HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » GHW Bush, JFK's assassina...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 09:00 PM

 

GHW Bush, JFK's assassination, the CIA and drugs

I for one will not shed any tears on the demise of this evil man.

JFK

One of most explosive under-reported stories of the last 50 years is the deathbed confession of E. Howard Hunt, who was personal assistant to Allen Dulles, head of the CIA at the time, to knowledge that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone and that he, Hunt, had been personally involved in the assassination. Hunt said in his written confession that the assassination was code-named "the Big Event."

It changed the course of history. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara confirmed that JFK was going to withdraw from Vietnam, thus clipping the wings of the military-industrial complex and saving 58,000 American lives. JFK also said that he would “splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.” No new awakening or restoration of the republic can take place without first confronting the truth about JFK.

Also little known, but well-detailed in Russ Baker's book "Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America's Invisible Government, and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years," is the strong connection between Lee Harvey Oswald and George HW Bush (the senior Bush.) George de Mohrenschildt was a Bush family friend and a roommate of Bush's nephew at Andover prep school. De Mohrenschildt was also Lee Harvey Oswald's main handler and closest friend in the States. This connection has been completely ignored by scholars of the assassination.

It is well-known now that Bush was in Dallas on the day of the assassination, but lied about it.

The Wikipedia entry on George de Mohrenschildt begins:

George de Mohrenschildt (April 17, 1911 – March 29, 1977) was a petroleum geologist and professor who befriended Lee Harvey Oswald in the summer of 1962 and maintained that friendship until Oswald's death, two days after the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy. He was acquainted with the Bush family, including George H. W. Bush, with whose nephew, Edward G. Hooker, he had been roommates at Phillips Academy in Andover, Massachusetts.
On September 5, 1976, De Mohrenschildt wrote a letter to the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, George H. W. Bush asking for his assistance in "removing a net" of surveillance from around him. The letter said:

"You will excuse this hand-written letter. Maybe you will be able to bring a solution to the hopeless situation I find myself in. My wife and I find ourselves surrounded by some vigilantes; our phone bugged; and we are being followed everywhere. Either FBI is involved in this or they do not want to accept my complaints. We are driven to insanity by the situation. I have been behaving like a damn fool ever since my daughter Nadya died from over three years ago. I tried to write, stupidly and unsuccessfully, about Lee H Oswald and must have angered a lot of people — I do not know. But to punish an elderly man like myself and my highly nervous and sick wife is really too much. Could you do something to remove the net around us? This will be my last request for help and I will not annoy you any more. Good luck in your important job. Thank you so much."
Bush answered in a letter that he could not help. Soon after that De Mohrenschildt apparently killed himself. Richardson Preyer, then chairman of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, said: "He was a crucial witness."

E. Howard Hunt went on to be a key player in Watergate, as a member of the Nixon administration, and ran many controversial CIA operations such as the coup against Arbenz, a democratically-elected president, in Guatemala.

Continued at :-


http://ian56.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/gwh-bush-jfk-cia-drugs.html


296 replies, 28763 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 296 replies Author Time Post
Reply GHW Bush, JFK's assassination, the CIA and drugs (Original post)
Ian62 Dec 2012 OP
dballance Dec 2012 #1
rhett o rick Dec 2012 #4
NEOBuckeye Dec 2012 #24
rhett o rick Dec 2012 #39
kelliekat44 Dec 2012 #228
kelliekat44 Dec 2012 #257
Mc Mike Dec 2012 #260
coalition_unwilling Dec 2012 #262
MinM Dec 2012 #266
coalition_unwilling Dec 2012 #267
zappaman Dec 2012 #269
coalition_unwilling Dec 2012 #271
zappaman Dec 2012 #272
Mc Mike Dec 2012 #273
Mc Mike Jan 2013 #294
MinM Dec 2012 #258
Ter Dec 2012 #30
MrMickeysMom Dec 2012 #34
barbtries Dec 2012 #84
dballance Dec 2012 #127
cpwm17 Dec 2012 #57
dballance Dec 2012 #65
cpwm17 Dec 2012 #76
OldDem2012 Dec 2012 #81
cpwm17 Dec 2012 #82
OldDem2012 Dec 2012 #83
BlueNoteSpecial Dec 2012 #157
wildbilln864 Dec 2012 #162
cpwm17 Dec 2012 #199
wildbilln864 Dec 2012 #233
stopbush Dec 2012 #158
cpwm17 Dec 2012 #173
dballance Dec 2012 #194
Cooley Hurd Dec 2012 #201
Octafish Dec 2012 #206
Cooley Hurd Dec 2012 #207
Octafish Dec 2012 #211
Cooley Hurd Dec 2012 #214
Cooley Hurd Dec 2012 #200
coalition_unwilling Dec 2012 #204
Eddie Haskell Dec 2012 #285
Cooley Hurd Dec 2012 #286
Cooley Hurd Dec 2012 #70
Festivito Dec 2012 #123
Cooley Hurd Dec 2012 #136
dballance Dec 2012 #195
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #71
Octafish Dec 2012 #85
HangOnKids Dec 2012 #135
Berlum Dec 2012 #245
dballance Dec 2012 #115
rwsanders Dec 2012 #153
stevenleser Dec 2012 #264
rwsanders Jan 2013 #295
coalition_unwilling Dec 2012 #80
zappaman Dec 2012 #101
coalition_unwilling Dec 2012 #148
zappaman Dec 2012 #151
Mr Dixon Dec 2012 #113
NBachers Dec 2012 #2
tblue Dec 2012 #19
marlakay Dec 2012 #97
rwsanders Dec 2012 #160
Last Stand Dec 2012 #180
Ian62 Dec 2012 #197
roguevalley Dec 2012 #3
Ian62 Dec 2012 #6
roguevalley Dec 2012 #50
UTUSN Dec 2012 #79
rhett o rick Dec 2012 #5
MrMickeysMom Dec 2012 #35
rhett o rick Dec 2012 #38
MrMickeysMom Dec 2012 #92
rhett o rick Dec 2012 #93
rwsanders Dec 2012 #161
MrMickeysMom Dec 2012 #190
dflprincess Dec 2012 #107
wildbilln864 Dec 2012 #166
Samantha Dec 2012 #7
Cooley Hurd Dec 2012 #9
coalition_unwilling Dec 2012 #96
MessiahRp Dec 2012 #139
coalition_unwilling Dec 2012 #149
zappaman Dec 2012 #152
coalition_unwilling Dec 2012 #155
zappaman Dec 2012 #159
kskiska Dec 2012 #248
zappaman Dec 2012 #251
MinM Dec 2012 #256
coalition_unwilling Dec 2012 #268
MinM Feb 2013 #296
PCIntern Dec 2012 #253
coalition_unwilling Dec 2012 #255
zappaman Dec 2012 #261
coalition_unwilling Dec 2012 #182
Samantha Dec 2012 #164
boomer55 Dec 2012 #114
Samantha Dec 2012 #167
Cooley Hurd Dec 2012 #8
arthritisR_US Dec 2012 #10
Cooley Hurd Dec 2012 #11
arthritisR_US Dec 2012 #14
Cooley Hurd Dec 2012 #15
LanternWaste Dec 2012 #88
Cooley Hurd Dec 2012 #94
whathehell Dec 2012 #169
Cooley Hurd Dec 2012 #177
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #224
zappaman Dec 2012 #225
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #227
cpwm17 Dec 2012 #235
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #246
Ian62 Dec 2012 #288
Ian62 Dec 2012 #290
Ian62 Dec 2012 #291
cpwm17 Dec 2012 #292
Cooley Hurd Dec 2012 #232
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #29
cpwm17 Dec 2012 #54
dballance Dec 2012 #121
cpwm17 Dec 2012 #130
dballance Dec 2012 #132
Cooley Hurd Dec 2012 #178
freedom fighter jh Dec 2012 #147
wildbilln864 Dec 2012 #234
freedom fighter jh Dec 2012 #244
cpwm17 Dec 2012 #243
freedom fighter jh Dec 2012 #247
cpwm17 Dec 2012 #249
freedom fighter jh Dec 2012 #250
Cooley Hurd Dec 2012 #69
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #99
zappaman Dec 2012 #102
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #118
joshcryer Dec 2012 #187
Cooley Hurd Dec 2012 #241
Boomerproud Dec 2012 #52
Cooley Hurd Dec 2012 #61
Boomerproud Dec 2012 #145
Cooley Hurd Dec 2012 #163
wildbilln864 Dec 2012 #236
Cooley Hurd Dec 2012 #237
wildbilln864 Dec 2012 #239
Cooley Hurd Dec 2012 #240
Jim Warren Dec 2012 #62
Cooley Hurd Dec 2012 #66
Jim Warren Dec 2012 #122
Cooley Hurd Dec 2012 #137
Jim Warren Dec 2012 #185
Cooley Hurd Dec 2012 #193
Ian62 Dec 2012 #87
Cooley Hurd Dec 2012 #95
Taverner Dec 2012 #280
Taverner Dec 2012 #282
Arugula Latte Dec 2012 #12
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #73
zappaman Dec 2012 #104
MrMickeysMom Dec 2012 #111
MADem Dec 2012 #202
Jim Warren Dec 2012 #13
Marie Marie Dec 2012 #16
JazzQuipster Dec 2012 #22
2pooped2pop Dec 2012 #28
Jim Warren Dec 2012 #36
calimary Dec 2012 #42
arthritisR_US Dec 2012 #63
coalition_unwilling Dec 2012 #90
PCIntern Dec 2012 #254
MannyGoldstein Dec 2012 #75
coalition_unwilling Dec 2012 #86
zappaman Dec 2012 #105
whathehell Dec 2012 #176
JazzQuipster Dec 2012 #198
zappaman Dec 2012 #218
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #20
glinda Dec 2012 #31
Blue_In_AK Dec 2012 #17
OldDem2012 Dec 2012 #18
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #21
frogmarch Dec 2012 #23
Tumbulu Dec 2012 #27
cpwm17 Dec 2012 #51
Octafish Dec 2012 #98
zappaman Dec 2012 #108
Octafish Dec 2012 #110
zappaman Dec 2012 #112
Octafish Dec 2012 #188
zappaman Dec 2012 #219
Octafish Dec 2012 #223
zappaman Dec 2012 #226
Octafish Dec 2012 #229
zappaman Dec 2012 #252
Octafish Dec 2012 #259
zappaman Dec 2012 #263
Octafish Dec 2012 #265
zappaman Dec 2012 #270
Octafish Dec 2012 #274
zappaman Dec 2012 #283
Octafish Dec 2012 #287
MinM Dec 2012 #275
zappaman Dec 2012 #281
MinM Dec 2012 #289
Taverner Dec 2012 #284
jberryhill Dec 2012 #276
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #32
watoos Dec 2012 #25
brettdale Dec 2012 #26
dflprincess Dec 2012 #33
OldDem2012 Dec 2012 #49
arthritisR_US Dec 2012 #64
coalition_unwilling Dec 2012 #89
arthritisR_US Dec 2012 #103
coalition_unwilling Dec 2012 #181
MinM Dec 2012 #128
OldDem2012 Dec 2012 #142
coalition_unwilling Dec 2012 #179
MinM Dec 2012 #203
coalition_unwilling Dec 2012 #205
zappaman Dec 2012 #222
Octafish Dec 2012 #230
wildbilln864 Dec 2012 #238
calimary Dec 2012 #43
OldDem2012 Dec 2012 #53
reteachinwi Dec 2012 #37
calimary Dec 2012 #45
reteachinwi Dec 2012 #55
calimary Dec 2012 #58
reteachinwi Dec 2012 #77
OldDem2012 Dec 2012 #56
calimary Dec 2012 #59
colsohlibgal Dec 2012 #40
Jim Warren Dec 2012 #41
Gabi Hayes Dec 2012 #44
MessiahRp Dec 2012 #143
Gabi Hayes Dec 2012 #231
LongTomH Dec 2012 #184
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #46
cpwm17 Dec 2012 #48
VOX Dec 2012 #116
cpwm17 Dec 2012 #124
MessiahRp Dec 2012 #141
cpwm17 Dec 2012 #144
MessiahRp Dec 2012 #150
zappaman Dec 2012 #154
MessiahRp Dec 2012 #165
zappaman Dec 2012 #171
Samantha Dec 2012 #168
zappaman Dec 2012 #220
Octafish Dec 2012 #213
Cooley Hurd Dec 2012 #67
Matariki Dec 2012 #47
Mc Mike Dec 2012 #68
Jim Warren Dec 2012 #60
JazzQuipster Dec 2012 #72
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #74
OldDem2012 Dec 2012 #78
coalition_unwilling Dec 2012 #91
OldDem2012 Dec 2012 #133
zappaman Dec 2012 #172
coalition_unwilling Dec 2012 #183
OldDem2012 Dec 2012 #189
zappaman Dec 2012 #196
Samantha Dec 2012 #170
jberryhill Dec 2012 #277
Peace Patriot Dec 2012 #100
MinM Dec 2012 #120
MinM Dec 2012 #279
Stewland Dec 2012 #146
Samantha Dec 2012 #174
Peace Patriot Dec 2012 #191
reteachinwi Dec 2012 #175
LongTomH Dec 2012 #186
madrchsod Dec 2012 #106
KansDem Dec 2012 #119
madrchsod Dec 2012 #129
santamargarita Dec 2012 #109
Mr Dixon Dec 2012 #117
robbob Dec 2012 #125
KittyWampus Dec 2012 #131
OldDem2012 Dec 2012 #140
coalition_unwilling Dec 2012 #209
OldDem2012 Dec 2012 #217
zappaman Dec 2012 #221
OldDem2012 Dec 2012 #138
coalition_unwilling Dec 2012 #208
cpwm17 Dec 2012 #210
zappaman Dec 2012 #212
cpwm17 Dec 2012 #215
green for victory Dec 2012 #216
Cooley Hurd Dec 2012 #242
jberryhill Dec 2012 #278
benld74 Dec 2012 #126
Blue_In_AK Dec 2012 #192
avebury Dec 2012 #134
wildbilln864 Dec 2012 #156
Mc Mike Jan 2013 #293

Response to Ian62 (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 09:14 PM

1. Anyone who believes Oswald acted alone is a fool

Come on, just look at the Zapruder film. JFK's head is struck so and it peals backwards away from any possible bullets from the school book depository. The initial autopsy reports from the hospital in TX describe an EXIT wound at the BACK of JFK's head. Not an entry wound.

JFK pissed off the CIA and other factions and they killed him. It's quite obvious to anyone who objectively reviews the evidence now. And GHW Bush was right there in the middle of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 09:38 PM

4. But, but life is so much easier w/o complications. Denial is sooo nice sometimes. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #4)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 11:26 PM

24. Denial is the undoing of these United States

A house built of cards will come tumbling down sooner or later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NEOBuckeye (Reply #24)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:09 AM

39. I agree. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NEOBuckeye (Reply #24)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 09:08 PM

228. Back in early 1970's, published in, of all places, Computer World, was a very detailed discussion

on the JFK assassination. Included was a list of people connected to JFK and the assassination who all, at that time, were dead due to strange circumstances. After graduating from American U, where I first read the article, I tried to get hold of copies of the article but it had mysteriously disappeared from the library there and subsequent attempts to locate other copies were not successful. At the time, I thought it was very strange that this kind of detailed article on JFK and all the circumstances surrounding and involved in his assassination would be published in a computer periodical. Anyone else ever see this article?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kelliekat44 (Reply #228)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:22 AM

257. Anyone else seen this article? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kelliekat44 (Reply #257)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:26 AM

260. You may be thinking of 'Computers and Automation'

instead of Computer World. Here's a link to an article title list:

http://www.baylor.edu/lib/poage/white/index.php?id=61924

You could also use this site's search box, type "computers and automation" into it. Some of the hits are relevant.

I was impressed by an end-note to a '93 documentary on the assassination. It said that the London Sunday Times had commissioned a study by an actuary, on the untimely deaths (within 4 years) of so many people connected to the JFK assassination. The actuary calculated the odds that all those witnesses would be dead, within that time period, to be one hundred million billion to one. 100,000,000,000,000,000 - 1.

3 other points:
Membes of the Prez's Secret Service detail partied the night before in a nightclub owned by an associate of Jack Ruby. Seems to be serious dereliction of duty, considering the virulently anti-Democratic Party and anti-Kennedy atmosphere in Dallas at the time.

The parade route, that the Sol Bloom Agency had mapped out, was changed at the last minute to go right on Houston, then make the slow hard left turn on to Elm, instead of straight ahead on Main.

The S.S. limo driver stopped the vehicle when shots rang out, instead of speeding up, the obvious protocol. If he had sped up, Jackie would have been catapulted off the back of the limo, instead of being shoved back into the limo by the running agent who caught up to the slowly moving car.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mc Mike (Reply #260)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:32 AM

262. Vincent Bugliosi, in "Reclaiming History," examines this issue (of

 

supposedly high mortality rate among JFK assassination witnesses) and thoroughly debunks it once and for all. To wit, witnesses to the JFK assassination died no faster than the statistics for a general population of adults in that same age group.

Have you read Bugliosi's work? If not, I highly recommend. Best non-fiction book I read in 2012.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #262)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:16 PM

266. "Reclaiming History" is not fiction?

Could have fooled me. Although, with that said, I too am dubious of the high mortality rate claims.

The more cogent argument to me is the timing of some of those deaths, ie., just prior to trials or other investigative hearings. Lee Harvey Oswald, Jack Ruby, William C. Sullivan, William Pawley, and George de Mohrenschildt are a few that come right to mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MinM (Reply #266)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:40 PM

267. "RH" should win a Pulitzer, imho, not that most Americans will ever bother

 

to read it or even become familair with its contents and claims.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #267)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:53 PM

269. you're right

much easier to read a conspiracy book and they are more entertaining than facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #269)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:59 PM

271. Speaking of entertaining, have you read the novel 'The Tears of Autumn' by

 

Charles McCarry? Best JFK assassination novel I've read ever (and one with a devilishly clever Vietnam angle, I might add).

Highly recommend it for leisure reading, if you have the inclination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #271)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:06 PM

272. Sounds good.

I will check it out.
James Ellroy also had an interesting take with The Cold Six Thousand, but I would recommend reading American Tabloid first.

ETA: Stephen King's 11/22/63 is also very good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #262)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:29 PM

273. I'm going through the whole op and subthreads for the third time, now.

You seem to be pretty polite in the discussion, c_u. Polite disagreement seems to me like the best way to get any kind of progress out of an 'opposing viewpoints' discussion.

I think the links in Octa's post 230, and MinM's 128 and 203 are a better read for me, better than me obtaining and going through a 1600+ page work by an author whose previous work I have read and not found edifying. I don't disregard your feeling that his book satisfies the questions you have or the issues that you think are important in the Kennedy assassination, it's just not for me. I would be more than happy to read the key thorough debunking facts from his book on this issue if you posted them, though.

But insurance companies are in the business to make money. They make money. They rely on actuarial science to assess their risks in insuring people with life insurance policies. There is a high mortality rate among JFK assassination witnesses. Not just people getting heart attacks and strokes, falling from windows, having plane trouble, single car crashes, and the like, but people who were shot, stabbed, bludgeoned, etc. The actuary, who is an expert in the field, unlike Bugliosi, was just saying in effect, "An insurer who writes the policies for all of these people, taking their ages, lifestyles, and occupations into account, will chance to make money from insuring them a hundred thousand million billion times, as opposed to having one chance to lose money." That shows a much higher mortality rate among the sub group of witnesses/connected individuals versus the population as a whole with the same ages-health-occupations, and indicates a very large statistical anomaly. Luckily, no single company insured all of those people, because the one in 'one hundred thousand million billion to one' chance came through.

Regarding one of your earlier posts below, 'Oswald as Commie Proselytizer in the Marines' is one of the more outrageous ideas that the 'official story' offers to the American public. Not being impolite to you here, just the idea itself is absurd to the extreme, but is 'officially true.'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kelliekat44 (Reply #257)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 01:18 PM

294. And here's a link to a (not complete) list of witnesses/connected individuals who died,

which I got by going through Oct's link at post #98:

http://www.jfk-assassination.de/articles/deaths.php

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kelliekat44 (Reply #228)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:04 AM

258. @johnsimkin: Harold Feldman published an important article on the JFK assassination in The Nation...

The Computer World article doesn't ring a bell kelliekat44, but it makes sense. John Simkin at the Education Forum has been blogging and tweeting quite a bit on this topic lately. The topic being the enormous obstacles placed in front of Warren Commission critics who endeavored to get published in mainstream publications...
...The only journal on the left that seemed to doubt the official interpretation of events was James Aronson, the editor of the National Guardian. In the first edition of the newspaper after the assassination, he used the headline: “The Assassination Mystery: Kennedy and Oswald Killings Puzzle the Nation”. Aronson could not understand why others on the left were not taking up a similar position.

In his book, Something to Guard: The Stormy Life of the National Guardian (1978), Aronson recalled that soon after the assassination he was contacted by a journalist working for the New York Times, who asked him if Oswald subscribed to the National Guardian. Aronson replied he could find no record of Oswald receiving the newspaper. Aronson took this opportunity to raise questions about the newspaper’s investigation into the assassination: “I took advantage of the call to air my doubts about the lone assassin theory being fixed in the public mind. What was the New York Times doing to validate or disapprove this theory?” The journalist replied “Look, Jim, you worked here and you know the answer: don’t look this way – they won’t do it.” (1)

Mark Lane was probably the first person to write a detailed article questioning the official story of the assassination. He later pointed out: “The obvious choice, I thought, was the Nation. Its editor, Carey McWilliams, was an acquaintance. He had often asked me to write a piece for him… McWilliams seemed pleased to hear from me and delighted when I told him I had written something I wished to give to the Nation. When he learned of the subject matter, however, his manner approached panic.” McWilliams told Lane: “We cannot take it. We don’t want it. I am sorry but we have decided not to touch that subject.” Lane got the same response from the editors of Fact who said the subject matter was too controversial. It was also rejected by The Reporter, Look, Life and the Saturday Evening Post. (2)

James Aronson “heard that a maverick New York lawyer named Mark Lane had done some careful leg and brain work to produce a thesis casting doubt on the lone-assassin theory – and even whether Oswald had actually been involved in the crime.” (3) Aronson contacted Lane who told him that the article had been rejected by thirteen publications. Aronson offered to publish the article. Lane told him that “I would send it to him but I would not authorize him to publish it. He asked why. I said that I was seeking a broader, non-political publisher and that if the piece originated on the left, the subject would likely never receive the debate that it required.” ...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19728

3. The Nation actually did publish a couple of decent articles on the JFK case by Harold Feldman, a relative of Salandria. But the Nation then reversed itself when the report came out. Prof. Andrew Hacker wrote a nauseating accolade for it. Then, when their ace reporter Fred Cook wanted to do a long analysis of the flaws in the report. They put him off for months on end. And after he did write the piece, they allowed a reply by Jacob Cohen.

4. The main fault of the piece is that it tries to say that somehow this was all part of a grand conspiracy played on the left. I don't agree. The idea that somehow Jason Epstein was a CIA asset is untenable. This is a guy who later sponsored and edited the best book on Watergate--JIm Hougan's Secret Agenda, and the best book on the RFK case, the Turner-Christian book...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19728&#entry263336

@johnsimkin: Harold Feldman published an important article on the JFK assassination in The Nation on 27th January 1964.... http://fb.me/1y0485I61

https://twitter.com/johnsimkin/status/279637048267259904

Harold Feldman and Vincent J. Salandria: Visit to Dallas in June 1964

Fred J. Cook

Penn Jones Jr.

Harold Feldman

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 11:38 PM

30. I'll never understand how Ted Kennedy accepted the official story

 

No way someone that intelligent and close to his brother doesn't question it publicly. Yet he never did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ter (Reply #30)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 11:51 PM

34. I honestly don't think he believed it after Bobby Kennedy made it clear that he knew what happened..

Many of the Kennedy family must know that it's far better to have a political career through that mechanism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ter (Reply #30)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:36 AM

84. he may have done so

or publicly said that he had, to save his own skin. i do doubt we will ever know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ter (Reply #30)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 02:49 PM

127. I suspect T. Kennedy did what he thought was best

Ted Kennedy had a long history of doing what was best for the country.

I suspect that even if he knew the truth he probably felt it wasn't the best thing for the country to make it public. Can you imagine the unrest that would have happened if the CIA had conspired to kill JFK and that was made public? If the American people had learned that such a popular President was killed by their own government? The '60s were still a time when the public mounted mass protests and sit-ins.

If it were true and factions within the US government conspired to assassinate JFK it could have caused quite mass pandemonium.

So my best guess is that even if Ted Kennedy suspected such a conspiracy or found it actually existed he probably felt it was in the best interest of the nation, of public order, not publicize it or try to make political hay off of it in public. In private, I hope he capitalized off of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 02:04 AM

57. You're wrong

The Zapruder film proves the opposite: http://www.democraticunderground.com/11353983

The bullet clearly came from the back, which was Oswald's position. You're welcomed to comment on that thread in the Creative Speculation Group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #57)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 04:43 AM

65. Perhaps you should watch the film again

I hardly trust anything Arlen Specter proposed. The film clearly shows JFK's head snap backwards in the direction of where an Oswald bullet would have come. Physics dictate that there must have been a bullet from the front. As I also mentioned the initial autopsy reports detailed an EXIT wound at the BACK of JFK's head.

I'm not saying Oswald wasn't there and didn't shoot JFK from the school book depository. I'm just saying he wasn't the only shooter that day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Reply #65)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 09:40 AM

76. Click on the link to the Creative Speculation thread

Immediately after Kennedy was hit his head snapped forward in the first frame (and the ejecta went forward also), as clearly shown. Momentum has no delay or memory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #76)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:23 AM

81. LOL! More fiction from the "LHO did it alone" crowd!....

....I bet you believe the Warren Commission Report is a fine piece of non-fiction, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #81)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:27 AM

82. You changed the subject and didn't address the evidence

and without evidence on your side, you've got nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #82)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:31 AM

83. And you obviously believe Arlen Specter's bogus "Single Bullet Theory". Enough said. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #82)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:05 PM

157. You are ...

...an obvious evidence expert, an OEE, oee, eeyie, eeyie, whoa boy!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #82)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:10 PM

162. sometimes ....

any evidence is hidden or destroyed! Especially possible when the perps are in charge and have all the resources and power to hide or destroy said evidence....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wildbilln864 (Reply #162)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 09:13 AM

199. dballance in post #1 made a particular claim concerning the direction of the shot

I linked to some evidence that proved dballance wrong.

Any claim must stand on the evidence. The lack of evidence of a conspiracy to assassinate is evidence of no conspiracy, not evidence of a conspiracy to hide the evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #199)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 11:08 AM

233. see post #194. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #76)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:07 PM

158. You're correct, but don't expect the JFK CTists to bother viewing the evidence.

They're too busy patting themselves on the back for "fighting the good fight," a fight that doesn't even exist.

Amazing how they believe they're in on some great hidden truth when most of the dumb-ass American public agrees with them that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #158)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 08:50 PM

173. You're right – It does seem that the majority of Americans

do believe that there was a Kennedy conspiracy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theories

Public opinion polls have consistently shown that a majority of Americans believe there was a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy. However, on the question of a government cover-up, different polls show both a minority and majority of Americans who believe the government engaged in one. These same polls also show that there is no agreement on who else may have been involved. A 2003 Gallup poll reported that 75% of Americans do not believe that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. That same year an ABC News poll found that 70% of respondents suspected that the assassination involved more than one person. A 2004 Fox News poll found that 66% of Americans thought there had been a conspiracy while 74% thought there had been a cover-up.


I don't think real CT'ers are necessarily dumb. They have active minds, but they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions. They are smart enough to care about important issues, but they just don't have the proper scientific mind to draw the right conclusions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #158)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 02:29 AM

194. Well perhaps if the government allowed all the evidence to be public it could be reviewed.

However our government still keeps thousands of pages of documents classified almost 50 years later. Wonder why conspiracy theorists feel they have some grounds upon which to stand? Gees, could it be the government gives them tons of reasons to believe there was some sort of cover-up by keeping documents classified after almost 50 years?

Refute that. Refute the fact that the US government is keeping documents classified almost 50 years after the assassination. Explain to me why that is necessary.

There is more demand in congress to investigate and assess blame for Bhengazi then was ever honestly undertaken in the JFK assassination investigations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Reply #194)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 09:37 AM

201. I don't think there's much left to release...

...except what the CIA knew.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #201)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 12:17 PM

206. CIA assigned 1963 Oswald minder George Joannides the 1977 job of liaison with HSCA.

"I'm only asking that the CIA over the law." -- Jefferson Morley

Those who think Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone have their reasons. Personally, I believe they are on the wrong side of both the facts and history.

Key to my belief is the work of two authorities, John M. Newman and Jefferson Morley. They report Oswald appears to have been impersonated in Mexico City and CIA failed to disclose this information to Warren Commission or the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA).

The person charged with providing that information to the HSCA in 1977 was George Joannides, who also happened to have known Oswald's most important contacts, the anti-Castro Cuban expatriates Joannides oversaw in New Orleans as their CIA paymaster in 1963. Small world!

One thing about this that’s most un-democratic is how CIA won’t divulge those records, even after ordered to do so by a Federal Judge John Tunheim, who led the Assassination Records Review Board, in the 1990s.

So, on behalf of history, the Truth and the People, Newman and Morley have had to sue CIA. And in the interest of national security, the case has been appealed until it has effectively been quashed -- over 300 pages of Joannides' work stuff from ca. 1963. Then there are the other files...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #206)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 12:29 PM

207. I don't believe LHO acted alone, either. And I also believe the CIA was involved...

But any proof that GHWB was personally involved in the plot has been tenuous. I rank the GHWB involvement up there with the LBJ involvement - not plausible because both, as former POTUSes, have undergone extreme scrutiny since the event, and any proof offered has been, well, too weak to be definitive.

The narrative of a future POTUS knocking off the standing POTUS is delicious and worthy of a Hollywood thriller (which makes such theories popular), but all proof offered up since the event has been strained.

I believe the CIA was involved - E Howard Hunt's deathbed confession tells the tale, but GHWB ws more oilman than spook in 1963, and I just don't buy that he was any sort of high-level player in the plot. Did he wish JFK to be out of the picture? Maybe. Did he pull triggers or finance the op? Pretty doubtful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #207)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 01:18 PM

211. It is most troubling, seeing the way history has unfolded since that terrible day.

I have tried my best to give Poppy the benefit of the doubt, but the track record shows him always on the side JFK opposed...Nuclear war is survivable, Vietnam is vital to America, New Deal is socialism, Wall Street over Main Street, money trumps peace, ...

Getting to the evidence, George Herbert Walker Bush told the FBI he was in Dallas that day:





Here's a transcript of the text:

TO: SAC, HOUSTON DATE: 11-22-63

FROM: SA GRAHAM W. KITCHEL

SUBJECT: UNKNOWN SUBJECT;
ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT
JOHN F. KENNEDY

At 1:45 p.m. Mr. GEORGE H. W. BUSH, President of the Zapata Off-Shore Drilling Company, Houston, Texas, residence 5525 Briar, Houston, telephonically furnished the following information to writer by long distance telephone call from Tyler, Texas.

BUSH stated that he wanted to be kept confidential but wanted to furnish hearsay that he recalled hearing in recent weeks, the day and source unknown. He stated that one JAMES PARROTT has been talking of killing the President when he comes to Houston.

BUSH stated that PARROTT is possibly a student at the University of Houston and is active in political matters in this area. He stated that he felt Mrs. FAWLEY, telephone number SU 2-5239, or ARLINE SMITH, telephone number JA 9-9194 of the Harris County Republican Party Headquarters would be able to furnish additional information regarding the identity of PARROTT.

BUSH stated that he was proceeding to Dallas, Texas, would remain in the Sheraton-Dallas Hotel and return to his residence on 11-23-63. His office telephone number is CA 2-0395.

Which, of course, makes me wonder about this memo, from a week later:




Here's a transcript of the above:


Date: November 29, 1963

To: Director
Bureau of Intelligence and Research
Department of State

From: John Edgar Hoover, Director

Subject: ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY
NOVEMBER 22, 1963

Our Miami, Florida, Office on November 23, 1963, advised that the Office of Coordinator of Cuban Affairs in Miami advised that the Department of State feels some misguided anti-Castro group might capitalize on the present situation and undertake an unauthorized raid against Cuba, believing that the assassination of President John F. Kennedy might herald a change in U. S. policy, which is not true.

Our sources and informants familiar with Cuban matters in the Miami area advise that the general feeling in the anti-Castro Cuban community is one of stunned disbelief and, even among those who did not entirely agree with the President's policy concerning Cuba, the feeling is that the President's death represents a great loss not only to the U. S. but to all of Latin America. These sources know of no plans for unauthorized action against Cuba.

An informant who has furnished reliable information in the past and who is close to a small pro-Castro group in Miami has advised that these individuals are afraid that the assassination of the President may result in strong repressive measures being taken against them and, although pro-Castro in their feelings, regret the assassination.

The substance of the foregoing information was orally furnished to Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency and Captain William Edwards of the Defense Intelligence Agency on November 23, 1963, by Mr. W. T. Forsyth of this Bureau.

# # #



Another piece of evidence: George de Mohrenschildt and Poppy were acquainted.



House Select Committee on Assassinations investigator Gaeton Fonzi went to interview de Mohrenschildt and found he had just committed suicide by shotgun blast to the mouth. So, Fonzi never got a chance to ask the Baron about his relationship with Oswald. What else he couldn't ask about was his relationship to George Herbert Walker Bush, whose name, address, work and home phones, birthday and nicknames were in de Mohrenschildt's personal address book. As were Oswald's.

Kennedy: The George Bush Connection

by Mark Turner

EXCERPT...

Another Bush connection involved George de Mohrenschildt, a rich Russian oil man who lived in Texas when Lee Harvey Oswald settled there after his trip to the Soviet Union. De Mohrenschildt was a long-time CIA agent and quite possibly served as a CIA control officer for Oswald. The Warren Commission described him and his wife as being the two people friendliest to Oswald at the time of the assassination. De Mohrenschildt's son-in-law told the Warren Commission that if any- one had helped with the assassination it was most likely de Mohren- schildt. De Mohrenschildt was also the man who moved Oswald to Dallas.

Shortly before the House Select Committee on Assassinations started meeting in the late 1970's a new doctor appeared in de Mohrenschildt's town. De Mohrenschildt started seeing him and quickly became mentally unstable. His wife convinced him to stop seeing the doctor. The doctor then moved away and left a false forwarding address. The very day the Committee tried to contact de Mohrenschildt about testifying, he was found dead of a gun shot wound. His personal address book was found and it contained the entry "Bush, George H. W. (Poppy) 1412 W. Ohio also Zapata Petroleum Midland." Bush's full name is George Herbert Walker Bush which matches the initials given and his earlier oil company was named Zapata Petroleum Corp. Why was his name in de Mohrenschildt's book? Is "Poppy" his CIA code name?

It is known that in the early 1960's de Mohrenschildt made frequent trips to Houston, which was the location of Bush's home. He told friends he was visiting the Brown brothers, who were close friends and financial supporters of Lyndon Johnson. CIA documents reveal that during the planning phase of Operation Zapata, de Mohrenschildt made frequent trips to Mexico and Panama and gave reports to the CIA. His son-in-law told the Warren Commission that he believed de Mohren- schildt was spying for the planned Cuban invasion.

A QUESTION OF CHARACTER

When Bush was picked to be director of the CIA in 1976, he testified to Congress that he had never worked for the CIA before. Of course, it did not make much sense to appoint a director who had no such back- ground but Congress approved him anyway. Now it would seem that Bush committed perjury in his congressional testimony.

George Bush was apparently high enough in the CIA to help plan the Bay of Pigs invasion. It would probably be safe to assume that he even named the operation and its two ships. Considering the hatred that the CIA felt toward Kennedy over their failed mission and Bush's involvement in that same mission, it would be quite interesting to know what Bush's feelings toward John F. Kennedy really were and what his full role in the assassination investigation was.

CONTINUED...

http://www.sumeria.net/politics/cia-bush.html




BTW: While I have my suspicions, I cannot say (nor do I want to believe) that George Herbert Walker Bush was or was not involved in the conspiracy to kill President Kennedy. Many of the facts, like the witnesses, have been buried in this case.
, thus my interest in getting GHWB's deposition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #211)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 01:32 PM

214. He was in Dallas. So was Nixon.

Nixon (whose paranoia is legendary) had a much stronger motive to kill JFK than Poppy. Poppy may have had ideological reasons, but Nixon's were personal.

My point is that, while the evidence you present is compelling, it defies logic and it defies other evidence to the contrary.

Of course, I could be off base on this (wouldn't be the first time ), but I've read everything I could about the event, as well as everything I could about the CIA culture (of the 40's thru the 70's), and GHWB just doesn't fit into the assassinations picture.

He rose to power within the CIA at a time when they were being heavily scrutinized by the Church committee and the House Select Committee on Assassinations. I doubt the spooks at Langley would actually put GHWB in charge during this period if he had any real involvement in the Assassination of JFK.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #57)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 09:36 AM

200. A friend of mine, who was in the Korean War, said that the "jerk backwards" that JFK did...

....looked exactly like something he saw during the war. His buddy was shot in the head from behind and, instead of propelling him forward, caused him to jerk backwards when his body stiffened due to the massive trauma to his brain. Just like JFK.

I was a "grassy-knoll-shooter" believer until he told me that story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #200)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 11:21 AM

204. If fact, had your friend been able to do a frame-by-frame film analysis, such

 

as is possible with the Zapruder frames 312-313, your friend would probably have been able to measure first a perceptible movement of the head forward before the head jerked backward, exactly like JFK's head moves in Z312-313. The reason it is not apparent to the naked eye watching the Zapruder film in motion has to do with the fact that Zapruder's camera filmed at 18 frames/second but the head movement forward occurs within 1/18 of a second before the recoil backwards.

This among other things is yet another reason why eyewitness testimony is often not the most reliable testimony (a dark secret among defense and prosecuting attorneys) . . . b/c the eye can and does play tricks on us and is not the most accurate recorder of reality at all times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #200)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:27 PM

285. Ever watch slow motion video of a bullet hitting a mellon.

Muscles can't overcome that momentum in a fraction of a second. Your friend is wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eddie Haskell (Reply #285)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:50 PM

286. JFK was no mellon.

Eddie, I knew JFK. JFK was my friend. He, sir, was no mellon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:29 AM

70. I don't believe Oswald acted alone. Certainly, the congressional Commission on Assassinations didn't

But, to try to place GHWB at the scene (or as part of the conspiracy) is absurd. He was a spook, granted, but not a high-level spook. Besides, those BEHIND the assassination would've offed him long ago. He's still alive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #70)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 02:35 PM

123. That photo is not clear, but the record of his call to the FBI is clear.

The photo of a group of people outside the School Book Depository. The fuzzy image does resemble the body, stance, face and hairline of GHWB, but it's an enlargement and becomes grainy when enlarged.

The phone call was memorandumized by the FBI and that paper was classified until decades later. It is released now. 45 minutes after the shooting, he was about an hour's drive out of Dallas. With a fast car, you could do that, maybe even leaving just seconds before the shots were fired.

So, it's not absurd as you state that he was there.

GHWB's father, Prescott, was in on the coup against FDR outed by Smedley Butler, also recently released (couple of years now).

So, it's not absurd as you state that he would be part of a conspiracy.

Nope, absurd is the wrong word for that sentence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Festivito (Reply #123)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 05:37 PM

136. The Business Coup has been known for decades (and is irrelevant in this discussion)...

...and the FBI memorandum? Also old news.

Lesson 1 in conspiracies is; if there's more than 10 people involved, the truth will eventually come out. It's been nearly 50 years.

And yes, absurd is the correct term to describe the theory that future President GHWB assassinated JFK. Especially since any "evidence" given to support this theory is extremely tenuous, at best.

This thread should be in the 9/11 truthers' forum. It doesn't belong in GD or the Greatest Page, that's for sure...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #136)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 03:01 AM

195. Who says the "more than 10 people involved" are still alive?

In something as big as an assassination of the President I suspect most, if not all, of the minor players were eliminated. If you're going to assassinate the President I doubt you'd have much compunction about eliminating anyone who might leak the fact you did so. Jack Ruby certainly did that to Oswald. I'm just surprised Ruby didn't suffer some prison-yard accident that eliminated him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Reply #1)


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #71)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:36 AM

85. Here is what 'morons' who were there actually said...

"I told the FBI what I had heard (two shots from behind the grassy knoll fence), but they said it couldn't have happened that way and that I must have been imagining things. So I testified the way they wanted me to. I just didn't want to stir up any more pain and trouble for the family."

- Man of the House, by Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill Jr., p. 178. O'Donnell was riding in the Secret Service follow-up car with Dave Powers, who was present and told O'Neill he had the same recollection.

More "morons" on record...

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/JFK_Assassination_Quotes_by_Government_Officials

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #85)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 04:23 PM

135. That Post Got Hidden Octafish

 

Great link BTW!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #85)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 12:44 PM

245. One needs courage to stand for what one actually saw and heard

These dudes all failed. They gave in to the AUTHORITIES, and cooperated with lies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #71)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:49 PM

115. Thanks for your kind words

Last edited Sat Dec 29, 2012, 02:19 AM - Edit history (1)

You are not the first nor the last who will call me a moron. You are not the first or the last to be wrong.

There is a huge preponderance of evidence that we morons might be right though. Watch "Dark Legacy." Refute the actual initial doctors' reports from Parkland Hospital that there was an EXIT wound at the BACK of JFK's head rather than an entry wound.

Explain why Jack Ruby killed Oswald and remained silent in prison for the rest of his life when he certainly had no history of being a JFK or Democratic supporter so no real reason to avenge JFK's death. Explain why GHW Bush is still lying about being in the CIA and in Dallas when it is quite clear he was at the very least entangled with the CIA if not an operative at the time of JFK's death. Explain why gun experts could not fire off the number of rounds that Oswald allegedly fired within the time frame he allegedly fired them from the gun he allegedly used.

If I'm a moron for questioning our government then I'll happily be a moron. I certainly don't believe everything our government tells us. If you do then you're the real moron.

You might try to remember that the people at the CIA, FBI, and Joint Chiefs of Staff can work there for 20 or 30 years easily and establish a fiefdom. While our President and his cabinet are pretty much limited to 8 years. JFK and his brother Bobby clearly stated they wanted to do some reform in the CIA and FBI. They both ended up assassinated.

If you don't think people in those organizations get to the point where they think they are untouchable and where they do their best to wield control over elected officials then you may want to remember J. Edgar Hoover.

Lone gunman? Makes you feel all better and warm and fuzzy doesn't it? You don't have to confront the fact people who were part of your government did illegal things. Even though we see lawsuits every day where the US government is accused of doing illegal things and often settles out of court to prevent a public review of their actions.

You cannot prove LHO acted alone. And the US government is still withholding over a thousand pages on the investigation almost 50 years later. What exactly are they hiding after 50 years?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Reply #115)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 06:53 PM

153. Autopsy results on JFK hidden, no examination of Connelly after he died...

The whole thing stinks. The Warren Commission itself was rigged. There is another film that has never been seen.
I still think some of the people on this forum who try to be the "reasonable" ones may be CIA. The CIA is actively involved in trying to shape public perception in this country and I don't believe that the "Total Information Awareness" group that Shrub proposed went away. I think this forum is high profile enough to attract attention.
We need to keep this one going. One of these days the public will accept the real truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rwsanders (Reply #153)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:42 AM

264. Those kinds of accusations are meaningless on a handled internet forum. You could be CIA or

you could be a 12 year old kid in your mother's basement. And there is no way to know either way.

If someones arguments are wrong, refute them. If they violate the TOS or community standards, alert them.

Accusations of CIA/KGB/MI6/MIB/Mossad/Stasi/Gestapo or whatever else are a waste of time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #264)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 11:44 PM

295. I agree, I wasn't really accusing anyone, but I

didn't see a need to jump into that morass, the important points had been said and for whatever reason there are those who refuse to acknowledge evidence whether it violates their worldview or if they are trying to influence the worldview of others by labeling it all a "conspiracy theory" as if that is supposed to be a bad thing.
It wasn't really an accusation as much as a fact of our life now that I think members should be aware of. I know that the agency I work for has people that monitor social media as part of their job. If they do it, you know the spooks must.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:21 AM

80. Have you read Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" yet? If not, I strongly

 

Last edited Sat Dec 29, 2012, 12:13 PM - Edit history (1)

suggest you take a look at it to disabuse yourself of your misconceptions regarding the supposed exit wound at the back of JFK's head during the "initial autopsy" (sic). At 1500+ pages (plus some 900+ pages of citations and notes on a campanion CD), it is a heavy tome. But by the end of it, I am convinced you will not adhere to the 'conspiracy' school. I know because I fall into that category myself.

The doctors at Parkland were trying to save JFK's life, did not perform an autopsy there and can be forgiven if, in the heat of the trying moment, they mistook the entrance wound at the back of JFK's head for an exit wound. The formal autopsy was conducted at Bethesda Naval Hospital after JFK's corpse was flown back there on Air Force 1. That autopsy concluded that both shots that hit JFK hit him from behind. So are you saying that the physicians who conducted the autopsy at Bethesda were in cahoots with the conspirators or part of the conspiracy themselves?

As to the Zapruder film and what it supposedly shows, Zapruder's camera took film at the rate of 18 frames per second. What you cannot see watching the Zapruder film is that in the few microseconds of the 18th of a second between Zapruder's frame 312 and frame 313 (where the image of the headshot occurs) is that JFK's head moves forward suddenly, exactly what one would expect if the fatal shot came from the back. Forensic experts have identified this by comparing the position of JFK's head in Z frame 312 with the position of his head in Z frame 313 and the evidence shows that JFK's head moved forward first before snapping back in the recoil predicted by the laws of physics (and thus consistent with a head wound from behind).

You write that JFK had 'pissed off the CIA". Would that be the body entire or only certain rogue elements within it? And if the latter, who were those rogue elements? Oswald was pissed at JFK for having the temerity to attack and harass Castro's Cuba, based on radio broadcasts from Cuba that Oswald probably heard while listening to shortwave radio in Dallas. I hold no warrant for the CIA which has many sins for which to answer. But on this one particular sin, Bugliosi pretty much demolishes any plausible CIA involvement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #80)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:02 PM

101. Hey, you checked this book out?

Told ya it was pretty hefty.
But it is fascinating how CT authors have not only distorted what the WC had to say, but downright lie about it.
I used to think there had to be something to this "conspiracy", but that book pretty much clears it up.
Of course, it won't convince the CTers who have invested way too much time in believing whichever CT they adhere to, but such is life.
Glad you finally got to read this important book!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #101)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 06:37 PM

148. I'm on the final chapter ("Conclusion of No Conspiracy") now and hope to

 

finish it tonight. Easily the best book I have read in 2012 and should get a Pulitzer, imho.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #148)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 06:45 PM

151. I've never read all 26 volumes of the WC, like some posters have claimed to.

But this book is entirely taken from the WC and doesn't have the wild speculation of every CT book.
Wonder why CTers won't read it...?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:41 PM

113. Agreed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 09:16 PM

2. The thought has occurred to me over the years: What if he disclosed everything,

in an attempt to dodge the fate that awaits him after his death? What if he had cleansed his soul by telling us the truth of it all?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NBachers (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 11:15 PM

19. Babs would never allow it.

I think it's her who runs the roost. Lady Macbush, the cold hearted brains in the outfit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tblue (Reply #19)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:42 PM

97. I agree as long as wife and sons are alive

he would never tell the truth...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marlakay (Reply #97)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:08 PM

160. I think that is why they are insisting on so much "privacy" don't want anyone catching a stray word.

Where was the recent post where he was giving a speech and had a quick laugh over a "crazed gunman" killing JFK? I think that was VERY telling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NBachers (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:10 PM

180. That's what Hunt did. Read the Rolling Stone article.

I couldn't put it down.

What was more amazing is why the mainstream media couldn't pick it up.

More players in the story...
E. Howard scribbled the initials "LBJ," standing for Kennedy's ambitious vice president, Lyndon Johnson. Under "LBJ," connected by a line, he wrote the name Cord Meyer. Meyer was a CIA agent whose wife had an affair with JFK; later she was murdered, a case that's never been solved. Next his father connected to Meyer's name the name Bill Harvey, another CIA agent; also connected to Meyer's name was the name David Morales, yet another CIA man and a well-known, particularly vicious black-op specialist. And then his father connected to Morales' name, with a line, the framed words "French Gunman Grassy Knoll."

So there it was, according to E. Howard Hunt. LBJ had Kennedy killed. It had long been speculated upon. But now E. Howard was saying that's the way it was. And that Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't the only shooter in Dallas. There was also, on the grassy knoll, a French gunman, presumably the Corsican Mafia assassin Lucien Sarti, who has figured prominently in other assassination theories.

"By the time he handed me the paper, I was in a state of shock," Saint says. "His whole life, to me and everybody else, he'd always professed to not know anything about any of it. But I knew this had to be the truth. If my dad was going to make anything up, he would have made something up about the Mafia, or Castro, or Khrushchev. He didn't like Johnson. But you don't falsely implicate your own country, for Christ's sake. My father is old-school, a dyed-in-the-wool patriot, and that's the last thing he would do."

Later that week, E. Howard also gave Saint two sheets of paper that contained a fuller narrative. It starts out with LBJ again, connecting him to Cord Meyer, then goes on: "Cord Meyer discusses a plot with Phillips who brings in Wm. Harvey and Antonio Veciana. He meets with Oswald in Mexico City. . . . Then Veciana meets w/ Frank Sturgis in Miami and enlists David Morales in anticipation of killing JFK there. But LBJ changes itinerary to Dallas, citing personal reasons."

http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/jfk_hunt_last_confessions_rolling_stone.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Last Stand (Reply #180)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 06:25 AM

197. Thank you for this article

 

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to roguevalley (Reply #3)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 09:50 PM

6. I already have that in the link

 

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Reply #6)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:46 AM

50. good, Ian. thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roguevalley (Reply #3)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:01 AM

79. how about the October Surprise. Plus the strategy of minority tools like Clarence THOMAS

Implementing the deal to keep the hostages in Iran until after the '80 election.

The Clarence THOMAS thing of finding a willing minority tool to put Dems over the barrel, having to attack a member of a Dem constitutent group. After THOMAS, they used it over and over -- Miguel ESTRADA, Colon POWELL, Condo RICE, Alberto GONZALEZ, Linda CHAVEZ. During the THOMAS hearings the Libs were squirming over attacking a Black nominee, and it has been years of not knowing how to do it. This was the period of us calling them Uncle Toms or houseboys or puppets or tools, while the Rethugs thought they were making points by racking up their tally of having minorities in high offices. There is the spectacle of Orrin HATCH putting on his Shirley TEMPLE pout, "How can the Democrats oppose Meee-gwell (ESTRADA), a well qualified Hispanic. They claim to support minorities, yet they oppose them." The solution is simple: Stop us attacking the motives of these minorities sell-outs, these that are traitors to their home groups, stop calling them puppets or greedy for their own material gain. Besides, Orrin TEMPLE HATCH, to expect that a nominee be approved BECAUSE of race/ethnicity is just as RACIST as opposing them on that basis. The answer is simply to take these Vichy people at their own word when they say they are genuine Wingnuts, forget about their race/ethnicity, and FULL OUT attack them on their Wingnuttiness, their regressive policy stances.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 09:39 PM

5. Poppy sold his sole to the devil. He will have to pay his dues. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #5)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 11:53 PM

35. Poppy's pappy sold his soul first...

Nazi sympathizer and power behind the fascist state of the 1930's...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #35)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:08 AM

38. May their whole family go to hell. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #38)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:26 AM

92. Aren't they responsible for H E double toothpicks?

I mean, isn't that part of the plan? Create HELL on earth?

rhetorical for rhett, I know!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #92)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:04 PM

93. Good point. They probably welcome hell. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #35)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:10 PM

161. Wasn't he also in the plot to overthrow FDR, the one they tried to recruit Mj. Gen Smedley Butler?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rwsanders (Reply #161)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:09 PM

190. Right on...

That's where the Bushies got all their fascist ways. What a family tree, indeed, rw...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #5)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:17 PM

107. I was speaking to my aunt last night

And it is her opinion that this fever Bush can't seem to get rid of is actually the "fires of hell" beginning to lap at his soul.

She says that at her age (she's 90) and so close to her own end she's allowed to say things like that out loud

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #5)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:19 PM

166. poppy has no soul and....

knows there is no devil! when the lights go out, that's all there is IMHOOC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:01 PM

7. Read "Blood, Money and Power, how LBJ killed JFK" by Barr McClellan for additional information

Barr McClellan is Scott McClellan's father. His law firm represented LBJ all of his professional life. The details and the evidence in this book was the subject of The History Channel's review of the JFK assassination which prompted all of the Johnson family outrage.

I do not dispute what you say about George H.W. Bush being involved, but there were a lot more prominent people mentioned in the book than just Bush. JFK was considered a "security threat" to this country because he did not share the same philosophies about wars, confrontations and government as did the CIA and prominent government officials. He privately was working on a plan not only to end the Vietnam War but to negotiate a better relationship with Russia.

Jacqueline Kennedy had privately commissioned an investigation into her husband's death by a French investigative team. She received its final report and it will be released to the public something like 50 years after her death. I remember when I first read this how much it saddened me to know I would never know the contents, but I think she put that condition on the report's release for the security of her children....

Sam

Link to my thread on this book: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3120010&mesg_id=3121565

"It is simply miraculous that the American public survived the tragedies of the the assassinations of John Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert Kennedy and can analytically discuss today who or what might have caused these tragedies to befall these wonderful men. THE ONLY GOOD I CAN THINK OF THAT AROSE FROM THEIR PREMATURE DEATHS IS THAT WE AS A PEOPLE LOST OUR NAIVETY ABOUT THE INABILITY OF THOSE WHO GOVERN US TO PARTICIPATE IN INCOMPREHENSIBLY BARBARIC ACTS OF CRIMINAL CONDUCT. For those who were unconvinced that "The Ugly American" could truly exist as that book proclaimed, at least these losses forced them to contemplate the previously inconceivable."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Samantha (Reply #7)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:06 PM

9. CT's galore!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Samantha (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:29 PM

96. Those who think LBJ had a role in the assassination of JFK have a very high hurdle to

 

surmount. To wit, why would LBJ empanel a Commission to investigate the shooting, if he had to worry that the same Commission would uncover evidence linking him to the crime? More to the point, even after the Commission issued its report, LBJ expressed doubts that Oswald acted alone, hardly what one would expect of a conspirator trying to deflect investigation into who was really responsible.

The whole issue of LBJ's purported role is considered and thorougly debunked in Vincent Bugliosi's magisterial Reclaiming History. I highly recommend this book to those seduced by the siren song of the CTers around JFKs assassination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #96)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 05:42 PM

139. Look who was on that Commission... All of them were enemies of Kennedy

If you were trying to cover it up, that's exactly the group of people you would appoint. Why did he order the limo washed down and stripped clean rather than investigated?

Seems to me it's very logical that LBJ, in wanting the power of the Presidency and agreeing with those who wanted Kennedy eliminated on their war mongering, would have agreed to be involved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MessiahRp (Reply #139)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 06:41 PM

149. You really need to read Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History". Bugliosi

 

demolishes the notion that there was any chance that the WC was stacked against JFK with his 'enemies.' In fact, many of its staff members were eagerly hoping to uncover evidence of a conspiracy, in order to secure political advantage and\or notoriety for themselves. I can give you specific examples and chapter\verse if you need it, but before I do so, would suggest that you consider reading Bugliosi' work in full or part.

The book changed the way I view the assassination of JFK. I can't praise it highly enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #149)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 06:47 PM

152. "The book changed the way I view the assassination of JFK."

You summed it up exactly.
I used to believe in a conspiracy, but that book went a long way to changing my mind.
Then again, I read it with an open mind...something the CTers refuse to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #152)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:01 PM

155. While I would never have described myself previously as a "CTer," I suppose I

 

subscribed to Oliver Stone's version of what happened and who was responsible. (Bugliosi simply demolishes Stone in his penultimate chapter.) It just makes me so sad and I was knee-high to a grasshopper back in 1963. Sad for JFK, his wife and kids, sad for Marina and her two kids, and even weirdly sad for Lee Harvey Oswald who, Bugliosi says, cared more about politics than all the other employeees of the Texas School Book Depository put together and who was right to be outraged at the bullshit we were pulling on Castro's Cuba at the time (even if he didn't know all the sordid details that would only emerge with the Rockefeller and Church Committee hearings).

But I'm saddest for the people of the world (including myself) who lost a great leader who clearly was growing in the position and was poised for strides of greatness in 1964 and thereafter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #155)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:08 PM

159. +1 n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #155)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 03:36 PM

248. Robert Oswald's interview is another eye-opener

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kskiska (Reply #248)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 07:40 PM

251. Great interview.

But CTers will dismiss it since the assassin's own brother knows he did it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kskiska (Reply #248)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 09:52 PM

256. Bruce Ivins' brother (Anthrax Case) turned on him too...

Which, as we now know, was another case that was total bullshit. Just like the case against Lee Harvey Oswald.

So thank you for that apt comparison.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kskiska (Reply #248)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:43 PM

268. Thank you for posting. As a brother who has a (younger) brother who

 

has suffered from severe mental illness, I found myself weeping while reading it.

Here's the money quote:

I would love to be able to say that Lee was not involved in any way whatsoever, or much less to the extent that I believe that he was. This is a struggle that has gone on with me for almost 30 years now. This is mind over heart. The mind tells me one thing, and the heart tells me something else.

But the facts are there. ... What do you do with his rifle? What do you do with his pistol? What do you do with his general opportunity? What do you do with his actions? To me, you can't reach but one conclusion. There's hard physical evidence there. True, no one saw him actually pull the trigger on the president but ... his presence in the building was there. What he did after he left the building is known: bus ride, taxi ride, boardinghouse, pick up the pistol, leave, shoot the police officer. Five or six eyewitnesses there. You can't set that aside just because he is saying, "I'm a patsy." I'd love to do that, but you cannot. ..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kskiska (Reply #248)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:26 PM

296. "...Mr. and Mrs. Paine are somehow involved in this affair."

@lisapease: Robert Oswald to the Warren Commission: ""I still do not know why or how, but Mr. and Mrs. Paine are somehow involved in this affair."

https://twitter.com/lisapease/status/302299625325481984

Michael & Ruth Paine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #149)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 07:52 PM

253. They wanted to secure "notoriety" for themselves? Really?

Do you know what that word means? You had best better look it up...

I lived thru that moment and that era. Those bastards we lying to us the same way the Rethugs do now. Do you believe that Obama is a Kenyan? The lies we told in the same fashion and propagandized from the first moments of the shooting as that lie has been promulgated..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PCIntern (Reply #253)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 09:48 PM

255. Your syntax is so garbled that I'm having trouble discerning exactly what's got

 

your ire up.

As to the WC staff members, would you like to know which staff members (not Commission members but their staff) were intent upon uncovering evidence of conspiracy? Bugliosi mentions 2-3 of them at various points during his book and quotes from each at length as to why they would have wanted to uncover evidence of a conspiracy for their own purposes. It's a 1600-page book (that I just finished) and I'll have to dig up the names and relevant info for you, if it matters to you. Just let me know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PCIntern (Reply #253)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:30 AM

261. "Do you believe that Obama is a Kenyan?'

That question has nothing to do with the assassination of JFK but shows you really have no argument.
But keep reading those CT books!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MessiahRp (Reply #139)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:15 PM

182. I don't think all members of the Warren Commission were 'enemies of Kennedy'. Perhaps

 

one can argue that Dulles and McCloy were, but Earl Warren? Hale Boggs?

The limo was thoroughly searched by the Secret Service (and bullet fragments recovered from it) before it was returned to Detroit. So I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to insinuate here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #96)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:14 PM

164. And I highly recommend Blood, Money & Power simply for the evidence the author produced

Perhaps you can read that book and get back to me on your thoughts about it. The Johnson Family was very upset about the presentation on the History Channel based on this book. They demanded time to refute the facts in the presentation. I eagerly tuned in to the "experts" charged with debunking McClellan's book. None of them addressed any of the salient points, not one. Instead they talked generally about what a great man Johnson was. McClellan's book presents evidence, documents, photographs and most of all, he, as an attorney broke the attorney-client privilege by revealing all that he did.

In the back of the book cover is a brief bio. "Barr McClellan represented President Lyndon Johnson and his interests from 1966 through 1971. He served primarily through Texas power attorney Edward Clark and Johnson business attorney Don Thomas, advising on political strategy, campaign contributions, attorney-client privilege issues, television matters, and labor disputes. He was also personal attorney for Clark in seeking an assassination bonus from the Big Oil interests in Dallas, an effort that resulted in two major lawsuits."

His son, Scott McClellan, was a press secretary to George W. Bush* (I believe at the time the book was released).

When I finished reading this book, I worked up my courage and bought another copy for someone I knew who worked in a very specific field (you can imagine what that field was; I cannot say). I totally expected him to repute the evidence in the book passionately. Much to my surprise when he finished reading it, he said it was very possible. I have a lot of respect for his expert opinion.

Sam

PS I don't have much to say about the Commission findings. I was about 13 years old when it was released, and I didn't believe it then. I don't think Johnson was too worried about what that Commission would find.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to boomer55 (Reply #114)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:24 PM

167. I have not listened to the tapes but thank you for reminding me of them

I really could not afford at the time to buy the tapes, but I am going to do that soon. The article you referenced is in complete sync with what Barr McClellan presents in his book. However, there is still the fact that Jackie should have known who was behind the assassination since she hired the best French investigative team to thoroughly find the facts. That is the report I mentioned she received but would not be released to the public until decades after her death (I believe it was 50 years or so).

Lyndon Johnson was not the man many people believe he was. He had a nefarious refutation before he ever served as Vice President and I believe he was totally capable of participating in a plot to eliminate President John F. Kennedy. If so, according to McClellan, it was not the first murder Johnson was suspected of participating in. There is a list of 18 people, one of whom was Johnson's own sister.

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:04 PM

8. Oy vey... GHWB had nothing to do w/ the JFK assassination...

Bay of Pigs, yes. Assassination - beyond absurd.

On edit: What do you think happened to WTC7 on 9/11? Just curious...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #8)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:13 PM

10. Are you about to tell us that it was felled by

fire? Just curious

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arthritisR_US (Reply #10)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:15 PM

11. That's what happened.What's your version?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #11)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:26 PM

14. Who am I to disavow you of your belief

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arthritisR_US (Reply #14)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:30 PM

15. Heehee! You answered my post, unsolicited...

Now you're alseep. Sleep well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #11)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:55 AM

88. I've often observed that a rather efficient way to prevent

I've often observed that a rather efficient way to prevent actual dialog from happening is to merely label your opponent's premise a "conspiracy theory", ad a goofy picture or two, and then pretend to ourselves that we've "won" an argument.

Although it certainly lacks any substance, it does makes up for that in its inherent and self-validating tautology, and further allows us to minimize and trivialize the opposition view without even addressing it.

The RW does that often enough in response to the scientific consensus of Global Warming. And just in case you're not aware of it, dogma is a rather steep obstacle to critical thought, and our ability to consider more than one perspective; although I've also observed that the most common retort to this is "I know enough/read enough/researched enough about this subject to make up my mind...", which may even be true in one or two very rare cases...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #88)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:21 PM

94. I call such theories "CT's" because that's what they are

A spade a spade, so to speak...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #94)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:50 PM

169. So you believe conspiracies never happen?

Maybe you're a knee jerk "official story" believer then, or a "coincidence theorist".


Just calling a spade a spade, so to speak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #169)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 09:47 PM

177. There's conspiracies. And then, there's theories...

I'm a voracious reader. When I read about something, I weigh it against other versions of the same thing. I, then try to be objective in my evaluation of the event based on what I've read. Of course, I apply a basic logic regarding conspriacies - if a conspiracy involves a large group of people, the odds are in favor of one of those people spilling the beans. Very simple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #94)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 06:34 PM

224. When facts are lacking, everything is a CT. Your theory is nothing more than

a CT by your own standards. I notice you have provided no facts to back your CT, just the usual rhetoric we get when there are no facts to present.

I know some NYC Firefighters and they are certain the building was purposely demolished because it was unstable. As I pointed out above, John Kerry and the owner himself, also stated it was demolished on purpose. I don't get the huge effort to deny this as it is perfectly logical to try to prevent an unstable building from collapsing on its own and destroying other buildings and residences nearby. Why are you so worried about this? Airc, most NYers just assumed that is what happened to Bldg 7 and saw nothing wrong with it.

But once people began working so hard to dispel that story, people began to wonder 'why', 'why are they so concerned about this'?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #224)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 07:50 PM

225. Oh please

"But once people began working so hard to dispel that story, people began to wonder 'why', 'why are they so concerned about this'?"

Why are they concerned about it? Gee, I dunno....maybe because they don't like bullshit?

And this is a prime example...
"As I pointed out above, John Kerry and the owner himself, also stated it was demolished on purpose."

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html

PT Barnum certainly had you in mind when discussing birth rates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #225)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 08:57 PM

227. Lol, hilarious ...

I always laugh at people who resort to childish insults, being around 4, 5 and 6 year olds all my life, it's odd to see adults engage in behavior that children learn doesn't get them anywhere after a few tries. But it is funny how grown people on the internet act less mature than children. Who would have thought that adults behave this way if it was not for the anonymity of the internet?

As for your link, who is this person? All I see there are a whole lot of opinions easily counteracted by a hundred other links with the opposite opinion.

Like I said, CTs from keyboard 'experts' are about as valuable as telling someone they are an idiot on the internet.

I'm not interested enough in the subject to bother posting links, my point is and remains, that all you have are CTs, just like those you attack. Your post is a perfect example of what I meant when I stated, and repeat, what drew people's attention to the issue of Bldg 7 was the incredible efforts of some people to try to deny what no one really cared about to begin with.

Kerry is one hell of a CT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #227)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 11:43 AM

235. You're really making no sense

CT'ers make the ridiculous claim that WCT7 was brought down with a controlled demolition, which contradicts easily verifiable established facts. Few people cared about WTC7 until CT'ers started claiming the impossible and were accusing innocent people of a terrible crime: including the firemen who were some of the most victimized on 9-11.

Clearly you cared enough to comment on this thread, which naturally warrants a response, especially if what you write is total nonsense. You're turning logic on its head.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #235)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 12:45 PM

246. Talk about not making sense.

A crime would be to let a building collapse on top of other buildings possibly killing even more people.

But the Bush administration and their buddies told us the facts, so who am I to argue with those paragons of virtue?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #235)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:47 PM

288. You really are trying rather hard to try and put tin foil hats on people

 

Incredibly hard in fact.

It says more about you than it does about the people or posts you are replying to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #235)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:52 PM

290. I have marked your card as someone not to be trusted or believed

 

The first time I have ever done that to someone on here.

I have found that it's a pretty honest bunch on here.
Even if I don't agree with all of the comments - they are genuine views.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #235)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:23 PM

291. It would seem that Cooley Hurd & cpwm17 are working together

 

or at least have the same agenda.

Has anybody checked them out?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Reply #291)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:51 PM

292. It's not surprising that someone who promotes conspiracies

thinks people that disagree are a part of a conspiracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #224)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 10:49 AM

232. My "theory" is based on established fact...

...which disqualifies it as a theory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #8)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 11:37 PM

29. A plane slammed into it??

Wait, no, a plane did not slam into it. How strange!

What do you think happened to it?

Kerry spoke about and claimed it was demolished on purpose airc. But Kerry is such a CT who would pay any attention to anything he had to say, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #29)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:59 AM

54. No, that massive building (the North Tower) that slammed into it

which also caused large uncontrolled fires that burned for hours, couldn't have had anything to do with the WTC7 collapse? Of course it did.

Just about the entire engineering and scientific community supports that fact, and they have studied the collapse in detail on what caused the collapsed.

A controlled demolition is nonsensical in so many ways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #54)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 02:08 PM

121. Um, perhaps you missed the fact that both WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed into themselves?

They didn't fall over onto any surrounding buildings. They didn't fall over onto WTC7. Why a steel structure like WTC7 might have collapsed due to rather common building fires is a valid question. Even if they burned for hours it is very unlikely the fires fueled by common office furniture and such would have burned anywhere near the temperatures required to cause massive failure of a steel structure in NY. That's why industrial building codes require things such as steel studs rather than wood 2x4 studs.

I also take issue with your statement "Just about the entire engineering and scientific community supports that fact, and they have studied the collapse in detail on what caused the collapsed." I just don't think that's true. I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation for why WTC7 collapsed since it was not hit with an airplane and nothing of WTC1 or 2 fell on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Reply #121)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 03:14 PM

130. Actually, WTC1 & WTC2 didn't collapse into themselves – not even close.

I suggest you watch a video of the towers collapsing.

WTC7 was heavily engulfed in flames for seven hours due to the falling debris from WTC1. Engineers put fire proofing materials on steel framed structures to prevent them from collapsing. The long, unfought fires were more than WTC7 could handle.

Here's an appropriate Creative Speculation thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/11351853

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #130)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 03:38 PM

132. You still have not explained why common building fires might have brought down WTC7

Okay, so maybe WTC1 or WTC2 threw burning detritus into WTC7. I don't care if the fires burned uncontrollably for 24 hours not just 7 or so. They couldn't have reached the temperatures necessary to cause a massive failure in a steel building by burning office furniture and supplies. Industrial buildings like WTC7 are built to withstand fires. Sure, their interior contents may have been consumed by a fire. But the superstructure of the building is built to withstand fires.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #130)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 09:52 PM

178. The interiors pancaked, but the outer shells fell outward.

The north wall of WTC1 fell like a tree, smashing into WTC6 and reaching the lower floors of WTC7, setting it on fire. The aerial shots prove this:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #54)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 06:31 PM

147. Can you support that?

How do you speak for "the entire engineering and scientific community"? Do you have any links?

There is a vocal part of the engineering community that does *not* support the official story. See www.ae911truth.org . This group wants to see a new investigation, a real one this time, because the story we are supposed to believe doesn't hold up.

Can you name one or two of those many ways in which a controlled demolition is nonsensical?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freedom fighter jh (Reply #147)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 11:41 AM

234. it''s gone man!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wildbilln864 (Reply #234)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 12:42 PM

244. Long time, wildbilln

Good 2 C U here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freedom fighter jh (Reply #147)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 12:23 PM

243. AE911TRUTH is a Richard Gage operation

He's a crank. He claims that the smoke from the large fires in WTC7 was actually being sucked into WTC7. The heavy smoke from the large fires in WTC7 contradicts his entire scam. He's not a serious scientist or engineer. See first half of video: http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv=UHFhACaej4Q

Scientists and engineers speak for themselves. Scientists and engineers have studied the collapse in detail and know the facts: http://www.democraticunderground.com/11351853

Here's the NIST report on WTC7 collapse: http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=861610

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #243)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 03:03 PM

247. Responses

1. Richard Gage. I have a great deal of respect for the man. But let's say, just for the sake of argument, that he doesn't know what he's talking about. Still, there are 1700 + architects and engineers who find the official story questionable enough to demand a new investigation. See ae911truth.org.

2. You say "scientists and engineers speak for themselves." I don't see anything in the video that you link to (the link in your second paragraph) to indicate that it was made by a scientist or engineer. It's just a bunch of assertions. Yes, enough heat will weaken steel. But the video doesn't say anything to indicate that WTC 7 got that hot, much less that it got that hot in a so uniform a way that the whole thing came straight down within seconds.

3. You link to the NIST report. How does the NIST report prove your point?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freedom fighter jh (Reply #247)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 04:55 PM

249. I'm being brief so as not to hijack this thread

1. The video showed Richard Gage's obvious dishonesty concerning the central fact on why WTC7 collapsed. Any alleged scientist or engineer that has anything to do with him can be disregarded.

2 & 3 The video by a non-scientist gave a brief overview of why WTC7 collapsed as documented in the NIST report. The NIST is the scientific consensus on how WTC7 collapsed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #249)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 07:13 PM

250. 1. You disagree with Richard Gage on one fact and therefore

discount anything said by "any alleged scientist or engineer that has anything to do with him"? That's ad hominem argument and guilt by association all rolled into one. Most of the architects and engineers who signed the petition at ae911truth.org are licensed by their respective states.

2. The NISt report is THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS? It's just the government story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #29)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:26 AM

69. Here's what happened by all sane accounts...

The North face of WTC1, which was the first building hit and the last to go down, fell outward (to the north), demolishing WTC6 nd smashed into the ground floors of WTC7, starting fires that reached the basement where 24,000 gallons of diesel fuel were stored. Because of low-to-no water pressure, NYFD couldn't extinguish the flames, so it burned uncontrolled for hours, weakening the structure and leading to its collapse.

You're saying "Kerry" as in John Kerry? Or do you mean Bob Kerrey? Both are not dumb enough to assert that controlled demolition had anything to do with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #69)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:53 PM

99. Google it. John Kerry was recorded stating that it was brought down in a 'controlled

fashion'. That's pretty will known.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #99)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:06 PM

102. I did not know John Kerry was a controlled demolitions expert!

And why am I not surprised you would believe the WTC was brought down by explosives?
Wow, are some people gullible!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #102)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:56 PM

118. I don't believe I said what I believe. I merely pointed out that John Kerry

made the statement that Bldg 7 was brought down by controlled demolition. I don't see why that would be a problem. If a building is unstable then that would be the best way to prevent it from falling on top of other buildings, which is what he apparently believed was the reason for it. And airc, the owner of the building himself stated it was a controlled demolition.

Since I am not responsible for what other say, I don't know why you aimed your critique at me. Tell it to Kerry. And next time read what people actually say. I have no idea what brought down that building since we have so many conflicting stories. Who to believe? A Dem Senator or strangers on the internet? It's a tough choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #102)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:53 PM

187. I think Kerry got tricked by the question.

He clearly didn't know the specifics so he weaseled out an answer.

The reality is that firefighters in WTC7 were very worried about the structural integrity of the building and halted rescue operations. The entire area was evacuated quickly and the building collapsed on its own. They didn't have time or resources to set up a "controlled demolition" in any way whatsoever.

As I said, I think Kerry got tricked. He took the lying "truther" at face value, assumed there was some logic to it. It does seem logical to bring a building down, but when the building is unstable, in the midst of absolute chaos, with many lives at risk, you don't make up some fucking demolition plan at the spur of the moment and execute it. That's absurd. It takes days if not weeks at the minimum to create a safe plan of attack to demolish a building. Assessments, safety reports, crew assignments, blueprints, whole nine yards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #187)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 12:07 PM

241. C'mon! It's PERFECTLY SAFE to go into a tilting building-on-fire with explosives!

They dashed thru the flames, strapping explosives to the structure and then dashed out unscathed!

TOTALLY plausible!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #8)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:47 AM

52. What about the Bay of Pigs?

So is Bush lying when he claims that his oil company was not a CIA front?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #61)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 06:25 PM

145. I read your post.

You didn't answer my question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Boomerproud (Reply #145)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:14 PM

163. You didn't ask a question...



Welcome to DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #163)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 11:49 AM

236. yes he did! perhaps....

your reading comprehension skills prevented you from seeing the questions?
two questions in fact!
"What about the Bay of Pigs?"
"So is Bush lying when he claims that his oil company was not a CIA front?"

notice the question marks?they are clear indicators!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wildbilln864 (Reply #236)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 11:55 AM

237. Perhaps your reading comprehension skills prevented you from properly following the thread:

I answered their question before they even asked it:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2083019

To that, they asked this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2083951

Clearly, they didn't comprehend what was very clear in my post. To answer their questions, I told them to re-read my post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2084018

Mind your own business next time - I certainly wasn't talking to you...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #237)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 12:00 PM

239. you said he asked no questions. I simply corrected your error!

No need to get your panties in such a wad. And I'll mind what I wish every time!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wildbilln864 (Reply #239)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 12:03 PM

240. Nice sexism: "Panties in a wad".

I should alert on it, but I won't. Beyond that, I answered his questions and you're butting in unsolicited.

Whatever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #8)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 02:40 AM

62. Heh

no one biting on the WTC7 bait, hey?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Warren (Reply #62)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 06:34 AM

66. That would be a first, here...

WTC7 CT's have been popular here for years. Anyone who believes GHWB had anything to do with the Kennedy Assassination would likely be paranoid enough to believe that WTC7 wa brought down by controlled demolition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #66)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 02:23 PM

122. Hmmm

That could be construed as trolling

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Warren (Reply #122)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 05:38 PM

137. Hmmm

No fucking idea what you're talking about...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #137)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:38 PM

185. Diversionary tactics

Injecting 9/11 into a discussion of the murder of JFK is red herring and a not-so-thinly veiled attempt of inferring any discussion outside the official story is some whacko conspiracy theory. Hope that helps.

BTW, perhaps you can find a way express yourself without using profanity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Warren (Reply #185)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:47 PM

193. someone has the vapors!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #8)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:37 AM

87. Are you trying to discredit this post by referencing a completely unrelated event

 

because you cannot dispute the actual post?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Reply #87)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:26 PM

95. No, but when the messenger is suspect...

...I, sometimes, try to find out other "beliefs" to discern the messenger's veracity.

What you've posted about the JFK assassination is suspect. Not truth, but speculation presented as fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:00 PM

280. I think 9/11 was whom we said did it

 

It was one whiny millionaire (Osama Bin Laden) with help from some in the House of Saud.

The House of Saud wanted to remind the US that they still own us. Note how much Bush kowtowed to them right afterwards.

WTC7 will remain a mystery tho...was there a bomb or not?

Keep in mind the Royal Saudi family rented space in WTC7


I don't think it's the result of a cabal in the US government - we are way to inept to pull that off

It's angry millionaires and their pet governments.

JFK may have been two different assasination plots.

From where the fourth bullet came from could very well have been from a Secret Service agent.

Was he working alone? Was he working with Oswald? Was he working for 'fill in the blank here'?

I don't know and sadly we will never know.

Was the Warren Commission a cover up? Or was it just ineptitude?

At this point everything gets cloudy.

Someone once said to never mistake the actions of a very evil person with a grudge and an opportunity for a conspiracy.

Imagine this: You hate JFK. You are in the Secret Service. You know if you outright shoot the President, things get very bad for you. However, you seize on the opportunity that an assassin shoots at the President and you use the ensuing melee to take JFK out.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #280)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:04 PM

282. Keep in mind, conspiracies DO happen

 

Abraham Lincoln was killed by a Conspiracy of Confederates and Northern Sympathizers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:15 PM

12. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arugula Latte (Reply #12)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 09:13 AM

73. That is the most absurd assertion I have ever seen in my life

 

The nutbaggery, it burns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arugula Latte (Reply #12)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:08 PM

104. OMIGOD!!!!

That's him!
So smart of him to just stand around letting himself get photographed after the President is assassinated!
A criminal mastermind!
Wow, the gullibility of some people is staggering.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #104)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:35 PM

111. I just used your logic ... It all makes sense now!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #104)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 09:45 AM

202. Yes, and he cleverly shaved small portions of his head so his hairline would appear similar -- but

NOT THE SAME -- just to confuse people! And that temporary nose job and chin adjustment--subtle, that! What a lot of work he went through just to disguise himself slightly!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:16 PM

13. What's so funny?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Warren (Reply #13)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:41 PM

16. Well that is just downright creepy.

Thanks Jim - I never saw that before. Makes you wonder...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marie Marie (Reply #16)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 11:21 PM

22. Yes, it makes you wonder...

...how is it possible that George H.W. Bush was allowed to go free despite the irrefutable, damning evidence of his involvement...a grainy/fuzzy photo that if you squint really hard looks kinda sorta like a young Bush AND that video in which he (gasp!) laughs. It's an open and shut case...

Sorry folks, but I'm with Cooley Hurd on this one and hope that he will fashion one of those nifty tinfoil hats for me. I would proudly wear it rather than succumb to ridiculous, unfounded Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories based on flimsy evidence that require logic-defying mental contortions to believe.

Lee Harvey Oswald was a nobody/loser who desperately wanted to be a somebody and when the opportunity presented itself killed the president with no help from anyone. End of story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JazzQuipster (Reply #22)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 11:35 PM

28. lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JazzQuipster (Reply #22)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 11:54 PM

36. So, you did see him laugh

more of a snicker really wouldn't you say, while speaking at a funeral for one ex-president and mentioning the national tragedy of the assassination of another.

End of the story (conveniently) for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JazzQuipster (Reply #22)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:23 AM

42. Welcome to DU, JazzQuipster!

Glad you're here!

Of course it makes one wonder!

I have this list of questions that I hope to ask St. Peter or whichever Heavenly Authority Figure I encounter whenever I get near there. One of 'em is about this, of course. Another is about the Holy Grail mystery, Jesus and Mary Magdalene and all that. Another is about the makeup of the apostles - I'm wondering if any of them was gay (if one out of every ten of us is, on average, well - there were 12 of 'em...). Another is what happened to Amelia Earhart (was that really pieces of her plane that were found earlier this year?). And who or what killed John Paul the 1st - no autopsy and it did seem kinda fishy, He was only on the job for about a month. And what happened to Jimmy Hoffa? Who wrote the Old Testament books? And for that matter - who really wrote the New Testament books? Where's the Holy Cross now? Where's the Arc of the Covenant - did it get melted down by some heathens? Where's Noah's Ark? Who looted the Museum of Antiquities in Baghdad (THANK YOU, george w fuckhead. ) and WHERE IS THAT STUFF? It belongs to ALL OF HUMANITY!!!! And lots of questions about ancient Egypt, Babylon, and Sumeria. When was the universe created. When was the Earth created? What killed the dinosaurs, and when? And is there anybody else out there (extraterrestrially, that is)? Etc...

I have this fantasy about getting all my unanswerable questions answered after I die.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #42)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 02:41 AM

63. I understand and have the same fantasy for

all of my unanswerable queries

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #42)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:02 AM

90. You forgot a crucial question (imo): did William Shakespeare of

 

Statford-on-Avon actually write all the plays and poems attributed to him? And if he did not, who did?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #90)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 07:55 PM

254. "I did...and my wife and I wrote the Sonnets". Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JazzQuipster (Reply #22)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 09:34 AM

75. Well, Congress voted to go to war with Iraq over evidence inferior to this

Just sayin'...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JazzQuipster (Reply #22)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:37 AM

86. LHO was also indisputably a committed Marxist who admired Castro and one who took serious

 

umbrage at the continued harassment of Castro's Cuba by JFK's administration, even following the Bay of Pigs debacle and the Cuban Missile Crisis. LHO was not simply a publicity whore, by which I mean there was an explicitly political motive behind his assassination of JFK.

On edit: Clay Shaw, the only person ever charged with and prosecuted for the murder of JFK and indisputably innocent of the charge, had this to say: "People believe in a conspiracy because when death comes to the figure of a prince, as it did to Kennedy, struck down in his prime, it should come under a panoply of great tragedy with all the resulting high court intrigue -= almost something out of Shakespeare -- not from some poor little psychotic loser crouched iwth a mail-order rifle behind a stack of cardboard boxes in a warehouse." (Cited in Vincent Bugliosi's Reclaiming History, p. 1348n.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #86)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:09 PM

105. Shhhhhhh!!!!!

Some people like to defend double-murderer LHO and blame everyone else for the crimes he committed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JazzQuipster (Reply #22)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 09:18 PM

176. Is that what they taught you in high school a few years ago?

Take it from those who've been around long enough, not only

to remember the assassination, but to actually read about it,

think about it and CARE about it

NO one but the dimmest bulbs on the planet believe

in the Magic Bullet Theory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #176)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 08:38 AM

198. Does 42 years count as a "few years ago?"

Your implication being that I must be too young, or wasn't around at the time of the assassination and therefor too easily dismiss the mountains of "evidence" of conspiracy.

I was 12 years old when President Kennedy was killed and remember it very well, thank you. I also remember that in the years that followed a cottage industry of Kennedy conspiracy theory books sprang up and many were best-sellers. I read some of them and, at that impressionable age, believed some of them.

But, the problem with all of them was that the books themselves were all over the map. One author thought it was a CIA operation, one thought it was Castro Cubans, another thought it was anti-Castro Cubans. Then there were those who thought it was the American Mafia in Chicago, or in New Orleans. Or it was the Russians. Or wealthy right-wing business men. And on and on. And then for any of these conspiracy theories to work you have to believe that dozens of unrelated co-conspirators had to be involved. After all these years and the 1,000-plus books written on the subject there is not one solid lead that everyone can agree on to pursue. Nothing except speculation.

If you want to read the definitive investigation into the assassination of JFK, read either of Vincent Bugliosi's books on the subject. His big book meticulously follows every single lead in the case that has ever been put forth by all of the other conspiracy theory books. His conclusion based on all of the evidence that he dissected over 20 years is is that Oswald acted alone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JazzQuipster (Reply #198)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 04:16 PM

218. Why would a CTer read a book with facts?

When the speculative ones are so much more entertaining!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Warren (Reply #13)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 11:17 PM

20. How odd. Thanks for the clip.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Warren (Reply #13)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 11:39 PM

31. Wow. That is bizarre. He has no remorse on the murder of JFK. Nada.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:45 PM

17. Russ Baker's book was fascinating.

Somewhat dense, with a huge cast of characters, but extremely informative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 11:08 PM

18. How much do you know about the meeting that took place the night before JFK's murder....

....and the people who were present? Interesting cast of characters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 11:19 PM

21. For some, the truth is overrated.

 

They not only prefer ignorance and stupidity for themselves but demand that others be ignorant and stupid as well.

Thanks for your post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 11:25 PM

23. This subject belongs in Creative Speculation

if anywhere on DU.

Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK. Oswald acted alone. Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frogmarch (Reply #23)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 11:34 PM

27. I am sick of this attitude

the JFK assassination absolutely was not the result of someone acting alone- honestly- you must be the first person that I have met in my entire life that thinks that- and I have not even met you!

Please, it deserves a good open discussion.

And it would be something if he told all on his deathbed. He just might.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #27)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:47 AM

51. All of the evidence is that Oswald acted alone.

If you have any evidence otherwise I'm sure the folks that visit the Creative Speculation Group would like to see it. From what I've seen, everything that anybody ever tries to pass as evidence for a conspiracy is beyond weak. The little that has been presented on this thread is no exception.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #51)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:44 PM

98. No, that is not correct. Here's what the evidence says:

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Evidence

Lots of links, details and source information for those interested in learning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #98)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:23 PM

108. No, he was correct, my good friend.

Here's a link to actual facts and not the speculations of an amateur "researcher".
How goes your research, by the way? Have you narrowed the list of suspects down to 350 yet?
Hope you have a happy new year and this is the year you finally break the case wide open, my good friend!


http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #108)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:34 PM

110. John McAdams is a professional debunker who has made a career of espousing the lone-nut line.

Smart people can learn something new:

McAdams is a rightwing disinformationalist.

more on zappaman's source:

SOME COMMENTS ON JOHN MCADAMS' KENNEDY ASSASSINATION HOME PAGE

Dumbasses think they know everything, right, zappaman?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #110)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:41 PM

112. Oh, my friend...

Yes, all the professional CT authors who have penned countless books about the assassination have never made a penny and it is only their altruistic qualities that compels them to "tell the truth" about the assassination.
Why so scared of little old McAdams, my old friend?
Let people check out the link for themselves.

So, you must have missed my question....how many suspects are you up to these days? At last count, it was around 400 including JFK's brothers and LBJ.
I certainly hope you have narrowed it down!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #112)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:59 PM

188. Why do you continue with your nonsense, zappaman?

I ask you to back up your assertions about me -- let alone the subject of this post -- and you repeat the same old same old.

Learn something new, for once:

CIA Instructions to Media Assets re: Assassination of President Kennedy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #188)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 04:19 PM

219. I worry about you, old friend.

You seem immersed in trying to blame anyone but LHO for JFk's assassination.
Tell us again...how many people killed JFK?
You have asserted the FBI, Secret Service, the CIA, members of the Kennedy family, LBJ, and the Dallas police had a hand in planning or covering up the assassination.
I see no reason why you can't come up with some kind of number.

So, is this the year all your diligent "research" pays off and you finally unmask the killers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #219)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 04:57 PM

223. Why did the CIA hire the MAFIA in 1960 to kill Castro?

And why did they withhold that information from the Warren Commission?



How the CIA Enlisted the Chicago Mob to Put a Hit on Castro

Ever wonder about the sanity of America's leaders? Take a close look at perhaps the most bizarre plot in U.S. intelligence history

By Bryan Smith
Chicago Magazine
November 2007
(page 4 of 6)

EXCERPT...

By September 1960, the project was proceeding apace. Roselli would report directly to Maheu. The first step was a meeting in New York. There, at the Plaza Hotel, Maheu introduced Roselli to O'Connell. The agent wanted to cover up the participation of the CIA, so he pretended to be a man named Jim Olds who represented a group of wealthy industrialists eager to get rid of Castro so they could get back in business.

"We may know some people," Roselli said. Several weeks later, they all met at the Fontainebleau Hotel in Miami. For years, the luxurious facility had served as the unofficial headquarters for Mafioso leaders seeking a base close to their gambling interests in Cuba. Now, it would be the staging area for the assassination plots.

At a meeting in one of the suites, Roselli introduced Maheu to two men: Sam Gold and a man Roselli referred to as Joe, who could serve as a courier to Cuba. By this time, Roselli was on to O'Connell. "I'm not kidding," Roselli told the agent one day. "I know who you work for. But I'm not going to ask you to confirm it."

Roselli may have figured out that he was dealing with the CIA, but neither Maheu nor O'Connell realized the rank of mobsters with whom they were dealing. That changed when Maheu picked up a copy of the Sunday newspaper supplement Parade, which carried an article laying out the FBI's ten most wanted criminals. Leading the list was Sam Giancana, a.k.a. "Mooney," a.k.a. "Momo," a.k.a. "Sam the Cigar," a Chicago godfather who was one of the most feared dons in the country—and the man who called himself Sam Gold. "Joe" was also on the list. His real name, however, was Santos Trafficante—the outfit's Florida and Cuba chieftain.

Maheu alerted O'Connell. "My God, look what we're involved with," Maheu said. O'Connell told his superiors. Questioned later before the 1975 U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (later nicknamed the Church Committee after its chairman, Frank Church, the Democratic senator from Idaho), O'Connell was asked whether there had ever been any discussion about asking two men on the FBI's most wanted list to carry out a hit on a foreign leader.
"Not with me there wasn't," O'Connell answered.

"And obviously no one said stop—and you went ahead."

"Yes."

"Did it bother you at all?"

"No," O'Connell answered, "it didn't."

CONTINUED...

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/November-2007/How-the-CIA-Enlisted-the-Chicago-Mob-to-Put-a-Hit-on-Castro/index.php?cparticle=4&siarticle=3



Gee. Organized crime in bed with the nation's spy agency. What could go wrong?

I don't expect an answer. Just thought I'd ask, seeing how you haven't added anything to the discussion, zappaman. Then, again, as your posts show, that's your style.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #223)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 07:53 PM

226. Why won't you answer my question, old chum?

By your estimates, how many people killed JFK?
Surely a knowledgeable fellow as yourself must have some idea, no?

I can tell you how many killed JFK if you ask, so why can't you?

It would be helpful and really add to the discussion my good friend!
Better than dodging and avoiding the questions, but then, again, as your posts show, that's your style.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #226)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 09:09 PM

229. The truth is, I've never claimed to know that, zappaman.

You should know that. Which, of course, is why you can only make personal attacks, zappaman. You got, as always, nothing.

As for your assertion that you can name the assassin, that is only what you've been told by the Warren Commission and its supporters. They rely on information provided by J Edgar Hoover and Allen Dulles, two paragons of the reactionary right.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3908104

COINTLPRO, CHAOS, MK/ULTRA...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #229)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 07:44 PM

252. Show me where I have made personal attacks, old friend.

You make fantastic claims and have never stopped to wonder how many perps it would take?
I truly expected more from a man of your intellect, friend.
I hope you take a break from your sleuthing and enjoy some quality time with your family this new year!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #252)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:16 AM

259. Here's one example.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #259)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:33 AM

263. Yes, Inspector Clouseau always got his man!

However, you again are dodging the question...

Approximately how many people, in your esteemed opinion of course, were involved kin killing JFK?

I can wait...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #263)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:00 AM

265. You asked me that last time you attempted to divert discussion of the JFK assassination.

http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2075989

Why do you insist on diverting discussion, zappaman? It's like your prime occupation, or something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #265)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:55 PM

270. Why won't you answer questions?

You cast aspersions on many Americans, yet you refuse to back them up.
If you believe Oswald is innocent, then surely you must be able to tell us how many were involved.

Why do you insist on dodging questions, Octafish? It's like your prime occupation, or something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #270)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:11 PM

274. Questions? Your puerile demands? Your straw men? Why don't you ever criticize the BFEE, zappamaman?

Answer: Because you never do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #274)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:05 PM

283. Oh talk about strawman

I'm glad people here can see you duck and dodge.
By the way, one person killed JFK.
See how easy that was?
Have a great new year with friends and family!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #283)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:24 PM

287. Is this the guy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #226)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 03:06 PM

275. Here's my educated guess...

More than 2.





To be more specific...

How many were involved in removing Mossadegh in Iran? Arbenz in Guatemala? Allende in Chile?

Or even the Operation to hunt down Che Guevara in Bolivia?

So somewhere between 2 and X (X = other similar coups).

Oh wait.. I forgot. There's no such thing as conspiracies. So those other examples never happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MinM (Reply #275)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:03 PM

281. Wrong.

The answer is one.
At least that is the answer ALL of the evidence points to.
But, you were close!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #281)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:47 PM

289. The Final Govt Investigation concluded there was a Conspiracy...

The HSCA concluded that you're full of crap .. zap.

Or as the late Gaeton Fonzi referred to it...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #51)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:06 PM

284. NO - the evidence is that only three of the bullets could have come from Oswald

 

the fourth, even the Warren commission doesn't claim Oswald shot that bullet

However motivations, was it a conspiracy?

I never go for the cabal theory because Occam's Razor suggests otherwise


I think someone else was trying to kill JFK that day

And may not have known Oswald at all


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #27)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 03:09 PM

276. And some are sick of the attitude


That it "deserves a good open discussion" means there hasn't been one, incessantly, for years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frogmarch (Reply #23)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 11:42 PM

32. And there's the real CT, right there in the last sentence!

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 11:26 PM

25. Older people my age

remember exactly where they were when the announcement came that Kennedy was assasinated. I was in Catholic high school, they announced it over the PA, and prayed for him.
George H. was one of the few people who claim not to remember where he was at the time of Kennedy's assasination. He was for sure in Dallas the night before but claims he flew out of Dallas that night. Think he would remember he was in the city?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to watoos (Reply #25)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 11:29 PM

26. I always thought

He didnt acted alone, until I read Stephen King's fiction book on the assassination. At the end of the bopok, King explains why
he thinks Oswald was the lone gunman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brettdale (Reply #26)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 11:43 PM

33. He also said his wife disagrees with him about that

so King at least acknowledges rational people can have differing views on the assassination.

I enjoyed King's book, but it didn't change my mind that Oswald didn't act alone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brettdale (Reply #26)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:37 AM

49. I love Stephen King, but he's a writer of fiction. Period. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #49)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 02:51 AM

64. So the big name they want to hold up as

supporting their position is a fiction writer, interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arthritisR_US (Reply #64)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:58 AM

89. Um, Vincent Bugliosi also makes an incredibly substantive case that LHO

 

acted alone and that there was no conspiracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #89)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:07 PM

103. In all his writings this was the only time I

disagreed with him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arthritisR_US (Reply #103)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:12 PM

181. Why did you disagree? And on what grounds specifically? I'm just starting

 

to dip my toes into the JFK assassination waters in a meaningful, non-dilletante-ish way. My wife is hoping I do not slip down the rabbit hole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #89)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 02:53 PM

128. Bugliosi's book has been thoroughly debunked...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MinM (Reply #128)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 05:49 PM

142. Thank you. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MinM (Reply #128)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:05 PM

179. Thanks for that link. I would hardly conclude from it, though, that Bugliosi's book

 

has been 'thoroughly debunked'. More like questions about Bugliosi's honesty, objectivity and interpretive abilities have been raised. Did Bugliosi ever respond to this review that you know of?

N.B. I've thus far read only the main body (in hard-copy form). The book I checked out of the Los Angeles Public Library had a plastic sleeve for the CD (with its voluminous footnotes and endnotes) on the inside back cover, but the slot was empty. Thus I could not cross-check your reviewer's claims against Bugliosi's work.

Perhaps the conspirators are keeping Bugliosi's CD from members of the public? I hope to find out more tomorrow when I return the book itself to the LAPL.

Thanks again though. Much appreciated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #179)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 10:34 AM

203. That actually was just 1 of 12...

parts of the review. Not sure if there still linked somewhere but here's a little more:

http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?p=350229#p350229

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MinM (Reply #203)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 11:39 AM

205. Thanks again for the additional links. I'm somewhat new to the back alleys and

 

byways of the 'conspiracy'\critical school (vs. the Warren Commission\official school).

My first question is this: do you know whether Bugliosi ever responded to this review substantively?

My second question\observation is this: few dispute that the CIA was guilty of monstrous crimes during the 1947-75 time frame (and probably even thereafter). What many, including Bugliosi and me, dispute is whether the CIA was part of any conspiracy to assassinate JFK. IOW, the CIA can be black as sin overall but still be as pure as the driven snow in regards to JFK's assassination. To his credit, Bugliosi does not attempt to sugar-coat or whitewash the CIA's role in such nefarious shit as the Bay of Pigs, Operation Mongoose, etc. As far as I can tell, Bugliosi holds no warrant for the spooks at the CIA. His interest in this book, though, is ascertaining what role if any the CIA had in JFK's death. He concludes it had no role, other than that its efforts against Castro's Cuba may have provided Oswald with part of his motive for striking out at JFK. That's responsibility at least twice-removed, I would say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #179)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 04:28 PM

222. No, his book has not been debunked.

What drives the CTers nuts is that Bugliosi brought facts to the argument instead of speculation.
And by doing so, he is messing with a lot of people's livelihoods since a great deal of books have been written about dozens of CTs.

I thought Bugliosi did an excellent job showing why all those books are bullshit. Whether it is misrepresenting evidence, the omission of evidence that doesn't fit their particular theory or just outright lies.

His book will stand the test of time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #222)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 09:32 PM

230. Except, yes, Bugliosi's book has been debunked.

'Reclaiming History' or Re-Framing Oswald?

http://www.reclaiminghistory.org/

Lots of people there weigh in with facts and analysis that document the holes in Bugliosi's thesis -- debunking the book.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #230)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 11:56 AM

238. thank you octafish! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to watoos (Reply #25)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:27 AM

43. Welcome to DU, watoos!

Glad you're here! I was in fifth grade when that assassination occurred. I still remember it as though it were yesterday. GLUED to that TV all weekend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to watoos (Reply #25)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:50 AM

53. Nixon also claimed that he wasn't in Dallas that day until an investigative reporter....

....found his travel manifest which stated he flew out of Dallas at the same time as JFK was being killed. Then Nixon tried to claim he was in Dallas for a Coca-Cola board meeting, but Coke didn't have a meeting in Dallas during that time frame.

So, why was it so important for both Poppy and Nixon to deny they were in the Dallas area on November 22, 1963? Were they both attending a meeting in Fort Worth with LBJ and several other interesting people the night before the assassination?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:05 AM

37. The Secret Team

 

by Fletcher Prouty is a good read and makes sense of the history of the 1950's and 1960's better than many.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reteachinwi (Reply #37)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:21 AM

45. Welcome to DU, reteachinwi!

Good to have you with us! Interesting stuff! Thanks for posting about this. Sounds like a good suggestion!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #45)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 02:01 AM

55. Thank you for the welcome

 

It's possible to learn from all of you if the ad hominems and spitting feuds can be ignored.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reteachinwi (Reply #55)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 02:09 AM

58. Yeah. 'Fraid we get pretty wild and wooly here sometimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #58)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 09:42 AM

77. It's why I come back

 

again and again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #45)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 02:01 AM

56. You can find the entire book at the link inside....

THE SECRET TEAM. The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the United States and the World

Side note: Prouty was one of the major advisers to Oliver Stone for his movie "JFK". Donald Sutherlund played the nameless intelligence operative in "JFK" largely based on Prouty himself.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #56)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 02:10 AM

59. Well, who knows? Stranger things have happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:13 AM

40. Lots of Righties In Dallas That Day

Not only Poppy Bush but Hoover and even Nixon.

I'm not sure how anyone can say Oswald did it alone after reading the fiction that was "The Warren Report" and seeing the film of the JFK murder. Oswald may or may not have shot a gun that day but it was obvious to everyone there watching that the fatal shot came from the grassy knoll area.

Then there is the fact that Oswald sure did not act like a typical lone nut while still alive. Most take credit and don't deny it but LHO sure did. He had the look of someone who knew he'd been set up - a so called "throw away".

I'm not sure how much Poppy Bush had to do with it but his activities were odd afterward, he beat it from Dallas pretty quickly.

The impact of that day was immense. Add in the brutal slayings of MLK and then RFK in 1968 and the toll on the left was staggering - and I think the official versions of those 2 killings are quite suspect as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to colsohlibgal (Reply #40)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:22 AM

41. Oswald

was a CIA operative, back and forth across the lines, Soviet citizen denouncing his US citizenship then miraculously regaining it and back in the US. Can anyone think how hard that would be to pull off for some common guy?

A good read is James Douglas "JFK and the Unspeakable" which keys on JFK's June 10, 1963 speech at American University. Google that speech for the transcript and/or the video of the complete speech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Warren (Reply #41)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:38 AM

44. Oswald and the CIA, by John Newman:

A new edition of Oswald and the CIA was published in 2008. Newman argues that James Angleton was probably the key figure in the assassination of John F. Kennedy: "In my view, whoever Oswald's direct handler or handlers were, we must now seriously consider the possibility that Angleton was probably their general manager. No one else in the Agency had the access, the authority, and the diabolically ingenious mind to manage this sophisticated plot. No one else had the means necessary to plant the WWIII virus in Oswald's files and keep it dormant for six weeks until the president's assassination. Whoever those who were ultimately responsible for the decision to kill Kennedy were, their reach extended into the national intelligence apparatus to such a degree that they could call upon a person who knew its inner secrets and workings so well that he could design a failsafe mechanism into the fabric of the plot. The only person who could ensure that a national security cover-up of an apparent counterintelligence nightmare was the head of counterintelligence.".

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKnewmanJ.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gabi Hayes (Reply #44)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 05:52 PM

143. Angleton may have been involved, but at a lower level.

I have no doubts that the actual assassination was organized and executed by Gen. Ed Lansdale and his team.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MessiahRp (Reply #143)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 09:46 AM

231. any prouty connection is suspect.....he just went too far with

unverifiable claims, especially the tramps (lansdale???). please

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Warren (Reply #41)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:25 PM

184. I've read James Douglass' book!

I think he made his case very effectively, documenting every point. If I were a prosecuting attorney presented with the evidence James Douglass presented, I think I'd at least call for a grand jury probe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:27 AM

46. Man, the people on this thread need to adjust the tinfoil

 

Never have I seen a thread more rife with conspoiracy theory bullshit that has been shown time and again to be bullshit than this thread.

It's worse than a damned birther site in this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #46)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:37 AM

48. A surprising number of liberals fall for this CT nonsense

Very few of them have the guts to visit the Creative Speculation Group where their ridiculous theories are easily shot down. There's a Kennedy thread at the top right now that anyone's welcomed to add their comment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #48)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:49 PM

116. "A surprising number of liberals...their ridiculous theories..."

Here's another "ridiculous theory": you ain't no liberal!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VOX (Reply #116)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 02:41 PM

124. Is it liberal to disregard the double murderer who murdered JFK?

Is it liberal to blame folks that are totally innocent of the charge?

I answer 'no' both times. Believing in baseless fantasies isn't liberal at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #124)


Response to MessiahRp (Reply #141)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 06:06 PM

144. People are murdered all of the time with guns

Unfortunately, one of them was JFK, with all evidence pointing to Oswald as the shooter.

What's not to believe? It's not complicated, unlike most of the many conspiracy theories out there. I suppose people are uncomfortable with the idea that such a simple man murdered JFK.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #144)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 06:42 PM

150. Only manufactured evidence points to Oswald.

No way can he fire off three shots that quickly with that rifle through a tree fully loaded with leaves. It's not even remotely the easiest shot for him to take from where he is located. He also isn't a sprinter who can zip down flights of stairs and city blocks like The Flash.

Easiest rebuttal to your theory: Magic Bullet.

Complete bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MessiahRp (Reply #150)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 06:56 PM

154. Except he did.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0088b.htm

Secret Service Agent John J. Howlett performed two separate "re-creations" of Oswald's probable post-shooting movements, taking 78 seconds on his first try and 74 seconds on the second. And Howlett was not out of breath upon reaching the second-floor lunchroom at the completion of either one of the test runs, which were conducted at a regular walking pace and a "fast walk", respectively.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo/jfk8/mc.htm

The weapon can be quite accurately fired more rapidly using open iron sights than the FBI tests in 1963 indicated, where the telescopic sight was used. For example, Officer Masson, during one test series, hit the body silhouette at 143 and 165 feet on the first two shots, and missed the head portion of the silhouette at 266 feet on the third shot by approximately one inch (1"), taking 2.0 seconds between shots 1 and 2, and a total of less than 5 seconds for all three shots. Two other series, one by officer Smith and another, again, by Officer Masson, were fired in which only 1.9 seconds elapsed between two shots, and one of the three shots scored a "kill"

Not sure where you got your info.
Lemme guess, a conspiracy book?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #154)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:14 PM

165. I've read a number of books on the subject.

A conspiracy book? Well then that solves it, you're unwilling to read or accept any proof or theories put forth by any authors that do not tow your line of thinking.

MAGIC FUCKING BULLET. You can't explain jack shit that makes that work of fiction real.

Also everyone knew Oswald was a terrible shot yet you're looking for an FBI sharpshooter who pulled it off in the most unrealistically perfect conditions with no stress or other thoughts in the way, just a calm, if I don't hit this target no big deal thing. Not the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MessiahRp (Reply #165)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 08:03 PM

171. Bet I've read more than you.

Started reading them in the early 70's.

Who says Oswald was a terrible shot?
Oh, you read that in one of the number of books you read.
Tell me, what books did you read that pointed to LHO as being the assassin?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MessiahRp (Reply #141)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:39 PM

168. Extremely well said (n/t)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Samantha (Reply #168)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 04:21 PM

220. Well...mmmmmaybe not so extremely well said, eh?

"A Jury voted 5-1 to hide this post on Fri Dec 28, 2012, 05:06 PM. Reason: This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See Community Standards.)"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #48)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 01:24 PM

213. How many Liberals were on the Warren Commission?

Zero. Two commissioners had extensive histories of working closely with NAZIs, however.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Octafish/385

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #46)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 06:36 AM

67. No shit!

And, heaven forbid if you point this out to any of the participants.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:31 AM

47. And one of his sons had a key 'security' role for the World Trade Center

just before 9/11. The whole family stinks. And don't get me started on their Cocaine Empire...

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Matariki (Reply #47)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:17 AM

68. +1. Thanks for posting. I have that article saved, also.

+1 to the OP, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 02:26 AM

60. Eyes wide shut

Nothing works against the success of a conspiracy so much as the wish to make it wholly secure and certain to succeed. Such an attempt requires many men, much time, and very favorable conditions. And all these in turn heighten the risk of being discovered. You see, therefore, how vulnerable conspiracies are.

— Francesco Guicciardini, Ricordi Politici, 1530

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 09:10 AM

72. I'm surprised no one mentioned the Mick Jagger angle...

..."I shouted out, Who killed the Kennedys, when after all it was...me."

Seriously, I bet you couldn't get a hotel room in Dallas on the day of the shooting what with all the co-conspirators that happened to be in town that day.

Let's see, there was Richard Nixon, George H.W. Bush, J. Edgar Hoover, Howard Hunt, Lyndon Johnson, the guy on the plane who winked at Johnson as he was sworn in, Lee Harvey Oswald, the fake Lee Harvey Oswald, the CIA, the KGB, Sam Giancana and the Chicago mob, Jack Ruby, Fidel Castro, anti-Castro Cuban exiles, the Mossad, the Federal Reserve, the umbrella man, Abraham Zapruder, the three bums on the grassy knoll and all 1,000-plus authors of Kennedy conspiracy theory books.

It's amazing that such a diverse group was able to pull off the assassination and not get caught.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JazzQuipster (Reply #72)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 09:15 AM

74. Best. Post. Of. The. Thread.

 

Bravo, sir. Bravo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JazzQuipster (Reply #72)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:00 AM

78. It's even more amazing that some people believe LHO acted alone,....

....if he acted at all.

You do understand that the House Select Committee on Assassinations stated in their conclusions in 1978 that JFK was killed as a result of a conspiracy, don't you?

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #78)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:09 AM

91. LHO's fingerprints and palm prints were found on the Mannlicher-Carcano

 

rifle in the 6th-floor sniper's nest of the Texas School Book Depository. Were anyone else's fingerprints found on that weapon? Or are you saying that the Mannlicher Carcano was not the rifle from which the fatal shots were fired?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #91)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 04:02 PM

133. 1) It wasn't the first rifle found after the assassination....

...that rifle was a Mauser; 2) the FBI firearms experts refused to fire the M-C until several repairs had been made...they felt it was too dangerous to fire in the condition in which it was found.

Oh, by the way, my late friend Harold Weisberg told me that the palmprint wasn't "found" underneath the barrel of the disassembled M-C until AFTER LHO's autopsy. Interesting, don't you think?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #133)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 08:12 PM

172. Yes that bullshit was said by Roger Craig

who was thoroughly discredited.

In later years, however, Craig's account changed and he adopted the orthodox conspiracy version that has the Mauser found on the 6th floor. In his memoir When They Kill a President Craig claims:
Lt. Day inspected the rifle briefly, then handed it to Capt. Fritz who had a puzzled look on his face. Seymour Weitzman, a deputy constable, was standing beside me at the time. Weitzman was an expert on weapons. He had been in the sporting goods business for many years and was familiar with all domestic and foreign weapons. Capt. Fritz asked if anyone knew what kind of rifle it was. Weitzman asked to see it. After a close examination (much longer than Fritz or Day's examination) Weitzman declared that it was a 7.65 German Mauser. Fritz agreed with him. Apparently, someone at the Dallas Police Department also loses things but, at least, they are more conscientious. They did replace it — even if the replacement was made in a different country. (See Warren Report for Italian Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5 Caliber).
It now seems that the Mauser on the roof, which Craig didn't claim to have seen, has become the Mauser on the 6th floor. A few years later, when he was interviewed for "Two Men in Dallas," Craig claimed to have viewed the rifle close-up and seen the notation "7.65 Mauser."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/craig.htm#mauser

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #133)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:21 PM

183. The Mauser and M-C both have a similar appearance to non-experts, according

 

to experts whom Bugliosi cites (many of whom testified for the Warren Commission). Bugliosi concludes that the rifle was initially mis-identified as a Mauser, said mis-identification creeping into reports downstream before the correct ID as a M-C was made. IOW, there were not two rifles. There was one rifle that was initially mis-identified as a Mauser.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #183)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:08 PM

189. The man who found the gun, Deputy Eugene Boone, signed a sworn affidavit....

...claiming the weapon in question had been identified as a Mauser. Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig, who was present when the rifle was found, even claims to have seen “7.65 Mauser” written stamped on the murder weapon.

Craig went to his grave insisting that the gun found that day on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository was unquestionably a 7.65 German Mauser. Craig’s refusal to change his story about the Mauser, like all the other officers had done, caused him to be ostracized by his peers. He was fired from the Dallas Police Department in 1967, apparently for discussing sensitive information with a journalist. Roger Craig never found steady work again, he lost his wife, and then began suffering a series of bizarre accidents which left him severely injured. He was shot at, driven off the side of the road, and at one point his car engine mysteriously exploded. The injuries induced by these incidents left Mr. Craig in almost constant physical pain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #189)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 06:07 AM

196. Yes, he continuely changed his story

In later years, however, Craig's account changed and he adopted the orthodox conspiracy version that has the Mauser found on the 6th floor. In his memoir When They Kill a President Craig claims:
Lt. Day inspected the rifle briefly, then handed it to Capt. Fritz who had a puzzled look on his face. Seymour Weitzman, a deputy constable, was standing beside me at the time. Weitzman was an expert on weapons. He had been in the sporting goods business for many years and was familiar with all domestic and foreign weapons. Capt. Fritz asked if anyone knew what kind of rifle it was. Weitzman asked to see it. After a close examination (much longer than Fritz or Day's examination) Weitzman declared that it was a 7.65 German Mauser. Fritz agreed with him. Apparently, someone at the Dallas Police Department also loses things but, at least, they are more conscientious. They did replace it — even if the replacement was made in a different country. (See Warren Report for Italian Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5 Caliber).

It now seems that the Mauser on the roof, which Craig didn't claim to have seen, has become the Mauser on the 6th floor. A few years later, when he was interviewed for "Two Men in Dallas," Craig claimed to have viewed the rifle close-up and seen the notation "7.65 Mauser."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/craig.htm#mauser

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #78)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:59 PM

170. You know, I had forgotten about that

Thanks for reminding me.

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JazzQuipster (Reply #72)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 03:12 PM

277. It was in the early reports....

?w=614

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:56 PM

100. "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters" is the best book

on the JFK assassination, as mentioned by DUer Jim Warren (comment #41, above). It draws upon all the other books and previous research and goes further, with new research and meticulous disentangling of the assassination plot, and into the very soul of history--WHY it happened and WHY it is still with us, today.

Its author, James Douglass, is not a "moron." Someone above says that anyone who believes that Oswald did not act alone is a "moron." More than any other author on the JFK assassination, Douglass addresses the psychological condition of those who would call people like Douglass--an extremely intelligent man, a topnotch researcher, an excellent and cautious writer who asserts nothing that he cannot prove, and also a man with a deep soul--a "moron."

James Douglass proves--to my mind, beyond any question--that the CIA assassinated President Kennedy. He nails the CIA up to Richard Helms (Director of Operations). It is likely that Allen Dulles, whom JFK had fired as CIA Director over the disastrous "Bay of Pigs" invasion of Cuba, was behind the plot, but there is not enough evidence to nail him directly, so Douglass doesn't do so. He does not go outside of the evidence. He is also cautious about LBJ. The evidence suggests that LBJ was NOT involved in the assassination plot, but WAS involved in the coverup and had some weighty reasons (from his own point of view) for the latter.

Very importantly, Douglass disentangles the CIA's misdirections--for instance, their attempt to point blame for the assassination at Soviet Russia--and, most important of all--explains and documents WHY they did this. JFK had refused to nuke Russia during the Cuban Missile Crisis--with the entire "military-industrial complex" (all of the Joint Chiefs, the CIA and everybody in his cabinet except Bobby) strongly pressuring him to do so. By pointing to Soviet Russia on the assassination, the CIA was trying to force JFK's successor, LBJ, to nuke Russia in retaliation. They wanted to nuke Russia--to wipe it off the face of the earth--while the U.S. had missile superiority. JFK wouldn't do it. (He did a backchannel deal with Krushchev to avoid it.) They thought LBJ would do it--or that they could force him to do it. And THIS is why LBJ, three days after the assassination, said, "Now they can have their war." He was speaking of the CIA and Vietnam!

"Now" meaning that, now that the coverup was in train, and the tracks to Russia were being muddied over, they "could have their war" with Communism elsewhere--without, for instance, hundreds of thousands of deaths on the east coast of the U.S. from a nuclear war with Russia.

When you see the events leading up to the JFK assassination IN CONTEXT, in a coherent narrative of the times, in a coherent narrative of JFK's presidency and in a coherent narrative of JFK's life--his in-progress transformation from a "cold warrior" into an advocate of world peace--then the facts of the assassination and its muddled coverup fall into place like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, and it becomes VERY CLEAR who did it, why they did it and WHY IT STILL MATTERS.

Focus on the assassination itself IS NOT ENOUGH. You have to focus on those facts--really focus on them, in a disentangling process--AND on the Bay of Pigs, the firing of Dulles, the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy's backchannel communications with Krushchev and Castro, the Russian Wheat Deal, the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, JFK's executive order withdrawing U.S. troops from Vietnam--and, also, a vital factor for which Douglass provides original research--Kennedy's religion (for instance, his contact through Ethel Kennedy with the anti-nuke Trappist monk Thomas Merton). Kennedy had become a threat to the U.S. "military-industrial complex." He wouldn't take their dictates--even if it meant him standing against them all alone, with his brother as his only ally. In 1960, when he ran for president, he spoke like a "cold warrior." In late 1962 and 1963, he was a very changed leader (as a result of the Cuban Missile Crisis) and was seeing beyond the "Cold War" and intending to END the "Cold War" (the MIC's, the CIA's and the Joint Chiefs' gravy train).

NOW you begin to understand WHY the CIA sent their very duped, Navy spy-trained asset, Lee Harvey Oswald, to Russia--and then readmitted him to the U.S.A. to create the "Fair Play For Cuba Committee."

This is a very great book--"JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters." It is must reading for every American--whether you "believe" that Oswald did not act alone or whether you think that those who "believe" this are "morons." To the latter, I say this: I'm sorry but James Douglass is NOT a "moron." He is one of the most brilliant historians that I have ever read, for his depth of understanding, not only of the details of history but of the soul of history--its meaning, that which remains among us, influencing future generations, to the end of time and certainly a mere half a century later. You owe this man a reading especially if you think he is a "moron." He spent ten years of his life doing nothing but this book. It is thoroughly researched and beautifully written. You owe him. We all do.

The MIC is still with us, creating "gravy train" wars all over the planet. The CIA is still with us, now arming the "rebels" in Syria, as they armed the fascists in South Vietnam, or summarily executing anonymously targeted "terrorists" all over the planet. These forces that are draining our treasury and destroying our democracy are still in charge. They are reaping the benefits of the JFK assassination to this day.

That is "why it matters."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peace Patriot (Reply #100)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 02:08 PM

120. Yes. Also the newly released "Destiny Betrayed"...

enumerates the many obstacles placed in the way of all the subsequent investigations.

The Rewrite of Destiny Betrayed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MinM (Reply #120)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 03:15 PM

279. Chapter 3: Bay of Pigs: Kennedy v Dulles

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peace Patriot (Reply #100)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 06:31 PM

146. Well Said

 

The ones who gained the most were the ones who killed JFK. Johnson was very corrupt and had to answer to the shadow government also. The Bush family are just the puppets of those manipulating things behind the scenes. Look at the evil they surround themselves with . Bush jr had the presidency handed to him twice. Now, there is serious talk about Jeb Bush and his likely run in 2016. Perhaps this Bush dynasty is used to do the dirty work for the MIC. That this family has been involved in death and destruction for generations should point us in the right direction. If you look long and hard at all the Presidents since Kennedy you see a gradual rightward shift. Obama in no exception. I believe that they all answer to ,the real power brokers,who do not reveal themselves outwardly. People much like the Koch brothers,who have such a vested interest in the outcomes .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peace Patriot (Reply #100)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 08:50 PM

174. Thank you for this very informative post -- another reputable book I have on my list to read

I do believe the author has a stellar reputation and I do agree with just about everything you highlight in your post. The only small area of disagreement I have is that I do believe LBJ knew before hand of the plot and even contributed. There was only one person who had access to the Secret Service's plan to protect the President and who could have shared that with the active participants in the assassination. That one person was LBJ.

"***Johnson called on Clark for help. The problem was not just corruption by Estes; now it was murder by Wallace. Johnson knew something had to be done. He called upon the only man he trusted, the one he knew could do anything. Johnson asked Clark to take care of his legal problems, and there was only one way: the assassination of President Kennedy.

At the meeting, Johnson gave Clark the Secret Service policy manual for protection of the president, and the basic planning for the assassination commenced."

Quoted from "Blood, Power and Money" at page 161. Wallace, fyi, was originally considered to be the sharpshooter, but Clark decided more than one was needed. Through a series of connections, he teamed Wallace with another shooter, and asked them to line up a patsy to cover for the snipers. The use of that word "patsy" I found interesting inasmuch as that is exactly one of the first words I heard Oswald say, "I am just a patsy." (loosely quoting from memory).

Clark, for your information, was the senior partner at the law firm who represented Johnson from the inception of his political career, and it was with him McClellan directly worked.

Again, thank you for your post.

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Samantha (Reply #174)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:28 PM

191. I still have doubts about LBJ, too, which Douglass does not put to rest.

Douglass simply doesn't go where he doesn't have much proof--and he tries to avoid innuendo and speculation. He does not implicate LBJ but neither does he exonerate him--and he certainly discusses LBJ's part in the coverup. One of the things Douglass narrates is how LBJ learned of the CIA's misdirection to Russia--it was from J.Edgar Hoover (of all people)--and that was the trigger for the coverup, in Douglass' view. (LBJ didn't want the American people--who, believe me, where very upset, as a population--to add pressure on him to nuke Russia in retaliation.) This implies that LBJ didn't know of the CIA involvement, or that's how I interpreted Douglass. (Maybe he meant to leave it as an open question.) I have no idea if he is familiar with the book you mention, "Blood, Power and Money." I haven't read it, so I can't make a judgement of its assertions or its sources.

My suspicions of LBJ are circumstantial. He was tight with the Texas oil establishment--one of the more evil forces in the world, to this day. He benefited in a very obvious way--succeeding to the presidency. He was extremely ambitious and was never happy as JFK's VP. And he was a powermonger and, in the end, a total son-of-a-bitch, who murdered ONE MILLION Southeast Asians in the Vietnam War (Nixon murdered the other million) and some large portion of over 55 thousand U.S. soldiers--for what? FOR WHAT?! To please Allen Dulles and Richard Helms, and U.S. war profiteers! So, yeah, I can believe he was in on it--but I have huge respect for Douglass and if he doesn't think that LBJ was part of the plot, that would give me pause. As I said, I didn't know about this incident in the book you mention. I just Googled the incident...

http://home.earthlink.net/~sixthfloor/estes.htm

...and, relying on this account, I have to say that the word of Billie Sol Estes (a notorious big time con man, tied to LBJ) is, to say the least, suspect. And, if he went to jail for LBJ, he might have reason to lie about him later, out of bitterness. I also think that Douglass so well-establishes that the CIA (or a group within CIA headed by Richard Helms, and probably ultimately headed by Allen Dulles) was the perpetrator of JFK's murder that other possible perps just fall away. They also had the resources and assets to set such a complicated plot, full of misdirections, in motion. It could be that Estes' shooter, Wallace, was involved--and that LBJ was involved--but would Estes/LBJ's corrupt dealings--even if it included a murder--be LBJ's motive for this momentous action, of assassinating the President. You'd think he would have less high-risk methods of dealing with such problems.

The account I just read doesn't really address whether Estes/Wallace/LBJ might have been in league with the CIA, but I really do not believe that Estes/Wallace/LBJ could have pulled off what the CIA pulled off--the extremely tangled web of the Oswald patsy and the Oswald "double" (that Douglass explains in detail), the trip to Russia, the trip to Mexico, the "Fair Play For Cuba Committee," the "handling" of the real Oswald and all the rest. They could have been plugged into it. They were not the designers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peace Patriot (Reply #100)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 08:55 PM

175. I haven't read James Douglass book

 

but I will. ~20 years ago I read Edward Jay Epstein's Legend-The Secret World of Lee Harvey Oswald, some of Mark Lane's work, some of Jim Garrison's work, others. I didn't know what to think of them. Then I read Peter Wyden's Bay of Pigs coupled with Fletcher Prouty's The Secret Team and surmised that James Douglass thesis is (as you describe it) probably the best explanation of what happened. We Americans like to think of ourselves as apart from history, better than that, exceptional if you will. It can't be so. The men who did this have many antecedents. From Shakespeare's Julius Ceasar; "Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more". Quote (Act III, Scene II). From Richard the III; "The world is grown so bad, that wrens make prey where eagles dare not perch". Quote (Act I, Scene III). From the French Revolution's George Jaques Danton; "In revolutions authority remains with the greatest scoundrels." After the Bay of Pigs, when Kennedy refused air cover for the CIA's misadventure, it was determined that he had to go. We struggle still with the consequences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peace Patriot (Reply #100)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:47 PM

186. James Douglass' book is an excellent resource, and not just about the assassination!

It provides an excellent look inside the mind and soul of JFK as he evolved from a cold warrior into a committed man of peace.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:17 PM

106. don`t forget 8 yrs of running reagan`s presidency

remember nancy hated the bush family.bush was also forced on the reagan staff for the vice presidency.

good riddings to bad rubbish

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madrchsod (Reply #106)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:58 PM

119. And what of Hinckley's assassination attempt on Reagan?

What are the chances an assassination attempt on a sitting president could be undertaken by a family friend of the vice-president?



(3'13")

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KansDem (Reply #119)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 02:54 PM

129. yup.....

nancy also was deathly afraid that "someone" would try again but by his second term his alzhimer disease was taking over.

my dad knew ronnie during ron`s school days in dixon il.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:29 PM

109. That entire cartel of fascist pigs are evil...

starting with Hitler's angel, Prescott Bush!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:51 PM

117. SMH

Tip of the iceberg, history is written by the winners. Spin is very strong here

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 02:41 PM

125. Why is it

...this whole thread is started by the claim that Howard Hunt made a deathbed confession about a conspiracy to assassinate JFK, and NO ONE on this thread refutes this confession. Out of all the posts mocking "CT" and linking to books "proving" that no such conspiracy could have existed no one seems to want to address the main claim of this threat; the deathbed confession.

So what? HH was delusional? Just playing a deathbed joke on all of us? Looked for any links disputing this confession; haven't found one yet...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robbob (Reply #125)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 03:15 PM

131. I find it interesting that some assert that conspiracies never happen. Or just not in the USA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #131)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 05:48 PM

140. Yep....no conspiracy involved in the assassination of Lincoln, or the attempted coup.....

....against FDR, or the killing of RFK where a lot more bullet holes turned up in the evidence then Sirhan had bullets in his gun.

Yep....conspiracies don't happen here....just everywhere else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #140)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 12:55 PM

209. No one, including Bugliosi and his defenders here myself included, denies that

 

Lincoln was the victim of a conspiracy, although Lincoln himself was felled by a sole assassin (Booth).

Just because there was a conspiracy in the assassination of Lincoln does not mean there was a conspiracy in the assassination of JFK.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #209)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 02:25 PM

217. Yeah...I guess the House Select Committee on Assassinations got it all wrong in 1978....

....they could have gone a lot farther with their findings but wilted in the face of pressure behind the scenes.

Love to keep talking with you, but I like discussing the JFK assassination with people who know what they're talking about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #217)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 04:25 PM

221. Good one!

"Love to keep talking with you, but I like discussing the JFK assassination with people who know what they're talking about."

yes, just run when confronted with facts.
here's a fact you may not know, but probably do since you know everything about the assassination...

The House Select Committee on Assassinations based their findings on acoustical evidence that, at the time, seemed valid.
Of course, since then, we have made great strides in science and come to find out...they weren't shots heard on the recording!

Crazy, huh?

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/odell/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robbob (Reply #125)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 05:42 PM

138. Because the Warren Commission apologists have no answer to Hunt's confession, and....

....they know Hunt is connected to several of the suspects in JFK's assassination. They can't deny it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robbob (Reply #125)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 12:52 PM

208. There are a series of claims in the OP (which is copied from an entry on

 

Last edited Sat Dec 29, 2012, 04:09 PM - Edit history (1)

Blogspot). Tracking down the provenance of the supposed Hunt "deathbed confession," leads one to Hunt's meth-addicted son, Saint John Hunt. (No, the name is not an error.) Now I'll grant you that just because one has had a substance abuse problem does not necessarily render one's recollections and claims invalid. But I think one has to question the source of the supposed confession. (I'm relying on a hasty reading of the embedded Rolling Stone article and apologize if in my haste I have mis-characterized its substance or implications.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #208)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 01:14 PM

210. Here's what I found on Wikipedia, which is consistent with what you found:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Howard_Hunt

During the last few years and months of Hunt's life, he made several claims about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, as reported by his son Saint John Hunt. In audio recordings, discussions and writings, Hunt said (according to his son) that he and several others were involved in a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy. He said the codename the conspirators gave for the operation was "The Big Event," and that Vice- President Lyndon B. Johnson ordered the assassination and assigned Cord Meyer to implement the details. Meyer recruited the people who planned and carried out the killing, including David Phillips, Frank Sturgis, David Morales, William Harvey, a French gunman, and Lucien Sarti, who worked for the Mafia.


One certainly needs much more than the second hand account of one person to give credence to the claim that the VP had the POTUS killed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #210)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 01:18 PM

212. " One needs much more than the second hand account of one person"

Not if you are on a mission to blame someone, anyone but LHO.
Guess some people just like double murderers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #212)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 01:57 PM

215. Yes, blaming the innocent and excusing the guilty is all the rage for some in this thread. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #210)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 01:59 PM

216. Saint John Hunt

 



Call me St for short

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robbob (Reply #125)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 12:18 PM

242. EHH's deathbed confession is plausible, since it came from a 1st hand acct...

...his son. I believe the CIA had something to do with JFK's assassination. The E Howard Hunt Deathbed Confession certainly lends validation to that.

However, EVERY "connection" between GHWB and the Assassination of JFK is tenuous. An FBI memo that says GHWB admitted he was in town. Well, so was Nixon. And, as I said upthread, Nixon had more reason to see JFK dead than Poppy.

GHWB was a financier of BOP but not an active operative (yet). Connecting him to the assassination would require the establishment of a viable motive, and "financier" doesn't pass the smell test.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robbob (Reply #125)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 03:14 PM

278. Howard Hunt had such a good reputation for telling the truth


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 02:46 PM

126. Showtime - Oliver Stone Series

People may disagree with him, YET it is an impelling series, making you THINK about what you have learned, been told, informed about throughout American history.

Military industrial complex - alive and doing very well - through the years - until we are at todays point in history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benld74 (Reply #126)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:31 PM

192. I'm enjoying that series, too.

It's good to look at our history from different angles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 04:04 PM

134. Have you ever watched

On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald which was a docu-trial with Vincent Bugliosi and Gerry Spence? It was extremely interesting and I thought that Gerry Spence did a very good job at raising reasonable doubt as to LHO's guilt.

http://on-trial-lho.blogspot.com/

You can also find a lot of it on Youtube.

http://www.amazon.com/On-Trial-Lee-Harvey-Oswald/dp/B001CDLASU

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:03 PM

156. k & freakin r! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 01:11 PM

293. By (temporarily) ignoring 3 nay-saying post-ers here

who are also rude in their delivery of their opinion, I turned this 292 post thread into a much more manageable and easy to read 144 posts. That's well over 50% of the posts, occasioned by 3 people. I didn't get rid of polite prolific nay-sayers, or rude single or double posting nay-sayers. The 'temp ignores' wind up eliminating some good informational links by good researching post-ers, unfortunately.

Hectoring, unpleasant, and obstructionist in their defense of Poppy and the W.C. whitewash of Kennedy's assassination. But I'm sure they regard themselves as 'brave' 'realists' who are defending the 'truth'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread