Posted on 10/11/2025 2:02:35 AM PDT by CharlesOConnell
Of major assassinations in the past 65 years, JFK, RFK, Lee Harvey Oswald & Charlie Kirk were executed in the presence of large numbers of witnesses or with significant, direct media coverage of the assassinations.
The question, perhaps unanswerable, is, is there a message or effect intended here, with the high public exposure in those cases?
Jeffrey Epstein and, strangely, MLK, were either "suicided" or outright assassinated in a relatively confined environment, in the absence of a high number or witness or with only limited media exposure of the actual killings.
The determining issue about Epstein's secretive "suiciding" seems obvious. In MLK's case, there is permissible speculation that he could have coalesced significant opposition to the Viet Nam war, so that his killing in public highlight might have worked against the intended effect of dampening anti-war sentiment. As it was, his killing evoked minority riots in many major cities, but it has been argued that destabilizing the country was in line with high plans, so hard-nosed government authorities could continue doing what they wanted in the face of significant opposition--it pushed into majority public disfavor, African-Americans who had previously been sympathetically portrayed in the media earlier in the 1960s; but with the Black radical movement, there was a trend toward disfavoring "uppity" Blacks, that could have been exploited, even if this is not true.
Especially in the early years of the Vietnam War, African Americans were drafted and sent to combat at disproportionately high rates compared to their share of the U.S. population. If the MLK killing had been conducted in a high media exposure environment, garnering sympathy for Blacks, it could have caused blowback against agency plans that would have actually increased anti-war sentiment among the general public, out of sympathy with their earlier Civil Rights era conditioning. As it was, rioters' actions might be thought of as playing right into the hands of the authorities, whether or not this was a result of manipulation.
In the midst of the MLK hagiography, it isn't generally recognized that he was a far-radical leftist, perhaps virtually a Communist. (This is to steer clear of other personal foibles, which wouldn't tend to highlight the question.)
Regardless of how disputable these ideas are, it seems true that MLK's killing was not conducted in high public profile; it was only publicized in the aftermath, with a memorable photo of Andrew Young and Jesse Jackson present on a motel balcony. But that might have conformed perfectly with agency plans.
(It has been legitimately argued that there was a planned campaign of fostering drugs, sex and rock'n'roll among the 1960s students who could have formed a significant opposition to the Viet Nam war, as a 3-letter agency psy-op. A film titled "Berkeley in the Sixties" starts with neat, tie and jacket clad students being hosed down the UC Berkeley Administration steps by Police; but by the end of the film, it was the familiar hippie look. LSD had been fostered by an agency as a truth-serum; it failed in that but was ideally suited for provoking acting out to help delegitimize 1960s anti-war students in the minds of ordinary Americans, who overwhelmingly elected Nixon, especially in his second campaign against looney-left George McGovern. LSD chemist, Owsley Stanley, mentioned several times in Tom Wolfe’s 1968 book "The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test", is supposed to have been an agency asset. It has been rumored that the parents of the Grateful Dead were agency assets. All disputable, of course; but if these assertions were remotely true, they wouldn't have been plastered at the top of CBS News, the Washington Post or the NY Times.)
The core of the question, "Why are major assassinations conducted in the presence of a large number of witnesses?", should be posed in opposition to the typical image of a secretive "hit", as thought of as being done nearly in complete isolation. And given that only about half of murders are solved, and that the actual moment of homicide is not witnessed in 60-75% of cases, it then seems, that when a major assassination occurs in high public visibility, there is a message or a manipulation of public opinion which is intended by the responsible authorities.
Great response! Thanks!
Kirk had an up close security detail of his own making. You couldn’t throw a brick at him but could get up on a nearby unsecured rooftop. How is that making it any more real ? Didn’t he also have a bullet proof vest ?
If I had the mind of an assassin, maybe I’d know how an assassin thinks.
Fear and confusion, Charles, simply fear and confusion.
Because the killer is also crazed with attention seeking.
Yep, absolutely. A Billboard.
A bulletproof vest wouldn’t have helped him.
The bullet hit in the neck where the vest would not have covered.
Please tell me you're not that stupid. A name and a county will bring up property information on most county property tax websites.
Public figures would need to own no property to remain invisible.
The truly determined can find their address. Simply following them home, like with what has happened with ICE employees, would also render their address.
Now, unless there is some exclusion law that hides a public figure's property tax information you made a truly ignorant comment.
Well, a Cessna was crashed at the White House. Also, machine gun fire was aimed at the White House during Clinton’s term. There was also a credible plan in Manila on Clinton by Middle Eastern terrorists in Manila, Philippines, forcing a parade route to be changed.
Regarding public assassinations: RFK, John Lennon, and UHC head Brian Thompson had no huge crowds around.
That answers your question.
Why? Because that’s when the target is most exposed and can be shot from a distance without interference in the actual act.
Duhhh...
“Now, unless there is some exclusion law that hides a public figure’s property tax information you made a truly ignorant comment.”
I often owned properties in an LLC, a search wouldn’t reveal my name, just an LLC name (like “ABC Partners”) and a post office box.
Evidently he wasn’t but the bullet could still have ricocheted off a vest or body armour onto his neck.
Kill the chicken to scare the monkeys.
That is when an assassin knows where the intended victim is and will be prominently visible.
“Assassinations are meant to be a public statement.”
You have found the rabbit hole.
Now for a peek down into it:
“”Revelation of the Method” is a concept in occult practices that suggests a requirement for the hidden powers to reveal their actions to the public, even if in a disguised or symbolic form. This revelation serves several purposes:
Moral and Cosmic Balance: By revealing their methods, these powers believe they balance the cosmic scales. It’s thought to be a way to avoid karmic repercussions by providing the public with an opportunity to know and potentially resist.
Desensitization: Repeated exposure to these revelations, often through media, literature, or symbolic representations, is believed to desensitise the public. This gradual exposure makes the public more accepting of the hidden powers’ actions and less likely to resist or recognise them as malevolent.
Psychological Manipulation: The revelation is also considered a form of psychological manipulation, creating a sense of inevitability and powerlessness among the general population. By showing their hand, the hidden powers foster a belief that their control is so absolute that they can flaunt it without fear of opposition.
Occult Tradition: In the context of occult practices, revealing the method aligns with certain esoteric traditions that value the dissemination of hidden knowledge, albeit in a coded or symbolic manner. This serves both as a rite and a way to communicate with those “in the know.””
https://x.com/TheProjectUnity/status/1816998609054785769
I’d say the simple answer is to promote fear.
[Please tell me you’re not that stupid. A name and a county will bring up property information on most county property tax websites.
Public figures would need to own no property to remain invisible.
The truly determined can find their address. Simply following them home, like with what has happened with ICE employees, would also render their address.
Now, unless there is some exclusion law that hides a public figure’s property tax information you made a truly ignorant comment.]
He shook hands, handed out hats, people could see him in person up close...
Its a trade off between accessibility vs. security.
The people want access. You want them to have access. The energy from a live event, people meeting you in person is far greater than some podcast or YouTube video.
The security detail wants to wrap you in a fireproof blanket and lay you on a shelf in a bunker, location kept secret, put inside a granite mountain, without any means to communicate.
It’s a tradeoff.
Sometimes it’s just pure luck that prevents a disaster: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Arutyunian
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.