 1933, which some competent historians (Fritz Tobias, AJ.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt) now believe was set by Vander Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for either Nazis or Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists, but the latter have been more successful in convincing the world that the Nazis were to blame.)
Covid-19-Pandemie – 9/11 2001: ein Prozess permanenter Retraumatisierung
Ähnlich wie es zu John F. Kennedys Ermordung im Jahre 1963 viele Menschen weltweit empfanden, können sich noch viele Menschen an die durch Flugzeugangriffe verursachten, immer wieder über die Bildschirme flimmernden Einstürze der WTC-Türme in Lower Manhattan, New York, erinnern. Es war ein gravierender Schockzustand, in den die Menschen weltweit und insbesondere in den USA in eine „kollektive Traumatisierung der ganzen amerikanischen Nation“ versetzt wurden. „Dieser Schock war die Voraussetzung, die Menschen zu steuern und den gesamten Globus emotional zu kidnappen“, schreibt der bekannte Enthüllungsautor Gerhard Wisnewski 2019, „denn mit Bildern kann man uns einfach alles verkaufen und alles in uns auslösen: zum Beispiel Liebe, Mitleid und auch Hass. Und ein Psychotrauma ist schließlich eine übermächtige Emotion und eine emotionale und kognitive Überforderung des Gefühls- und Denkapparates. Und je stärker sich jemand mit dem Anschlagsziel und dem ausgelösten Leid identifiziert, umso stärker wird dieser sich auch betroffen fühlen, auch wenn er möglicherweise die Bilder im TV gar nicht selbst gesehen hat.“
‘An outrage against democracy’: JFK‘s nephews urge Biden to reveal assassination records
“It’s an outrage. It’s an outrage against American democracy. We’re not supposed to have secret governments within the government,” Robert F. Kennedy Jr. told POLITICO. “How the hell is it 58 years later, and what in the world could justify not releasing these documents?”
His cousin, former Rhode Island Rep. Patrick Kennedy, said the records should be released not because of his family, but because American citizens have a right to know about “something that left such a scar in this nation’s soul that lost not only a president but a promise of a brighter future.”
Zapruder Film Slow Motion
Zapruder Film Slow Motion.
Wie John F. Kennedy erschossen wurde: Sehen Sie genau hin
(19.11.2013)
Vor 50 Jahren filmte Abraham Zapruder die Ermordung des Präsidenten der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika. Bizarrerweise haben in Deutschland die Meisten diese Aufnahmen bis heute nie gesehen. So ging es den U.S.-Amerikanern noch bis 1975, elfeinhalb Jahre nach dem Attentat.
Zapruder, heute bei Wikipedia der arme Mann mit dem Albtraum, hatte nach dem Attentat sofort erkannt, was sein Film wert war. Noch am Abend der Ermordung John F. Kennedys, am 22. November 1963, saß er in einem Interview beim TV-Sender WFAA, nahm sich einen Anwalt und ließ alle interessierten Journalisten seinen Film in einer geschlossenen Vorführung ein einziges Mal ansehen, um ihn meistbietend zu verkaufen. Sofort nach der Filmvorführung trat der Journalist Dan Rather, nach eigener Aussage noch vor allen anderen, vor die Kamera und erklärte, der Zapruder-Film habe gezeigt, wie der Kopf des Präsidenten durch einen von hinten erfolgten Schuss „violently“ (heftig) nach vorne geschleudert worden sei (die Aussage Rathers ist zwischen viel Werbung noch in Teil 5 der Doku „50 Jahre Kennedy-Attentat – Geheimnisse einer amerikanischen Dynastie“ in der VOX Mediathek zusehen).
Danach kaufte das Time Life Magazin von Abraham Zapruder alle Rechte an dessen Film und ließ diesen im Archiv verschwinden. Seit dem Mord an John F. Kennedy waren gerade einmal zwei Tage vergangen.
Bis 1969 wurde die Filmaufnahmen von der Ermordung des U.S.-Präsidenten unter Verschluss gehalten. Dann erzwang der Staatswalt Jim Garrison im Rahmen eines Gerichtsverfahrens vom Time Life Magazine die Herausgabe des Zapruder-Films und war so in der Lage, die Aufnahmen von Kennedy-Attentat wenigstens den Geschworenen zu zeigen. Der Öffentlichkeit wurden die Aufnahmen erst am 6. März 1975 zugänglich gemacht, durch Ausstrahlung im TV Sender ABC (Kino oder Fernsehsender waren damals die einzige Möglichkeit Filmaufnahmen effektiv zu verbreiten).
Biden delays release of JFK assassination records, blaming COVID-19 pandemic
In 1992, Congress ruled that „all Government records concerning the assassination of President John F. Kennedy … should be eventually disclosed to enable the public to become fully informed about the history surrounding the assassination.“
The act allowed the government to postpone the release to „protect against an identifiable harm to the military defense, intelligence operations, law enforcement or the conduct of foreign relations,“ according to Biden‘s memo.
White House Once Again Delays Release of JFK Assassination Documents
The memo doesn’t actually go into detail on how the pandemic affected the review process, only noting that the national archivist had requested the delay in the release of the documents because the pandemic “has had a significant impact on the agencies” reviewing the redactions in the document.
Declassified Papers Show Anti-Castro Ideas Proposed to Kennedy
(19. November 1997)
“We could blow up a US warship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba,“ the memorandum said.
“We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington,“ it continued. “The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida (real or simulated).“
The records show that on March 13, 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff endorsed these ideas as “suitable for planning purposes.“ No evidence exists that they were carried out.
Operation Northwoods
Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the U.S. Department of Defense to stage acts of simulated or real terrorism on US soil and against U.S. interests and then put the blame of these acts on Cuba in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government of Fidel Castro. As part of the U.S. government‘s Operation Mongoose anti-Castro initiative, the plan, which was not implemented, called for various false flag actions, including simulated or real state-sponsored acts of terrorism on U.S. and Cuban soil. The plan was proposed by senior U.S. Department of Defense leaders, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Lyman Louis Lemnitzer.
DER 11. SEPTEMBER: Duplikat, Drone, Plan
(12. September 2014)
Bereits vor Jahrzehnten entwickelte das Militär der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika den Plan ein eigenes ziviles Passagierflugzeug in der Luft gegen eine unbemannte „Drone“ auszutauschen, um diese dann selbst zur Explosion zu bringen und einen Abschuss vorzutäuschen. Ebenso wurde der Plan einer „Terrorkampagne“ in der eigenen Hauptstadt Washington, sowie die Versenkung eines US-Kriegsschiffes autorisiert. Ziel war es, diese Vorfälle einer feindlichen Macht zu unterstellen, vor der Weltöffentlichkeit das Opfer zu spielen und nachfolgend eine Invasion starten zu können.
Jahr der Entwicklung des Plans: 1962. Zielobjekt: Kuba.
CIA Document 1035-960 – Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report
(01. April 1967)
1. Our Concern. From the day of President Kennedy‘s assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder. Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report, (which appeared at the end of September 1964), various writers have now had time to scan the Commission‘s published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission‘s findings. In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy, and often they have implied that the Commission itself was involved. Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission‘s report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse results.
(…)
Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.
3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active [business] addresses are requested:
a. To discuss the publicity problem with [?] and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.
b. To employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (I) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories.
(…)
4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:
a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider. The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim Joesten and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case; however, unlike that case, the attack on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence, no new culprits have been convincingly identified, and there is no agreement among the critics. (A better parallel, though an imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire of 1933, which some competent historians (Fritz Tobias, AJ.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt) now believe was set by Vander Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for either Nazis or Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists, but the latter have been more successful in convincing the world that the Nazis were to blame.)
CIA Document 1035-960 – Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report
(01. April 1967)
1. Our Concern. From the day of President Kennedy‘s assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder. Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report, (which appeared at the end of September 1964), various writers have now had time to scan the Commission‘s published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission‘s findings. In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy, and often they have implied that the Commission itself was involved. Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission‘s report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse results.
(…)
Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.
3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active [business] addresses are requested:
a. To discuss the publicity problem with [?] and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.
b. To employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (I) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories.
(…)
4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:
a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider. The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim Joesten and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case; however, unlike that case, the attack on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence, no new culprits have been convincingly identified, and there is no agreement among the critics. (A better parallel, though an imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire of 1933, which some competent historians (Fritz Tobias, AJ.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt) now believe was set by Vander Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for either Nazis or Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists, but the latter have been more successful in convincing the world that the Nazis were to blame.)
CIA Document 1035-960 – Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report
(01. April 1967)
1. Our Concern. From the day of President Kennedy‘s assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder. Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report, (which appeared at the end of September 1964), various writers have now had time to scan the Commission‘s published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission‘s findings. In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy, and often they have implied that the Commission itself was involved. Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission‘s report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse results.
(…)
Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.
3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active [business] addresses are requested:
a. To discuss the publicity problem with [?] and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.
b. To employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (I) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories.
(…)
4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:
a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider. The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim Joesten and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case; however, unlike that case, the attack on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence, no new culprits have been convincingly identified, and there is no agreement among the critics. (A better parallel, though an imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire of 1933, which some competent historians (Fritz Tobias, AJ.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt) now believe was set by Vander Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for either Nazis or Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists, but the latter have been more successful in convincing the world that the Nazis were to blame.)
DER 11. SEPTEMBER: Duplikat, Drone, Plan
(12. September 2014)
Bereits vor Jahrzehnten entwickelte das Militär der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika den Plan ein eigenes ziviles Passagierflugzeug in der Luft gegen eine unbemannte „Drone“ auszutauschen, um diese dann selbst zur Explosion zu bringen und einen Abschuss vorzutäuschen. Ebenso wurde der Plan einer „Terrorkampagne“ in der eigenen Hauptstadt Washington, sowie die Versenkung eines US-Kriegsschiffes autorisiert. Ziel war es, diese Vorfälle einer feindlichen Macht zu unterstellen, vor der Weltöffentlichkeit das Opfer zu spielen und nachfolgend eine Invasion starten zu können.
Jahr der Entwicklung des Plans: 1962. Zielobjekt: Kuba.