HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Attorney General Robert F...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:36 AM

Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy believed President Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy.

That's what his son and daughter, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Rory Kennedy, reported in an interview with Charlie Rose last weekend in Dallas.



It's also what author and Salon founder David Talbot reported, when he called Robert F. Kennedy the "first conspiracy theorist" in 2007.

Here's why the news from Robert and Rory is so important:

The important issue is that he and his sister reported their father -- the president's principal counselor and the nation's chief law enforcement officer -- privately thought a conspiracy was behind the assassination of President Kennedy.

RFK called the Warren Commission report "shoddy workmanship."

Attorney General Kennedy knew about the Ruby-Mafia connections immediately, which is vital when considering the Mafia were hired by Allen Dulles and the CIA during Eisenhower's administration to murder Fidel Castro -- an operation which the CIA failed to inform the president and attorney general.

The interview with Charlie Rose marked the first time members of the immediate Kennedy family have voiced the attorney general's doubts about the Warren Commission and its lone gunman theory.


Those are the facts we learned Friday, Jan. 11, 2013. It's called history.

845 replies, 118367 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 845 replies Author Time Post
Reply Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy believed President Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy. (Original post)
Octafish Jan 2013 OP
blm Jan 2013 #1
Octafish Jan 2013 #10
zappaman Jan 2013 #13
Octafish Jan 2013 #14
zappaman Jan 2013 #15
Octafish Jan 2013 #17
zappaman Jan 2013 #20
stopbush Jan 2013 #36
Zen Democrat Jan 2013 #53
stopbush Jan 2013 #57
Octafish Jan 2013 #66
stopbush Jan 2013 #79
stopbush Jan 2013 #131
Hotler Jan 2013 #147
zappaman Jan 2013 #153
Octafish Jan 2013 #195
MrMickeysMom Jan 2013 #161
zappaman Jan 2013 #163
MrMickeysMom Jan 2013 #188
HiPointDem Jan 2013 #189
stopbush Jan 2013 #80
Octafish Jan 2013 #84
stopbush Jan 2013 #86
Octafish Jan 2013 #87
stopbush Jan 2013 #89
Octafish Jan 2013 #91
stopbush Jan 2013 #94
Octafish Jan 2013 #127
stopbush Jan 2013 #205
zappaman Jan 2013 #99
RZM Jan 2013 #90
alberg Jan 2013 #452
stopbush Jan 2013 #459
alberg Jan 2013 #485
stopbush Jan 2013 #491
MinM Jan 2013 #193
happyslug Jan 2013 #232
Mc Mike Jan 2013 #237
Octafish Jan 2013 #250
happyslug Jan 2013 #229
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #255
stopbush Jan 2013 #321
AndyTiedye Jan 2013 #651
stopbush Jan 2013 #652
HiPointDem Jan 2013 #190
stopbush Jan 2013 #293
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #302
stopbush Jan 2013 #306
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #318
HiPointDem Jan 2013 #324
greytdemocrat Jan 2013 #170
stopbush Jan 2013 #29
MrMickeysMom Jan 2013 #159
zappaman Jan 2013 #162
MrMickeysMom Jan 2013 #176
zappaman Jan 2013 #441
lonestarnot Jan 2013 #180
MrMickeysMom Jan 2013 #184
lonestarnot Jan 2013 #192
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #206
Octafish Jan 2013 #220
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #230
stopbush Jan 2013 #290
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #301
zappaman Jan 2013 #304
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #375
stopbush Jan 2013 #388
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #390
stopbush Jan 2013 #309
stopbush Jan 2013 #475
stopbush Jan 2013 #668
doublethink Jan 2013 #676
stopbush Jan 2013 #680
doublethink Jan 2013 #682
lonestarnot Jan 2013 #179
alberg Jan 2013 #437
zappaman Jan 2013 #439
alberg Jan 2013 #487
Octafish Jan 2013 #621
zappaman Jan 2013 #622
nyquil_man Jan 2013 #608
Octafish Jan 2013 #619
nyquil_man Jan 2013 #625
stopbush Jan 2013 #350
Octafish Jan 2013 #535
stopbush Jan 2013 #536
Octafish Jan 2013 #538
zappaman Jan 2013 #545
Octafish Jan 2013 #578
zappaman Jan 2013 #579
stopbush Jan 2013 #547
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #647
stopbush Jan 2013 #648
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #656
stopbush Jan 2013 #658
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #659
stopbush Jan 2013 #662
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #664
stopbush Jan 2013 #667
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #669
stopbush Jan 2013 #670
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #674
stopbush Jan 2013 #681
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #684
stopbush Jan 2013 #686
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #688
zappaman Jan 2013 #689
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #690
zappaman Jan 2013 #691
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #693
zappaman Jan 2013 #694
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #695
stopbush Jan 2013 #696
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #697
stopbush Jan 2013 #700
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #702
stopbush Jan 2013 #703
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #705
stopbush Jan 2013 #706
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #707
stopbush Jan 2013 #708
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #698
stopbush Jan 2013 #699
Scuba Jan 2013 #2
Octafish Jan 2013 #16
zappaman Jan 2013 #19
stopbush Jan 2013 #30
Octafish Jan 2013 #43
zappaman Jan 2013 #45
Octafish Jan 2013 #49
Zen Democrat Jan 2013 #60
stopbush Jan 2013 #132
Octafish Jan 2013 #196
stopbush Jan 2013 #197
Octafish Jan 2013 #200
stopbush Jan 2013 #202
zappaman Jan 2013 #203
Octafish Jan 2013 #215
Octafish Jan 2013 #314
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #376
stopbush Jan 2013 #391
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #393
Spider Jerusalem Jan 2013 #256
zappaman Jan 2013 #260
Spider Jerusalem Jan 2013 #263
zappaman Jan 2013 #265
Spider Jerusalem Jan 2013 #267
Octafish Jan 2013 #272
Spider Jerusalem Jan 2013 #273
Octafish Jan 2013 #274
Spider Jerusalem Jan 2013 #275
Octafish Jan 2013 #276
Spider Jerusalem Jan 2013 #277
Octafish Jan 2013 #284
Spider Jerusalem Jan 2013 #294
Octafish Jan 2013 #378
Spider Jerusalem Jan 2013 #383
zappaman Jan 2013 #62
stopbush Jan 2013 #88
Octafish Jan 2013 #113
zappaman Jan 2013 #120
stopbush Jan 2013 #52
Octafish Jan 2013 #63
stopbush Jan 2013 #73
zappaman Jan 2013 #74
MrMickeysMom Jan 2013 #183
librechik Jan 2013 #166
Octafish Jan 2013 #172
librechik Jan 2013 #173
stopbush Jan 2013 #198
Ian Iam Jan 2013 #340
stopbush Jan 2013 #348
Ian Iam Jan 2013 #354
stopbush Jan 2013 #356
Zen Democrat Jan 2013 #59
coalition_unwilling Jan 2013 #67
zappaman Jan 2013 #70
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #141
zappaman Jan 2013 #145
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #178
nyquil_man Jan 2013 #576
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #580
nyquil_man Jan 2013 #593
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #596
nyquil_man Jan 2013 #597
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #599
nyquil_man Jan 2013 #601
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #604
nyquil_man Jan 2013 #606
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #618
stopbush Jan 2013 #207
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #209
stopbush Jan 2013 #549
zappaman Jan 2013 #551
stopbush Jan 2013 #552
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #557
stopbush Jan 2013 #559
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #563
stopbush Jan 2013 #565
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #566
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #211
stopbush Jan 2013 #269
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #279
stopbush Jan 2013 #289
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #299
stopbush Jan 2013 #310
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #313
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #370
stopbush Jan 2013 #292
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #295
zappaman Jan 2013 #296
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #300
zappaman Jan 2013 #303
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #308
stopbush Jan 2013 #305
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #311
zappaman Jan 2013 #312
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #315
stopbush Jan 2013 #320
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #328
Spider Jerusalem Jan 2013 #405
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #407
Spider Jerusalem Jan 2013 #410
stopbush Jan 2013 #325
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #330
stopbush Jan 2013 #331
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #369
stopbush Jan 2013 #382
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #389
stopbush Jan 2013 #392
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #396
stopbush Jan 2013 #397
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #404
stopbush Jan 2013 #429
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #431
stopbush Jan 2013 #432
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #434
stopbush Jan 2013 #436
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #522
zappaman Jan 2013 #524
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #526
zappaman Jan 2013 #527
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #531
stopbush Jan 2013 #528
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #529
Spider Jerusalem Jan 2013 #406
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #408
Spider Jerusalem Jan 2013 #409
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #411
Spider Jerusalem Jan 2013 #413
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #430
stopbush Jan 2013 #438
zappaman Jan 2013 #442
stopbush Jan 2013 #447
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #453
stopbush Jan 2013 #456
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #461
stopbush Jan 2013 #465
zappaman Jan 2013 #469
stopbush Jan 2013 #472
zappaman Jan 2013 #473
stopbush Jan 2013 #474
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #728
stopbush Feb 2013 #729
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #734
stopbush Feb 2013 #743
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #745
stopbush Feb 2013 #746
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #747
stopbush Feb 2013 #749
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #751
Spider Jerusalem Jan 2013 #443
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #449
Spider Jerusalem Jan 2013 #450
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #457
Spider Jerusalem Jan 2013 #470
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #476
Spider Jerusalem Jan 2013 #488
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #489
Spider Jerusalem Jan 2013 #490
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #508
Spider Jerusalem Jan 2013 #513
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #515
Spider Jerusalem Jan 2013 #516
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #519
Spider Jerusalem Jan 2013 #520
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #521
Spider Jerusalem Jan 2013 #523
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #525
Spider Jerusalem Jan 2013 #532
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #533
Spider Jerusalem Jan 2013 #534
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #567
Spider Jerusalem Jan 2013 #569
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #570
Spider Jerusalem Jan 2013 #571
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #574
Spider Jerusalem Jan 2013 #590
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #609
Spider Jerusalem Jan 2013 #616
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #617
Spider Jerusalem Jan 2013 #623
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #627
Spider Jerusalem Jan 2013 #628
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #630
Spider Jerusalem Jan 2013 #632
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #633
Spider Jerusalem Jan 2013 #637
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #646
stopbush Jan 2013 #541
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #568
stopbush Jan 2013 #572
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #573
stopbush Jan 2013 #575
grantcart Jan 2013 #307
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #316
grantcart Jan 2013 #319
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #322
grantcart Jan 2013 #326
nyquil_man Jan 2013 #594
nyquil_man Jan 2013 #595
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #598
nyquil_man Jan 2013 #600
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #602
nyquil_man Jan 2013 #603
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #605
nyquil_man Jan 2013 #607
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #610
nyquil_man Jan 2013 #611
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #612
nyquil_man Jan 2013 #613
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #614
nyquil_man Jan 2013 #615
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #620
nyquil_man Jan 2013 #626
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #629
nyquil_man Jan 2013 #639
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #640
nyquil_man Jan 2013 #643
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #644
nyquil_man Jan 2013 #649
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #654
nyquil_man Jan 2013 #663
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #665
nyquil_man Jan 2013 #666
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #672
nyquil_man Jan 2013 #675
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #678
nyquil_man Jan 2013 #715
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #717
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #718
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #719
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #720
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #721
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #723
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #725
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #722
stopbush Feb 2013 #724
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #731
stopbush Feb 2013 #732
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #735
stopbush Feb 2013 #744
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #736
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #741
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #748
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #750
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #752
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #753
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #754
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #755
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #757
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #758
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #759
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #761
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #762
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #763
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #764
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #765
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #769
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #770
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #773
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #777
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #779
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #780
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #782
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #784
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #785
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #787
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #789
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #790
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #798
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #799
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #802
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #803
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #804
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #807
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #808
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #809
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #811
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #810
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #812
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #813
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #814
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #815
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #816
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #817
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #818
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #819
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #820
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #822
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #826
AntiFascist Mar 2013 #832
nyquil_man Mar 2013 #834
AntiFascist Mar 2013 #835
nyquil_man Mar 2013 #836
AntiFascist Mar 2013 #837
nyquil_man Mar 2013 #838
AntiFascist Mar 2013 #839
nyquil_man Mar 2013 #840
AntiFascist Mar 2013 #841
nyquil_man Mar 2013 #842
AntiFascist Mar 2013 #843
nyquil_man Mar 2013 #844
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #823
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #825
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #827
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #829
AntiFascist Mar 2013 #831
nyquil_man Mar 2013 #833
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #830
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #805
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #772
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #775
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #778
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #783
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #786
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #766
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #768
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #771
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #774
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #776
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #781
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #756
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #727
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #730
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #733
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #737
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #738
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #739
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #740
zappaman Jan 2013 #671
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #673
Octafish Jan 2013 #268
coalition_unwilling Jan 2013 #258
zappaman Jan 2013 #261
coalition_unwilling Jan 2013 #262
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #264
MrMickeysMom Jan 2013 #185
coalition_unwilling Jan 2013 #257
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #266
stopbush Jan 2013 #271
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #280
stopbush Jan 2013 #288
coalition_unwilling Jan 2013 #278
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #281
MrMickeysMom Jan 2013 #283
stopbush Jan 2013 #327
MrMickeysMom Jan 2013 #395
zappaman Jan 2013 #401
stopbush Jan 2013 #75
MrMickeysMom Jan 2013 #164
zappaman Jan 2013 #165
stopbush Jan 2013 #208
MrMickeysMom Jan 2013 #216
zappaman Jan 2013 #218
MrMickeysMom Jan 2013 #221
zappaman Jan 2013 #222
MrMickeysMom Jan 2013 #224
zappaman Jan 2013 #225
MrMickeysMom Jan 2013 #228
Octafish Jan 2013 #418
MrMickeysMom Jan 2013 #444
stopbush Jan 2013 #454
zappaman Jan 2013 #455
stopbush Jan 2013 #458
MrMickeysMom Jan 2013 #486
MrMickeysMom Jan 2013 #477
zappaman Jan 2013 #482
MrMickeysMom Jan 2013 #484
LineLineLineLineLineLineReply ~
Tuesday Afternoon Jan 2013 #219
MrMickeysMom Jan 2013 #223
zappaman Jan 2013 #227
stopbush Jan 2013 #451
stopbush Jan 2013 #347
MrMickeysMom Jan 2013 #394
stopbush Jan 2013 #398
MrMickeysMom Jan 2013 #399
zappaman Jan 2013 #402
stopbush Jan 2013 #416
Zen Democrat Jan 2013 #503
stopbush Jan 2013 #511
Octafish Jan 2013 #560
stopbush Jan 2013 #564
stopbush Jan 2013 #641
LeftInTX Jan 2013 #3
Octafish Jan 2013 #22
stopbush Jan 2013 #97
stopbush Jan 2013 #129
zappaman Jan 2013 #135
Octafish Jan 2013 #412
reformist2 Jan 2013 #4
Octafish Jan 2013 #77
larkrake Jan 2013 #5
Octafish Jan 2013 #78
Mr Dixon Jan 2013 #6
Octafish Jan 2013 #85
stopbush Jan 2013 #133
Archae Jan 2013 #7
colorado_ufo Jan 2013 #8
Archae Jan 2013 #9
Octafish Jan 2013 #92
stopbush Jan 2013 #101
zipplewrath Jan 2013 #110
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #142
Little Star Jan 2013 #11
stopbush Jan 2013 #114
triplepoint Jan 2013 #12
Octafish Jan 2013 #387
SidDithers Jan 2013 #18
zappaman Jan 2013 #24
Rex Jan 2013 #41
RandiFan1290 Jan 2013 #48
Lars39 Jan 2013 #25
Octafish Jan 2013 #50
Rex Jan 2013 #55
SidDithers Jan 2013 #58
zappaman Jan 2013 #64
Lars39 Jan 2013 #68
zappaman Jan 2013 #71
Lars39 Jan 2013 #72
MrMickeysMom Jan 2013 #187
KurtNYC Jan 2013 #93
Rex Jan 2013 #21
Octafish Jan 2013 #76
Rex Jan 2013 #83
stopbush Jan 2013 #98
octoberlib Jan 2013 #23
zappaman Jan 2013 #28
stopbush Jan 2013 #31
zappaman Jan 2013 #32
stopbush Jan 2013 #38
zappaman Jan 2013 #40
Octafish Jan 2013 #117
zappaman Jan 2013 #118
MrMickeysMom Jan 2013 #186
nyquil_man Jan 2013 #39
stopbush Jan 2013 #35
stopbush Jan 2013 #47
Octafish Jan 2013 #115
octoberlib Jan 2013 #226
Festivito Jan 2013 #26
Octafish Jan 2013 #345
Festivito Jan 2013 #352
patrice Jan 2013 #27
Boomerproud Jan 2013 #42
patrice Jan 2013 #51
Octafish Jan 2013 #245
patrice Jan 2013 #246
nyquil_man Jan 2013 #33
Coyotl Jan 2013 #44
nyquil_man Jan 2013 #46
Coyotl Jan 2013 #54
nyquil_man Jan 2013 #69
Octafish Jan 2013 #150
zappaman Jan 2013 #158
Octafish Jan 2013 #177
nyquil_man Jan 2013 #492
snooper2 Jan 2013 #34
zappaman Jan 2013 #37
Octafish Jan 2013 #56
zappaman Jan 2013 #65
stopbush Jan 2013 #95
Zen Democrat Jan 2013 #61
Octafish Jan 2013 #435
smackd Jan 2013 #81
Octafish Jan 2013 #126
zappaman Jan 2013 #128
tex-wyo-dem Jan 2013 #82
Octafish Jan 2013 #109
Mc Mike Jan 2013 #96
Octafish Jan 2013 #103
Mc Mike Jan 2013 #213
Octafish Jan 2013 #231
Mc Mike Jan 2013 #238
MinM Jan 2013 #100
Octafish Jan 2013 #104
MinM Jan 2013 #191
Octafish Jan 2013 #252
MinM Jan 2013 #253
MinM Jan 2013 #687
MinM Feb 2013 #792
RomneyLies Jan 2013 #102
Octafish Jan 2013 #105
RomneyLies Jan 2013 #106
HappyMe Jan 2013 #107
Octafish Jan 2013 #111
RomneyLies Jan 2013 #121
zappaman Jan 2013 #123
Octafish Jan 2013 #124
RomneyLies Jan 2013 #125
MrMickeysMom Jan 2013 #182
stopbush Jan 2013 #210
MrMickeysMom Jan 2013 #217
HiPointDem Jan 2013 #204
Mc Mike Jan 2013 #214
Bluenorthwest Jan 2013 #285
whatchamacallit Jan 2013 #108
Octafish Jan 2013 #112
whatchamacallit Jan 2013 #116
zappaman Jan 2013 #119
Waiting For Everyman Jan 2013 #122
zappaman Jan 2013 #130
Octafish Jan 2013 #134
zappaman Jan 2013 #136
Octafish Jan 2013 #137
zappaman Jan 2013 #138
Octafish Jan 2013 #144
zappaman Jan 2013 #146
Octafish Jan 2013 #149
zappaman Jan 2013 #151
Octafish Jan 2013 #154
zappaman Jan 2013 #155
Octafish Jan 2013 #156
zappaman Jan 2013 #157
Octafish Jan 2013 #254
zappaman Jan 2013 #259
Octafish Jan 2013 #270
Mc Mike Jan 2013 #282
zappaman Jan 2013 #286
stopbush Jan 2013 #287
zappaman Jan 2013 #291
BlueStreak Jan 2013 #139
zappaman Jan 2013 #140
Comrade_McKenzie Jan 2013 #199
Kurovski Jan 2013 #143
Octafish Jan 2013 #148
zappaman Jan 2013 #152
MrMickeysMom Jan 2013 #175
doublethink Jan 2013 #174
MrSlayer Jan 2013 #160
zappaman Jan 2013 #167
MrSlayer Jan 2013 #168
zappaman Jan 2013 #169
MrSlayer Jan 2013 #171
lonestarnot Jan 2013 #181
MadHound Jan 2013 #194
coalition_unwilling Jan 2013 #297
zappaman Jan 2013 #298
MadHound Jan 2013 #317
coalition_unwilling Jan 2013 #323
MadHound Jan 2013 #329
coalition_unwilling Jan 2013 #333
MadHound Jan 2013 #336
coalition_unwilling Jan 2013 #338
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #795
stopbush Jan 2013 #344
stopbush Jan 2013 #335
MadHound Jan 2013 #337
stopbush Jan 2013 #341
Octafish Jan 2013 #343
stopbush Jan 2013 #346
zappaman Jan 2013 #353
zappaman Jan 2013 #339
ellenfl Jan 2013 #201
MicaelS Jan 2013 #212
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #235
321Morrow Jan 2013 #233
zappaman Jan 2013 #234
Octafish Jan 2013 #236
zappaman Jan 2013 #239
Octafish Jan 2013 #241
zappaman Jan 2013 #243
Octafish Jan 2013 #244
H2O Man Jan 2013 #240
Octafish Jan 2013 #242
zappaman Jan 2013 #247
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #248
zappaman Jan 2013 #249
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #251
Octafish Jan 2013 #332
zappaman Jan 2013 #342
Octafish Jan 2013 #349
zappaman Jan 2013 #351
Octafish Jan 2013 #360
zappaman Jan 2013 #362
stopbush Jan 2013 #355
Octafish Jan 2013 #357
stopbush Jan 2013 #358
Octafish Jan 2013 #361
stopbush Jan 2013 #363
Octafish Jan 2013 #366
zappaman Jan 2013 #367
Octafish Jan 2013 #371
zappaman Jan 2013 #373
Poll_Blind Feb 2013 #824
stopbush Jan 2013 #386
Octafish Jan 2013 #420
stopbush Jan 2013 #422
Octafish Jan 2013 #423
stopbush Jan 2013 #426
Octafish Jan 2013 #440
stopbush Jan 2013 #445
Octafish Jan 2013 #460
stopbush Jan 2013 #468
zappaman Jan 2013 #448
Octafish Jan 2013 #424
stopbush Jan 2013 #425
zappaman Jan 2013 #427
stopbush Jan 2013 #428
Octafish Jan 2013 #462
zappaman Jan 2013 #463
Octafish Jan 2013 #466
zappaman Jan 2013 #467
Octafish Jan 2013 #478
zappaman Jan 2013 #480
Octafish Jan 2013 #493
zappaman Jan 2013 #494
Octafish Jan 2013 #495
zappaman Jan 2013 #496
Octafish Jan 2013 #497
zappaman Jan 2013 #498
Octafish Jan 2013 #500
zappaman Jan 2013 #502
zappaman Jan 2013 #518
zappaman Jan 2013 #359
DFW Jan 2013 #334
stopbush Jan 2013 #364
zappaman Jan 2013 #365
Octafish Jan 2013 #368
stopbush Jan 2013 #377
Octafish Jan 2013 #381
stopbush Jan 2013 #384
Octafish Jan 2013 #415
stopbush Jan 2013 #417
Octafish Jan 2013 #419
stopbush Jan 2013 #421
DFW Jan 2013 #374
stopbush Jan 2013 #379
Octafish Jan 2013 #506
zappaman Jan 2013 #514
stopbush Jan 2013 #550
Octafish Jan 2013 #372
zappaman Jan 2013 #380
Octafish Jan 2013 #385
zappaman Jan 2013 #400
Octafish Jan 2013 #414
yurbud Jan 2013 #403
stopbush Jan 2013 #433
MrMickeysMom Jan 2013 #446
Octafish Jan 2013 #464
zappaman Jan 2013 #471
MrMickeysMom Jan 2013 #479
zappaman Jan 2013 #481
MrMickeysMom Jan 2013 #483
Octafish Jan 2013 #499
zappaman Jan 2013 #501
Octafish Jan 2013 #510
zappaman Jan 2013 #512
yurbud Jan 2013 #701
SidDithers Jan 2013 #504
zappaman Jan 2013 #505
Octafish Jan 2013 #507
Octafish Jan 2013 #509
zappaman Jan 2013 #517
Octafish Jan 2013 #543
zappaman Jan 2013 #544
Judi Lynn Jan 2013 #530
stopbush Jan 2013 #537
Octafish Jan 2013 #539
stopbush Jan 2013 #540
zappaman Jan 2013 #546
Octafish Jan 2013 #548
zappaman Jan 2013 #553
stopbush Jan 2013 #542
stopbush Jan 2013 #554
zappaman Jan 2013 #555
Octafish Jan 2013 #556
zappaman Jan 2013 #558
Octafish Jan 2013 #561
zappaman Jan 2013 #562
Bolo Boffin Jan 2013 #577
Octafish Jan 2013 #581
zappaman Jan 2013 #582
stopbush Jan 2013 #584
Bolo Boffin Jan 2013 #585
Octafish Jan 2013 #588
Bolo Boffin Jan 2013 #634
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #624
Bolo Boffin Jan 2013 #635
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #636
Bolo Boffin Jan 2013 #638
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #645
Bolo Boffin Jan 2013 #650
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #653
zappaman Jan 2013 #583
Octafish Jan 2013 #586
zappaman Jan 2013 #589
stopbush Jan 2013 #591
zappaman Jan 2013 #592
Ichingcarpenter Jan 2013 #587
Rex Jan 2013 #660
Ichingcarpenter Jan 2013 #685
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #796
bluestater1966fgs Jan 2013 #631
stopbush Jan 2013 #642
dflprincess Feb 2013 #801
Mc Mike Jan 2013 #655
zappaman Jan 2013 #657
Mc Mike Jan 2013 #709
zappaman Jan 2013 #710
Mc Mike Jan 2013 #713
zappaman Jan 2013 #714
Mc Mike Feb 2013 #806
stopbush Jan 2013 #661
doublethink Jan 2013 #677
doublethink Jan 2013 #683
Mc Mike Jan 2013 #712
stopbush Jan 2013 #716
MinM Jan 2013 #679
MinM Feb 2013 #794
robertpaulsen Jan 2013 #692
MinM Jan 2013 #704
MinM Jan 2013 #711
SidDithers Feb 2013 #726
MinM Feb 2013 #742
MinM Feb 2013 #767
MrMickeysMom Feb 2013 #760
MinM Feb 2013 #788
MrMickeysMom Feb 2013 #797
Dalai_1 Feb 2013 #791
cecilfirefox Feb 2013 #793
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #800
Pterodactyl Feb 2013 #821
Poll_Blind Feb 2013 #828
2banon Jul 27 #845

Response to Octafish (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:40 AM

1. Cue the 'coincidence theorists' to target their attacks on RFK.

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 01:00 PM

10. Please, tell me why they would call themselves "Democrats"?

Any Democrat -- and most Republicans and independents -- I've met, and that goes back a very long ways, has been interested in the subject and in learning more about it. What's more: Not a single one ever told me to "shut up" about it whenever I raised it for discussion. Why such a devoted coterie of DUers are so quick to do so is most revealing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #10)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 01:32 PM

13. Great smear!

So, if you think JFK was killed by Oswald and not the hundreds you have implicated over the years, you can't be a democrat?
Just another reason not to take you seriously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #13)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 01:59 PM

14. Project much?

I hadn't thought of you, until now.

Do you feel guilt?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #14)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 02:02 PM

15. Nope.

The BFEE has my back!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #15)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 02:10 PM

17. Laugh all you want, zappaman, as it reveals what kind of person you are.

There's nothing funny on the subject. Look up Cliff BAXTER.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #17)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 02:14 PM

20. Look up Lee Harvey Oswald

The murderer you would like to forgive while pinning blame on anyone else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #20)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:04 PM

36. Agreed again! They excuse the little shit that did the killing!

Every time a bell rings, an angel gets its wings.

And every time a Democrat touts the JFK conspiracies, a Republican smiles, because that D is saying that JFK's own people and own party wanted him dead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #36)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:21 PM

53. That's incorrect. The CIA and Curtis LeMay did him in. The Mafia cleaned up the "problems"

Last time I checked Allen Dulles, the de facto head of the Warren Commission, who chaired all but the two meetings Warren attended, was a Republican.

Earl Warren was a Republican.

John J. McCloy was a Republican.

John Sherman Cooper from Kentucky was a Republican

Gerald Ford from Michigan was a Republican

The two Democrats on the WC (Russell from Georgia and Hale Boggs from Louisiana) were Southerners and NOT friends/supporters of JFK. It's a fact, however, found in later transcripts of WC meetings, that these two gentlemen dissented from the final report and were promised that their dissent would be recorded in the printed volume. It was not.

There was no investigation by the WC as they relied upon the FBI reports submitted by ... J. Edgar Hoover, a notorious Republican.

The biggest tell in the WC transcripts is Jack Ruby pleading with Warren and Ford to be taken back to Washington so he could tell them the whole story. It's obvious that the stuttering Warren almost messed his pants at that one, and told Ruby that would be impossible. Ruby told them if they left him in the Dallas jail he would die and the truth never known. Warren said, basically, Gee sorry 'bout that, Jack.

To say Democrats were behind the Warren Commission is a farce. What is true is that Lyndon Johnson stacked the commission with Republicans and two conservative Dems. When Walter Cronkite reported that LBJ believed there was a conspiracy behind Kennedy's assassination in 1969 and the media STILL refused to question the WC ... there was no hope. LBJ was briefed by Hoover (it's on tape) the day after Kennedy was murdered reporting to the president that Oswald was NOT the man in Mexico City. Hoover said he saw photos and heard tapes and it was NOT Oswald. Why were these destroyed when we now know they existed. Why was Agent Hosty in Dallas told to destroy the note that Oswald left at the FBI office if it actually incriminated Oswald. Many scholars of the assassination believe that the note in question was to warn the FBI of the assassination plot. That's why it HAD to be destroyed.

Read the Jim Douglass classic, JFK and the Unspeakable for the truth behind who wanted Kennedy dead. It's all there. Doesn't matter who pulled the trigger. There were hired guns to do the deed, but who ordered it? IMO, the guy who ran the Commission, Allen Dulles himself, with help from his CIA buddies Richard Helms and James Jesus Angleton.

Remember, LBJ put Dulles on the commission when Kennedy had personally fired Dulles in 1961, blaming him for setting him up with the Bag of Pigs fiasco. Unclean hands! The fact that none of this information is well-known should tell you something.

I don't know if there's anyone yet living with any answers, but the cover-up has been unraveling since Day 1 and hasn't stopped.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zen Democrat (Reply #53)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:45 PM

57. Unraveling since Day One? Yet here were are, 50 years later,

and not a shred of real evidence has been brought forth to challenge the findings of the WCR. Nothing but speculations and looney crapola to make an easy buck off the gullible.

What evidence in the WCR has been falsified? Tell me. I'd like to know.

Dontcha think 50 years of unraveling since Day One would have unraveled the whole thing by now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zen Democrat (Reply #53)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:14 PM

66. Well stated, Zen Democrat.

Building on your excellent exposition, here's my two-cents regarding how Warren Commission members Mr. Dulles and Mr. McCloy fit into the story:

A fact curiously missing from American history and any mention of the Warren Commission



It is amazing, ZD-san, how few Americans know this history. What's telling are those who show no interest in learning it. Worst of all are they who know it and don't want others to know.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zen Democrat (Reply #53)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:10 PM

79. What a laugh!

You wrote:

The biggest tell in the WC transcripts is Jack Ruby pleading with Warren and Ford to be taken back to Washington so he could tell them the whole story. It's obvious that the stuttering Warren almost messed his pants at that one, and told Ruby that would be impossible. Ruby told them if they left him in the Dallas jail he would die and the truth never known. Warren said, basically, Gee sorry 'bout that, Jack.

The facts:

JFK killed Nov 22, 1963

Ruby kills Oswald Nov. 24, 1963

WCR delivered to LBJ, Sept 24, 1964

Ruby dies TWO YEARS & 4 MONTHS later, on Jan 3, 1967, and over THREE YEARS after Ruby shot Oswald.

Are you saying that Ruby didn't have time to "come clean" about what he knew about the killing? He had over three years to tell anybody who would listen, and LOTS of people were ready to listen.

As far as the WC not wanting to speak with Ruby:

"During the six months following the Kennedy assassination, Ruby repeatedly asked, orally and in writing, to speak to the members of the Warren Commission. The commission initially showed no interest. Only after Ruby's sister Eileen wrote letters to the commission (and her letters became public) did the Warren Commission agree to talk to Ruby. In June 1964, Chief Justice Earl Warren, then-Representative Gerald R. Ford of Michigan, and other commission members went to Dallas to see Ruby. Ruby asked Warren several times to take him to Washington D.C., saying "my life is in danger here" and that he wanted an opportunity to make additional statements. He added: "I want to tell the truth, and I can't tell it here." Warren told Ruby that he would be unable to comply, because many legal barriers would need to be broken and public interest in the situation would be too heavy. Warren also told Ruby that the commission would have no way of protecting him, since it had no police powers. Ruby said he wanted to convince President Lyndon Johnson that he was not part of any conspiracy to kill Kennedy." - Source: Wikipedia

"According to an unnamed Associated Press source, Ruby made a final statement from his hospital bed on December 19 (1966) that he alone had been responsible for the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald. "There is nothing to hide… There was no one else," Ruby said." - Source: Wikipedia

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zen Democrat (Reply #53)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 06:48 PM

131. MAJOR woo.

I'm having a hard time believing you actually believe such wild fantasies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zen Democrat (Reply #53)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 08:18 PM

147. Kicking. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hotler (Reply #147)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 08:48 PM

153. ‘One-man truth squad’ still debunking JFK conspiracy theories

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #153)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:52 AM

195. Crapola at its deepest.

First, the author of the piece has promoted the lone-nut line since he witnessed the events in Dealey Plaza and two days later in Dallas police headquarters basement.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=12117


Second, the subject of the piece has promoted the lone-nut line, despite the evidence.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13664


Third, the writer of the reply in which they are named acts to disrupt discussion on the subject.

For details, go up and down the thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #20)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 09:09 PM

161. What an ignorant comment.

Care to back it up?

I get it... when someone makes an informed comment and you don't like it, you make this shit up. Can't you be any more courageous than that?

Try reading something with a bibliography with references.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #161)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 09:11 PM

163. Back what up?

That LHO killed JFK?
Look it up yourself...plenty out there.

Who do you think did it?
I'd love to see your "theory"...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #163)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 02:24 AM

188. No you wouldn't...

You love to play silly games when serious subjects come up. You, zappaman, are a genuine petty thought on the subject.

While the rest of us are following the analysis (Destiny Betrayed, latest excellent book, thoroughly researched), listening to the early concerned American citizens who laid out the real questions behind the assassination, paving the better question of asking "why" by contemporary authors, you are doing your best (which is not good) to derail the subject.

You fail at it, so I guess you did something with proper vigor, didn't you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #20)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 02:26 AM

189. Seems the Attorney General of the US & the President's closest advisor was the one doing that.

 

Unless you think rfk's kids are lying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #17)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:16 PM

80. CT paranoia.

"The paranoid message will give more and more, and then it will give even more. The entertainment resources of the paranoid message are unrivaled. It offers puzzles, drama, passion, heroes, villains, and struggle. If the story-line can be tied to an historical event, especially one that involves romantic characters and unexpected death, then fiction, history, and popular delusion can be joined in the pursuit of profit. The story, moreover, need never end. If evidence appears that refutes the conspiracy, the suppliers of the discrediting material will themselves be accused of being part of the conspiracy. The paranoid explanatory system is a closed one. Only confirmatory evidence is accepted. Contradictions are dismissed as being naive or, more likely, part of the conspiracy itself."

- Political scientist Robert S. Robins and psychiatrist Jerrold M. Post in "Political Paranoia as Cinematic Motif: Stone's 'JFK.'" which was presented at the 1997 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #80)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 10:25 AM

84. Rather be called 'paranoid' than side with liars and the traitors they protect.



Oswald, the CIA and Mexico City

By John Newman, Ph.D.
Copyright ©1999 by John Newman.
All Rights Reserved.

I. The Rosetta Stone

The Assassination Records Review Board finished its search more than a year ago—a search for records relating to the murder of a president thirty-six years ago. Surprisingly, the passage of time has not managed to erode or cover over all of the important evidence. On the contrary, the work of the Review Board has uncovered important new leads in the case. I will leave medical and ballistic forensics to others. I will confine myself to document forensics, an area for which the work of the board had been nothing less than spectacular. More specifically, I will confine myself to the documentary record concerning Lee Harvey Oswald’s 1963 visit to Mexico City.

In 1978, the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) completed its work, including a report on Oswald’s activities in Mexico written by Eddie Lopez and Dan Hardway. Our first glimpses of their report began shortly after the 1993 passage of the JFK Records Act. Not even all the redactions of those early versions could hide the seminal discoveries in that work. While Lopez couched his words in careful language, he suggested that Oswald might have been impersonated while he was in Mexico City just weeks before the assassination. Lopez was more forthright when I interviewed him about this in 1995. Armed with more CIA documents and the first Russian commentary (Nechiporenko’s book, Passport to Assassination), I went further in my own Oswald and the CIA (Carroll & Graf: 1995) in advancing the argument that Oswald was impersonated in the Mexican capitol. Specifically, someone pretending to be Oswald made a series of telephone calls between 28 September and 1 October, allegedly to and from the Cuban and Soviet consulates in Mexico City.

I concluded then, that, based on the content of the CIA Mexico City telephone transcripts alone, the speaker purporting to be Oswald was probably an impostor. I will not repeat my lengthy discussion here, other than to summarize it in this way: the speaker’s words were incongruous with the experiences we can be reasonably certain Oswald underwent. For reasons still obscure, the CIA has lied consistently for these past several decades about the tapes from which those transcripts were made. The Agency concocted the story that the tapes were routinely destroyed before the assassination. It is perhaps true that some tapes were destroyed before the assassination. But Lopez uncovered FBI documents containing detailed accounts of how two of the tapes were listened to after the assassination by FBI agents familiar with Oswald’s voice.

More evidence would come in time. Shortly after the passage of the JFK Records Act, the public gained access to a telephone transcript the day after the assassination in which FBI Director Hoover informs President Johnson that it is not Oswald’s voice on the tapes. The Review Board diligently followed these leads and settled the matter when they found CIA documents in which the Agency itself explicitly states that some of the tapes were reviewed after the assassination. The CIA’s continued silence on the matter of the tapes stands, like a giant beacon, pointing the way forward to the investigator. The impersonation of Oswald in Mexico by someone who drew attention to an Oswald connection to a KGB assassination officer may prove to be the Rosetta stone of this case.

Before going further, I once again pay tribute to Peter Dale Scott, who wrote of these matters as early as 1995, advancing his "Phase I-Phase II hypothesis" on largely deaf ears. I will not repeat his lengthy discussion here, other than to summarize it in this way: In Phase I, immediately after the assassination, previously planted evidence of a Cuban/Kremlin plot surfaced in Oswald’s files; this, in turn, precipitated Phase II, in which a lone-nut cover-up was erected to prevent a nuclear war.

In Oswald and the CIA, I deliberately steered clear of the conspiracy-anti-conspiracy vortex in order to set out some of the facts concerning Oswald’s pre-assassination files. Since then, the cumulative weight of the evidence uncovered by the Review Board has led me to the conclusion that the Oswald impersonation can best be explained in terms of a plot to murder the president. I remain open to other interpretations and fresh analyses by fellow researchers, and I understand that new evidence could corroborate or undermine this hypothesis. What follows is a first stab at explaining, in a short and simple way, how those plotting the president’s murder may have left their fingerprints in the files.

CONTINUED...

http://www.ctka.net/pr999-osciamex.html


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #84)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 10:42 AM

86. Once again, Octafish posts that picture of nobody in particular.

I feel sorry for people like you.

You believe that you're "fighting the good fight" to "find the truth" and to "reveal the hidden blah blah blah," when all you're doing is repeating the popular opinion of the masses who haven't spent a minute investigating the JFK killing. You really believe you're in some rarified club that is "seeking the truth," when you're actually where the majority of willfully uninformed Americans have been since Day One of the JFK killing.

Your obsession with the "them" supposedly behind the JFK killing is very much akin to the paranoid mindset we see in the people who are now calling the Sandy Hook killings a hoax and a false flag operation. You're right up there with the truthers and the other conspiracy buffs whose paranoia stems from a deep distrust of the very government you yourself have elected to represent you.

There's a big helping of your fellow JFK CTist Alex Jones in your own JFK delusions. How else to explain your calling people who don't share your delusion "liars," and liars who are "protecting traitors?"

JFK CTists, truthers, Sandy Hook "hoaxters" - you're all the same soda pop in different cans. You're all cut from the same cloth.

It's like religionists claiming they know the "truth" about the existence of gods, a claim offered with no evidence whatsoever, except that the JFk CTs are more like promoting a belief in fairies, then calling people liars when they point out there's no evidence of fairies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #86)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 10:51 AM

87. Please, keep up with the smears and name calling, stopbush.

Here's why that picture is so important:



...Despite the mysteries, one thing is certain. The events in Mexico City had a profound effect on the federal government's response to the assassination. President Johnson invoked fears of nuclear war in putting together the Warren Commission, finally enlisting a recalcitrant Earl Warren by telling him "what Hoover told me about a little incident in Mexico City."

CONTINUED...

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



Interesting, almost, how you never address the issue at hand. Instead, you attack the messenger. It also shows where you stand, stopbush.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #87)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 11:02 AM

89. But there is no "issue," Octafish. That's what you don't seem to understand.

It's not an issue because some CTist says it's an issue, anymore than it would be "an issue" that I needed to take seriously if you averred that werewolves were involved in killing JFK.

You ignore and cherry pick evidence in the JFK case, then construct these "issues" around what is a Swiss cheese argument. That's why it was so easy for Bugliosi to dismantle the various CTs in his book - all he had to do was exploit the holes in the "arguments" and the whole house of cards falls apart.

And where - exactly - did I call you a name or smear you in my last post?

No doubt you'll now report me to the gate keepers and get me banned from this JFK thread, just like you (or others) did the last time I spent a bit of time debating your wild claims.

You've got "the truth" on your side, but you can't take it when others push back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #89)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 11:14 AM

91. Gee. Comparing me to Sandy Hook deniers might be a clue.

Don't worry, stopbush. I've never hit alert on you. It's good for others to see who's who and where they stand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #91)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:13 PM

94. Gee. You have no problem calling people "liars" and enablers of traitors,

but your panties get in a wad when turnabout becomes fair play.

BTW - I'd think that a person who is so adept at connecting dots in the JFK killing - dots that are miles apart and speculative at best - would see the obvious similarities between the mindset of the JFK CTists and the truthers (and others) who see the evil shadow of an evil government in each and every tragedy experienced in this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #94)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 06:43 PM

127. And you have no problem putting words into other people's mouths.

What's the technical term?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #127)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:29 PM

205. In this case, the technical term is "presenting the evidence."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to stopbush (Reply #86)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 11:06 AM

90. It looks like Ed O'Neil playing angry birds on an iPhone n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #86)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 08:03 PM

452. Your the one who's in the "rarefied club" - the club that includes

the dwindling number of people who still cling to the belief that Oswald was the lone assassin in spite of 50 years of revelations and a growing mountain of evidence that proves that he was not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alberg (Reply #452)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 08:30 PM

459. Check your Websters for the definition of "evidence." Then, get back to us.

You're just another plebe who gives a pass to the little shit who killed JFK, Oswald. Aren't you proud of yourself?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #459)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 11:27 PM

485. Your either ignorant of the evidence, genuinely confused about a topic that is

complex beyond your level of understanding or you have some other agenda in play.

In any case, I won't do your research for you. Endlessly repeating the same talking points doesn't make your case any stronger or make the findings of the Warren Commission believable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alberg (Reply #485)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 10:05 AM

491. How would you know what the WCR says? You've never read it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #84)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:34 AM

193. "Sprague... wanted complete information about the CIA's operation in Mexico City..."

Richard A. Sprague was born in Philadelphia. He received his B.S. from Temple University and his LL.B. from the University of Pennsylvania Law School. After joining the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office in 1958, Sprague served as a Chief Assistant District Attorney, Chief of the Prosecution Division, Chief of the Trial Division and Chief of the Homicide Division. From 1966 to 1974, he was the First Assistant District Attorney of Philadelphia County.

Sprague became a national figure when he successfully prosecuted Tony Boyle, President of the United Mine Workers for the murder of Joseph Yablonski. He also had a record of 69 homicide convictions out of 70 prosecutions.

In 1976 Thomas N. Downing began campaigning for a new investigation into the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Downing said he was certain that Kennedy had been killed as a result of a conspiracy. He believed that the recent deaths of Sam Giancana and Johnny Roselli were highly significant. He also argued that the Central Intelligence Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation had withheld important information from the Warren Commission. Downing was not alone in taking this view. In 1976, a Detroit News poll indicated that 87% of the American population did not believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman who killed Kennedy...

On 2nd February, 1978, Henry Gonzalez replaced Thomas N. Downing as chairman of the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Gonzalez immediately sacked Sprague as chief counsel. Sprague claimed that only the full committee had the power to dismiss him. Walter E. Fauntroy agreed with Sprague and launched a campaign to keep him as chief counsel. On 1st March, Gonzalez resigned describing Sprague as "an unconscionable scoundrel"

Louis Stokes of Ohio was now appointed as the new chairman of the HSCA. After a meeting with Stokes on 29th March, Sprague agreed to resign and he was replaced by G. Robert Blakey.

Sprague later told Gaeton Fonzi that the real reason he was removed as chief counsel was because he insisted on asking questions about the CIA operations in Mexico. Fonzi argued that "Sprague... wanted complete information about the CIA's operation in Mexico City and total access to all its employees who may have had anything to do with the photographs, tape recordings and transcripts. The Agency balked. Sprague pushed harder. Finally the Agency agreed that Sprague could have access to the information if he agreed to sign a CIA Secrecy Agreement. Sprague refused.... "How," he asked, "can I possible sign an agreement with an agency I'm supposed to be investigating?"

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6407

More on Richard A. Sprague here and here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MinM (Reply #193)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:32 PM

232. If, as I suspect the CIA knew what went on in Mexico City, I can see why the CIA demanded

I suspect that the CIA knew of the use of Oswald's name in Mexico City, it was NOT used by Oswald but by the KGB for one of their spy who came with information from the US to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City.

In the 1960s, except for Cuba, the Soviets had no access to sent data back home except by the use of time consuming one time codes (which are almost unbreakable, for they are only used once and then with short enough transmission so anyone taping the transmission never gets enough data to break the code, but such codes have to be used once AND then on short enough messages so not enough data is transmitted to break the code). Thus radio was out for anything extensive.

With Soviet Ships and Planes to the US being watched, the Soviets had a problem getting anything extensive back to Moscow. One way around this was to send messages via a another country. Canada and the US were joined at the hip, so Canada was out, Cuba was being embargoed and thus out, that left Mexico.

I suspect Oswald's name was used by such a courier (or maybe even a US Citizens who wanted to sell US secrets). Oswald had moved to the Soviet Union, and as part of that move the Soviets had been able to obtained copies his DD-214 (discharge papers), his domestic Driver's license, his Birth Certificate and his passport. All good source of information on Oswald. When Oswald went back to the US, the Soviet retained these copies. Anyone crossing into Mexico could use Oswald's name and whatever duplicate ID the Soviets could make based on the Information they had on Oswald. The KGB would have told who ever is using the ID to go via Dallas so their trail and the actual Oswald's trail would have overlapped and to use Oswald's name in Mexico. On the return continue to use Oswald's name and ID till they pass Dallas and then "Lose" the ID, so anyone tracking them would divert to the real Oswald. In many ways such a use would be perfect, especially if the person using Oswald's name in Mexico kept its use to a minimum (and NEVER use his real name).

Now, using a real person's name was better then making one up, and Oswald's additional information the Soviets had due to Oswald's having lived in the Soviet Union would have provided even better data for fake IDs. Thus it would have been tempting for the Soviets to use Oswald's name till JFK was killed by the Oswald.

I suspect the CIA knows the above and that the person who used Oswald's name had nothing to do with the JFK assassinations. I also suspect that the reason the CIA knows this is the FBI told them. The reason the FBI told them, was the FBI had a spy near the top of the Kremlin and I suspect that spy told the FBI of the KGB's problem due to the fact they had used Oswald's name for an unrelated spy and the KGB was afraid that if the US found out "Oswald" had been in the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City that the fact the Oswald in Mexico City was NOT the actual Oswald that killed JFK would be ignored OR missed. i.e. the US would jump to the conclusion that the Oswald in Mexico City had killed JFK, not that the KGB was just using Oswald's name for an unrelated spy.

Now, the FBI spy high in the Soviet Government refused to have any dealings with the CIA and the Spy was giving so much good data from the Soviet Union the CIA wanted him but could not have him. On the other hand the data was excellent so the CIA accepted the situation.

Now, I remember when the story of these two spy came out, I believe in the early 1990s and they had been working for the FBI for decades. Given their position they was no way the CIA or the FBI was going to reveal they name or any information they provided, least the KGB determine they were spies and be shot. This was NOT an idle threat, when CIA analysts Ames first became a spy, the information he was giving the KGB included the name of some high ranking Soviet officials who were CIA spies. The KGB then had them shot (and arranged for one of their female agents to seduce a Marine guarding the US Embassy in Moscow, so they can spread the story these spy were caught due to what that spy recovered on her trips inside the US Embassy with the Marine).

Anyway, these spy were to valuable to be risked in any way. Thus Sprague request was NOT acceptable to the CIA nor the FBI and thus it was going no where.

Side note: Technically all intelligence gathering was concentrated into the CIA on its formation in 1947. This was NOT quite true, J Edgar Hoover wanted to retain his system throughout Latin America. In 1950 he was told to close it down and turn it over to the CIA. Hoover followed the order, in the early 1950s Hoover withdrew his people from their positions throughout Latin America, and then took with them their list of locals who were helping them (i.e. their actual intelligence lists).

Hoover then refused to turn those lists over to the CIA, the CIA had to start with nothing. In many ways the "Revolutions" on the late 1950s and early 1960s was the result of this change. The FBI had the list of people to contact, the CIA did not. It takes time, often a decade or more, to build up list of contacts and prospects and the FBI was not sharing their lists with the CIA. Thus you had about a decade where revolutionaries could organize without being discovered by the US and then undermined by the US. This is probably one of the reasons for the success of Castro, he developed his forces in that decade and by the time the CIA had the contacts it was to late.

I also suspect it was during the time of the FBI handling of intelligence in Latin America that the above spy in the Soviet Union came in contact with the FBI and only trusted the FBI agents they had meet in Latin America (or someone who those agents could vouch for personally). Another theory could be the Agents the FBI had, had friends who told them to trust the FBI but not the CIA due to experiences with both agencies in Latin America in the 1950s.

We have to remember that it has been noted that the people who make up the FBI and the CIA are different. Both are right wing but the differences start with who each agency tends to recruit. FBI agents tended products of mid west collages, while the CIA agents tended to be Ivy league. I hate to say this, but the FBI agents tend to be people who have dealt with poor people all their lives, even growing up with some in the same small town. These Small Town and Small Mid West Collage types see themselves as better then the poor, but the poor are people. On the other hand, the Ivy League tend to see themselves as the elite of the US and that everyone else is unimportant.

The FBI spies apparently wanted to deal with Small Mid West Collage types NOT Ivy leaguers, for some reason known only to themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MinM (Reply #193)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 09:12 AM

237. Thanks for the background on Sprague's removal, MM.

Last edited Sat Jan 19, 2013, 10:25 AM - Edit history (1)

I remembered that he was forced out, and replaced by G. Robert Blakey, but never knew the dynamics or particulars.

The attacks on, smears against, and removal of Mr. Sprague might lead a reasonable, dispassionate observer to conclude that there was something to claims of 'politicization and de-railment of assassination investigations'.

(edited for clarity)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MinM (Reply #193)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 04:13 PM

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

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

Key to my belief are works by several authorities, including John M. Newman and Jefferson Morley. Their work continued the investigation begun by Philip Melanson and Jim Garrison, who may not have been aware of Joannides' involvement, but recognized the CIA-Oswald connections in both Mexico City and New Orleans.

They report Oswald appears to have been impersonated in Mexico City and CIA failed to disclose this information to Warren Commission or the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA).

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

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

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #84)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:24 PM

229. One of the Problems with the JFK assassination is the sheer number of people CYAing themselves

Several agencies failed to do they job when it came to the Assassination of JFK, mostly due to carelessness and that, while people TALKED about killing the President, it was rarely tried. Thus when a person actually did take a shot at a President (and succeeded) every agency involved went into CYA (Cover Your Ass) mode. And that includes the KGB (in addition to the FBI who had failed to check up on Oswald, even through he was on their Watch list, the Secret Service who failed to look over the route to make sure all the high rise buildings were "Secure" instead the night before they went to a "Go-Go Club", the local Dallas Police, for failing to make sure the route was safe, the CIA for they knew someone using Oswald name had gone to Mexico City etc).

As to the KGB, when Oswald was in the Soviet Union he had married the daughter of a KGB officer. Now, before you jump to a conclusion that this made Oswald a spy, the KGB was a combination of what in the US is the CIA, FBI, Homeland Security (including Immigration) and your State's State Police. Oswald's father in law appears to have been a low level equivalent to a State Police Officer.

On the other hand, when Oswald came back, his personal information was KNOWN to the KGB, and thus would have been useful to other spies the KGB sent to the USA. The KGB would have been careful NOT to use the ID to often (to avoid duplication between the agent and the real Oswald so that the FBI would catch on something was wrong) but used when needed to get an agent to and from Mexico. Mexico would have been ideal, Oswald, if he had a passport, had no intention of going to Mexico, Cuba maybe but not Mexico.

Thus the whole Oswald in Mexico City maybe just the use of the name Oswald by a Soviet Agent, who was in Mexico for other reasons (i.e. getting REAL intelligence on US intentions and getting that information back to Moscow). The agent may have used another name in the US, just used Oswald in Mexico to confuse anyone trailing him (by going via Texas the spy would have been close enough to the real Oswald to draw any tail from the agent to the real Oswald)

Worse, the person in Mexico City may have been an America who wanted to sell information to the Soviets, the Soviets gave him Oswald's name and information to confuse anyone tailing him from the US. Again Oswald being in Texas could draw any US counter intelligence operators to the real Oswald (especially if the American who was selling secrets made sure he went through the right city, i.e. Dallas before and after he did his visit to Mexico City).

If the above was the situation, when Kennedy was killed by Oswald, whoever was using his name in Mexico stopped using it for obvious reasons. The KGB also realized they were in the middle of a mine field, if this use of Oswald's name was found out by the Americas, all hell could break loose. Thus the KGB went into cover-up mode. The Agent who had used Oswald's name was withdrawn (if it was used by an American selling secrets, he was told to STOP using it and told that if he EVER said he did the KGB would kill him, no matter where he was and not matter what he was selling).

I suspect this worked with the admitted official cover-up, run by Robert Kennedy, to keep a lid an ANY facts that would indicate a Cuban or Soviet Involvement in the Kennedy Assassination. The KGB may have even told the CIA of they use of Oswald's name, once the KGB was confident the US was NOT looking to the Soviet Union or Cuba to blame the assassination on. Thus the whole Mexico City evidence became moot.

One last comment, the FBI had a spy high inside the people around the Politburo (The Central Committee of the Communist party that actually ran the Soviet Union). Those agents wanted nothing to do with the CIA and refused to deal with the CIA, even when the FBI asked them to do so. They may have told the FBI that the KGB was worried about being blamed for the KGB had used Oswald's name, Social Security Number, driver's license number etc for one of their spies. These FBI spies would have told the FBI and the FBI would then know that the Mexico City photos of Oswald had nothing to do with Oswald except the use of Oswald's name. This would NOT have come out right after the assassination, but a few months later when this was brought up to the Politburo, and then the FBI spies got that information to the FBI. The CIA would NOT have known of this, for the spies were FBI spies, but Hoover would have known and told the Warren Commission AND that it was from a Classified source (The Spies operated for the FBI for decades, they finally left the Soviet Union decades after the Assassination and by the time they "retired" they had forgotten about they report on JFK's assassination for it was probably just a one line concern, among what the considered more important information)

Just a comment that they are other explanations for those photos of Oswald in Mexico City NOT being Oswald, other then a cover-up of who assassinated JFK. In fact, knowing how people need IDs even in the 1960s, and that Oswald had to have given all the information one needed to get such IDs when he migrated to the Soviet Union, the Soviets had a REAL LIVE PERSON whose name they could use. The Soviets did NOT need to develop a person's ID as a native born American for one of their spies, they had it, in the name of Oswald. In many ways I would be surprised if the Soviet had NOT used Oswald's name in they spies service. Notice I did NOT say Oswald, but Oswald's NAME. The use of the name would have been so tempting to use, till JFK was killed. At that point it became a huge liability and the KGB went into CYA (Cover your Ass) mode. Thus I can NOT give much weight to those photos, there are other explanations for them, other then part of a conspiracy to cover-up who killed JFK.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #229)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 06:28 PM

255. I'm curious...

why was it so easy for the real Oswald to gain entrance back into the US after he had defected to the Soviet Union, especially since he was now married to the daughter of a KGB officer? This, at a time when the US government was particularly paranoid about cracking down on communist sympathisizers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #229)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 11:05 PM

321. And one of the problems with the JFK CTists is that they feel it necessary

to question EVERY piece of evidence in the case.

This defies all logic. It assumes that somehow, every person responsible for producing, examining or testifying on every disparate piece of evidence in the case was able to confer with the thousands of other people involved in the investigation to insure that their particular piece of evidence was in line with a "false narrative" what was being developed by the WC to explain the killing.

It would be one thing if the CTists were to, say, accept that Oswald was the sole shooter that day - because that IS what the EVIDENCE shows - and to spend their energy finding other evidence that someone besides Oswald was involved in the planning of the shooting. But they can't do that. They feel the need to dispute the idea that Oswald was involved at all.

And on and on it goes in the whack-a-mole world the the JFK CTists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #321)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 03:40 AM

651. I Don't Believe in Magic…

…bullets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AndyTiedye (Reply #651)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 10:40 AM

652. Ignorance of the evidence on display for all to see.

Typical of people who get their history from Oliver Stone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #80)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 02:30 AM

190. the kennedys are conspiracy theorists now? seems like rfk, both as us AG & kennedy admin

 

insider, might know more about the operations of government, intelligence, & organized crime than you do, & be in a much better position to judge the inside baseball.

'conspiracy theorist' = person espousing theory that doesn't fit the standard narrative.

it's a stupid phrase.

the standard explanation of 911 = conspiracy theory.
the american revolution = conspiracy theory.
'go along to get along' = conspiracy theory.
'scratch my back i'll scratch yours' = conspiracy theory.

politics = conspiracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #190)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 03:23 PM

293. Talk about contradicting yourself!

You wrote:

"seems like rfk, both as us AG & kennedy admin insider, might know more about the operations of government, intelligence, & organized crime than you do, & be in a much better position to judge the inside baseball."

AND YET, RFK didn't know enough about "the operations of government, intelligence, & organized crime" when it counted, ie: in Nov, 1963 to put a stop to any assassination attempt on his brother!

BTW: conspiracy theorist = person espousing a theory for which there is no objective proof

It's not a stupid phrase. It's a descriptive phrase.

You and Octafish and all the other JFK CTists seem to be under the impression that those of us who don't believe there was a conspiracy to kill JFK don't believe in conspiracies at all. That's not true.

Anwar Sadat was assassinated as part of a conspiracy. We know that because he was killed by multiple gunmen, in the open, and caught on film.

Abraham Lincoln was killed by a conspiracy. We know that because of the evidence that was gathered in the case.

But the EVIDENCE gathered in the JFK case points AWAY from a conspiracy and directly at Oswald.

Had you the guts to read Bugliosi's book, I would direct you to the chapter beginning on Pg 951, "Summary of Oswald's Guilt," wherein Bugliosi outlines 53 unique proofs of Oswald's guilt in the murder of JFK. I know it might hurt your sensitivities to read such a chapter, but I would encourage you to do so at some point in your life. It might keep you from making excuses for the little shit who killed JFK.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #293)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 07:23 PM

302. Uhhh, what?

The legal definition of a conspiracy goes something like this:

An agreement between two or more persons to engage jointly in an unlawful or criminal act, or an act that is innocent in itself but becomes unlawful when done by the combination of actors.

There's nothing about a conspiracy theory or conspiracy theorist that depends on "no objective proof". You are trying to color the term with your own bias and prejudice. In your world, anyone who puts forward a conspiracy theory is automatically unable to prove anything. You are trying to back us into a corner where we can only logically analyze the actions of lone wolves.

Whether Oswald is guilty of anything is really beside the point when it comes to a question of conspiracy. Even if he was the lone gunman, he could still be part of a conspiracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #302)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 08:42 PM

306. You wrote:

"Whether Oswald is guilty of anything is really beside the point when it comes to a question of conspiracy. Even if he was the lone gunman, he could still be part of a conspiracy."

Agreed.

The question is: what evidence is there that he WAS part of a conspiracy? So far, I've seen nothing compelling to make me think he was involved in a conspiracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #306)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:41 PM

318. From one point of view...

Oswald was setup to be a scapegoat. Whether he was there to shoot at JFK with the intent to kill or not, he got caught and the FBI investigation that ensued focused on him as a prime suspect and a lone gunman. After he announced to the media that he was a "patsy," he was subsequently shot and killed himself. To many people, this is a compelling reason to believe that he was being silenced so as not to reveal the nature of any conspiracy. You can cite all of the circumstantial facts involving Jack Ruby that you want, there are just as many reports that raise even more questions.

One thing that consistently gets ignored in the research that has been done in the past has been the overlap between the mafia, covert anti-Castro operations (particularly in New Orleans), CIA counter-intelligence, and Oswald's alleged involvement with either domestic or foreign intelligence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #293)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 11:55 PM

324. there's no contradiction at all. sorry you don't see it. rfk had connections he could work after

 

his brother's assassination. you have -- bugliosi's book.

the fact remains, the kennedys don't believe the lone gunman theory. so you want to call someone names, you should be calling *them* names.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #15)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 09:18 PM

170. Muahahahahaha!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #13)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 02:41 PM

29. Agreed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #13)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 09:05 PM

159. This sure is another reason to point to the pointless....

...Like the pointless post you somehow make yourself believe. Do you honestly believe anything in your "smear" comment?

No one who followed you in the "dungeon" would, which I'm sure you miss so much, you jump on the next opportunity to fabricate.

Yee-haw... how many non-Oswalds has the OP has mentioned that didn't shoot JFK?, Why, "the hundreds over the years"!

Please, if you wish to make claims, by all means, back them up. Otherwise, you're just blowing really hard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #159)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 09:09 PM

162. Cool!

Perhaps you can tell us how many people participated in the assassination and cover up?
My "hundreds over the years" is just an estimate from our esteemed poster.
If you can narrow the estimation down, then please do!

And yes, saying one can't be a Democrat if they don't believe there was a conspiracy in the JFK assassination, is a smear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #162)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 10:31 PM

176. Divert much?

Why answer a question when you can ask another one?

You can't be a Democrat and you can't be a liberal if you don't believe there was a conspiracy. Congress backed up the conspiracy, and dip-shit epileptic seizures about "CTs" back up the other remarks spewn herein.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #176)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 06:44 PM

441. 'You can't be a Democrat and you can't be a liberal if you don't believe there was a conspiracy"

Congrats on not only the single dumbest post in the history of DU, but, in all likelihood, the single dumbest thing ever written on the internet.
Seriously, congratulations!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #159)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:09 AM

180. You are pointless. What is the point of this post? Back up you own crap before you ask anyone else

to do so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lonestarnot (Reply #180)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 02:03 AM

184. already have...

Not everyone knows... Now you do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #184)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:48 AM

192. Then explain why the secret service was waived off the car.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lonestarnot (Reply #192)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:35 PM

206. People don't like to talk about the real reason for this...

because, upon analysis, it highlights the real nature of any plausible conspiracy.

JFK had enemies in the extreme right who viewed him as a traitor, enabling the Communists and not doing enough to remove Castro from power in Cuba. However, he did not want to appear intimidated by them. This may be why JFK, himself, requested that the plexiglass shield not be used on his limosine, and may have even requested that the secret service keep their distance:


And, if that wasn’t enough, none other than former agent Floyd Boring himself
stated to researcher Dan Robertson: “He was responsible for his own
death,” and that the bubbletop was bullet-proof and that Kennedy wouldn’t let
the Secret Service put it on the limo.9


Also, I wonder if there is any truth to this:

1963, the evening before JFK's assassination, Joan <Crawford> attended a Pepsi function in Dallas with Richard Nixon.There they plotted how to get Pepsi's sugar cane fields in Cuba back from Castro. Joan also met with JFK (not their first meeting) in Dallas just before he was shot. She teased him about having security, saying she didn't have any in her Pepsi travels. She soon felt very bad about that.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #206)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:24 PM

220. JFK never ordered the bubble top off.

From footage found in a dumpster outside ABC Dallas in the late 90's:



Video: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/171830/secret_service_jfk /

Afterward, in William Manchester's book, Death of a President, we see the "official story" of what happened:

"Kennedy grew weary of seeing bodyguards roosting behind him every time he turned around, and in Tampa on November 18 (1963), just four days before his death, he dryly asked Agent Floyd Boring to 'keep those Ivy League charlatans off the back of the car.' Boring wasn't offended. There had been no animosity in the remark." (1988 Harper & Row/Perennial Library edition, pp. 37-38)

The thing is PRESIDENT KENNEDY NEVER SAID THAT.

Not until 35 years later do we learn the truth, though, when the great investigator Vincent Palamara asked the Secret Service agents who were there what happened in 1963:

Agents Go On Record

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #220)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:18 PM

230. I'm not that familiar with the secret service point of view...


I guess my point is that it would have at least been easier for Kennedy to go along with this if he didn't want to appear to be afraid before the public. There are multiple reports that he may have been teased about needing so much security. I really have no opinion one way or the other whether secret service higher ups were in on the conspiracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #220)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 12:47 PM

290. The Bubble Top Wasn't Bulletproof. So what does it matter if JFK or someone else

had it removed in Dallas? It wouldn't have stopped a bullet, wouldn't have deflected a bullet either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #290)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 06:51 PM

301. Wrong...


it could have deflected a bullet, even if not bulletproof, or interfered with the assassins sight. There are also reports that a bullet-proof version of the shield had been, or was in development.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #301)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 07:50 PM

304. uh huh

"But the weather was fair, so the bubble had been removed. The plastic was not bullet-proof, in any case."

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/terrorists_spies/assassins/jfk/2.html

and so what if one was in development?

You really don't know much about the assassination, do you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #304)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 05:45 PM

375. Sorry, I assumed the SS agent knew what he was talking about...



Octafish's threads are always a learning experience and a chance to do more personal directed research on the matter.
I now know more about the faulty JFK autopsy and the discredited Neutron Analysis method of the bullet material, and I now believe that stopbush's argument is beginning to resemble Swiss cheese.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #375)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 07:57 PM

388. Wow.You're easily pleased...or deluded. Take your pick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #388)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 08:05 PM

390. In this case just being logical....

and about that Neutron Activation analysis....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #301)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 09:03 PM

309. You wrote:

1. (the bubble top) could have deflected a bullet, even if not bulletproof,

A very, very slight chance. Read the evidence presented in the WCR. A high-caliber round from Oswald's rifle would have gone right through the plexiglass of the bubble top. However, the bubble top was actually six pieces of plexiglass that needed to be assembled, held together by metal strips, sort of like the way a screen door has metal strips. Had a bullet hit one of these strips, it might have been deflected slightly.

2. The bubble top could have interfered with the sight of the assassin. Possibly, but not probable.

Here's a picture of JFK in the limo with the bubble top installed. Notice that there is nothing but non-bullet-proof plexiglass along the entire rear of the bubble top. You can see the metal strips. Do you think the plexiglass would have interfered with the sight of the assassin? Perhaps if the sun was hitting the glass and causing a glare, though IIRC, the limo was pretty much in the shade of the TSBD when the shots were fired.

It might help to realize that the reason the bubble top was created was so that the president could ride in the limo in inclement weather AND STILL BE CLEARLY SEEN by the crowds lining a parade route.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/that_chrysler_guy/6481321617/in/pool-1848622

BTW - the picture always makes me a little sad, as JFK looks so good and so alive in that shot.

3. There are also reports that a bullet-proof version of the shield had been, or was in development.

Woulda, coulda shoulda. Irrelevant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #220)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 09:55 PM

475. The bubble top was ordered off the limo by Kenneth O'Donnell, one of JFK's top aides

and part of JFK's "Irish Mafia."

It's in the WCR.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #220)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 09:20 PM

668. That picture means absolutely nothing when it comes to protecting JFK that day.

I caught a rebroadcast yesterday on The Military Channel of "The Kennedy Detail," a documentary based on the 2010 book written about the SS agents assigned to protect JFK that day.

During part of an interview where SS Agent Clint Hill is asked if he thinks the SS could have done something different that day, he relates that by the time the limo turned onto Elm, the crowds began to thin, and the agents considered the "crowd part" of the motorcade to be over. Hill says that at that point in any motorcade, SOP was for any agents riding on the side rail or rear step of the limo to LEAVE the limo and get into the trailing cars, because at that point, the limo would start accelerating to make its entrance onto the freeway so it could get to the Trade Mart ASAP. The agents did NOT ride on the limo once it started accelerating to freeway speed.

Ergo, even if SS agents had been riding on the rear step of the limo for the entire route, they would have begun to dismount from JFK's limo once it hit Elm Street and began accelerating toward the Stemmons Freeway. That was SOP.

Imagine what the CTist would be saying IF the agents had been on that rear step and the Zapruder film showed them all suddenly dismounting! SOP would have appeared to have been clear evidence that they were all getting out of the way of shots they knew were coming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to doublethink (Reply #676)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 01:31 AM

680. Sorry, but putting nothing in your title line but an ellipse

and putting nothing in the field but a link to a known CT nut's site isn't going to cause me to click on your link.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #680)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 02:17 AM

682. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #13)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:07 AM

179. You have handily diminished your credibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #13)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 06:38 PM

437. Their weren't "hundreds", only a small core group of experienced assassins

enabled by a much larger group who knew they would profit from the killing.

There's no reason to take you seriously if your still holding on to the ridiculous notion that Oswald was the "lone gunman".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alberg (Reply #437)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 06:41 PM

439. 'Their weren't "hundreds", only a small core group of experienced assassins"

Is that what the evidence shows?
What about all the people it would take to cover it up?
You obviously have not thought this through so there's no reason to take you seriously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #439)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 11:37 PM

487. How long was the "Ultra Secret" covered up? How many people were in on it?

Are you really so naive you don't realize that for any group whose business is secrets, successfully keeping them is a demonstrated historical competence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #13)


Response to Octafish (Reply #621)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 07:23 PM

622. I like busting you when you make things up

or don't acknowledge your own words.

Speaking of which...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2232672
"As for Oswald, I don't know if he was a hero in all this or not."

And by the way, for such an self-proclaimed expert on the BFEE, how come you don't know they pay me by the hour???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #10)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 03:46 PM

608. I didn't know registering as a Democrat required me to join Lee Harvey's defense team.

Good to know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nyquil_man (Reply #608)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 06:41 PM

619. Where did I write that?

Oh. I didn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #619)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 08:24 PM

625. You didn't write it.

I implied that certain thoughts were yours which may or may not have been yours, despite having no concrete evidence to back up those implications.

Pretty much what RFK Jr. has done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #1)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 01:07 PM

350. RFK was not interested in reopening the investigation into his brother's death.

RFK gave a campaign speech at San Fernando Valley State College in Northridge, CA, on March 25, 1968.

After the speech, students asked RFK about the assassination of his brother. His resposne:

"I haven't answered this question before. There would be nobody who be more interested in all of these matters as to who was responsible for the death of President Kennedy than I would. I have seen all the matters in the Archives. As it has been said before, the Archives will be opened. If I became president of the United States, I would not reopen the Warren Commission Report. I stand by the Warren Commission Report. I've seen everything in the Archives. The Archives will be available at the appropriate time. " - Robert F Kennedy

You can listen to RFK's own words on his belief in the WCR here, beginning at 39:55 into the speech:

http://archive.org/details/RobertFKennedyAtSanFernandoValleyStateCollege

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #350)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:05 AM

535. For public consumption and to throw off conspirators still at large...

In private, there are reports RFK stated he would need the powers of the presidency to discover, apprehend and prosecute the traitors and plotters.

Going by what Senator Kennedy's children told Charlie Rose and in other conversations for the record RFK believed the assassination of his brothere was a plot, a conspiracy.

http://www.orwelltoday.com/readerrfkjfkconspiracy.shtml

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #535)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:06 AM

536. "In private, there are reports."

Meaningless.

Again, you paint RFK as a feckless coward who didn't have the strength of his convictions. A guy who would lie to hundreds of college students about the death of his brother and not bat an eye in so doing.

Not exactly the type of person worth following or holding in esteem.

Anybody who goes by what RFK Jr says about this subject needs a reality check.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #536)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:47 AM

538. Sen. Kennedy's children went public with their father's conclusion of conspiracy.

That's what the OP was about. Remember, stopbush?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink