HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » 'I'm convinced a second g...

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 10:53 AM

'I'm convinced a second gunman was involved in killing my uncle': Robert Kennedy



'I'm convinced a second gunman was involved in killing my uncle': Robert Kennedy speaks out about JFK's
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is convinced that a lone gunman wasn't solely responsible for the assassination of his uncle, President John F. Kennedy, and said his father believed the Warren Commission report was a 'shoddy piece of craftsmanship.'


Kennedy and his sister, Rory, spoke about their family Friday night while being interviewed in front of an audience by Charlie Rose at the Winspear Opera House in Dallas. The event comes as a year of observances begins for the 50th anniversary of the president's death.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2261263/JFK-assassination-Robert-Kennedy-speaks-death-uncle.html

223 replies, 12163 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 223 replies Author Time Post
Reply 'I'm convinced a second gunman was involved in killing my uncle': Robert Kennedy (Original post)
elehhhhna Jan 2013 OP
arthritisR_US Jan 2013 #1
BlueCaliDem Jan 2013 #26
arthritisR_US Jan 2013 #133
BlueCaliDem Jan 2013 #186
arthritisR_US Jan 2013 #189
heaven05 Jan 2013 #168
JDPriestly Jan 2013 #48
grasswire Jan 2013 #61
arthritisR_US Jan 2013 #134
liberalmike27 Jan 2013 #66
Sekhmets Daughter Jan 2013 #79
OldDem2012 Jan 2013 #142
Sekhmets Daughter Jan 2013 #160
OldDem2012 Jan 2013 #174
Paladin Jan 2013 #164
OldDem2012 Jan 2013 #172
stopbush Jan 2013 #182
Paladin Jan 2013 #187
zappaman Jan 2013 #191
Paladin Jan 2013 #194
JazzQuipster Jan 2013 #185
JDPriestly Jan 2013 #206
Sekhmets Daughter Jan 2013 #215
JDPriestly Jan 2013 #222
Sekhmets Daughter Jan 2013 #223
zappaman Jan 2013 #120
stopbush Jan 2013 #183
JDPriestly Jan 2013 #207
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #217
JDPriestly Jan 2013 #221
arthritisR_US Jan 2013 #132
dotymed Jan 2013 #161
stopbush Jan 2013 #180
AnnieK401 Jan 2013 #163
spanone Jan 2013 #2
duffyduff Jan 2013 #3
jwirr Jan 2013 #4
pangaia Jan 2013 #12
jwirr Jan 2013 #13
pangaia Jan 2013 #39
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #42
brett_jv Jan 2013 #174
allrevvedup Jan 2013 #181
union_maid Jan 2013 #200
Art_from_Ark Jan 2013 #218
RoccoR5955 Jan 2013 #5
RomneyLies Jan 2013 #7
BlueCaliDem Jan 2013 #28
RomneyLies Jan 2013 #37
laundry_queen Jan 2013 #95
RomneyLies Jan 2013 #96
laundry_queen Jan 2013 #97
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply .
RomneyLies Jan 2013 #98
truebluegreen Jan 2013 #139
JDPriestly Jan 2013 #208
cartach Jan 2013 #45
RomneyLies Jan 2013 #47
RoccoR5955 Jan 2013 #50
RomneyLies Jan 2013 #52
RoccoR5955 Jan 2013 #54
RomneyLies Jan 2013 #57
truebluegreen Jan 2013 #140
RoccoR5955 Jan 2013 #147
RomneyLies Jan 2013 #148
brett_jv Jan 2013 #176
RoccoR5955 Jan 2013 #184
hootinholler Jan 2013 #203
dotymed Jan 2013 #165
leveymg Jan 2013 #11
southernyankeebelle Jan 2013 #32
RoccoR5955 Jan 2013 #51
southernyankeebelle Jan 2013 #72
brett_jv Jan 2013 #177
JDPriestly Jan 2013 #209
southernyankeebelle Jan 2013 #213
dotymed Jan 2013 #167
southernyankeebelle Jan 2013 #196
JDPriestly Jan 2013 #210
southernyankeebelle Jan 2013 #212
JDPriestly Jan 2013 #53
Jackpine Radical Jan 2013 #58
JDPriestly Jan 2013 #211
Jackpine Radical Jan 2013 #214
ellie Jan 2013 #6
peace frog Jan 2013 #14
monmouth3 Jan 2013 #8
peace frog Jan 2013 #15
zappaman Jan 2013 #123
monmouth3 Jan 2013 #169
Tumbulu Jan 2013 #17
LisaLynne Jan 2013 #18
zappaman Jan 2013 #125
zappaman Jan 2013 #122
Wolf Frankula Jan 2013 #9
BlueCaliDem Jan 2013 #29
Wolf Frankula Jan 2013 #69
think Jan 2013 #85
2naSalit Jan 2013 #137
DevonRex Jan 2013 #87
ArcticFox Jan 2013 #145
Art_from_Ark Jan 2013 #220
Festivito Jan 2013 #33
KittyWampus Jan 2013 #70
DevonRex Jan 2013 #105
KittyWampus Jan 2013 #130
melody Jan 2013 #152
leveymg Jan 2013 #10
liberalhistorian Jan 2013 #20
leveymg Jan 2013 #31
grasswire Jan 2013 #64
leveymg Jan 2013 #74
grasswire Jan 2013 #101
leveymg Jan 2013 #107
Rose Siding Jan 2013 #143
William Seger Jan 2013 #78
Ty Templeton Jan 2013 #154
brett_jv Jan 2013 #179
Pale Blue Dot Jan 2013 #16
Tumbulu Jan 2013 #19
Pale Blue Dot Jan 2013 #21
Tumbulu Jan 2013 #23
Pale Blue Dot Jan 2013 #27
Tumbulu Jan 2013 #34
allrevvedup Jan 2013 #38
jeff47 Jan 2013 #63
allrevvedup Jan 2013 #108
jeff47 Jan 2013 #117
skepticscott Jan 2013 #121
allrevvedup Jan 2013 #124
skepticscott Jan 2013 #128
jeff47 Jan 2013 #131
allrevvedup Jan 2013 #173
jeff47 Jan 2013 #197
allrevvedup Jan 2013 #201
jeff47 Jan 2013 #202
allrevvedup Jan 2013 #216
liberalmike27 Jan 2013 #71
jeff47 Jan 2013 #135
cthulu2016 Jan 2013 #36
allrevvedup Jan 2013 #40
JDPriestly Jan 2013 #60
allrevvedup Jan 2013 #35
drokhole Jan 2013 #22
Boomerproud Jan 2013 #44
barbtries Jan 2013 #24
grahamhgreen Jan 2013 #25
exboyfil Jan 2013 #73
truebrit71 Jan 2013 #205
Hamlette Jan 2013 #30
OldDem2012 Jan 2013 #82
think Jan 2013 #89
nyquil_man Jan 2013 #92
think Jan 2013 #94
nyquil_man Jan 2013 #99
think Jan 2013 #104
nyquil_man Jan 2013 #106
think Jan 2013 #109
nyquil_man Jan 2013 #112
think Jan 2013 #113
OldDem2012 Jan 2013 #110
Mc Mike Jan 2013 #157
Marblehead Jan 2013 #41
skepticscott Jan 2013 #43
onecent Jan 2013 #46
skepticscott Jan 2013 #49
russspeakeasy Jan 2013 #59
skepticscott Jan 2013 #81
alberg Jan 2013 #144
demwing Jan 2013 #56
JDPriestly Jan 2013 #62
skepticscott Jan 2013 #84
cpwm17 Jan 2013 #114
Mc Mike Jan 2013 #77
skepticscott Jan 2013 #83
Mc Mike Jan 2013 #90
skepticscott Jan 2013 #93
zappaman Jan 2013 #127
Mc Mike Jan 2013 #156
OldDem2012 Jan 2013 #86
skepticscott Jan 2013 #88
NYC Liberal Jan 2013 #91
OldDem2012 Jan 2013 #111
skepticscott Jan 2013 #116
OldDem2012 Jan 2013 #126
skepticscott Jan 2013 #129
cpwm17 Jan 2013 #149
OldDem2012 Jan 2013 #178
JazzQuipster Jan 2013 #188
OldDem2012 Jan 2013 #204
cpwm17 Jan 2013 #199
tomp Jan 2013 #166
watoos Jan 2013 #55
Celebration Jan 2013 #68
Odin2005 Jan 2013 #65
awoke_in_2003 Jan 2013 #67
William Seger Jan 2013 #76
MFM008 Jan 2013 #100
William Seger Jan 2013 #118
TheGov97 Jan 2013 #75
mimi85 Jan 2013 #80
malaise Jan 2013 #102
Warpy Jan 2013 #103
skepticscott Jan 2013 #119
Manifestor_of_Light Jan 2013 #136
Mc Mike Jan 2013 #159
Mrs. Overall Jan 2013 #115
davesliberal1977_gg Jan 2013 #138
kaboom15 Jan 2013 #141
Kurovski Jan 2013 #146
PatrynXX Jan 2013 #150
Waiting For Everyman Jan 2013 #151
tavalon Jan 2013 #153
B Calm Jan 2013 #155
MessiahRp Jan 2013 #158
Mc Mike Jan 2013 #162
heaven05 Jan 2013 #171
fadedrose Jan 2013 #170
zappaman Jan 2013 #190
Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #193
allrevvedup Jan 2013 #195
fadedrose Jan 2013 #198
Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #192
MinM Jan 2013 #219

Response to elehhhhna (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 11:12 AM

1. I agree with them totally.

I know, people will be looking for my tin foil hat but I don't care

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arthritisR_US (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:28 PM

26. I agree with them, too.

And I don't care if people want to drop the on me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #26)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:43 PM

133. Oh I know they'll drop one on me and once

again I will use it to roast potatoes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arthritisR_US (Reply #133)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:34 AM

186. Mmm . . .

. . . roasted potatoes . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #186)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:48 AM

189. I just finished stuffing my turkey ... having another family

over for turkey dinner because, like us, they were all sick with the flu through Christmas, so we are having the meal today

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #26)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 10:16 AM

168. any

sane, rational person having gone through this for fifty years knows in their heart that kennedy was assassinated by powers greater than he. If you don't believe that just watch the Zapruder film. No tin foil hats anywhere in that corner of "assassination theory". The man was murdered and NOT by a 'lone gunman'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arthritisR_US (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 01:15 PM

48. I don't know what happened, but the Warren Report is not very believable.

I don't trust it at all.

I think about the other congressional whitewashes that we know are not accurate and not based on all the facts -- like the 9/11 report like the reports on the crash and mortgage crisis of 2008 and it seems all the more likely that the Warren Report was not based on an honest, independent or thorough investigation. Jut not likely at all that it was.

I believe that an honest investigation and a truthful report would have stepped on a lot of very powerful toes, and that is why no such report could be published. I suspect that those who signed the report thought sincerely that it was true and as with the 9/11 report did not question whether it was complete or whether the investigation was conducted by individuals who were free to follow all leads and who moved to follow the leads quickly enough to interview all important witnesses while their memories were fresh and before they died.

It's a terrible shame that so many of us doubt that report. I speak for myself when I say that my doubts in that report are part of the reason that I doubt so many things our government claims and says regardless who is the president.

We have an obligation to ourselves and to history to open up all the records, hear all the statements and answer all the questions no matter how crazy they may sound about Kennedy's assassination.

That assassination was a turning point in our history. It destroyed our trust and made us, as a nation, cynical. We have entered into pointless war after pointless war since then, wars that impoverish us, kill our children and make us enemies. And in my view the reason is that we in our investigation of the assassination of Kennedy, we failed to insist that we know all the facts and assign blame and guilt where it belonged.

It's as if we had a huge tragedy in our personal lives and did not try to learn from it.

After the Kennedy assassination, our country became bitter and turned to extremist right-wing ideologies. What a shame.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #48)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 01:43 PM

61. yes, that is when we realized the government would lie to us

We lost our innocence because of the coverup.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #61)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:45 PM

134. "Lost our innocence" I like that, it's so apt!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #48)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 01:52 PM

66. Personally

After reading two and a half books from Karo's series on Johnson, and a handful of various theories on how Kennedy was killed, I personally believe Johnson had a hand in it.

Clearly the government knew more than it was saying.

More, it seems pretty obvious that if you look at who benefited long-run, the many killings of liberals during that essential time, when equity was perhaps the most in history (roughly 1968 was lowest Gini Index, with most equity), one has to believe they were somewhat organized.

The push back on liberalism actually probably began with McCarthyism, even if it didn't work then. But we all know, Republicans don't quit, even if they lose on an issue, like abortion. They'll try everything, however corrupt, illegal, and shady, to continue to get what they want. It's something Democrats in power sadly lack.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberalmike27 (Reply #66)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 02:39 PM

79. Really?

I read the first 3 and the 4th is on my stack of books waiting to be read. I didn't get that impression at all.

So, if you believe Johnson had a hand in it, why are you talking about republicans and the push back against liberalism? Your reasoning seems bit confused.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #79)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 09:19 PM

142. Find a copy of "A Texan Looks at Lyndon: A Study in Illegitimate Power", by J. Evetts Haley.....

....and tell me after you read it if you can tell the difference between LBJ and a modern-day Republican. LBJ was very far from a liberal in any definition of the word. JFK represented the liberal wing of the Democratic Party while LBJ represented the very conservative Southern Democratic Party branch. The primary reason LBJ pushed for the passage of JFK's Civil Rights Act was because he knew he would need the political support of the African-American community when his administration ramped up the war in Vietnam and implemented the draft.

Don't forget that one of LBJ's strongest friends and political allies was John Connally, who switched to the Republican Party in 1973. He also formed the "Democrats for Nixon Committee" in 1972. Connally and LBJ were close personal friends from 1938 until LBJ's death in 1973. In fact, the night before JFK's assassination, LBJ attempted to get Connally moved from the President's limo back to LBJ's car in an exchange for Senator Ralph Yarborough, the leader of Texas's Democratic Party progressive wing. When that failed, the Secret Service car that usually followed both the Presidential and Vice Presidential limos was somehow moved to a position between the two cars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #142)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:28 AM

160. There is no doubt that LBJ

abused the system to gain power...but I have to draw the line at his being involved in the JFK assassination. My mother used to talk about the Democrats in NYC who brought in thousands of Puerto Rican families, crowded multiple families into single apartments all to get their votes. I never gave her story much credence until I read Caro's books and learned just how crooked politics can be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #160)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 10:36 AM

174. Read the book and then tell me what you think of LBJ. He wasn't just involved in....

...crooked politics to get what he wanted in Texas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #142)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:36 AM

164. I Believe That Oswald Was The Lone Assassin.


But if the Kennedy family can come forward with actual proof to the contrary---as opposed to just the usual griping about what a shitty job the Warren Commission did---I'll be glad to change my mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #164)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 10:33 AM

172. According to the last Gallup Poll on this subject in 2003, you're among the 19%....

....who still cling to the Warren Commission theory that Oswald acted alone.

Until you or other members of the 19% can come forward with actual proof Oswald acted alone---as opposed to the findings of conspiracy by the 1978 House Select Committee on Assassinations---I'll be glad to change my mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #172)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:11 AM

182. Er, the HSCA's determination that there was a conspiracy is based entirely

on the "evidence" of a 4th shot being fired as captured on a dictabelt tape. That "evidence" has since been conclusively falsified.

But as you've brought up the HSCA, here's what their final report said about the JFK killing (source: Wikipedia):

Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at Kennedy. The second and third shots Oswald fired struck the President. The third shot he fired successfully killed the President. (Confirms the WCR account)

• Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that at least two gunmen fired at the President. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations. (Acoustical "evidence" since falsified)

• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy. (No basis since fake acoustic evidence has been falsified)

• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Soviet Government was not involved in the assassination of Kennedy. (One conspiracy theory shot down)

• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Cuban Government was not involved in the assassination of Kennedy. (Another CT shot down)

• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that anti-Castro Cuban groups, as groups, were not involved in the assassination of Kennedy, but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved. (Another CT shot down)

• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the national syndicate of organized crime, as a group, was not involved in the assassination of Kennedy, but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved. (Another HUGE CT shot down)

• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in the assassination of Kennedy. (One of the stupidest CTs shot down)

• Agencies and departments of the U.S. Government performed with varying degrees of competency in the fulfilment of their duties. President Kennedy did not receive adequate protection. A thorough and reliable investigation into the responsibility of Lee Harvey Oswald for the assassination was conducted. The investigation into the possibility of conspiracy in the assassination was inadequate. The conclusions of the investigations were arrived at in good faith, but presented in a fashion that was too definitive.

The Committee further concluded that it was probable that:

• four shots were fired (dictabelt "evidence" since falsified, so no basis for such a claim)
• the third shot came from a second assassin located on the grassy knoll, but missed. They concluded that it missed due to the lack of physical evidence of an actual bullet, of course this investigation took place almost sixteen years after the crime. (no fourth shot, so no shot from grassy knoll)
The HSCA agreed with the single bullet theory, but concluded that it occurred at a time point during the assassination that differed from any of the several time points the Warren Commission theorized it occurred.

BTW - have you ever read the HSCA report? How about the WCR? I'm guessing you haven't read either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #172)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:38 AM

187. I'm Not Clinging To Anything.


I was part of the Second Gun (or Third, or Fourth, or Sixteenth Gun) Brigade for years, until it occurred to me that there just wasn't any solid proof that anybody besides Oswald was involved. Lots of feverish speculation, but not much of anything beyond that. Like I said: produce some solid proof after all these years, and I'll be happy to change my mind. And I don't have any problem with being part of the 19%, given the good company I'm keeping---I'll see your Oliver Stone, and raise you a Steve King and Vincent Bugliosi......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #187)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:57 AM

191. I could have written what you wrote

I must have read every conspiracy book there was.
Let's face it, when you start reading they manipulated JFK's dead body or see people claim the driver did it or, like was personally told to me at the first Assassination Symposium, that "LBJ jumped out of his limo with a six shooter, shot JFK and then ran back to his limo", you know this bullshit will never die.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #191)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 12:13 PM

194. Well Said. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #142)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:31 AM

185. Um, the Great Society, Medicare & the Civil Rights Act of 1964...

...doesn't that stuff count as "liberal" anymore?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #79)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 02:22 PM

206. There is an interesting book on the history of Halliburton that could explain a connection

between Johnson and the Texas right wing.

http://www.amazon.com/Halliburton-Agenda-Politics-Oil-Money/dp/0471638609

I'm not sure I agree that Johnson had that much to do with the Kennedy assassination.

But there was no way that any possibly objective investigation could be made.

Think about the 9/11 investigations. The group handling the nitty-gritty work was by no means objective.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #206)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 05:44 PM

215. Why would anyone think Johnson, a Texan,

wouldn't have a link to Halliburton? Big Oil has been running this country for over 100 years. I just don't think Johnson was any part of a plot to kill Kennedy. While there was no love lost there, and Bobby and LBJ hated each other, I don't think he would have trusted that kind of thing to remain secret.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #215)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:25 AM

222. I don't know what the truth was, but I don't think the Warren Commission bothered to ferret it out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #222)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 08:42 AM

223. On that we absolutely agree.

The government decides the people can't handle the truth and we are left in the dark to suffer the consequences of our ignorance.

Johnson and his advisers kept the secret that Nixon had put a spanner in the works of the Paris Peace Negotiations by promising the president of South Vietnam he would get a better settlement from Nixon than Humphrey, including keeping the war going for 4 more years. (Nixon ran on ending the war with honor and dignity) Johnson could have revealed this before the election, he had the evidence. So, an additional 20,750 Americans (including my brother) died, over 111,000 were injured and no one knows how many Vietnamese died as a result of that Nixon bargain and Johnson's poor decision. Nixon, who knew that Johnson knew, went on to disgrace himself with Watergate, but even after that he advised future republicans on how to get away with undermining the democratic process. Watergate taught them that they had to do better job with the coverup and that Democrats were ridiculously spineless when it comes to calling them on their crap.

I'm reading "America's Stolen Narrative" by Robert Parry...the stunts Republicans have pulled and which Democrats have allowed them to get away with are truly amazing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #48)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 06:55 PM

120. You don't think the Warren Commission got it right?

So, you've read the 26 volumes?
What exactly do you think is wrong?
What were the errors you found while reading?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #120)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:14 AM

183. You're asking the right questions, but don't expect any answers

from the whack-a-mole conspiracy theorists.

BTW - amazing what they co sider to be "evidence" in this case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #120)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 02:30 PM

207. I was alive at the time. I know precisely where I was when the assassination happened.

What makes me very suspicious is the ease with which Jack Ruby killed Oswald.

The explanations for the huge number of coincidences involved in Kennedy's assassination are not credible. For instance, why was the Secret Service officer on the back of Kennedy's care called off right before the shooting? Why did he look so completely puzzled when he was called off?

Those of us who were alive at the time and paying attention just do not believe the many, many coincidences and odd occurrences related to the Kennedy assassination. The official explanation made no sense at the time and still does not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #207)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 10:43 PM

217. Conspiracies within conspiracies...

the fact is, JFK was humiliated by none other than Richard Nixon driving around with Joan Crawford several days earlier in a convertable in Dallas, where Nixon was bragging that he didn't have to worry about using a plexiglass shield or need Secret Service officers to keep him safe. His comments were published in a local newspaper. This may have humiliated JFK and prompted him to request not to use the new plexiglass shield for his vehicle, and to order his Secret Service people to keep their distance at the beginning of the parade route.

JFK had enemies in the far right who despised that fact that he had allowed communism to take hold in the Western Hemisphere (Cuba), but he didn't want to appear intimidated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #217)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:24 AM

221. Interesting. Never liked Nixon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #48)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:41 PM

132. Thoughtful and astute, IMO. Many will decry you

but not me. I appreciated reading your post

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #48)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:31 AM

161. I agree and I believe that "our" CIA had everything to do with it.

Wasn't H.W. Bush in Dallas as a part of the CIA that day?
IMO that organization is the essence of evil, much as the SS was during Hitler's reign.
Bush was the perfect choice (in "their" eyes) to eventually head up that (no oversight) agency. I believe (and facts have leaked) that many of our national tragedies and those of other countries, can be directly traced to the CIA.
Speaking of 9-11, Hitlers burning of the Reich-stag allowed him unquestioned power. Much as 9-11 did with bush the 2nd, that has continued to this day...yes, where is my tin-foil?..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #48)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 10:59 AM

180. Have you ever read the Warren Report? Be honest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arthritisR_US (Reply #1)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:35 AM

163. I won't be looking for your tin foil hat. Just because you're paranoid

doesn't mean people aren't out to get you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 11:15 AM

2. agreed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 11:16 AM

3. He was a kid when it happened; Rory wasn't even born.

He's as wrong as any conspiracy nut.

Shame on him for denying historic fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duffyduff (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 11:20 AM

4. I was watching it on TV as an adult. There were a lot of questions even then that did not get

answers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jwirr (Reply #4)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 11:41 AM

12. But isn't this about JFK, not RFK?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pangaia (Reply #12)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 11:52 AM

13. I was referring to JFK. My children were already old enough to be watching with us. I was also

around when RFK was killed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jwirr (Reply #13)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:49 PM

39. Ah, my misunderstanding.

I went to JFK's funeral.
That's how old I am. :>)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jwirr (Reply #4)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 01:00 PM

42. Watched what on TV? The after the fact news coverage?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #42)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 10:36 AM

174. Exactly ...

Aside from Zapruder (and perhaps his family/friends), nobody (w/o very high clearance) saw the footage of the actual shooting until (iirc) the 1970's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brett_jv (Reply #174)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:09 AM

181. Jack Ruby shoots Lee Harvey Oswald dead on live television:

 



That shooting?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to allrevvedup (Reply #181)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 02:53 PM

200. That's always been a sticking point to me

The thing seems inexplicable. I have not read the whole Warren Commision report and I don't subscribe to any particular conspiracy theory. I know physics well enough to have an opinion on what bullets, magic or otherwise, are likely to do. Still, the shooting of Oswald has always seemed way weird to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to union_maid (Reply #200)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 11:02 PM

218. And don't forget that Ruby died in prison just 3 years later

and he wanted to testify in front of the Warren Commission, but was refused by Warren himself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duffyduff (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 11:21 AM

5. History has often been proven to be wrong.

It's just what the powers that be want us to believe regarding what happened in the past.
A good example of this distortion of History would be what's taught in schools, and then what's in Howard Zinn's book, A People's History of the United States.
There is an awful lot that the powers that be don't want the People to know, because if they knew those things, they would revolt, en masse!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #5)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 11:22 AM

7. "the powers that be"

 

Whenever I see or hear somebody use that term, I immediately dismiss anything they have to say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #7)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:32 PM

28. I know an attorney at law, a man with a 190 IQ

who firmly believes in the Illuminati, and even does research on them. He is convinced, based on the evidence he's collected over a span of three decades, that they are "the powers that be": a powerful and wealthy group of highly intelligent people who are so intelligent, they have convinced the masses that they don't exist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #28)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:45 PM

37. A lot of smart people believe in stupid shit. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #37)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 04:10 PM

95. And a lot of dumb people think they know it all. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laundry_queen (Reply #95)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 04:11 PM

96. And tinfoil hats actually AMPLIFY the government mind rays.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #96)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 04:12 PM

97. Metallic foil is not my color. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laundry_queen (Reply #97)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 04:12 PM

98. .

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #37)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 08:32 PM

139. Yup, they do.

And yet "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance."--Albert Einstein

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #37)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 02:37 PM

208. Smart people ask questions and think.

When official explanations don't make sense or are incomplete, they refuse to stop asking questions.

I have a lot of questions and no answers about the Kennedy assassinations. And I don't think that the FBI or the local police at the time had any interest in find out the truth. The Warren Commission was a political entity, not really suited to performing an investigation that would have stepped on the toes of powerful people in our government and business.

I have no theory about who did it, but I view the assassinations of the Kennedy brothers as coups.

Note that LBJ ran for only one term. He did a lot of good, but somehow he was not someone we trusted as a nation. And then we got Nixon who proved to be a liar, cheat and crook. And we have seen a lot of lying, cheating and crooked behavior at the top of our government and in our corporations especially in our banks and on Wall Street since that time.

I think of Oedipus Rex. We are doomed until we discover the truth about our past.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #7)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 01:12 PM

45. "the powers that be"

Seems to me no different than the "Corporate Masters" you refer to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cartach (Reply #45)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 01:15 PM

47. "Corporate Masters"

 

refers directly to the "C" level management and the Boards of Directors of the corporations I have worked for in my life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #7)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 01:21 PM

50. Why is that?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #50)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 01:23 PM

52. It's woospeak. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #52)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 01:27 PM

54. what the heck is woospeak? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #54)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 01:32 PM

57. "the powers that be...

 

made sure Kennedy died to keep the Vietnam war going."

That's an example of woospeak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #57)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 08:35 PM

140. History is written by the winners.

And by the people who have an agenda....look how often rewrites are attempted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #57)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 11:53 PM

147. Sorry, but that does not define the term to me

I still don't understand what you mean by "woospeak."
Do you have a definition?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #147)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 12:19 AM

148. I gave it

 

You rejected it.

That tells me more about you than you probably wanted to reveal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #148)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 10:40 AM

176. You did not give a definition, you gave an example ...

The fact that you're unable to determine the difference between the two ... reveals more about you than you probably wanted to reveal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #148)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:16 AM

184. Yeah, it reveals that I don't know

each and every arcane term in the world!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #184)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 12:07 PM

203. Not to worry

I think RL made it up and can't define it so it can be whatever he wants it to be.

I think that the term woospeak is just that, woospeak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #7)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:58 AM

165. Wouldn't "corporate powers" in your sig line,

be considered a part of "the powers that be?" I am sorry that the term immediately makes you dismiss any reasoned discussion of what does happen worldwide.
If there were no "PTB" then everything that happens in our government would be just the result of a true democracy? Just like what happened in your economic situation must have been chance, not an organized effort by banksters to steal more wealth? hmm..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duffyduff (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 11:36 AM

11. You're wrong. The whole RFK family is convinced the second gunman was the armed guard. See below.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duffyduff (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:40 PM

32. After the murder of Kennedy I don't believe alot of what our government tells us. Especially

 

about wars. It could be possible. I don't know. This government is able to coverup anything. I don't just mean the Obama administration either. Take it way back. We americans need to stop thinking we are an "exceptional" country. If this country minded their own business we'd be better off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #32)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 01:23 PM

51. I'm right with you on that.

The Kennedy assassination seemed to be a turning point in this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #51)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 02:03 PM

72. I know it changed my life. I was around 14 or 15 and I don't think I ever was able

 

to shake that thought of there was more then one shooter. I know the government has the means to cover things up. I know our government does good things but sometimes you get rogues in there that do bad things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #72)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 10:43 AM

177. Yeah, totally ... in fact a rouge I tried yesterday gave me a terrible rash ...

I hate when that happens

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #72)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 02:45 PM

209. I wasn't a kid. I was already married. It really turned me into a doubter and a cynic about the

media and our government. I believe we citizens have to keep a very close and suspicious eye on our government and our media no matter who is in charge or who is speaking.

I am probably one of the least paranoid people you could find in my private life, but the Kennedy assassinations and the Martin Luther King assassination and other similar events plus reading history woke me up to the fact that beautifully bound, many volumed reports can contain lies, ignore facts and be worthless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #209)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 03:05 PM

213. I agree with you. There is so much shit going on in this country we don't even know.

 

I'm scared for the President. There are so many wacky nuts out there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #32)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 10:06 AM

167. If we only knew..

I live next to Ft. campbell,Ky. I know a few special forces guys and their families. They are often deployed to undisclosed locations for varying amounts of time. Most do not talk about it. We would be surprised to know how many countries we are actually involved in militarily.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dotymed (Reply #167)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 01:55 PM

196. I lived at Ft Campbell during the time of Desert Storm. So much was going on.

 

People would be surprised what goes on and how many troops are around the world in countries we really have no business being in. But I remember when I was a kid and my dad was in the Air Force. We were stationed at Biggs Air Force Base in El Paso, TX. It was summer time and he usually came home for lunch. But anyway momma hadn't heard from him all day long. He was gone early in the morning and he finally showed up about 7:00 pm at night. We all were worried. He told us that they went to Washington, DC. We all were surprised but he never told us why. We were glad to have him home. I know those guys in special forces are a special breed. They are a cut above a regular soldiers in many way but if they are married and sometimes some wives have a hard time with the job they do because they can't talk about it. I remember my son's teacher who was young and married to a special forces guy and she had a hard time with it. I often pray they made it because they were such a nice couple. When you marry a military guy and he chooses to make a career they you stand by and support him all the way. I did that and I never regretted it. That took me away from my family and that was hard. But you do what you have to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #196)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 02:48 PM

210. When I was young, I broke up with a guy because he was going into the military.

It sounds like a terrible thing to do, but I just could not face life as a wife of a soldier. He was a great person, but I was not up to that. I would not have been able to live the kind of life I needed to live. I'm glad I did not marry him. We would have made each other miserable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #210)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 03:00 PM

212. You did the right thing for you. I grew up in a military family. My mother married my

 

dad after WWII when it was all over and he met her in Italy. He fell in love with her and they married. Back then it was so different. I remember my momma hardly speaking any english and my 6 yr old brother at the time translating for her. Back then we traveled from PA to CA on a train. We were little kids. Honestly I don't know how my momma did it at the time. Once we got to CA we took a ship to the Philippines Island where my dad was waiting for us. Funny things you remember. I remember momma taking a hersey candy bar and splitting it 4 ways and each kid got a piece. I remember the play room they had on the ship. I was young around 5 yrs old. I know it was hard on my momma coming from another country and what she gave up. Then we traveled across the states and europe until my dad retired. I ended up working for the military when I grew up as a civilian. I met my husband and I traveled all over the states and europe. For me I loved being in the different countries and meeting people of the world. I did miss my family and that was a draw back. When we got back to the states I always called my momma and family all the time. That was one thing I told my husband that I will not stop doing. I worked and he didn't care because he loved my family also. But your right it takes a special person to live that life style. When they retire that wife who stuck by her husband and always put his job first deserves that pension right along side of him. My husband always thanked me when he got promoted because I supported him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duffyduff (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 01:24 PM

53. Robert Kennedy, Jr. was 6 at the time (born in 1954).

It is quite believable to me that he caught a salamander or lizard and took it to his uncle in the White House. Quite believable. The family was very close.

And, remembering very stressful times in your childhood is difficult. In general, children live much more in the emotional moment than we adults do. We learn to separate ourselves from reality and think in the abstract about what is going on. It is possible that Robert Kennedy, Jr. remembered his experience but may be confused about who else was there. That does not detract from the veracity of his memory of his emotions and those of others around him. It does not make him any less reliable with regard to remembering the feelings that he perceived his father as having especially with regard to the Warren Report. In fact, Robert Kennedy, Jr. may have been more aware of his fathers feelings about the Warren Report and may remember his perception of those feelings than was or did his father. Adults rationalize and reconsider and work to conform their feelings to what they think their feelings should be. Children tend to be more raw in their feelings.

That is my experience with children and feelings anyway. I pay attention to what a child feels in a situation. They are often more perceptive about what is going on than are the adults around them. I say that based on years of babysitting when I was young and being a mother and now a grandmother. Pay attention to your child's emotional reactions. They tell a lot about what is really going on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #53)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 01:33 PM

58. Age 9, not 6.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #58)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 02:58 PM

211. Aged 6 when Kennedy became president -- ran for president.

It is even more believable that a 9-year old in his family would have been paying attention.

My father watched politics very carefully, and I caught the politics bug from him at the latest at 9-years-old. Robert Kennedy would have been encouraged to be interested in the events in his own family long before he was 9.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #211)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 03:12 PM

214. Of course. I misunderstood what you were dating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 11:21 AM

6. Uh oh!

He better brace himself for the backlash!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellie (Reply #6)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:03 PM

14. ...starting with this thread

I agree with the Kennedys.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 11:24 AM

8. I don't know anyone who doesn't think the Warren Report was a joke..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to monmouth3 (Reply #8)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:05 PM

15. ... or at least flawed enough to be highly suspect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peace frog (Reply #15)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 06:57 PM

123. You've read the 26 volume report?

What were the flaws you found while reading?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #123)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 10:18 AM

169. No, I have not. However after the recap of that report it was apparent to me it was a POS. The

of Oswald by Ruby was the icing on the cake. Dead men can't talk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to monmouth3 (Reply #8)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:11 PM

17. Only on DU do I meet people who take it seriously

and this just mystifies me, but perhaps they are paid to come here and disrupt us.

Not sure, really.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #17)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:13 PM

18. I think some people are just that against anything that hints at ...

being a conspiracy theory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #17)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 06:58 PM

125. Yes, people are paid to come on an anonymous forum

just to dissuade you from your woo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to monmouth3 (Reply #8)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 06:56 PM

122. Do you know anyone who has actually read it?

Personally?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 11:30 AM

9. One thing that always makes me laugh about this

is the notion of Bush the smarter threatening J. Edgar Hoover. The Preppy Pimp threatening Jedgarhoovy, the man who had files on everybody? Hoover would have said 'Yes, Yes' and then Bush would have been on the way to prison.

Wolf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wolf Frankula (Reply #9)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:33 PM

29. Wasn't Bush the Smarter head of the CIA?

And wasn't JEdgarHoover FBI?

And didn't the CIA and FBI loathe each other back then?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #29)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 01:57 PM

69. Bush was CIA head in 1976

In 1963-64 he was still in the oil biz. He had not started a political career then. By the time Bush directed the CIA both Kennedy and Hoover were dead.

Gore Vidal was convinced that the JFK assassination was a Mafia hit.

Wolf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to think (Reply #85)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:59 PM

137. Food for thought...

I found this interesting and not so unbelievable...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021882862

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wolf Frankula (Reply #69)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 03:00 PM

87. LOL! You believe everything you're told.

Good grief. I really didn't think there were people like that anymore. Not that swallowed the entire story anyway. But you've got the whole thing right there. Hmm. Oil business. Right. Yeah.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wolf Frankula (Reply #69)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 10:11 PM

145. Think a minute

Bush headed the CIA. You think he wasn't involved with the CIA a long time before that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ArcticFox (Reply #145)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 12:57 AM

220. Appointed to head the CIA

by a man who was on the Warren Commission (Gerald Ford).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wolf Frankula (Reply #9)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:40 PM

33. IIRC, a GROUP came to Hoover and told Hoover to stop.

Hoover then made memorandum of the incident and put it in with 10,000 other papers in order to keep the paper safe for years, actually decades later.

The paper memorandum was found less than a decade ago.

Bush would be busy giving disinformation in the form of a false lead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wolf Frankula (Reply #9)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 01:58 PM

70. I have no doubt that a few people in high positions had files on Hoover. No doubt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #70)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 05:12 PM

105. Oh yeah.

He was easy to control. And he was so good at digging up dirt on everybody else that he was incredibly useful to them at the same time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DevonRex (Reply #105)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:15 PM

130. Exactly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wolf Frankula (Reply #9)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 04:21 AM

152. The Bush Crime Family created the power by blackmail system

Hoover was strictly infantry next to George.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 11:33 AM

10. My ex-boss was a Robert F. Kennedy Fellow, a Hickory Hill regular, and he said the whole family

believes that the armed security guard behind Kennedy was the second gunman who delivered the killing shot below and behind RFK's right ear. Sirhan was several feet in front and above. It's all laid out in vivid, compelling detail in this book which was on his office shelf:





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #10)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:14 PM

20. Sorry, but this thread's about

JFK in 1963, not Robert in 1968.

Although that's an interesting argument on the RFK murder that I hadn't seen before.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberalhistorian (Reply #20)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:38 PM

31. Bobby also believed that Jack's assassination was the result of a conspiracy. RFK, Jr.'s views are

consistent with his father's conclusions. There's nothing tinfoil about what he's now saying publicly.

I was pointing out what I know from first-hand sources about how the family views RFK's killing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #10)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 01:51 PM

64. who was that guard?

Do you know?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #64)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 02:13 PM

74. He was moonlighting from Lockheed Aircraft Corp. His name was Thane Eugene Cesar. FBI report>

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #74)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 04:45 PM

101. thanks

and thanks for being on top of this stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #101)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 05:30 PM

107. UR welcome. Here's the LA Co. Coroner's diagram of the bullet entry points and paths (not graphic)

We're supposed to believe that Sirhan, who was in front of RFK, reached around the back of Kennedy's head from 3 feet away and fired the fatal head shot below the right ear, but none of the witnesses saw that happen. The coroner found the bullet was fired from no more than one inch and the bullet entered straight into the cranium.

At the time, the guard was right behind Kennedy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #74)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 09:42 PM

143. To this day the memory of that night shocks me.

So very sad and wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #10)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 02:38 PM

78. What an incredibly stupid plot

It amazes me that conspirators are always too stupid to come up with less risky plots, yet they always get away with it. (Or they would have if it weren't for you meddling kids.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #10)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 05:15 AM

154. There's a documentary called "THE SECOND GUN" about this

Much like this book, the documentary makes a striking case that the fatal bullet came from Cesar's gun, not from Sirhan Sirhan's. It suggests that the fatal shot was an ACCIDENT, the mistake of an incompetent security guard firing back in haste and not being careful in the chaos...and that the powers that be decided it was best not to inform the public that RFK had died from an accident during an assassination attempt. Best to simply blame it on the assassin, who was at least guilty of starting the chain of events that led to Bobby's death. The evidence for this is overwhelming, including witnesses seeing the second gun fire, a live radio broadcast (as it was happening) referring to both guns, the statements of Thomas Naguchi (sp?) the LA Coroner (that QUINCY was based on) clearly insisting that Sirhan Sirhan was NOT the fatal shooter, bullets found in the ceiling of the kitchen area where the assassination took place (when Sirhan only fired straight out or down), etc. etc. etc. Sometimes the government lies for non-nefarious reasons, but this one is fairly open and shut.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ty Templeton (Reply #154)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 10:55 AM

179. They were protecting the GUN LOBBY!!1!!!

The news that armed security guards accidentally shot the guy they were supposed to be protecting sure wouldn't help sell guns, now would it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:10 PM

16. Unfortunately, Robert F Kennedy Jr. also believes that vaccines cause autism

I'd be interested in seeing his evidence, but his anti-vaccine stance shows that evidence-based thinking isn't his strong suit.

http://www.salon.com/2011/01/16/dangerous_immunity/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pale Blue Dot (Reply #16)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:13 PM

19. You mischaracterize

his views and this is not constructive to the conversation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #19)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:15 PM

21. How? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pale Blue Dot (Reply #21)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:23 PM

23. You should read the actual articles and statements from him on the issue

they were not all anti-vaccine as the popular online community espouses.

I read them and reasonable questions were raised and calls for research were made. All normal things from a policy lawyer or anyone in public health- if something devastating is effecting the population, then look into all potential causes. Look and test. Why is this radical? This is standard science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #23)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:28 PM

27. Then I invite all the readers of this thread to also read them.

He continues to espouse these views, despite the fact that there is not a single credible relevant scientist who believes that there is any connection, and the one who started all of this quackery has been completely debunked.

If evidence was the most important thing to Mr. Kennedy, he wouldn't be encouraging parents not to vaccinate their kids. In this, I think he's an irresponsible monster.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pale Blue Dot (Reply #27)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:42 PM

34. Again, you mischaracterize. Read his actual words, not what some blogger

has posted.

He asks questions and asks for testing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pale Blue Dot (Reply #27)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:47 PM

38. Yes, please read RFK's 66-page paper and 179 fully documented footnotes.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to allrevvedup (Reply #38)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 01:47 PM

63. Well, considering just how false the first sentence is

It's not terribly persuasive.

Mounting evidence suggests that thimerosal, a preservative in many children’s vaccines that
breaks down to release neurotoxic ethyl mercury, may be responsible for the exponential growth
of autism, attention deficit disorder (ADD), hyperactivity (ADHD), speech and language delays,
and other childhood neurological disorders now epidemic in the United States.


Thimerosal was removed from US vaccines in 2000. ADD, ADHD, and autism diagnoses haven't gone down.
Thimerosal remains in vaccines shipped to Africa - it means the vaccine doesn't have to be refrigerated. ADD, ADHD and autism is virtually unheard of. Kinda shows Thimerosal can't be the problem.

Not to mention the entire "it's vaccines!!" claim was started by someone seeking to discredit one vaccine in favor of his vaccine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #63)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 05:42 PM

108. We all have opinions but you need to cite sources

 

to have credibility, and you haven't even mentioned one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to allrevvedup (Reply #108)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 06:50 PM

117. If you pretend to know anything about this issue

You need to know some extremely basic facts. Such as the fact that it's not been in vaccines given to children in the US since 2000, yet autism diagnoses have not plummeted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal#Autism

Following a review of mercury-containing food and drugs mandated in 1999, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the American Academy of Pediatrics asked vaccine manufacturers to remove thiomersal from vaccines as a purely precautionary measure, and it was rapidly phased out of most U.S. and European vaccines. Many parents saw the action to remove thiomersal–in the setting of a perceived increasing rate of autism as well as increasing number of vaccines in the childhood vaccination schedule–as indicating that the preservative was the cause of autism. The scientific consensus is that there is no scientific evidence supporting these claims, including the observation that the rate of autism continues to climb despite elimination of thiomersal from routine childhood vaccines. Major scientific and medical bodies such as the Institute of Medicine and World Health Organization as well as governmental agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration and the CDC reject any role for thiomersal in autism or other neurodevelopmental disorders. This controversy has caused harm due to parents attempting to treat their autistic children with unproven and possibly dangerous treatments, discouraging parents from vaccinating their children due to fears about thiomersal toxicity and diverting resources away from research into more promising areas for the cause of autism. Thousands of lawsuits have been filed in a U.S. federal court to seek damages from alleged toxicity from vaccines, including those purportedly caused by thiomersal.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #117)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 06:55 PM

121. Yeah, but....but

Kennedy's thingie had FOOTNOTES in it, so it must be true!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #121)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 06:57 PM

124. A paragraph from wikipedia doesn't cut it. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to allrevvedup (Reply #124)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:05 PM

128. When your claim

is so easily exploded, that's more than enough. There are two simple facts, that were not invented out of thin air by someone at Wikipedia:

Thimerosal has not been used in US Vaccines since 2000.

Autism diagnoses in the US have not gone down since 2000.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to allrevvedup (Reply #124)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:34 PM

131. It's full of references. More than the PDF you provided.

When you add in the "controversy" sub-page. So by your standards, it's far more reliable.

So, where's your evidence thimerosal is still in childhood vaccines in the US? Or that autism diagnoses have plummeted since it was removed? Or that the sun rises in the West?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #131)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 10:35 AM

173. CDC, 2012: Yes, Thimerosal remains in childhood vaccines and flu vaccines.

 

from "Thimerosal and 2012-2013 Seasonal Flu Vaccines":

Since 2001, no new vaccine licensed by FDA for use in children has contained thimerosal as a preservative, and all vaccines routinely recommended by CDC for children younger than 6 years of age have been thimerosal-free, or contain only trace amounts of thimerosal, except for multi-dose formulations of influenza vaccine.

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/thimerosal.htm


So per CDC, some childhood vaccines have Thimerosal, some don't. Most flu vaccines including children's flu vaccines do. You're welcome.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to allrevvedup (Reply #173)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 02:20 PM

197. Except "multi-dose forumations of influenza vaccine" are generally not used.

You'd know this if you noticed that they give one flu shot to the kid, not 3. The "multi-dose formulation" is available for a few edge cases.

Also, "trace amounts" means none as far as creating an effect - either on the person or against bacteria in its intended role as a preservative. There are a few rare vaccines that use ingredients which themselves are preserved with thimerosal. And again, such shots are only given for a few edge cases.

Fact is, the vast majority of kids receive 0 thimerosal. Yet the autism rate hasn't gone down. If it's thimerosal causing autism, how come?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #197)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 02:58 PM

201. Nope. "Multi-dose" means mutliple does in one vial

 

and multi-dose vaccines are widely used. Thus the need for mercury preservative to preserve the serum between injections:



Most vaccines are distributed in 2, 5, 10, or 20 dose vials, and single-dose vaccinations cost more. See for example:

http://www.who.int/immunization/sage/meetings/2012/april/consultation_INC4_MDVuse_JLiu_20120401.pdf

Are you really this uninformed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to allrevvedup (Reply #201)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 10:35 AM

202. There's two commonly-used definitions

One is the vial, one is the coloquial definition for vaccines that require multiple doses, such as the flu vaccine that is rarely given to infants - it requires 3 injections.

Since you went to the CDC for your evidence about thimerosal in the multi-dose vial, I had presumed you bothered to notice the CDC says to not use the multi-dose vial on children. Thus I assumed you were using the other definition.

I regret the error of assuming you were the slightest bit thorough in your research.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #202)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 10:33 PM

216. Strike 3, yer out. CDC: vaccine "in multi-dose VIALS" contains thimerosal.

 

You haven't been right yet:

Since seasonal influenza vaccine is produced in large quantities for annual immunization campaigns, some of the vaccine is produced in multi-dose vials, and contains thimerosal to safeguard against possible contamination of the vial once it is opened.

The single-dose units are made without thimerosal as a preservative because they are intended to be opened and used only once. Additionally, the live-attenuated version of the vaccine (the nasal spray vaccine), is produced in single-dose units and does not contain thimerosal.

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/thimerosal.htm


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pale Blue Dot (Reply #27)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 02:02 PM

71. Are the Relevant Scientists

The ones hired by pharmaceutical companies to disprove any connection between vaccines and autism?

Statistical certainty is often hard to nail down. But there is some correlation with vaccines on this matter.

What you should ask is, if there were connections, would we hear about it in the media? Do they even do investigative journalism anymore? What did we hear when we invaded Iraq? Did we hear it was all about oil? Did we hear the recent history of the region, about the discovery of oil in Iran, the nationalization kicking out the French and British, and the CIA coup and installation of the Shah in 1953? Did we hear about that when they took hostages in 1979?

We don't hear a lot of things in our media, completely corporatist, with information regarding these things, and wars, coming straight from the DOD/Pentagon experts.

I think that is what various deniers of everything miss. We didn't hear accurate information about the Tonkin incident in Vietnam either. We've got the corporate left, and the corporate right--both are corporate, both serve the government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberalmike27 (Reply #71)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:46 PM

135. No, relevant excludes frauds like Mann.

It also excludes, say, geologists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #19)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:45 PM

36. It's very much useful in this conversation

The guy likes bogus conspiracy thinking.

That is an inportant datum is a story about one of his conspiracy theories.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #36)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:51 PM

40. I wouldn't call Salon's editor-in-chief bogus necessarily,

 

although he does appear to be lying. Let's just call him deceptive.

note: this post contains irony.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #36)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 01:39 PM

60. So many of us who lived through the JFK assassination have doubts.

I don't have a theory as to who did it, but I strongly doubt that the Warren Report can be trusted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pale Blue Dot (Reply #16)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:45 PM

35. LOL. There's no "evidence-based thinking" at the Salon link you posted.

 

Salon's editor-in-chief says in part:

In 2005, Salon published online an exclusive story by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that offered an explosive premise: that the mercury-based thimerosal compound present in vaccines until 2001 was dangerous, and that he was “convinced that the link between thimerosal and the epidemic of childhood neurological disorders is real.”

The piece was co-published with Rolling Stone magazine — they fact-checked it and published it in print; we posted it online. In the days after running “Deadly Immunity,” we amended the story with five corrections (which can still be found logged here) that went far in undermining Kennedy’s exposé.


But the link under "logged here" goes to this page:

http://www.salon.com/about/corrections/

I just searched that page for author and title article title keywords and surprise, they are not to be found. Yes, I'm sure it's all just a big misunderstanding, but the fact is, Kerry Lauerman provides no evidence for his claims. So much for evidence-based thinking.

p.s. here's a link to RFK's complete essay. Note that includes no less than 179 fulsome footnotes, most citing multiple sources, most of these being research articles in scholarly journals -- and no "missing" citations!

http://www.robertfkennedyjr.com/docs/ThimerosalScandalFINAL.PDF

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:23 PM

22. "JFK and the Unspeakable" by James Douglass...

Great book on the matter:


JFK and the Unspeakable

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to drokhole (Reply #22)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 01:07 PM

44. Saddest book I've ever read.

Lays out brilliantly why we, as a country, have gone from Point A to Point B.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:23 PM

24. i am also convinced.

have been for a long time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:26 PM

25. That's what our own govt says, "The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it

"The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy"

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/

The question is why would we effort tirelessly to get bin laden, yet let Kennedy's killers roam free?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #25)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 02:05 PM

73. Conclusion was based entirely on the

open mike recording on a patrolman's motorcycle. That conclusion has been questioned by several studies since the Congressional report.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictabelt_evidence_relating_to_the_assassination_of_John_F._Kennedy

The thing I find incredible is that the top law enforcement agent in the country (RFK) would not move heaven and earth if he thought his brother was killed in a conspiracy.

I am far more suspicious of RFKs assassination (based on number of shots) than JFKs assassination. The greatest criticism of JFKs assassination was the "magic bullet", but that shot was duplicated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_bullet_theory

The second thing about the JFK assassination was silencing Oswald. Evidence does exist that Ruby's actions were spontaneous and not planned (posting of the money order prior to the assassination and the change in time of moving Oswald). Of course they may have been holding Oswald to give Ruby time to get into position (would mean law enforcement was involved in that hit - whether to cover up for Oswald or to exact revenge for Kennedy's assassination???). Oswald himself contributed to the delay in timing by requesting a change in clothing.

In both cases initial forensics were sloppy when compared to modern standards. Probably sloppy even for the day - I can't imagine hosing down the limo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to exboyfil (Reply #73)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 02:04 PM

205. If my brother had been assassinated so brazenly, in public, I believe I would think long and hard...

...about my family and my own longevity before digging too deep into ANYTHING other than the "official" story..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:34 PM

30. I doubt they've read the Warren Commission's report. All 11 volumes.

Bugliosi destroyed the second gunman theory in his book.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hamlette (Reply #30)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 02:47 PM

82. I doubt you have either. It's a sloppy piece of fiction, as was Bugliosi's "work". nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #82)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 03:18 PM

89. Allen Dulles should be a name that concerns anyone who takes the Warren report seriously


Although Dulles' involvement in the Bay of Pigs endeavor gained him enough ill repute to be fired from the CIA during Kennedy's administration, he didn't let this stifle his ambition. Somehow he found himself reinstated and was allowed to serve on the commission to investigate the murder of the very man who fired him.

Full article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Welsh_Dulles#CIA_career

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #89)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 03:37 PM

92. Caro states in "Passage of Power" that Dulles was recommended for the Commission by RFK,

IIRC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nyquil_man (Reply #92)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 04:06 PM

94. And his source is? This would be appreciated. /nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #94)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 04:24 PM

99. Check Caro's book. He usually has extensive endnotes.

If I'm mistaken, I apologize now. If Caro's mistaken, I apologize on his behalf.

Speaking of sourcing, where is the source for the quotation from that Wikipedia article on Dulles?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nyquil_man (Reply #99)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 05:10 PM

104. Dulles resigned after the Bay of Pigs

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=8461

So technically he wasn't fired. Sorry.....



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #104)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 05:28 PM

106. And was presented with the National Security Medal

by John F. Kennedy, the very man whose murder he would later investigate.

"Allen Welsh Dulles is hereby awarded the National Security Medal.

"As principal intelligence adviser to the. President of the United States, Mr. Dulles has fulfilled the responsibilities of his office with unswerving purpose and high dedication. His ten years of service in the Central Intelligence Agency have been the climax of a lifetime of unprecedented and devoted public service beginning in the First World War, and stretching through the administrations of seven Presidents.

"The outstanding contributions Mr. Dulles has made to the security of the United States have been based upon a profound knowledge of the role of the intelligence office, a broad understanding of international relations, and a naturally keen judgment of men and affairs. The zestful energy and undaunted integrity of his service to his country will be an enduring example to the profession he has done so much to create."

I would provide the source. But it's identical to yours.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nyquil_man (Reply #106)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 06:05 PM

109. Allen Dulles was a complete scum bag but yes he got a shiny medal

Yet the Decree 900 expropriations from the American fruit companies proved a fortuitous political opportunity, especially as presented by CIA Director Dulles and his brother, John Foster Dulles, the US Secretary of State, who each owned capital stock in the United Fruit Company; their conflation of personal conflict of interest with the Cold War geopolitics of the Western Hemisphere made feasible the secret invasion to change the government of Guatemala by force of arms. (See: The Monroe Doctrine.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_PBSUCCESS


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #109)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 06:24 PM

112. Maybe the President shouldn't be giving shiny medals to scumbags:



It tends to create the impression that the President endorses the scumbaggery.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nyquil_man (Reply #112)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 06:25 PM

113. Completely agree. /nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #104)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 06:11 PM

110. "Technically", Dulles was forced out (resign or be fired), as was Richard Bissell....

....and I recall the reaction by the hardliners the day they were pushed out.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #110)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 08:48 AM

157. And Gen. Charles Cabell,

Dallas mayor (in '63) Earl Cabell's brother.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 01:00 PM

41. RFK jr

is just another conspiracy theorist nut job wacko, how dare he....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 01:06 PM

43. Simple requests

Give us the names of people directly involved in a conspiracy to kill JFK.

Describe the specific actions they took in furtherance of that conspiracy.

Back it up with DIRECT, concrete evidence, not just an endless litany of fishy circumstances.

Explain how it all could have been kept secret all these years in a town where things don't even stay secret for 24 hours.

If you can't do any of those things, after having 50 years to do it, then STFU and come back when you can.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #43)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 01:13 PM

46. Who do YOU THINK YOU ARE telling anyone to STFU and come back when they can? Your

opinion about what any of us think in this thread is totally "meaningless" to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecent (Reply #46)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 01:20 PM

49. In other words

you're no more able to answer my requests than the conspiracy-mongering rfkjr. What a shock.

And please...don't weary my ears with the usual "the evidence is all over the place" crap. Been there. Heard that. About a zillion times. Still waiting for concrete answers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #49)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 01:35 PM

59. THE EVIDENCE IS ALL OVER THE PLACE...

Ears weary ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to russspeakeasy (Reply #59)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 02:45 PM

81. Give me the names

Of those directly involved in the murder conspiracy, then. Should be easy, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #81)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 09:52 PM

144. Son, let me help you out with this.

There's significantly more evidence supporting Robert Kennedy Jr's viewpoint than supports the Warren Commission's findings. The vast majority of people who have done their own research have come to the same conclusion - Oswald was not the "lone gunman". The Warren Commission report was one of the most elaborate "conspiracy theories" ever created.

There have been multiple confessions and a growing mountain of evidence since the Warren Commission was published. Before their deaths, Sam Giancana, Santos Trafficante and E. Howard Hunt among many others have acknowledged their involvement in the assassination. These were some of the people directly involved.

Stop spouting inanities and do some open minded serious research. Mindlessly repeating what the Warren Commission said doesn't prove anything. The Oswald scenario doesn't hold up.

I could give you a'lot more detail and provide you with the answers you say your looking for but that would ruin all the "fun".

"The rest", as they say, "is left as an exercise for the student".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #43)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 01:30 PM

56. What will happen if they disobey you?

will you steal their birthdays?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #43)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 01:46 PM

62. I am not an expert on this topic either, but Thom Hartmann co-wrote a book that explores

some evidence that might suggest a conspiracy. Have you read it?

I think that there are other books on possible conspiracies or alternative explanations.

I was a student at the time of the assassination. There were so many inconsistencies and coincidences, and the fact that Jack Ruby a prime suspect for having Mafia ties, killed Oswald?

That he even got that close to the alleged murderer of a president? Come on, now.

Even back then, and even in Texas, our law enforcement would have done better than they did on the Kennedy assassination investigation. And the medical and autopsy reports -- the chain of evidence was not protected. What a sloppy, sloppy handling of a matter of definitive historical and political significance.

This is the country that won WWII. How could the police department of a city the size of Dallas, Texas have bungled the Kennedy matter so badly? Not believable, not even then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #62)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 02:50 PM

84. "Some evidence"

that "might suggest" a conspiracy? Big fat hairy deal. There are books and website full of conspiracy mongering like that. But after FIFTY years, is that ALL anyone has?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #62)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 06:26 PM

114. Thom Hartmann seemed to distance himself from the book when I heard him mention it

He made some vague comment that the co-writer actually wrote it and he didn't seem to know what was in the book. Thom Hartmann's lying about something. I think he thought it was a good way to make a quick buck, whether he helped write it or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #43)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 02:37 PM

77. You're only 'skeptical' about other peoples' skepticism regarding the official story.

Limbaugh's currently getting some mileage out of tactics similar to yours with his climate change denial efforts.

The 18 zillion instances of 'direct concrete evidence', that there are holes and flaws in the official story, are readily available to see, for anyone who is 'skeptical' enough to read and look. Can't think of any of them to cite that will reach the unbelievably high bar you set for evidence that you will accept. Because proof refuting the official story has been shown and given before, not just after 50 years, but since the day of the assassination. You either know nothing about it, or have seen it all and it's not good enough.

Like Limbaugh on climate change, scream 'shut up' at other people, while demanding they 'prove it', and ignore proof in favor of a 'dog ate my homework' style statement like 'it's cold in San Diego' (while ignoring 60 + degree temps in the northeast and midwest), as a way of shilling for the official oil industry party line. It would be as easy to convince that blockhead as it would be to convince you.

Sorry I ignored all your orders, couched in the term 'requests', and didn't even STFU for you.

Who's 'us'? Do you have a mouse in your pocket, is that the editorial 'we', the royal 'we', are you speaking for an organization, or are we talking multiple personalities, here?

The info in the o.p. just takes one more underpinning out from under the foundation the 'official story' backers rely upon, their fall back line that 'if there was a conspiracy, why don't the Kennedy's say anything?'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mc Mike (Reply #77)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 02:48 PM

83. Nice try at deflection

But this has nothing whatsoever to do with climate change. Tell you what...you send me to a website that answers my requests, and I'll send you to a dozen websites that give you the evidence that climate change is happening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #83)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 03:21 PM

90. I don't need website proof of climate change, so you're offering me nothing, times 12.

To point out that I see parallels in your tactics regarding 'skeptics' of the 'official story' here and tactics by Limbaugh in defense of his 'official story' isn't a deflection, it's an analogy, or an observation of analogous behavior.

If octa couldn't convince you with the massive amount of postings on this issue right on THIS website, postings that link to tons of other websites, I'm going to pass on your latest 'request'. If you're just unaware that this info exists, (hard to believe that about someone who's so certain), try typing 'Octafish JFK' in the little box up top of the screen.

Your accusation of 'attempted deflection' on my part appears to be a deflection on your part, about my observation that your vauted 'skepticism' seems ony to cut one way -- you're skeptical of any skepticism on the part of others about the official story. A pocket or pocketed skeptic. So you're offering me 12 nothings as payment, to perform the sisyphean task of convincing the original tough customer, to his/her high standards of satisfaction, that the official story about Kennedy's assassination is a crock o crap.

Who's 'us', by the way?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mc Mike (Reply #90)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 03:55 PM

93. More deflection. Too funny

Everyone, including me, has noticed that you have no other response to my very simple requests, dude. Zero. Zip. Nada. Continually asking me who "us" is does not constitute a response, btw. I know it's all you have, but you're better off just walking away with some shred of your dignity intact. More empty responses will not make you look better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #93)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:01 PM

127. Wow

Why is this woo bullshit in GD?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #93)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 08:37 AM

156. I get it. 'Us' is 'everyone'. That's who you speak for.

Your assessment of my 'shredded dignity' appears to be more repug-like projection, on your part. I'd feel really bad about your assessment, if I didn't see its low quality exhibited all over this thread. You bring nothing to the discussion except conficting orders to 'prove it to ''us''!' and 'stfu!'. You seem to be a pocket skeptic, but not 'too funny'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #43)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 02:52 PM

86. Find E. Howard Hunt's deathbed confession, and then....

...read the 1978 final report by the House Select Committee on Assassinations.

One more little piece of advice....telling DUers to "STFU" doesn't work very well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #86)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 03:00 PM

88. So give me the names

of the people directly involved in the murder conspiracy. And tell me exactly what they did to kill Kennedy.

Oh, right...you can't, can you? After 50 freaking years, you and your fellow conspiracy mongers are still brought up short by the simple requests I've made. I've made those requests all over the Internet and NO ONE has ever provided a direct and simple answer. All I get is the same stammering, deflecting responses. Strange, eh?

And you can whimper all you want about my "tone". It doesn't change the fact that you can't answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #88)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 03:32 PM

91. "So give me the names"

Such a simple question and yet no answers yet. A lot of bluster and indignation, but no direct answers.

In the past I've heard the CIA, the FBI, the mafia, LBJ, members of the Kennedy family, George HW Bush. Apparently the list of suspects numbers in the hundreds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #88)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 06:18 PM

111. I've done research on the JFK asassination....

....since the day Ruby shot Oswald.

I've done my homework, now you do yours.

I won't be holding my breath.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #111)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 06:46 PM

116. Funny, I don't see any of the names I asked for

in your post. Please tell me you haven't wasted almost 50 years doing homework, and have nothing to show for it but suspicions?

Prove you've done any "homework" worth mentioning. Because I call bullshit. You and you ilk here are the ones making the claim here, not me. I have nothing to prove. I've just asked a few very simple questions, which neither you nor anyone else on the internet can answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #116)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:00 PM

126. Funny, I don't recall you mentioning E. Howard Hunt's deathbed confession or the....

....conclusions of the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Just in case you missed it, the last poll conducted by Gallup in 2003 indicated that 75% of all Americans believe JFK was killed as the result of a conspiracy. I guess that means all 75% of us fall into your definition of "conspiracy mongers", right?

Speaking of proof, prove that you're not some angry pimpled little teenager using mommy's laptop while she's out of the house. Prove that you're not sitting in soiled diapers eating candy bars. Let's see it.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #126)


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #126)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 12:54 AM

149. The burden of proof is on you to present evidence on who murder JFK

if you think Oswald didn't do it or didn't act alone. All real evidence points to Oswald. You have a high hurdle to prove otherwise.

So, who did it and what is your evidence?

The E. Howard Hunt's deathbed confession claim is worthless. It's a second hand account from bad sources.

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

After Hunt's death, Howard St. John Hunt and David Hunt stated that their father had recorded several claims about himself and others being involved in a conspiracy to assassinate John F. Kennedy. In the April 5, 2007 issue of Rolling Stone, Howard St. John Hunt detailed a number of individuals purported to be implicated by his father including Lyndon B. Johnson, Cord Meyer, David Phillips, Frank Sturgis, David Morales, William Harvey, and Lucien Sarti. The two sons alleged that their father cut the information from his memoirs to avoid possibly perjury charges. According to Hunt's widow and other children, the two sons took advantage of Hunt's loss of lucidity by coaching and exploiting him for financial gain. The Los Angeles Times said they examined the materials offered by the sons to support the story and found them to be "inconclusive".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #149)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 10:54 AM

178. All "real evidence" like the late Arlen Specter's "Single Bullet Theory"....

....where the bullet was supposedly "found" on a stretcher at the hospital? The same bullet that was in nearly pristine condition with no traces of human flesh or clothing fibers despite having supposedly created four wounds of entrance and three of exit in two grown men? That, just by itself, destroys any hope of credibility by the Warren Commission. How the commissioners hoped to pass off such a fiction to the American people is beyond me.

So, what's your evidence to counter the findings of conspiracy by the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1978?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #178)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:40 AM

188. What, exactly, did they find?

Did they find out who the second shooter was? Did they find out who was behind it all? No. They did not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JazzQuipster (Reply #188)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 01:37 PM

204. So, tell me how the nearly pristine Magic Bullet was connected forensically to JFK's killing....

....especially when no human matter or clothing fibers of any kind were found on the bullet. Tell me how the bullet was found on a stretcher in the hospital. In fact, the Magic Bullet looks suspiciously like one that has been fired into a water-filled ballistics testing tank.

What do you know about the Warren Commission testimony indicating that the wound in the front of the President's throat was one of entrance, not exit?

Tell me about the hole in the windshield of the Presidential limo that a Secret Service agent identified as one caused by a bullet. While you're at it, tell me about the circular bullet dent or hole in the window frame to the right of the rear-view mirror. Tell me also why LBJ ordered the limo returned to Detroit to be completely rebuilt which destroyed evidence in the process.

And finally, tell me why so many witnesses and police officers ran to the fence on the so-called grassy knoll immediately following the shooting.

The names of the shooters aren't important....what's important is who gave the orders and who was involved in the cover-up. Sorry that doesn't seem to be enough for you and the 19% who still believe Oswald acted alone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #178)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 02:45 PM

199. You didn't give any evidence on who murdered JFK

The House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1978 claim that there was a forth bullet was based on bogus evidence. It's findings are invalid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Select_Committee_on_Assassinations

The sole acoustic evidence relied on by the committee's experts to support its theory of a fourth gunshot (and a gunman on the grassy knoll) in the JFK assassination, was a Dictabelt recording alleged to be from a stuck transmitter on a police motorcycle in Dealey Plaza during the assassination. After the committee finished its work, however, an amateur researcher listened to the recording and discovered faint crosstalk of transmissions from another police radio channel known to have been made a minute after the assassination. This was supported by the National Academy of Science article.

A majority of witnesses who testified on the source of the shots said they came from the direction of the Depository. However, many witnesses thought the shots came from the direction of the Knoll. Only five witnesses, from a total of over one hundred, thought the shots came from two directions simultaneously.


It can be difficult to determine the direction of sounds when not concentrating on the task, but the majority of witnesses thought there were three shots and the shots came from Oswald's location, which was the direction of the kill shot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_bullet_theory


BACK VIEW OF NOT SO PRISTINE BULLET

Within minutes after the shots rang out in Dealey Plaza in downtown Dallas, Texas, at 12:30 p.m. on November 22, 1963, independent sources began reporting that three shots had been fired at the President’s motorcade. At 12:34 p.m., approximately four minutes after the shots were fired, the first wire story flashed around the world:

“DALLAS NOV. 22 (UPI) -- THREE SHOTS WERE FIRED AT PRESIDENT KENNEDY’S MOTORCADE TODAY IN DOWNTOWN DALLAS. JT1234PCS”

This report had been transmitted by United Press International reporter Merriman Smith from a radio telephone located in the front seat of the press car in the Presidential motorcade, six cars behind the President’s limousine.

The vast majority of witnesses claim to have heard three, but there are some witnesses who could recall only 1 or 2 shots. A few witnesses thought there were four or more shots. Of 178 witnesses whose evidence was compiled by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), 132 reported hearing exactly three shots, 17 recalled hearing two, 7 said they heard two or three shots (total: 88%).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #43)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 10:04 AM

166. those are not simple requests.

as if any one citizen would have access to all the necessary and definitive information to pinpoint the conspirators with certainty. all a thinking person needs to know is that there is sufficient reason to question the official story. how disingenuous. you don't question the official story? you obviously trust the gov't. you probably think bin laden and his crew were solely responsible for the 9/11 attacks. how naive. you need to be more careful about what you're skeptical of.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 01:29 PM

55. Where were you

when JFK was assassinated? Everyone old enough, like me remembers. I was in Catholic high school, they announced it over the PA system, we all prayed for him.

One person when asked where he was replied he didn't remember. He was George H.W. Bush.
He was in Dallas, at least the night before for sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to watoos (Reply #55)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 01:53 PM

68. yeah, I was in high school

I remember the people I was with. I remember the day, the classes, how I felt. I could write an essay.

But GHWB has no idea what city he was in.

Oh, REALLY???????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 01:52 PM

65. This is the same idiot who thinks vaccines cause autism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 01:53 PM

67. The last shot...

came from the front. Anyone with common sense can tell by the way his head snapped back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to awoke_in_2003 (Reply #67)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 02:33 PM

76. Wrong

In the Zapruder film frame immediately after the hit, the head has snapped forward about 2.5 inches. It is physically impossible for the "back and to the left" movement to have been caused by momentum from the bullet because (A) it came two frames later, whereas momentum transfer is immediate, and (B) that motion shows acceleration, which implies a continued force whereas the bullet is long gone from the scene.



Beyond any doubt, the head shot was from behind. Conspiracy theories that deny that are invalid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #76)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 04:28 PM

100. when you watch this in action

the kill shot really seems to come from the front or front side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MFM008 (Reply #100)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 06:52 PM

118. No, it really doesn't

Several years ago, someone posted a link to a good copy of Zapruder on the dungeon board and invited everyone to watch what you say happened -- that the kill shot really seems to come from the front or front side. But instead, when I watched it in slow motion, I noticed what looked like a forward head-snap. So, I grabbed the frames and compared them with an overlay and verified that it really was there. Then, I went looking on the web and found numerous links (e.g. the one I posted) that confirmed that the forward head-snap has been known and carefully analyzed for years.

Once you know it's there, it's obvious even at full speed. The "back and to the left" on the other hand looks more like a Hollywood reaction to a gun-shot because, as I said, it comes too late and it shows acceleration.

The reaction of diehard JFK conspiracists is rather interesting, confirming Jonathan Swift's observation that you can't reason someone out of a belief that wasn't the result of reasoning in the first place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 02:33 PM

75. ha.....

 

Second gunman, probably was a Bigfoot.........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 02:40 PM

80. Alex Jones

ought to stop by with a post any minute.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 04:59 PM

102. Maybe they should interview GHW Bush before

It's too late

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 05:00 PM

103. I've never bought the "lone, crazed gunman" idea for any

of the murders of left wing leaders in the 60s and 70s. It was all calculated and conspiratorial. It had to be. Were there that many lone, crazed gunmen out there, right wing leaders would also have been targeted.

Oh, somebody shot Reagan. However, his family was tight with the Bushes, so who knows what happened with him, either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #103)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 06:53 PM

119. Don't forget than another nut

tried to shoot Ford. Ok, he wasn't that much of a right winger (certainly not by today's standards), but even so.

I'm sometimes amazed that no one has taken a shot at Clinton or Obama, given how exposed our presidents are, and the amount of gun-nuttery hatred out there in right-wing redneckistan. Either the Secret Service is doing an awesomely good job, or cowardice among right wing loons is even stronger than hatred of liberal presidents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #119)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:48 PM

136. It was a "she", not a "he" that tried to shoot Ford. Sara Jane Moore.

Some of us are old enough to remember these trivial names through the fog of time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manifestor_of_Light (Reply #136)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 08:56 AM

159. Squeaky Fromme, also. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 06:29 PM

115. I'm not exactly sure how many gunmen there were, but the investigation was botched

and the Warren Commission turned out to be inaccurate.

I'm hoping we eventually learn the truth. Maybe someone will come forward or maybe a document will be unsealed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 08:08 PM

138. Whoa, this opens up a whole new can of worms

 

I myself never believed the Warren Commission Report, believing that it was full of holes. Glad to see a Kennedy family member agree with me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 08:41 PM

141. Probably aliens.....

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kaboom15 (Reply #141)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 11:49 PM

146. George H. W. Bush?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 02:09 AM

150. and yet again

learn this from the UK. cause our news sucks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 03:27 AM

151. There was nothing plausible about the official story from minute one.

It's still so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 04:54 AM

153. Um, yeah, it isn't rocket science

The magic bullet does not hold up to any scrutiny. That's why it's called the magic bullet. Bullets don't do what that bullet was purported to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 05:57 AM

155. It was the CIA !

Led by Bush Sr.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 08:50 AM

158. Three words that destroy any credibility of the Official Story as endorsed by the Warren Commission:

MAGIC BULLET THEORY.

Never has such a bullet and such a trajectory of such insane magnitude existed before. The only magic that exists here is whatever spell they have put on the ignorant ones that endorse this as possible fact.

I also have a five word destruction of the theory: BACK AND TO THE LEFT. Watch the head. It was not blasted from where they claimed Oswald was. The back of the head is blown out as an exit wound.

All those who are so reflexively anti-conspiracy no matter how legitimate a conspiracy theory may be, endorse Lee Harvey Oswald as the sole gunman without any way to disprove that those two phrases basically kill their theory dead. As it turns out, it's not the conspiracy theorists that are the nutty ones reaching desperately for their stories to be true, rather it's those who tow the government line no matter how agenda filled a potential cover up in Washington would have been.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MessiahRp (Reply #158)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:32 AM

162. There is also other footage, shot from the other side of Elm St.

Across from Zapruder. It shows the stopping of the limo, the police cycles slowing down to stay behind the limo, the second car in the motorcade hitting the brakes to avoid rear-ending the stopped limo.

The limo should have sped up when the shots rang out. If it had, the First Lady would have been flipped off the back of it. Instead, the secret service agent runs and catches up to it, and shoves her back in. Then the limo speeds up.

The other angle footage is good just to see the phalanx of cycles slowing to stay behind, after shots were fired. Slowing to the point of tipping. And showing how close the second limo actually came to the presidential limo.

The motorcade route was changed at the last second. Instead of going straight down Main, it took a right on Houston, then a hard (>110 degree) hairpin turn left onto Elm, slowing the limo down greatly and causing it to drive right by the building where the 'lone nut' had brought a rifle in to work. He only got that job after Kennedy's trip was announced, thanks to Ruth Paine.

The Warren Commission apologists, up thread and on other threads, have two conflicting tactics to answer the Zapruder footage of the head shot. Half of them say that Kennedy's head actually snapped forward, like some poster 'proved' up thread. The other half say his head snapped backwards, and due to 'physics', a head shot from behind will snap back toward the shot. You never see them get into a fight over their conflicting statements. They're all too busy agreeing with the W.C. to disagree with each other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mc Mike (Reply #162)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 10:25 AM

171. come on

we don't want to cast doubt on the official line of warren commission bs, do we? That type of murder could NEVER happen in the 'land of the free, home of the brave'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 10:22 AM

170. John Jr.'s plane crash was suspicious to me..

He was just the right age to start politics...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fadedrose (Reply #170)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:54 AM

190. Yes

Important and/or famous people never die unless it is the result of a conspiracy.

Psssttt...they got Lennon too...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fadedrose (Reply #170)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 12:02 PM

193. Oh come on. He was handsome and a Kennedy but not the sharpest tool in the shed.

If someone had wanted to kill a promising Democratic politician there would have been many people ahead of him on the list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #193)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 12:16 PM

195. He published the "Conspiracy Issue" of George in October 1998.

 

George Magazine, October 1998 - The Conspiracy Issue. Paranoid and Proud of It by Oliver Stone.
http://www.amazon.com/Magazine-October-1998-Actor-Conspiracy-Paranoid/dp/images/B0043G38XS

He was killed on July 16, 1999, less than a year later. Connection? I wouldn't rule it out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #193)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 02:35 PM

198. Before he was married, he was the best catch a girl could make...

And he was like a rock star. No republican could have beat him if he decided to run, and probably he decided to run, but didn't make it public yet...

I had an extreme crush on JFK in spite of his intelligence, not because of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 12:00 PM

192. Stephen King has about the most vivid imagination around,

and even he is convinced, after studying all the theories, that Oswald acted alone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11/22/63

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #192)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 11:31 PM

219. Stephen King's source-materials were dubious...

at best.

***
As a work of fiction it's probably harmless enough ...

Historically? Not so much. Given King's reliance on the likes of admitted plagiarist Gerald Posner. Along with James Jesus Angleton protégé Edward Jay Epstein.

***

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1547970

Hat tip to IanEye @ RI for the review.

Read more @ The Education Forum


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread