HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Mass Media ignoring 'RFK ...

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 09:50 PM

Mass Media ignoring 'RFK Believed in Conspiracy' shows corrupt nature of America's Press



Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his sister Rory Kennedy told Charlie Rose that their father, the Attorney General of the United States, Robert F. Kennedy, believed there was a conspiracy behind the death of his brother, President John F. Kennedy. For the first time in almost 50 years, members of the slain president's family were on the record about their father's thoughts about the assassination.

The story made news, as it were, for a day or two -- it was on page 8 here in Detroit (try finding it using The Free Press or Detroit News web site search engines) -- and apart from several threads on DU, that's about it as coverage goes. The Charlie Rose interview was part of a program put together by the media and good people in Dallas to celebrate JFK's life.

What bothers me about the media coverage is the constant attack, not on the government's lousy investigation of the assassination and its attendant cover-up, but, rather, the attack on anyone who brings up the subject of conspiracy in the death of the president, even when it's children of attorney general who also was the brother of the slain president.

Check out this condescending piece of opinion from the Dallas Observer:



Not Even Charlie Rose Could Rein in RFK Jr. in Dallas Last Night. Also: Conspiracy Theories!

By Betsy Lewis Sat., Jan. 12 2013 at 11:01 AM

It got weird when he went into a historical lecture about his father's investigation into the JFK assassination. He was speaking about it as if he had been part of it, then cited a book called The Unspeakable by Jim Douglas (sic - actually "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters" by James Douglass) as being the best book on the subject, then kept referencing things from the book. He was losing the audience, so he burst out, "My father believed that the Warren Report was a shoddy piece of craftsmanship," to the delighted applause of the mostly Baby Boomer audience.

Whenever Charlie Rose would ask about the family, RFK Jr. would evade the question until he heard either delighted Boomer applause or delighted Boomer laughter. One of his responses to a family question was an unrelated story about World War II. A lady behind me who must have recently Netflixed The Iron Lady kept saying, "Here here!" for the benefit of us unfortunate people around her.
Some of the strangest RFK Jr. outbursts with the biggest applause were:

"We're becoming a national security state!" (applause, "Here here!")

"Corporations want profits!" (applause, "Here here!")

"Corporations are great things, but we'd be nuts to let them run our government!" (applause, "Here here!")

"Nationalism in Africa! The end of colonialism!"

At this point, I don't think anyone knew what the hell he was talking about. It was something about the Kennedy family airlifting President Obama's father out of Kenya to begin a new life in America.

RFK Jr.: "Yes."

CONTINUED...

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/mixmaster/2013/01/charlie_rose_live_the_kennedy.php



Me, I don't believe any of that stuff was "out there." Why writer Betsy Lewis chooses to believe what the media tell her is true I'll guess lies in allegiance to a pay check.

Likewise for the lack of coverage given the story in the national media, where the same few corporations that swore up and down there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, both in 1990 and 2002, now want no part of "conspiracy talk" during the 50th anniversary observance. So far, as far as I'm aware, the Charlie Rose program has not aired.

What's more telling is what didn't get noted in the nation's corrupt mass media at all: The fact that Attorney General and later Senator Robert F. Kennedy also was assassinated. Some think that was a coincidence, because the mass media told them so. One thing's for certain, the questions still surrounding the deaths of two liberal icons doesn't get discussed at all today in our supposedly "free press."

327 replies, 57892 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 327 replies Author Time Post
Reply Mass Media ignoring 'RFK Believed in Conspiracy' shows corrupt nature of America's Press (Original post)
Octafish Feb 2013 OP
pacalo Feb 2013 #1
Octafish Feb 2013 #16
kelliekat44 Feb 2013 #77
Octafish Feb 2013 #212
kelliekat44 Mar 2013 #289
AnotherMcIntosh Feb 2013 #2
Octafish Feb 2013 #20
shcrane71 Feb 2013 #59
Octafish Feb 2013 #213
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #220
Archae Feb 2013 #3
Logical Feb 2013 #5
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #21
Logical Feb 2013 #42
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #45
Logical Feb 2013 #46
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #50
Logical Feb 2013 #65
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #69
Logical Feb 2013 #72
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #82
Logical Feb 2013 #103
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #136
HiPointDem Mar 2013 #284
OldDem2012 Mar 2013 #286
HiPointDem Mar 2013 #287
sendero Mar 2013 #228
Logical Mar 2013 #231
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #64
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #70
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #75
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #83
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #106
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #138
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #150
MadHound Feb 2013 #92
zappaman Feb 2013 #93
MadHound Feb 2013 #97
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #107
MadHound Feb 2013 #110
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #122
sabrina 1 Feb 2013 #171
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #203
Logical Feb 2013 #102
MadHound Feb 2013 #104
Logical Feb 2013 #109
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #140
sabrina 1 Feb 2013 #161
William Seger Feb 2013 #167
sabrina 1 Feb 2013 #173
William Seger Feb 2013 #195
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #206
Octafish Feb 2013 #214
William Seger Feb 2013 #218
Octafish Mar 2013 #227
William Seger Mar 2013 #230
Octafish Mar 2013 #232
William Seger Mar 2013 #233
Octafish Mar 2013 #234
William Seger Mar 2013 #235
Octafish Mar 2013 #236
Honeycombe8 Feb 2013 #81
doublethink Mar 2013 #323
Logical Mar 2013 #324
zeemike Feb 2013 #15
johnnyreb Feb 2013 #17
zeemike Feb 2013 #19
Politicalboi Feb 2013 #27
William Seger Feb 2013 #39
zeemike Feb 2013 #60
William Seger Feb 2013 #68
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #219
William Seger Feb 2013 #223
Octafish Feb 2013 #36
Archae Feb 2013 #47
Bobcat Feb 2013 #100
Honeycombe8 Feb 2013 #84
cthulu2016 Feb 2013 #124
green for victory Feb 2013 #147
Octafish Mar 2013 #293
apocalypsehow Feb 2013 #130
Ter Feb 2013 #154
panader0 Feb 2013 #192
Logical Feb 2013 #4
Archae Feb 2013 #8
Logical Feb 2013 #9
Honeycombe8 Feb 2013 #87
zappaman Feb 2013 #88
Honeycombe8 Feb 2013 #90
zappaman Feb 2013 #91
Honeycombe8 Feb 2013 #101
patrice Feb 2013 #126
SidDithers Feb 2013 #6
RobertEarl Feb 2013 #24
SidDithers Feb 2013 #37
RobertEarl Feb 2013 #43
SidDithers Feb 2013 #49
RobertEarl Feb 2013 #53
Spider Jerusalem Feb 2013 #73
RobertEarl Feb 2013 #86
Spider Jerusalem Feb 2013 #89
RobertEarl Feb 2013 #96
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #193
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #197
Octafish Feb 2013 #112
AntiFascist Mar 2013 #309
Mc Mike Mar 2013 #316
apocalypsehow Feb 2013 #139
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #175
SidDithers Feb 2013 #179
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #180
SidDithers Feb 2013 #182
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #185
SidDithers Feb 2013 #186
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #187
SidDithers Feb 2013 #189
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #191
amandabeech Feb 2013 #7
Octafish Feb 2013 #23
HiPointDem Feb 2013 #10
Octafish Feb 2013 #33
JackRiddler Feb 2013 #71
Octafish Feb 2013 #76
EastKYLiberal Feb 2013 #11
dreamnightwind Feb 2013 #12
aquart Feb 2013 #28
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #40
johnnyreb Feb 2013 #13
Octafish Feb 2013 #34
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #141
blkmusclmachine Feb 2013 #14
Octafish Feb 2013 #58
zeemike Feb 2013 #18
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #22
HiPointDem Feb 2013 #25
tex-wyo-dem Feb 2013 #38
Webster Green Feb 2013 #152
Selatius Feb 2013 #26
aquart Feb 2013 #29
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #51
lynne Feb 2013 #30
Octafish Feb 2013 #113
lynne Feb 2013 #118
zappaman Feb 2013 #120
Octafish Feb 2013 #199
AnotherMcIntosh Feb 2013 #201
Ghost Dog Mar 2013 #301
HiPointDem Mar 2013 #285
doublethink Mar 2013 #288
HiPointDem Mar 2013 #290
doublethink Mar 2013 #291
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #177
Octafish Feb 2013 #200
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #207
blackspade Feb 2013 #31
William Seger Feb 2013 #48
Octafish Feb 2013 #114
Spider Jerusalem Feb 2013 #32
Octafish Feb 2013 #115
William Seger Feb 2013 #35
zappaman Feb 2013 #41
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #52
duffyduff Feb 2013 #44
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #85
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #54
zappaman Feb 2013 #55
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #62
Octafish Feb 2013 #121
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #123
Octafish Feb 2013 #125
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #128
Octafish Feb 2013 #129
zappaman Feb 2013 #132
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #133
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #142
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #144
sabrina 1 Feb 2013 #164
William Seger Feb 2013 #169
sabrina 1 Feb 2013 #172
William Seger Feb 2013 #190
sabrina 1 Feb 2013 #210
William Seger Feb 2013 #211
sabrina 1 Feb 2013 #221
William Seger Feb 2013 #222
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #204
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #202
Rex Feb 2013 #56
zappaman Feb 2013 #57
Rex Feb 2013 #61
cali Feb 2013 #63
johnnyreb Feb 2013 #66
stillcool Feb 2013 #67
Octafish Feb 2013 #134
tarheelsunc Feb 2013 #74
zappaman Feb 2013 #80
William Seger Feb 2013 #117
Octafish Feb 2013 #137
William Seger Feb 2013 #146
Octafish Feb 2013 #216
William Seger Feb 2013 #217
Octafish Mar 2013 #237
William Seger Mar 2013 #242
Octafish Mar 2013 #243
William Seger Mar 2013 #248
Octafish Mar 2013 #256
MadHound Feb 2013 #95
Octafish Feb 2013 #119
doublethink Mar 2013 #325
colsohlibgal Feb 2013 #78
Manifestor_of_Light Feb 2013 #105
William Seger Feb 2013 #116
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #143
William Seger Feb 2013 #148
AnotherMcIntosh Feb 2013 #153
hootinholler Feb 2013 #79
AnotherMcIntosh Feb 2013 #151
Octafish Feb 2013 #168
Ghost Dog Mar 2013 #302
sabrina 1 Feb 2013 #94
zappaman Feb 2013 #98
sabrina 1 Feb 2013 #99
nyquil_man Feb 2013 #108
William Seger Feb 2013 #111
apocalypsehow Feb 2013 #131
sabrina 1 Feb 2013 #159
William Seger Feb 2013 #165
William Seger Feb 2013 #166
sabrina 1 Feb 2013 #170
William Seger Feb 2013 #196
patrice Feb 2013 #127
Octafish Feb 2013 #135
johnnyreb Feb 2013 #145
patrice Feb 2013 #149
brooklynite Feb 2013 #155
johnnyreb Feb 2013 #156
brooklynite Feb 2013 #157
johnnyreb Feb 2013 #158
sabrina 1 Feb 2013 #162
johnnyreb Feb 2013 #163
sabrina 1 Feb 2013 #160
doublethink Feb 2013 #174
doublethink Feb 2013 #176
Octafish Feb 2013 #184
doublethink Feb 2013 #188
Octafish Feb 2013 #198
doublethink Feb 2013 #205
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #208
doublethink Mar 2013 #238
AntiFascist Mar 2013 #251
doublethink Mar 2013 #241
Octafish Mar 2013 #254
Octafish Feb 2013 #215
doublethink Mar 2013 #239
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #178
doublethink Feb 2013 #181
Octafish Feb 2013 #183
wildbilln864 Feb 2013 #194
Octafish Feb 2013 #209
William Seger Feb 2013 #224
Octafish Mar 2013 #229
Bonobo Feb 2013 #225
Octafish Mar 2013 #245
doublethink Mar 2013 #226
Octafish Mar 2013 #244
zappaman Mar 2013 #250
Octafish Mar 2013 #252
zappaman Mar 2013 #253
Octafish Mar 2013 #255
zappaman Mar 2013 #259
Octafish Mar 2013 #260
zappaman Mar 2013 #263
Octafish Mar 2013 #265
zappaman Mar 2013 #266
Octafish Mar 2013 #267
zappaman Mar 2013 #268
Octafish Mar 2013 #269
zappaman Mar 2013 #270
Octafish Mar 2013 #271
zappaman Mar 2013 #272
Octafish Mar 2013 #273
zappaman Mar 2013 #275
Octafish Mar 2013 #279
MinM Mar 2013 #320
MinM Mar 2013 #327
MinM Mar 2013 #319
doublethink Mar 2013 #257
doublethink Mar 2013 #258
Octafish Mar 2013 #262
doublethink Mar 2013 #274
AnotherMcIntosh Mar 2013 #303
doublethink Mar 2013 #304
HomeboyHombre Mar 2013 #240
Octafish Mar 2013 #247
bobthedrummer Mar 2013 #246
Octafish Mar 2013 #249
upi402 Mar 2013 #261
Octafish Mar 2013 #264
upi402 Mar 2013 #276
doublethink Mar 2013 #277
doublethink Mar 2013 #278
johnnyreb Mar 2013 #283
doublethink Mar 2013 #305
Octafish Mar 2013 #281
upi402 Mar 2013 #280
Octafish Mar 2013 #282
upi402 Mar 2013 #296
doublethink Mar 2013 #292
Octafish Mar 2013 #294
doublethink Mar 2013 #306
Rex Mar 2013 #295
Octafish Mar 2013 #298
Rex Mar 2013 #299
JackRiddler Mar 2013 #297
Octafish Mar 2013 #300
JackRiddler Mar 2013 #326
brooklynite Mar 2013 #307
Octafish Mar 2013 #312
snooper2 Mar 2013 #308
Octafish Mar 2013 #311
MinM Mar 2013 #310
Octafish Mar 2013 #315
doublethink Mar 2013 #313
Octafish Mar 2013 #317
doublethink Mar 2013 #321
Octafish Mar 2013 #322
Jetboy Mar 2013 #314
Octafish Mar 2013 #318

Response to Octafish (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:22 PM

1. Bookmarking for later. Thanks, Octafish!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pacalo (Reply #1)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 12:46 AM

16. The nation's media are captive to higher powers.

CIA got New York Times to silence a report of the administration using CIA for political advantage:



Correspondence and collusion between the New York Times and the CIA

Mark Mazzetti's emails with the CIA expose the degradation of journalism that has lost the imperative to be a check to power

Glenn Greenwald
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 29 August 2012 14.58 EDT

EXCERPT...

But what is news in this disclosure are the newly released emails between Mark Mazzetti, the New York Times's national security and intelligence reporter, and CIA spokeswoman Marie Harf. The CIA had evidently heard that Maureen Dowd was planning to write a column on the CIA's role in pumping the film-makers with information about the Bin Laden raid in order to boost Obama's re-election chances, and was apparently worried about how Dowd's column would reflect on them. On 5 August 2011 (a Friday night), Harf wrote an email to Mazzetti with the subject line: "Any word??", suggesting, obviously, that she and Mazzetti had already discussed Dowd's impending column and she was expecting an update from the NYT reporter.

SNIP...

Even more amazing is the reaction of the newspaper's managing editor, Dean Baquet, to these revelations, as reported by Politico's Dylan Byers:

"New York Times Managing Editor Dean Baquet called POLITICO to explain the situation, but provided little clarity, saying he could not go into detail on the issue because it was an intelligence matter.



CONTINUED with LINKS...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/29/correspondence-collusion-new-york-times-cia



What else do they censor?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #16)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 06:42 PM

77. Captive to the money of higher powers. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kelliekat44 (Reply #77)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 09:52 PM

212. The Nation has been AWOL on the story.

From someone else who noticed something amiss:



Max Holland Rescues the Warren Commission and The Nation

Note: This version has been updated and revised beyond what was originally published in this issue.

By Gary L. Aguilar

The Nation Magazine has long been one of the most perceptive and eloquent voices for skepticism in publishing. Its revelations over the years have established it as one of the few national media outlets that truly functions as a watchdog in the public interest. It has always been an early voice, often the first, to question official pronouncements -- on Vietnam, on Watergate, on Iran-Contra, on Guatemala, on Haiti, and Chile. When, for example, CIA man Richard Helms told the U.S. Senate that the CIA played no role in demolishing Chile’s democracy in 1973, The Nation called his testimony exactly what it was: perjury.(1)

But on JFK’s murder, The Nation has inexplicably kept shut the skeptical eye it normally keeps cocked at outfits like FBI, the CIA and the military – the very groups it has so often caught lying, and the very groups that produced virtually all the evidence the Warren Commission said disproved conspiracy.

The Nation raised nary an eyebrow at the apparent ease with which the FBI was able to prove right FBI boss J. Edgar Hoover’s astounding clairvoyance--announced on the very night JFK died and before any investigation--that Lee Harvey Oswald had done it all by himself. It never wondered whether the Warren Commission’s bias toward the FBI’s solution--plainly evident already during the Commission’s very first meeting--might have been abetted by Hoover’s having employed one of his favorite dirty tricks: “file-checking” the Commissioners for dirt.

Given that the public hasn’t believed the Warren Commission since the late 60s, and since its no-conspiracy verdict was officially reversed in 1978 by the House Select Committee (HSCA), it is hard to fathom why The Nation, of all magazines, continues to toe the old line. In recent years, its in-house experts have been Alexander Cockburn and Max Holland. Skeptics like Peter Dale Scott and John Newman, whose credentials far surpass those of Cockburn and Holland in this case, have been restricted to limited responses on the letters-to-the-editor page.

SNIP...

A more “sophisticated understanding” doesn’t lead one to trust the government more, as Holland would have it, but less. Confining his gaze to the myriad government conspiracies betokened by the words Vietnam, Watergate, Iran-Contra, and CIA and FBI abuses, doesn’t give the government its due. And it doesn’t reflect the changing nature of what properly constitutes “paranoia” today.

SNIP...

Had the documents themselves not been declassified, Hofstadter would likely have called crackpot a recent AP report that cited secret FBI memos linking the FBI’s J. Edgar Hoover to breathtaking lawlessness. On July 28, 2002, AP reported, “For more than 20 years, FBI headquarters in Washington knew that its Boston agents were using hit men and mob leaders as informants and shielding them from prosecution for serious crimes including murder.” It also reported that a known murderer was allowed by the FBI to go free, “as four innocent men were sent to prison in his place.”(29)

SNIP...

Once-secret records demonstrate a pattern in Kennedy we are unaccustomed to seeing in presidents: rather than JFK following advice on critical issues--the way presidents usually do, the way LBJ did--Kennedy often ignored it. He withstood pressure from the CIA and the military to follow-up the foundering Bay of Pigs invasion with a military assault on Cuba.(160) He rejected advice to use force in Laos, pushing against the defense establishment to achieve an ultimately successful negotiated settlement.(161) He shouldered aside the defense and intelligence establishments to advance a nuclear test ban treaty with the Soviets.(162) And as May and Zelikov note, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, taped conversations prove that JFK was often “the only one in the room (full of advisors) who is determined not to go to war.”(163)

CONTINUED...

http://www.ctka.net/pr900-holland.html



So, even the vanguard of the liberal press goes all taboo when it comes to Dallas.

PS: A hearty welcome to DU, kellieat44! I very much appreciate you grokking what's up with Corporate McPravda and Fiends.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kelliekat44 (Reply #77)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 07:01 PM

289. Mass media has been ignoring lots of inconvenient truths. For a long time. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:29 PM

2. It certainly seems newsworthy.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #2)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 01:10 AM

20. It was historic.

We finally learned, after 49 years, what the slain President's brother really thought:

"It was no lone gunman" is how his son put it.

Odd, how the nation's press corps fails to find that newsworthy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #20)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 02:50 PM

59. Yet run-away-brides and other such "news" must be investigated and theorized at every angle.

Strange world we live in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shcrane71 (Reply #59)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:03 PM

213. Who reported JFK ordered CIA, Joint Chiefs to shelve first-strike nuclear war plans for 1963?

I kid you not. Allen Dulles, CIA Director, and Gen. Lyman Lemnitzer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, proposed the best way to deal with the Soviet Union was an all-out nuclear sneak attack in the Fall of 1963.

Their crooked or crazy, take your pick, idea was that the United States would enjoy a window of strategic superiority through which we could destroy the entire Soviet Union's nuclear capability. Their thinking, as it were, was the USA would "win" with only a few million people killed. An economist and historian report the story:



Did the U.S. Military Plan a Nuclear First Strike for 1963?

Recently declassified information shows that the military presented President Kennedy with a plan for a surprise nuclear attack on the Soviet Union in the early 1960s.

James K. Galbraith and Heather A. Purcell
The American Prospect | September 21, 1994

During the early 1960s the intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) introduced the world to the possibility of instant total war. Thirty years later, no nation has yet fired any nuclear missile at a real target. Orthodox history holds that a succession of defensive nuclear doctrines and strategies -- from "massive retaliation" to "mutual assured destruction" -- worked, almost seamlessly, to deter Soviet aggression against the United States and to prevent the use of nuclear weapons.

The possibility of U.S. aggression in nuclear conflict is seldom considered. And why should it be? Virtually nothing in the public record suggests that high U.S. authorities ever contemplated a first strike against the Soviet Union, except in response to a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, or that they doubted the deterrent power of Soviet nuclear forces. The main documented exception was the Air Force Chief of Staff in the early 1960s, Curtis LeMay, a seemingly idiosyncratic case.

But beginning in 1957 the U.S. military did prepare plans for a preemptive nuclear strike against the U.S.S.R., based on our growing lead in land-based missiles. And top military and intelligence leaders presented an assessment of those plans to President John F. Kennedy in July of 1961. At that time, some high Air Force and CIA leaders apparently believed that a window of outright ballistic missile superiority, perhaps sufficient for a successful first strike, would be open in late 1963.

The document reproduced opposite is published here for the first time. It describes a meeting of the National Security Council on July 20, 1961. At that meeting, the document shows, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the director of the CIA, and others presented plans for a surprise attack. They answered some questions from Kennedy about timing and effects, and promised further information. The meeting recessed under a presidential injunction of secrecy that has not been broken until now.

CONTINUED...

http://prospect.org/article/did-us-military-plan-nuclear-first-strike-1963



Old news to a few DUers. However, this is not found in the history books, history programs, official history or general discourse of anything public. If it were, more people would connect the dots.

It is a strange world. And dangers, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #213)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 03:02 AM

220. Declassified info about U-2 spy plane missions...

which were kept secret until 1994, indicated that there were never any Soviet ICBM deployments spotted, except for those used in tests. This provided a window of opportunity to win in a direct war with the Soviets:


http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1994/Document-Reveals-Spy-Plane-Never-Spotted-Soviet-Missiles/id-cb6c9f7702330583e5c5ec727bc19d2e

Document Reveals Spy Plane Never Spotted Soviet Missiles

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:31 PM

3. Maybe we are simply sick of all the horseshit.

Fact. Lee Harvey Oswald hated with a passion John F. Kennedy, since Kennedy put old Eisenhower Cold War schemes against Castro and Cuba into play.

Fact. Oswald was a good shot.

Fact. He had a near-perfect vantage point.

Fact. Jim Garrison was a grandstanding asshole who ruined Clay Shaw's life.

Fact. RFK Jr is a moron, who will latch onto any and every "government conspracy" tales he can, including anti-vaxxer bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #3)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:34 PM

5. Until I looked out the window on the actual floor I thought the shot was impossible. Now I know.....

it was not. Photos do not do it justice. Look out the window someday, not a difficult shot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #5)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 01:15 AM

21. Ever read Craig Roberts' book, "Kill Zone: A Sniper Looks at Dealey Plaza"?....

...you might change your mind after reading his book.

Kill Zone: A Sniper Looks at Dealey Plaza

Craig Roberts Bio

By the way, are you familiar with the name Carlos Hathcock? He and Roberts knew each other very well, and were in complete agreement about the JFK assassination.

Carlos Hathcock Bio

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #21)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 12:37 PM

42. Many people have recreated this shot with no trouble at all. Here is some descriptions....

In an effort to test the rifle under conditions that matched the assassination, the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the U.S. Army's Ballistics Research Laboratory had expert riflemen fire the assassination weapon from a tower at three silhouette targets at distances of 175, 240, and 265 feet (81 m). Using the assassination rifle mounted with the telescopic sight, three marksmen, rated as master by the National Rifle Association, each fired two series of three shots. In the first series the firers required time spans of 4.6, 6.75, and 8.25 seconds respectively. On the second series they required 5.15, 6.45, and 7 seconds. The marksmen took as much time as they wanted for the first target at 175 feet (53 m), and all hit the target. For the first four attempts, the firers missed the second shot at 240 feet (73 m) by several inches. Five of the six shots hit the third target at 265 feet (81 m), the distance of President Kennedy from the sixth floor window when he was struck in the head. None of the marksmen had any practice with the assassination weapon beforehand except to work the bolt.

CBS conducted a firing test in 1967 at the H. P. White Ballistics Laboratory located in Street, Maryland. For the test 11 marksmen from diverse backgrounds were invited to participate: 3 Maryland State Troopers, 1 weapons engineer, 1 sporting goods dealer, 1 sportsman, 1 ballistics technician, 1 ex-paratrooper, and 3 H. P. White employees. CBS provided several Carcano rifles for the test. Oswald's rifle was not used in this test. The targets were color-coded orange for head/shoulder silhouette and blue for a near miss. The results of the CBS test were as follows: 7 of 11 shooters were able to fire three rounds under 5.6 seconds (64%). Of those 7 shooters, 6 hit the orange target once (86%), and 5 hit the orange target twice (71%). Out of 60 rounds fired, 25 hit the orange (42%), 21 hit the blue portion of the target (35%), and there were 14 misses on the target (23%).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_rifle#FBI_tests

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #42)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 01:25 PM

45. I'll stick with the statements made by guys who were actual snipers and had performed under less....

...than perfect conditions and under a great deal of stress.

I guess you're unaware that the FBI firearms experts refused to fire LHO's rifle until certain repairs were made to the bolt (it did not work smoothly and tended to stick), the scope (which was loose to the point of being useless), and the trigger mechanism (which had, in effect a two-stage unpredictable pull). The Army guys got the rifle that was completely repaired and in good working order.

All of the other tests you referenced in your post were conducted with the limo proceeding on a prearranged straight and level path allowing predictable lead times by the test shooters. Just my opinion, but those were tests designed to attempt to fool the American people into thinking the Warren Commission Report was correct in their findings. If you believe the Government and the MSM is incapable of being deceptive, I have some waterfront property to sell you in the Everglades.

JFK's limo had actually slowed while turning left onto Elm Street and then picked up speed as it proceeded downhill first around a curve to the right, and then around a curve to the right. Changing speed, elevation, and direction create the conditions for a difficult shot at best.

Additionally, a tree on the TSBD side of Elm Street would have blocked the line of sight from the alleged TSBD "sniper's nest" for a significant period of time which would have forced the shooter to wait before firing the first shot. What then are we to make of JFK's reaction at Zapruder frame 143 when he clearly begins reacting to a wound at a time when the back of his head was blocked by the tree on Elm Street? Note the white shirt cuff of JFK's right arm being raised to his throat, and his elbow extended out to his right.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #45)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 01:34 PM

46. People love thinking a lone gunman could not do this. It scares them. But it is the truth. n-t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #46)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 01:51 PM

50. And you know this because the Government told you so?...

...I gave up fairy tales quite some time ago....I suggest you do the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #50)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 03:29 PM

65. 911, Area 51, Monuments on Mars, Clinton Murders, you must love fiction! n-t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #65)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 05:03 PM

69. Funny, I thought we were discussing the JFK assassination. If you want to discuss....

...that other stuff you'll have to find someone else to talk to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #69)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 06:04 PM

72. So that is the only nutty conspiracy theory you believe? n-t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #72)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 08:14 PM

82. I guess we're even. You believe the Warren Commission fantasy and the....

...."Single Bullet Theory" invented by Arlen Specter.

Just curious, but is there anything the Government tells you that you don't believe?

If not, why are you posting on this board?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #82)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 09:30 PM

103. So the single bullet theory is what your whole argument is based on? Really? Because I can....

point you to some legit reading material about it. Stuff you should understand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #103)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 08:09 PM

136. How sad for you that you actually believe Specter's Folly. Good luck and so long! nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #50)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:24 AM

284. and ruby killed oswald cause he loved jfk so much. yeah, that's it.

 

oswald was a patsy; he knew it, and he told us he knew it.

his entire history screams intelligence services.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #284)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 08:52 AM

286. Oswald had a Top Secret Crypto clearance at the time he was stationed in Japan as....

...a radar operator tracking U-2 flights in and out of the country. His clearance was one of the highest levels granted at that time. He also stood guard duty around the U-2 hangers.

Or how about his "defection" to the Soviet Union? Does anyone really believe we would have allowed anyone with his knowledge of U-2 flight ops to go to the Soviet Union? Upon his return, he brought back a wife who was a Soviet citizen, but no questions were asked. If he had truly been a defector to the Soviet Union, why was he allowed back into the US?

Then there was the curious matter of his so-called work for a supposed pro-Castro Cuban organization in New Orleans using leaflets that were traced back to a company that did printing work for the CIA.

And how about that funny little Minox camera found among his belongings following the assassination of JFK?



And finally, what was the true nature of his relationship with White Russian oil geologist George de Mohrenschildt who we later discovered was a CIA contract agent? And what should we make of Poppy Bush's name and phone number found in George de Mohrenschildt's address book?

So many questions about Oswald, even to this day.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #286)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 10:09 AM

287. intelligence always gets the best technology first...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #46)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 08:35 AM

228. I find it amusing..

... that someone thinks that because it was *possible* that a lone gunman did something, that makes it *probable* that he did, that the case for it being a lone gunman rests on how physically *possible* it was. LOL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #228)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 09:48 AM

231. Lol, unicorns are real too!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #45)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 03:13 PM

64. Funny how JFK looks completely unwounded a second later.



Two seconds after you have him being shot in the throat, he's waving again. Guess the bullet didn't bother him that much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nyquil_man (Reply #64)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 05:07 PM

70. JFK wore a back brace....that kept him upright in the limo. Additionally, I don't see JFK waving

....at anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #70)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 06:26 PM

75. You have him reaching for his throat in reaction to a shot.

Yet one second later his hand is back down. The back brace enabled him to show no visible reaction to a gunshot wound for 80 frames? And then suddenly at around 223-225, he starts reacting violently?

Sounds like a magic back brace.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nyquil_man (Reply #75)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 08:15 PM

83. I'm sorry, I guess JFK didn't get the memo as to what he should do with his arm. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #83)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 12:32 AM

106. Or perhaps he wasn't shot at 143. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nyquil_man (Reply #106)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 08:10 PM

138. Yeah....that would ruin that whole Warren Commission thing, wouldn't it? nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #138)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 09:22 PM

150. If all you care about is ruining a 50 year old book, good for you.

I thought you might actually want to find a solution based on evidence. The evidence doesn't back up a shot at 143.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #42)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 08:38 PM

92. Wikipedia, LOL!

 

One of the worst sources going.

Got anything that is actually a legit source?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to zappaman (Reply #93)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 08:50 PM

97. Ah, yes, the same HSCA report that ultimately concluded that there were at least two shooters,

 

Yes, I remember that report well. Thanks for bringing it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #97)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 12:43 AM

107. The same HSCA report which concluded that Oswald fired all the shots which struck JFK

and Connally.

It's also the same HSCA report which upheld the single bullet theory and found no direct evidence of Oswald being engaged in a conspiracy with any person or groups of people.

The very same HSCA report which concluded that there was acoustic evidence of a shooter on the grassy knoll who didn't hit anything, a conclusion which hinges solely on the interpretation of a dictabelt recording.

Yes, that HSCA report.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nyquil_man (Reply #107)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 08:12 AM

110. Here,

 

"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 is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy."
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/summary.html

So we go from the joke of a Warren Report to the HSCA allowing for the probability of a conspiracy. That's a huge step, no matter what else they said.

But hey, if it brings you comfort to hang on to the official story, go for it. Some people simply can't handle the truth. However in interviews with every single person present in the area, they all said that there was a shooter on the grassy knoll.

In fact most Americans believe, by a large margin, that the JFK assassination was the result of a conspiracy. They have the common sense to believe what their own eyes tell them, namely that the final shot came from the front. Sad that you apparently can't handle the truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #110)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 03:14 PM

122. The vast majority of the country believe in angels, too.

Would you care to insult me because I don't?

Here. The HSCA's conclusions regarding the assassination.

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

1.Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at President John F. Kennedy. The second and third shots he fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President. a.President Kennedy was struck by two rifle shots fired from behind him.
b.The shots that struck President Kennedy from behind him were fired from the sixth floor window of the southeast corner of the Texas School Book Depository building.
c.Lee Harvey Oswald owned the rifle that was used to fire the shots from the sixth floor window of the southeast comer of the Texas School Book Depository building.
d.Lee Harvey Oswald, shortly before the assassination, had access to and was present on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository building.
e.Lee Harvey Oswald's other actions tend to support the conclusion that he assassinated President Kennedy.

2.Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations.
3.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 is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy.a.The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Soviet Government was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.
b.The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Cuban Government was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.
c.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 President Kennedy, but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved.
d.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 President Kennedy, but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved.
e.The Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation and Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.


The only evidence specifically backing up a claim of conspiracy is the dictabelt recording. After 50 years, that is all you've got. The HSCA upheld the vast majority of the case against Oswald and could not find another assassin anywhere but on that dictabelt.

Deal with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nyquil_man (Reply #107)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 12:03 PM

171. You are incorrect. The HSCA later changed their opinion after seeing new evidence

and concluded that Oswald did not act alone and that there was a conspiracy but they could not name the others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #171)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 04:17 PM

203. The HSCA's findings on Oswald. Again.

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-1a.html

1.President Kennedy was Struck by Two Rifle Shots Fired from Behind Him
2.The Shots that Struck President Kennedy from Behind were Fired from the Sixth Floor Window of the Southeast Corner of the Texas School Book Depository Building
3.Lee Harvey Oswald Owned the Rifle that was Used to Fire the Shots from the Sixth Floor Window of the Southeast Corner of the Texas School Book Depository Building
4.Lee Harvey Oswald, Shortly Before the Assassination, had Access to and was Present on the Sixth Floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building
5.Lee Harvey Oswald's other Actions tend to Support the Conclusion that He Assassinated President Kennedy


Yes, the HSCA concluded there was a second shooter. A shooter which exists only in sound impulses on a dictabelt recording:

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-1b.html#analysis

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #92)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 09:28 PM

102. LOL, did you read the links to the source? Or does the source thing confuse you? And.....

I would gladly believe Wiki over the nuts on this forum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #102)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 11:39 PM

104. You were quoting Wikipedia, not the sources that may or may not have been used

 

In that Wiki article. Sorry, but using Wikipedia as a source is a major fail, colleges don't allow it to be used, neither do high schools, middle schools or grade schools.

Try again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #104)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 06:59 AM

109. LOL, you believers crack me up. n-t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #109)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 08:16 PM

140. I'd rather be open-minded about political assassinations than whatever it is you claim to be. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #109)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 11:41 PM

161. What cracks me up are the Conspiracy Theorists who believe in the Magic Bullet

theory. It's not called 'magic bullet' for no reason. Magical thinking, it's cute but if ever there was a Conspiracy Theory it is the conspiracy that came up with that theory to feed to what they mistakenly thought would be a gullible public.

And fortunately the House Select Committee on Assassinations re-assessed their original findings and concluded that Oswald did not act alone, that there was a Conspiracy to kill JFK. They could not name the conspirators but they no longer stood by their original theory or that of the WC after re-assessing the evidence that came out later.

Lol, 'magic bullet', it sure was! If only we had more of them we might actually win some of the wars we fight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #161)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 09:33 AM

167. If the "magic bullet" was really the REASON you believe in a conspiracy

... then demonstrations that there was nothing magic about it would have you re-evaluating your conclusion. But post #74 shows that, instead, it just makes CTists angry.

Likewise, some CTists claim that "back and to the left" is the reason they believe there was a second shooter, but when it's shown that JFK's head actually snapped forward immediately after the hit, they develop a sudden aversion to examining the film closely using valid principles of physics.

It's clear that these are not really the reasons for CTist's conclusions; they are rationalizations for a preconceived conclusion, and CTists cling to them like religious dogma even after they are debunked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #167)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 12:17 PM

173. CTs are the ones who believe in the magic bullet theory

and yes, those CTs do get angry when anyone questions it. So I suppose you have a point. People who question the government are doing their duty as citizens, people who have things to hide, like Bush Sr. eg, call citizens who raise questions about governments, CTS. They do this to try to discredit them. As we all know, Bush Sr did call people who might question the WCR, 'crazy CT theorists'. But what else would anyone expect from him? He wanted the public to accept the CT HE wanted them to believe.

And why did he refuse to say where he was on that day for so long? We know now where he was, but for some reason I guess he called anyone who suggested he might have been where he actually was, a CT. And a lot of people believed him. Now of course we know the facts. He was hiding his whereabouts from the public. Why do you think he did that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #173)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 11:48 PM

195. Again: Post #74 shows there was nothing "magic" about a straight path

I don't think an animation was really necessary for anyone possessed with ordinary spatial perceptions, since it just shows what was obvious decades ago: A shot downward through JFK's lower neck could hardly have missed Connally, but if it had, then some trace of it should have been found in the limo. There's no excuse for not knowing that now, but apparently conspiracists have become so fond of that particular bullshit that they just can't give it up.

None of which has jackshit to do with where Bush was that day. If you could pin anything on Bush, I'd gladly volunteer to pull the switch myself since I hate the bastard. But fortunately for all of us, thanks to our liberal justice system, you need credible evidence to convict someone of murder. From the credible evidence, we know beyond reasonable doubt who fired all three shots and from where. It really gets tiresome to have to keep repeating this, but if you've got a better story backed with better evidence, I don't know anyone who wouldn't want to know it. Where the hell is it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #161)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 05:23 PM

206. Still misrepresenting the HSCA's findings, I see.

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-1a.html#struck

Page 44:

The panel determined that the nature of the wounds of President Kennedy and Governor Connally was consistent with the possibility that one bullet entered the upper right back of President Kennedy and, after emerging from the front of the neck, caused all of the Governor's wounds. A factor that influenced the panel significantly was the ovoid shape of the wound in the Governor's back, indicating that the bullet had begun to tumble or yaw before entering. An ovoid wound is characteristic of one caused by a bullet that has passed through or glanced off an intervening object. Based on the evidence available to it, the panel concluded that a single bullet passing through both President Kennedy and Governor Connally would support a fundamental conclusion that the President was struck by two, and only two, bullets, each fired from behind. Thus, the forensic pathology panel's conclusions were consistent with the so-called single bullet theory advanced by the Warren Commission.


What is your alternative theory?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #42)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:12 PM

214. Oswald 'had no time to fire all Kennedy bullets'

When experts used the rifle allegedly owned by Oswald, no one could come close to what Oswald is alleged to have done.



Oswald 'had no time to fire all Kennedy bullets'

By Tim Shipman in Washington
The Telegraph, 01 Jul 2007

Lee Harvey Oswald could not have acted alone in assassinating President John F Kennedy, according to a new study by Italian weapons experts of the type of rifle Oswald used in the shootings.

In fresh tests of the Mannlicher-Carcano bolt-action weapon, supervised by the Italian army, it was found to be impossible for even an accomplished marksman to fire the shots quickly enough.

The findings will fuel continuing theories that Oswald was part of a larger conspiracy to murder the 35th American president on 22 November 1963.

The official Warren Commission inquiry into the shooting concluded the following year that Oswald was a lone gunman who fired three shots with a Carcano M91/38 bolt-action rifle in 8.3 seconds.

But when the Italian team test-fired the identical model of gun, they were unable to load and fire three shots in less than 19 seconds - suggesting that a second gunman must have been present in Dealey Plaza, central Dallas, that day.

CONTINUED...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1556184/Oswald-had-no-time-to-fire-all-Kennedy-bullets.html



Gee. That's the opposite of what supporters of the Warren Commission say.

So. No. No one has been able to do what Oswald is alleged to have done with the Mannlicher-Carcano.

Oh. And did you see THAT article on your local tee vee news show? In your local paper? In TIME or Newsweek?

I didn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #214)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 02:51 AM

218. Abject bullshit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_rifle#FBI_tests

Modern analysis of a digitally enhanced Zapruder film suggests that the first, second, and final shot may have taken 8.3 seconds.
...
The results of the CBS test were as follows: 7 of 11 shooters were able to fire three rounds under 5.6 seconds (64%).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #218)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 07:55 AM

227. Wikipedia, the CIA Manipulated.

See Who's Editing Wikipedia - the CIA, Diebold, a Campaign

http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/08/wiki_tracker?currentPage=all

Anslysis and original documents on Single Bullet Theory:

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #227)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 09:30 AM

230. Abject bullshit, defined

From your article:
But when the Italian team test-fired the identical model of gun, they were unable to load and fire three shots in less than 19 seconds - suggesting that a second gunman must have been present in Dealey Plaza, central Dallas, that day.


Here's the visual proof that your article is abject bullshit, which won't disappear by smearing Wikipedia:



You ignore what we actually know and instead glom onto bullshit, then claim you do it because of your superior concern for truth and justice, and then claim that anyone who doesn't accept such pathological epistemology must be a rightwing stooge.

Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #230)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 09:50 AM

232. What smear? The CIA changing Wikipedia entries is what WIRED found.

And going back to the weapon alleged to have been bought and used by Oswald:

So, when a test uses the Mannlicher-Carcano, it doesn't count as evidence.

But, when a test uses an automatic rifle, the only way a marksman could hit a moving target under the conditions at Dealey Plaza, that counts as evidence.

Gotcha.

BTW: Why are you always so hostile, William Seger? You are starting to sound persecuted or something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #232)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 11:05 AM

233. The more accurate term would be "poisoning the well"

But maybe the CIA changed the definition, huh: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

The CBS tests were with a Mannlicher Carcano rifle. Let's see the video of the Italian tests and maybe we can figure out why they were having so much trouble operating a bolt.

> BTW: Why are you always so hostile, William Seger?

Allow me to repeat myself: "You ignore what we actually know and instead glom onto bullshit, then claim you do it because of your superior concern for truth and justice, and then claim that anyone who doesn't accept such pathological epistemology must be a rightwing stooge."

I guess you just can't appreciate how annoying that is, but my personal campaign against the spread of bullshit goes way beyond conspiracism. Pseudo-science is actually much more interesting to me, but since this is a political board, I mostly do that elsewhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #233)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 11:32 AM

234. Repeat yourself all you want, William Seger. Don't smear me.

"DU's most prolific propagandist."

If you think that, you ain't seen nothing yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #234)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 12:39 PM

235. That wasn't a smear; it was hyperbole

There may actually be more prolific propagandists here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #235)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 01:42 PM

236. Thanks.

Keep your eyes peeled.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #5)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 08:12 PM

81. None of the conspiracy theories deny Oswald was at that location & shot at JFK.

Not saying I believe in the conspiracy theories. As I heard one anti-conspiracy pundit say once, who would hire Oswald to carry out an execution? He was erratic and unreliable and possibly mentally disturbed. They're right about that.

But there's no denying that some things are pretty suspicious. Such as Oswald's association with a man who was involved with the mob, who was pissed off big time at RFK and JFK. The mob supposedly saw to it that JFK got elected. But instead of leaving them alone, RFK (who was the atty general by then) makes it his pet project to go after the mob.

It's possible - just possible - that Oswald was one of two shooters sent by the mob to assassinate JFK. Oswald was the scape goat. That way, you can understand why they'd use Oswald. It wouldn't matter if he screwed up. And he was easy to recruit, since he hated JFK. But it was the other shooter who was the one charged with doing the assassination, and was successful.

But there is no evidence of that, so there you go. We have to rely on evidence. Still, it's pretty coincidental, when you look at the mob connections and the mob being that angry at JFK/RFK.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #5)

Fri Mar 15, 2013, 10:04 PM

323. WTF?

Look out the window someday? Yeah like since when can anyone do that now? It's been closed off for years by the TSB Museum up there. Closed off da... lol ... like the late Bill Hicks says at about 30 seconds into this video, he might teach you something da. ... lol.

"Look out the window someday" ... not Logical ... not possible for quite awhile now da but if you kept up on what's relevant to this you would know that, but you obviously don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doublethink (Reply #323)

Fri Mar 15, 2013, 11:06 PM

324. OK, LOL, maybe 5 feet to the right of it. VISUALIZE. Here is a photo for you. Your issue..

Might be allowing a comedian to think for you. Think for yourself. In the long run it will be better for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #3)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 12:45 AM

15. Well here is a fact for you.

When a bullet hits a head the brains do not travel back to where the bullet came from,
Really, if you can look at the Zapruder film of that head shot and believe the bullet came from the back you are hopeless.
And by the way, your facts are bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #15)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 12:54 AM

17. Let's stick to the OP's media-coverage theme

There are anklebiters afoot who will rip into every opportunity to divert and clutter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnnyreb (Reply #17)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 12:59 AM

19. I know, you are right.

sorry, but sometimes I just want to scream...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #15)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 03:44 AM

27. Not only that

But there were no Secret Service guys on JFK's car. Makes no sense at ALL. LBJ had them crawling all over his car. IMO LBJ had a hand in it also. Word was, he was supposed to be impeached that following Monday.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #15)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 12:29 PM

39. Well, here some ACTUAL facts for you

When JFK's head was hit, it snapped forward.



The "back and to the left" motion started two frames later and it shows acceleration, neither of which can be explained as momentum transfer from the bullet, because that only happened while the bullet was passing through the head. For five decades now, we've had to not only listen to bullshit imaginary "physics" from people who haven't even looked at the film closely, but then be insulted as "ankle biters" for simply pointing out how idiotic their claims are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #39)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 02:52 PM

60. I have heard all that horseshit before.

And don't intend to argue this again here with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #60)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 04:53 PM

68. Tell me again about these "hopeless" people

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #39)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 02:57 AM

219. Interesting....

the man in the front passenger seat also has his head "snap" forward, as if the car's brakes were being applied.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #219)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 10:17 PM

223. Nope. Maybe a larger version will help

The only head that snapped forward was JFK's:



Furthermore, once you know it's there, the forward snap is easy to see when watching the film in real-time. Try it.

Beyond any reasonable doubt, the Zapruder film shows JFK getting hit from behind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #3)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 12:16 PM

36. RFK, Jr. is no ''moron.'' Why would you call a liberal Democrat that and the other things, Archae?

Last edited Sat Feb 23, 2013, 12:46 PM - Edit history (1)

I heard him speak at my alma mater, Wayne State University in 2007.



Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. called George W Bush "that sonofabitch" and said the guy was a crook, turning over the government to the lobbyists and gangsters who've emptied our Treasury, polluted our water, land, air and children, and used humanity as cannon fodder and slave labor.

He also pegged ABCNNBCBSFoxNoiseNutwork for what they are. Among other things, he called Antonin Scalia the son of a Nazi and explained why. I would've taken notes, but I wanted to hear everything the guy said.

As for the rest of your "facts," Archae, you need to do some more reading. Start with the writings of law professor Donald E. Wilkes:



DESTINY BETRAYED:
THE CIA, OSWALD, AND
THE JFK ASSASSINATION


Published in Flagpole Magazine, p. 8 (Dec. 7, 2005).

Author: Donald E. Wilkes, Jr., Professor of Law, University of Georgia School of Law.

In place of the strong sense of faith in man and mankind, we now have a heavy feeling of a failed mission, of destiny betrayed and unfulfilled. – Rav Alex Israel

The deepest cover story of the CIA is that it is an intelligence organization. – Bulletin of the Federation of American Scientists


Today, 42 years after President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dealey Plaza in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963, few responsible researchers who have studied JFK’s murder accept the Warren Commission’s main conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, committed the crime. (The Warren Commission was the body appointed by President Lyndon B. Johnson to investigate the Kennedy assassination; it released its Report in September 1964.) As these researchers have shown again and again in scores of books and articles, evidence available to the Commission but improperly evaluated, erroneously rejected, or simply not pursued by that body, together with new evidence unavailable to the Commission, discredits the principal finding of the Warren Report. JFK’s death was, these researchers believe, carried out by a conspiracy; it was not the act of a lone assassin. Different researchers, however, have different conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theorists also disagree about Oswald: some maintain that he was simply one of the conspirators; others claim that, while he was a member of the conspiracy, he was also unknowingly a dupe of the other conspirators who intended for him to be the fall guy; and still other theorists think that Oswald was a wholly innocent person set up by the conspirators as the patsy. Furthermore, the theorists who regard Oswald as a conspirator disagree as to whether he fired any of the shots in Dealey Plaza.

SNIP...

The theory that JFK’s murder was engineered by the CIA (or by persons affiliated with the CIA), and that the CIA covered up its connections to the murder, warrants serious consideration and should not be peremptorily rejected. In the 1960’s the CIA more resembled an untouchable crime syndicate than a legitimate government entity. Lavishly but secretly funded, unrestrained by public opinion, cloaked in secrecy, conducting whatever foreign or domestic clandestine operations it wished without regard to laws or morals, and specializing in deception, falsification, and mystification, the CIA was riddled at all levels with ruthless, cynical officials and employees who believed that they were above the law, that any means were justified to accomplish the goals they set for themselves, and that insofar as their surreptitious activities were concerned it was justifiable to lie with impunity to anyone, even presidents and legislators. Many of these individuals, thinking he was soft on communism, that he would reduce the size of the military industrial complex, and that he was to blame for the Bay of Pigs disaster (the failed CIA-sponsored invasion of Cuba in 1961), hated and despised Kennedy. The CIA routinely circumvented and defied attempts by the executive and legislative branches to monitor its activities. It was involved in innumerable unlawful or outrageous activities. It illegally opened the mail of Americans. It interfered with free elections in foreign countries and arranged to destabilize or overthrow the governments of other countries. It plotted the murder of various foreign leaders. It arranged to hire the Mafia to help with some of these proposed murder plots. It unlawfully stored–in quantities, UGA political science professor Loch K. Johnson notes, sufficient “to destroy the population of a small city”–exotic toxic agents, including cobra venom and shellfish toxin, for the purpose of committing murders. It manufactured and used sinister lethal weaponry, including what Prof. Johnson calls “the ultimate murder weapon,” an electric handgun (the CIA called it a “noise-free disseminator”) with a telescopic sight which could noiselessly and accurately fire poison-tipped darts (the CIA called them “nondiscernible microbioinoculators”) up to a distance of 250 feet. It undoubtedly carried out multiple secret murders and other heinous crimes which it successfully kept hidden. Furthermore, it is now firmly established that after the JFK assassination the CIA simultaneously lied to, and withheld important information from, the Warren Commission.

One of the first serious investigators to raise credible claims that CIA operatives or ex-CIA operatives were involved in the JFK assassination was Jim Garrison, who served as the district attorney in New Orleans, Louisiana from 1962 to 1974. (A brief chronology of Garrison’s life and investigation is set forth at the end of this article.) Garrison and his office investigated the assassination for about five years, from late 1966 until early 1971. His investigation led Garrison to believe that, regardless of whoever actually fired the shots in Dealey Plaza, the assassination was the result of a plot hatched in New Orleans by persons with CIA connections. Furthermore, Garrison concluded, following the assassination the CIA engaged in a coverup to protect itself and the assassins. Garrison brought to trial the only criminal proceeding in which someone was actually charged with involvement in the JFK assassination. Garrison wrote two important books, the first published in 1970, the second in 1988, in which he recounted his investigation and shared the important new facts he had discovered.

In the words of journalist Fred Powledge, who wrote a magazine article on Garrison published in 1967, Garrison thought that “the assassins were CIA employees who were angered at President Kennedy’s posture on Cuba following the Bay of Pigs disaster, and that the CIA was frustrating his investigation, although the agency knew the whereabouts of the assassins.” Philosophy professor Richard H. Popkin, in another magazine article published in 1967, summarized Garrison’s views on the assassination as follows: “The thesis Garrison has set forth is that a group of New Orleans-based, anti-Castroites, supported and/or encouraged by the CIA in their anti-Castro activities, in the late summer or early fall of 1963 conspired to assassinate John F. Kennedy. This group, according to Garrison, included (Clay) Shaw, (David) Ferrie, (Lee Harvey) Oswald, ... and others, including Cuban exiles and American anti-Castroites.... (T)heir plan was executed in Dallas on November 22, 1963. At least part of their motivation ... was their reaction to Kennedy’s decisions at the Bay of Pigs and the changes in U.S. policy toward Cuba following the missiles crisis of 1962.”

In a 1967 interview, Garrison himself phrased his basic conclusions this way: “(A) number of the men who killed the President were former employees of the CIA involved in its anti-Castro underground activities in and around New Orleans.... We must assume that the plotters were acting on their own rather than on CIA orders when they killed the President. As far as we been able to determine, they were not on the pay of the CIA at the time of the assassination.... The CIA could not face up to the American people and admit that its former employees had conspired to assassinate the President, so from the moment Kennedy’s heart stopped beating, the Agency attempted to sweep the whole conspiracy under the rug.... In this respect, it has become an accessory after the fact in the assassination.”

CONTINUED...

http://www.law.uga.edu/dwilkes_more/jfk_22destiny.html



Prof. Wilkes' bibiliography is an excellent survey of what was available at the time of his writing that article. Several new works have been published since. I'll try to get back and recommend them to you when I get the time.

Remember: Readers are leaders. Those who believe the tee vee go along with wars in Iraq and Vietnam and wherever else its profitable.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #36)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 01:36 PM

47. Doesn't matter if someone is liberal or conservative...

Last edited Sat Feb 23, 2013, 05:11 PM - Edit history (1)

If that person is an idiot, they are an idiot.

All the *CREDIBLE* evidence says Oswald was the only shooter, and Jim Garrison was a crackpot chasing rainbows.
The jury in the Clay Shaw case took an hour and a half, including lunch, to acquit Clay Shaw.

RFK Jr still says to this day that therisol(sp?) a preservative in vaccines causes autism, even though actual *GASP* science says it does not.

Shit happens.

A die-hard sore-loser Confederate sympathizer shot Lincoln.

A loser who didn't get a big cushy job he demanded from President Garfield shot him and Garfield died.

A loser with grandiose dreams like Oswald killed a president he hated.

Another loser with serious mental problems shot Reagan with a cheap pawnshop handgun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #47)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 09:06 PM

100. Lincoln?

Four people were hanged in conjunction with the Lincoln assassination. Look it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #36)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 08:18 PM

84. +1. Thanks for taking up for a fine, intelligent man. A bit of an activist, but other than that,

seems to be a very intelligent, good person. He screwed up on his anti-vaccine campaign. Seems someone gave him misinformation, and he didn't check it out thoroughly before campaigning against vaccines.

Since arch. poster referenced the anti-vaccine thing, maybe he's pro-vaccines and that got him upset.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #36)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 03:40 PM

124. He's no moron. He is, however, a crackpot

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #36)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 09:01 PM

147. Rare Picture of Operation 40

 

In the 1960’s the CIA more resembled an untouchable crime syndicate than a legitimate government entity. Lavishly but secretly funded, unrestrained by public opinion, cloaked in secrecy, conducting whatever foreign or domestic clandestine operations it wished without regard to laws or morals, and specializing in deception, falsification, and mystification, the CIA was riddled at all levels with ruthless, cynical officials and employees who believed that they were above the law, that any means were justified to accomplish the goals they set for themselves, and that insofar as their surreptitious activities were concerned it was justifiable to lie with impunity to anyone, even presidents





Here's Dan Hopsicker's story about how he got the photo and what it means:

WORLD EXCLUSIVE
May 6 2006--Venice,FL.
by Daniel Hopsicker

Deposed CIA head Porter Goss was once a member of the CIA's super-secret Operation 40, an assassination squad which roamed through North and Central America during the 1960's.

Along with a number of men whose names became famous and whose lives and careers comprise a large part of America’s Secret History, Goss appears (see a comparison) in the historic photograph at right, which also appears on the cover of "Barry & 'the boys': The CIA, the Mob, and America's Secret History."

It is the only extant photograph of the members of Operation Forty, the CIA’s assassination squad, taken in a Mexico City nightclub in 1963.

Coupled with his close proximity to the terrorist hijackers who used his Congressional District in Charlotte County as one of their main bases of operations, this fact virtually shouts out for closer examination during the post-mortems dissecting his tenure as CIA chief.

When we first saw the photo, it was in the yellowed frame used by nightclub photographers back in the 60's. It bore the name of a nightclub (La Reforma) in Mexico City, and was stamped with a date, January 22, 1963, ten months to the day before the Kennedy assassination.


"Guido, meet the General. General, meet Guido."

The Mexico City nightclub photo reveals a mixed group of Cuban exiles, Italian wise guys, and square-jawed military intelligence types. It was discovered among keepsakes kept in the safe of the widow of CIA pilot and drug smuggler Barry Seal, where it was overlooked by a 7-man team from the U.S. State Department which showed up at her house in 1995 to comb through her records.

Barry Seal had been recruited at the age of 17, along with Lee Oswald, by CIA agent David Ferrie, at a two week summer camp of the Louisiana Civil Air Patrol in 1957. Much Much More: http://www.madcowprod.com/05072006.html


In that photo above: Porter Goss (and Barry Seal!)

This Porter Goss:
He served for a time as the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. Goss was a co-sponsor of the USA PATRIOT Act and was a co-chair of the Joint 9/11 Intelligence Inquiry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porter_Goss




Goss (who was later appointed to CIA Director by President Bush, only to mysteriously resign shortly afterwards, no reason given) was one of those present at that infamous breakfast meeting at the Capitol, on the morning of September 11, 2001, with General Mahmoud Ahmad, head of the Pakistani ISI. According to the FBI, Indian Intelligence and several press reports, the Mahmoud Ahmad was instrumental in providing financial support to the 9/11 terrorists. Ahmad had allegedly ordered the transfer of $100,000 to the presumed 9/11 ring-leader Mohamed Atta.

At that September 11 meeting were three lawmakers Bob Graham, Porter Goss and Jon Kyl who were part of the Congressional delegation to Pakistan. Also present at this meeting were Pakistan’s ambassador to the U.S. Maleeha Lodhi and several members of the Senate and House Intelligence committees. This meeting was described by one press report as a “follow-up meeting” to that held in Pakistan in late August.


After the Capitol meeting, Porter Goss went to the Pentagon where he is seen being interviewed, on camera, by the mainstream US media, while the attack sequence was still being played out. This video gives us some evidence regarding what happened at the Pentagon, as Goss was speaking: There is a distant boom, and people in camerashot turn around and gasp. Then, a minute later, we hear the sound of a large commercial plane flying full throttle, engines screaming, and people look towards where the sound is coming from. There were TWO events at the Pentagon that morning, and Porter Goss likely knows exactly what happened, and who was responsible – and Phil Marshall was onto Porter Goss.
Watch it (before youtube pulls it, yet again).
From Bloggulator santabarbaraview.com/


Is that an explosion before the whine of the Jet?
Is that the Jet whine from Flt 77?

Operation 40





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to green for victory (Reply #147)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 01:44 PM

293. That picture of Porter Goss and the company he keeps is quite telling and frightening.

Gosh. That does look like Porter Goss, in profile, with an arm around a laughing Felix "I got Che's Rolex and a lot of Iran-Contra action, too" Rodriguez, next to Barry "Call Poppy direct" Seal. To think a group of hired killers or mercenaries could rise into positions of power is so un-American as to be laughable. Yet, scum rising to the surface of the pond is the order of the last 49 years. So, in honor of coincidence, a DU reprint:

Know your BFEE: WikiLeaks Stratfor Dump Exposes Continued Secret Government Warmongering

War is big business. It's an insider's game. It's why we have so much secret government.

The last remaining enormous wads of cash in the Treasury are to be had for purchasing today's modern military industrial intel complex.



There's more than a trillion to be grabbed -- just for the Lockheed-Martin F-35.

Now keeping tabs on us -- people interested in using some of the nation's treasure for more peaceful purposes -- are for-hire spies. How do I know this? Julian Assange and Anonymous:



WikiLeaks' Stratfor Dump Lifts Lid on Intelligence-Industrial Complex

WikiLeaks' latest release, of hacked emails from Stratfor, shines light on the murky world of private intelligence-gathering


by Pratap Chatterjee
Published on Tuesday, February 28, 2012 by The Guardian/UK

What price bad intelligence? Some 5m internal emails from Stratfor, an Austin, Texas-based company that brands itself as a "global intelligence" provider, were recently obtained by Anonymous, the hacker collective, and are being released in batches by WikiLeaks, the whistleblowing website, starting Monday.

The most striking revelation from the latest disclosure is not simply the military-industrial complex that conspires to spy on citizens, activists and trouble-causers, but the extremely low quality of the information available to the highest bidder. Clients of the company include Dow Chemical, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon, as well as US government agencies like the Department of Homeland Security, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Marines.

SNIP...

Assange notes that Stratfor is also seeking to profit directly from this information by partnering in an apparent hedge-fund venture with Shea Morenz, a former Goldman Sachs managing director. He points to an August 2011 document, marked "DO NOT SHARE OR DISCUSS", from Stratfor CEO George Friedman, which says:

"What StratCap will do is use our Stratfor's intelligence and analysis to trade in a range of geopolitical instruments, particularly government bonds, currencies and the like."


CONTINUED...

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/02/28-10?print



If it weren't for Anonymous and WikiLeaks, we probably wouldn't know about any of that.

It's no joke. It's no unimportant story. It's no boring history. Run by insiders, the secret government is key to making the system run on behalf of the few -- the 1-percent of 1-percent. Central to that is intelligence -- economically, politically and military useful information.

Which brings up the nation's purported free press, the only business mentioned by name in the entire United States Constitution, and how the organizations therein have miserably failed to feature prominently the sundry and myriad ways the insiders on Wall Street and their toadies in Washington do the work for Them.

The problem is systemic. The corruption is systemic.

Because it involves oversight of secret organizations -- the Pentagon, Homeland Security, CIA, etc -- Congress and the Administration often have no clue, let alone oversight, to what is happening because the corruption is marked "Top Secret."

Secret government also means We the People can't do our job as citizens, which is to hold them accountable and find the ones responsible in order to vote the crooks out and, it is hoped, the honest ones in.

With no citizen oversight, anything goes. And it doesn't stop.

Remember this fine fellow, US Navy fighter ace Randy "Duke" Cunningham?

Later a member of the United States Congress, he used his position to feather his nest, Big Time.



In his political career, Cunningham was a member of the Appropriations and Intelligence committees, and chaired the House Intelligence Subcommittee on Human Intelligence Analysis and Counterintelligence during the 109th Congress. He was considered a leading Republican expert on national security issues.

Currently, he's in USP Tuscon or another fine facility where he gets three squares, medical and dental.
He's due for release in a year or so. He'll be able to pick up his pension.

"The Duke Cunningham Act, also known as the Federal Pension Forfeiture Act, was introduced by U.S. Senator John F. Kerry in 2006. The bill would have denied pension benefits to any members of Congress convicted of bribery, conspiracy or perjury. The bill died in committee. (Source: The Press Enterprise)


Duke wasn't alone. He really was just one snake in a long line of snakes. Remember Dusty Foggo, Number 3 at CIA and close associate of CIA Director and former Congressman Porter Goss? Swells sitting atop the peak of political and military secrecy and power.

Unfortunately, when it comes to modern governance, no oversight means means the insiders are getting away with murder, and warmongering and treason and all the power that they bring. Appointed pretzeldent George W Bush on Valentine's Day 2007 put it in words: "Money trumps peace."



Secret government warmongering and war profiteering are systemic. Secret government is rotten to the core. What's more, in a democracy that once really was land of the free and home of the brave, secret government poses the greatest threat to true national security.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #3)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 06:47 PM

130. +1000. n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #3)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 10:12 PM

154. I heard he was an awful shot

 

His military commanders said so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 10:51 PM

192. "Fact. RFK Jr. is a moron"

My dictionary says that a moron has an IQ of between 50 and 70. So maybe that is not a "fact", which calls into question your other "facts".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:32 PM

4. Lets face it, people LOVE conspiracy's. A lone gunman is boring. A huge government......

cover-up is exciting and fun to read about and discuss.

9/11, JFK, UFOs, Area 51, Moon landings, Chemtrails, etc.

Remember the monuments on mars? Government cover-up. LOL.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #4)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:37 PM

8. I know. People just dont' like it, that shit happens.

We laugh at or are angered by the shitheads who say Sandy Hook was a "government conspiracy," yet many of the same people embrace the wildest fairy tales spread by Oliver Stone or such, and they just rake in the cash.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #8)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:39 PM

9. Great point. n-t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #8)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 08:23 PM

87. Oliver Stone is a nutcase, IMO. Still, Oswald had a friend involved with the mob.

It would be foolish not to ponder that connection, when investigating a crime, knowing how mad the mob was at JFK at that time. When the mob gets mad, it gets even, and could be had to protect itself against RFKs pet project to end the mob in the U.S. The mob wouldn't let that slide, esp after getting JFK elected.

Not saying the mob did it, but it only makes sense to at least ponder that connection that Oswald had with Ray, who was involved with the mob.

It's not like the "Elvis is still alive" theories. I've seen documentaries on teh various JFK theories. Most are ludicrous (LBJ had JFK killed, so he could become President! Castro did it!).

But there was a very real reason for the mob to actively stop RFKs attempt to end the mob. And there's no denying that Oswald had a friend involved with the mob. Any investigator today investigating an ordinary murder would take a look at that. It's pretty coincidental.

But we go by evidence in this country. And bottom line, there's no evidence of it, that I knkow of.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #87)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 08:26 PM

88. "Oswald had a friend involved with the mob"

He did?
Who and was was the extent of their relationship?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #88)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 08:32 PM

90. You don't know? Have you ever watched any of the numerous documentaries on the assassination or

Oswald?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #90)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 08:33 PM

91. Yes I have.

Who was he friends with that was connected to the mob?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #91)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 09:10 PM

101. He shared digs in New Orleans with a bookie....

the bookie knew Sam Saia for years...worked for or with him. Saia was a mob leader in New Orleans. Oswald's mother, who was somehow related to the bookie, also knew Saia. Oswald used to hang out at a gambling club in N.O. owned by that mob leader. How well Oswald knew Saia, I don't know. But Saia would have at least known Oswald and his hatreds, etc., which Oswald freely talked about.

Saia was a close associate of Carlos Marcello, another mob leader. Marcello had been called to testify about mob activites before a govt committee - JFK was on teh committee, and RFK was chief counsel to the committee. RFK, as AG, later deported Marcello, as part of his effort to wipe out organized crime. Marcello came back to the U.S., though.

Jack Ruby - the man who killed Oswald. He had connections with New Orleans, Marcello, and another mob leader in New Orleans. In fact, he had been in N.O. and met with Marcello and one or more other mob leaders just a few months before the JFK assassination.

I've seen documentaries on every conspiracy theory out there, I think. Most of them were pretty far reaching. But I had to admit that while there was no evidence of mob involvement in the JFK assassination, there were certainly a lot of coincidences. Too many, maybe? At least it would be investigated today by any investigator working a serious murder.

It's possible that Oswald was used as a patsy. I can't imagine that anyone would seriously hire Oswald as an assassinator, given his erratic behavior. But use him as a patsy, maybe. But what to do if he was caught, that he might talk? That doesn't make sense, either. Even if they had planned on killing him, he might've talked before they could do it (like Ruby did it?).

So, I don't know. There's no evidence. Just a lot of coincidences. But there sure are a lot of connections there among Oswald, the mob, and the Kennedys.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #87)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 05:26 PM

126. Do "mob" possibilities resonate with "anti-Castro" possibilities? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:36 PM

6. Gee, I wonder if this will turn into yet another "Who shot JFK" conspiracy theory post?...

Oh, and RFK Jr. still thinks thimerosal causes autism.

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #6)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 02:48 AM

24. Sid

I thought we got you straightened out on that the other night...

Your cheap shots at RFK are not welcomed here and since you were educated about how the CDC made sure mercury was not included in most vaccines I would have thought you'd have learned your lesson and quit taking cheap shots. Am I gonna have to start on you all over again?

And like a poster above said: brains do not fly toward where the bullet came from. Let me repeat that: Brains do not fly toward where the bullet comes from. Got that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #24)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 12:25 PM

37. ...



http://www.robertfkennedyjr.com/articles/2005_june_16.html

He hasn't retracted that article, even after all the corrections that Salon had to print.

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #37)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 12:57 PM

43. Here's how the CDC backs up RFK

And reduces you to taking cheap shots at RFK Jr. As readers will see below, the CDC also has problems with putting mercury in vaccines, just like RFK Jr. Surely Sid isn't saying the CDC is wrong, is he? No, he's not. Just taking cheap shots at RFK Jr. is all Sid is doing. Because, as Sid now sees, RFK Jr. and the CDC are on the same wavelength re: Thimerosal.

From CDC:

Thimerosal is a mercury-containing preservative used in some vaccines and other products since the 1930's. There is no convincing evidence of harm caused by the low doses of thimerosal in vaccines, except for minor reactions like redness and swelling at the injection site. However, in July 1999, the Public Health Service agencies, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and vaccine manufacturers agreed that thimerosal should be reduced or eliminated in vaccines as a precautionary measure.


http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/thimerosal/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #43)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 01:42 PM

49. Really? The CDC thinks thimerosal causes Autism?...

You sure that's what the CDC thinks? We know that's what RFK Jr thinks.

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #49)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 01:56 PM

53. It backs up RFK Jr.'s Contention

The science that made them take mercury out of vaccines still stands. That is the science that RFK Jr. uses to make his argument. It has not been refuted.

But the question here is why you have posted so many times taking a cheap shot at RFK Jr. Are you obsessed? Can't you see, via the CDC, that RFK Jr. has grounds for his concern and that the reality of the removal of mercury from vaccines in 1999 makes your arguments look like cheap shots?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #53)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 06:12 PM

73. No, it doesn't

because: thimerosal was never in the vaccine (erroneously) linked with autism in the first place. Nor did any extensive studies find any association between autism and vaccination. And in point of fact, an article Kennedy had published on Salon was pulled with multiple corrections when the problems with his contentions became clear. He is a crank and his arguments were based on bad science and outright distortion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #73)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 08:18 PM

86. So, why was it pulled from vaccines?

See, that tells everyone right there that there is something to the idea that mercury in vaccines is not good. After studying it, and against pharma pressure, even, it was kept out of most vaccines starting in 1999.

You can go on and claim this that and the other, but the FACT is mercury has been pulled from most vaccines.

These cheap shots at RFK Jr. are nothing more than that, because the fact is he makes a good point that is backed up by several studies and the FACT that mercury has been pulled.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #86)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 08:28 PM

89. Why was it pulled from vaccines? Because of the sort of irrational fear RFK Jr was stoking.

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. At the time, we felt that correcting the piece — and keeping it on the site, in the spirit of transparency — was the best way to operate. But subsequent critics, including most recently, Seth Mnookin in his book “The Panic Virus,” further eroded any faith we had in the story’s value. We’ve grown to believe the best reader service is to delete the piece entirely.

“I regret we didn’t move on this more quickly, as evidence continued to emerge debunking the vaccines and autism link,” says former Salon editor in chief Joan Walsh, now editor at large. “But continued revelations of the flaws and even fraud tainting the science behind the connection make taking down the story the right thing to do.” The story’s original URL now links to our autism topics page, which we believe now offers a strong record of clear thinking and skeptical coverage we’re proud of — including the critical pursuit of others who continue to propagate the debunked, and dangerous, autism-vaccine link.

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


the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) endorsed calls from a World Health Organization (WHO) committee that the preservative, thimerosal, should not be considered a hazardous source of mercury that could be banned by the United Nations.

The AAP in 1999 asked for its removal from vaccines in the United States because of a concern that youngsters receiving multiple shots containing thimerosal might get too much mercury - and develop autism or other neurodevelopmental problems, despite the lack of hard evidence at the time.

"It was absolutely a matter of precaution because of the absence of more information," said Dr. Louis Cooper, from Columbia University in New York, who was on the organization's board of directors at the time.

"Subsequently an awful lot of effort has been put into trying to sort out whether thimerosal causes any harm to kids, and the bottom line is basically, it doesn't look as if it does," he said.

(snip)

In a 2004 safety review, for example, the independent U.S. Institute of Medicine concluded there was no evidence thimerosal-containing vaccines could cause autism. A study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention came to the same conclusion in 2010.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/17/us-pediatricians-vaccines-idUSBRE8BG0QM20121217

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #89)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 08:50 PM

96. Yep. Back and forth

One year it's bad, now they say maybe not. Doesn't make for much confidence in the decision making process.

Many years before RFK Jr. was on the scene the science said pull it. So they pulled it. Why? Because mercury is deadly stuff. It is a neuro-toxin.

And it is still being kept from most vaccines.

The point is that the cheap shots you and Sid have taken at RFK Jr. are just that. The fact is that there is still a concern after all these years. So why take cheap shots at RFK Jr.? All he wants is what is best for kids. And so far, mercury is still kept from most vaccines. You can rant and rail and moan and groan, but until mercury is declared safe, it is not, and RFK Jr. has a point that makes your cheap shots just nasty blog material.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #96)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 11:00 PM

193. Also studies do show...

that mercury poisoning causes autism-like symptoms. With the developing brain in fetuses and children it's a matter of how much mercury can be tolerated before these symptoms begin to show. Sid Dithers simply can't argue against the fact that mercury is a known neurotoxin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #89)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 05:33 AM

197. Hey Spider Jerusalem...

here's a few scientific studies that may have also stoked fear about thimerosal:

Thimerosal Neurotoxicity is Associated with Glutathione Depletion: Protection with Glutathione Precursors.
Neurotoxicology, Jan 2005.
S. Jill James, PhD <University of Arkansas>.

This recent study demonstrates that Thimerosal lowers or inhibits the body's ability to produce Glutathione, an antioxidant and the body's primary cellular-level defense against mercury. Excerpt:

"Thimerosal-induced cytotoxicity was associated with depletion of intracellular Glutathione in both cell lines...The potential effect of Glutathione or N-acetylcysteine against mercury toxicity warrants further research as possible adjunct therapy to individuals still receiving Thimerosal-containing vaccines."


Uncoupling of ATP-mediated Calcium Signaling and Dysregulated IL-6 Secretion in Dendritic Cells by Nanomolar Thimerosal
Environmental Health Perspectives, July 2006.
Samuel R. Goth, Ruth A. Chu Jeffrey P. Gregg

This study demonstrates that very low-levels of Thimerosal can contribute to immune system disregulation. Excerpt:

"Our findings that DCs primarily express the RyR1 channel complex and that this complex is uncoupled by very low levels of THI with dysregulated IL-6 secretion raise intriguing questions about a molecular basis for immune dyregulation and the possible role of the RyR1 complex in genetic susceptibility of the immune system to mercury."


Activation of Methionine Synthase by Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 and Dopamine: a Target for Neurodevelopmental Toxins and Thimerosal.
Molecular Psychiatry, July 2004.
Richard C. Deth, PhD <Northeastern University>.

This study demonstrates how Thimerosal inhibits methylation, a central driver of cellular communication and development. Excerpt:

"The potent inhibition of this pathway <methylation> by ethanol, lead, mercury, aluminum, and thimerosal suggests it may be an important target of neurodevelopmental toxins."


Neurotoxic Effects of Postnatal Thimerosal are Mouse Strain Dependent.
Molecular Psychiatry, Sep 2004.
Mady Hornig, MD <Columbia University>.

This recent work by Columbia University Doctors explores whether genes are important in determining if mercury exposures akin to those in childhood immunizations can disrupt brain development and function. It is the first known scientific study done specifically on ethlymercury administered in a way similar to the vaccine schedule. Dr. Hornig discussed the study before Congress in September 2004. Excerpt:

"The premise of our research is that if mercury in vaccines creates risk for neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism, genetic differences are likely to contribute to that risk. Earlier studies, however, did not use the form of mercury present in vaccines, known as thimerosal, and did not consider whether intramuscular, repetitive administration during early postnatal development, when the brain and immune systems are still maturing, might intensify toxicity. Our predictions were confirmed. Using thimerosal dosages and timing that approximated the childhood immunization schedule, our model of postnatal thimerosal neurotoxicity demonstrated that the genes in mice that predict mercury-related immunotoxicity also predicted nuerodevelopmental damage. Features reminiscent of those observed in autism occurred in the mice of the genetically sensitive strain."


Thimerosal induces DNA breaks, Caspase-3 Activation, Membrane Damage, and Cell Death in Cultured Human Neurons and Fibroblasts.
Toxicological Science, 2003.
David S. Baskin, MD <Baylor College of Medicine>.

This study demonstrates the potent toxicity of Thimerosal on brain cells.

Organic Mercury Compounds and Autoimmunity.
Autoimmunity Review, 2005.
Said Havarinasab, MD <Linkoping University>.

This study demonstrates the clear link between ethylmercury <from Thimerosal> and autoimmune responses.


Mercury and autism: Accelerating Evidence?
Neuroendocrinology Letters, Oct 2005.
Joachim Mutter, M.D. <Freiburg University, Germany>.

This recent study from Germany summarizes many of the recent scientific advances. Excerpt:

"The causes of autism and neurodevelopmental disorders are unknown. Genetic and environmental risk factors seem to be involved...Repetitive doses of thimerosal leads to neurobehavioral deteriorations in autoimmune susceptible mice, increased oxidative stress and decreased intracellular levels of glutathione in vitro. Subsequently, autistic children have significantly decreased level of reduced glutathione. Promising treatments of autism involve detoxification of mercury, and supplementation of deficient metabolites."


Retrograde Degeneration of Neurite Membrane Structural Integrity of Nerve Growth In Vitro Exposure to Mercury.
NeuroReport, 2001.
Christopher Leong, MD <University of Calgary>.

This study shows how mercury damages brain cells.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #6)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 11:23 AM

112. Gee, I wonder if siddithers will come by and crap on my post?

For whatever reason, it's your wont.

My requests to you remain unanswered:

1. Show me where I post something that's not true.

2. Show me -- even just one example -- where you posted something critical of the BFEE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #112)

Thu Mar 7, 2013, 03:14 AM

309. I've asked Sid what he thinks of the following article...


but he doesn't seem to want to respond:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/27/politics/27VACC.html

Justice Dept. Seeks to Seal Vaccine Papers

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

Published: November 27, 2002

WASHINGTON, Nov. 26 — The Bush administration asked a federal claims court today to seal documents relating to hundreds of claims that a mercury-based preservative in vaccines, thimerosal, has caused autism and other neurological disorders in children.

Lawyers for the Justice Department asked for the protective order on behalf of Tommy G. Thompson, the secretary of health and human services, whose department administers a government fund to compensate people injured by vaccines.

A department spokesman said that the law creating the fund gives the secretary control over what information is released and that the government was merely trying to preserve that right.

...
Congressional Republicans inserted a provision into the domestic security bill, signed into law on Monday by President Bush, that is intended to protect Eli Lilly, thimerosal's manufacturer, from lawsuits over the preservative. The provision would force families to seek compensation through the vaccine court instead of civil courts

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #309)

Fri Mar 8, 2013, 07:33 PM

316. Bush and Quayle families owned stock in Eli Lilly,

but I guess the court saw no conflict of interest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #6)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 08:16 PM

139. And uses, again, the flimisiest of pretexts to talk about a fifty year old crime that was solved

within days of its commission, and for which there has never been one legitimate or credible speck of evidence to debunk the findings of the first investigative body that looked into it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #6)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 06:10 PM

175. Hey Sid, do you even know what Thimerosal is?

it's a mercury-containing preservative, and according to the CDC:

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/thimerosal/

in July 1999, the Public Health Service agencies, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and vaccine manufacturers agreed that thimerosal should be reduced or eliminated in vaccines as a precautionary measure.


Looks like RFK, Jr. isn't such a crackpot after all.

Even as recently as November 2012, such "crackpots" have been testifying before Congress:

http://www.safeminds.org/news/safeminds-and-house-committee.html

Over the years, SafeMinds has established a professional relationship with the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (COGR) due to its ongoing interest in autism. Since 2000, six SafeMinds board members have testified before COGR, its precursors or subcommittees, in hearings regarding mercury, vaccines and the autism epidemic. The most recent hearing took place on November 29, 2012. SafeMinds was asked to testify and Mark Blaxill represented us. We consider this hearing to be a positive step forward. The feedback on the hearing that we received both publicly and privately was overwhelmingly positive and supportive. Due to the efforts of parents who brought their injured children to the hearing room, Committee members got a firsthand look at the devastation impacting hundreds of thousands. Several Representatives commented on how many constituent families had been in touch with them about the hearing – many of them mentioning vaccine injury specifically. Members were able to see for themselves how ineffectual Federal agencies have been. Vaccines and autism were linked repeatedly in the congressional record.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #175)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 07:03 PM

179. Hey AntiFascist. I do. Do you?...

Your use of safeminds as a source lends me to believe you really don't.

At least you didn't use ageofautism or generationrescue.

Sid


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #179)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 07:47 PM

180. So let me get this straight...

would you deny that thimerosal contains any mercury, or do you feel that small amounts of mercury are safe to consume? As in, its ok for small children to consume up to 3 oz of albacore tuna per month, but the EPA does not recommend any more than that due to the trace levels of mercury. Also, are you aware that mercury exposure is cumulative and that autism is epidemic?

Please note that I cited the CDC as a source and that the American Academy of Pediatrics, Public Health Service Agencies, and even vaccine manufacturers would seem to be in agreement with RFK, Jr, at least as a precautionary measure. I would say that he is in pretty solid company.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #180)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 08:33 PM

182. A can of tuna contains 2 1/2 times as much mercury as a vaccine with thimerosal...

Amount of thimerosal in a single dose of H1N1 vaccine = 50 ug...

(Using the Canadian data for unadjuvanted H1N1 vaccine, for adjuvanted vaccine, it's only 5ug)

So, since thimerosal is 50% mercury, there is 25ug of mercury per dose.

Amount of mercury in a can of tuna fish = 60 ug (.5ppm allowable x 120g of tuna/can)



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=76214&mesg_id=76240

But all of that is completely beside the point. There is no link between thimerosal and autism, and that is what RFK Jr. Is claiming. He's simply wrong.

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #182)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 09:18 PM

185. And again I point out that mercury exposure is cumulative...

so a can of tuna contains about 3 2oz servings, which is less mercury per serving than a dose from your vaccine. So, at what point can we say that a child has reached the unsafe threshold?

How many government sources do I have cite on this? Here's what the FDA has to say:

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228

As part of the FDAMA review, the FDA evaluated the amount of mercury an infant might receive in the form of ethylmercury from vaccines under the U.S. recommended childhood immunization schedule and compared these levels with existing guidelines for exposure to methylmercury, as there are no existing guidelines for ethylmercury, the metabolite of thimerosal. At the time of this review in 1999, the maximum cumulative exposure to mercury from vaccines in the recommended childhood immunization schedule was within acceptable limits for the methylmercury exposure guidelines set by FDA, ATSDR, and WHO. However, depending on the vaccine formulations used and the weight of the infant, some infants could have been exposed to cumulative levels of mercury during the first six months of life that exceeded EPA recommended guidelines for safe intake of methylmercury.

As a precautionary measure, the Public Health Service (including the FDA, National Institutes of Health (NIH), Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) and the American Academy of Pediatrics issued two Joint Statements, urging vaccine manufacturers to reduce or eliminate thimerosal in vaccines as soon as possible (CDC 1999) and (CDC 2000). The U.S. Public Health Service agencies have collaborated with various investigators to initiate further studies to better understand any possible health effects from exposure to thimerosal in vaccines.
...
A weak association was found with thimerosal intake and certain neurodevelopmental disorders (such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) in one study, but was not found in a subsequent study. Additional studies are planned in these areas.

...
The FDA is continuing its efforts to reduce the exposure of infants, children, and pregnant women to mercury from various sources. Discussions with the manufacturers of influenza virus vaccines (which are now routinely recommended for pregnant women and children 6-23 months of age) regarding their capacity to potentially increase the supply of thimerosal-reduced and thimerosal-free presentations are ongoing. Discussions are also underway with regard to other vaccines. Of note, all hepatitis B vaccines for the U.S., including for adults, are now available only as thimerosal-free or trace-thimerosal-containing formulations. In addition, all immune globulin preparations including hepatitis B immune globulin, and Rho(D) immune globulin preparations are manufactured without thimerosal. For additional information on the issue of thimerosal in vaccines, see Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs).




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #185)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 09:36 PM

186. I couldn't find where the FDA said there's a link between thimerosal and autism...

Can you please highlight that part in the link you posted?

I did see this. Maybe you missed it.

In 2004, the IOM's Immunization Safety Review Committee issued its final report, examining the hypothesis that vaccines, specifically the MMR vaccines and thimerosal containing vaccines, are causally associated with autism. In this report, the committee incorporated new epidemiological evidence from the U.S., Denmark, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, and studies of biologic mechanisms related to vaccines and autism since its report in 2001. The committee concluded that this body of evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism, and that hypotheses generated to date concerning a biological mechanism for such causality are theoretical only. Further, the committee stated that the benefits of vaccination are proven and the hypothesis of susceptible populations is presently speculative, and that widespread rejection of vaccines would lead to increases in incidences of serious infectious diseases like measles, whooping cough and Hib bacterial meningitis.


Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #186)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 09:52 PM

187. and yet, the FDA is continuing its efforts to reduce the exposure...

of infants, children and pregnant women to mercury from various sources. "Discussions with the manufacturers of influenza virus vaccines (which are now routinely recommended for pregnant women and children 6-23 months of age) regarding their capacity to potentially increase the supply of thimerosal-reduced and thimerosal-free presentations are ongoing."

I think you've lost sight of your original argument, Sid, that RFK, Jr. must be a crackpot for pointing out the potential dangers of cumulative mercury exposure from vaccines. Clearly he is not if the FDA itself is taking this danger seriously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #187)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 10:00 PM

189. RFK jr is talking about a link between thimerosal and autism...

Why do you keep trying to change the subject away from that?

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #189)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 10:39 PM

191. The FDA is concerned about the link between mercury levels and neuropathology...

which is essentially the same thing, why do you keep changing the subject away from that? The studies you cite relate to a direct causal link, but they are not taking into account the cumulative effects from all sources of mercury. This is why the FDA is still taking precautionary measures with respect to thimerosal, the thinking being that all sources of mercury are bad for neurodevelopment, particularly with fetuses, infants, and young children. As I cited in a previous post, the cumulative effect from vaccines alone may be above what is considered safe in some instances.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:37 PM

7. I'd love to see this, but there's no way that staunch corporatist Charlie Rose

would air anything that veered out of his narrow comfort zone so much.

I watch him pretty regularly, and he rarely invites anyone who really has anything outside the approved range of opinions. I wait for the off-the-wall moments.

The best thing that I've seen recently is a three person panel consisting of the newest semi-neocon foreign policy poppet, someone from the Bush II administration and Z-big Brezhinski.

The topic was funneling weapons to whomever in Syria so long as they oppose Assad. Of course the bushie and the poppet were all for it. Charlie seemed sympathetic. Then Z-big shat all over the three of them (verbally, of course) and wouldn't stop. Z-big said that once you give these jerks the weapons, you are responsible for what they do and accomplish with them. Charlie was pretty shaken and didn't seem to want to engage the Big Z after that.

Of course, Z-big found out about that the hard way and has to live with himself for it.

I love it when the Big Z flattens Joe Scar, too. It's worth watching the show when he's on just to see what happens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amandabeech (Reply #7)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 01:39 AM

23. The guy puts on a real show, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Last edited Sat Feb 23, 2013, 02:12 AM - Edit history (1)

The Scottish Play demonstrated the role belief and the ideas underneath their creation have upon the course of kingdoms. In our time, the incessant yabbing of the mass media shape us from our first days to our last.

Thank you for the excellent reminder of Mr Rose and his service to Corporate McPravda. His discussions with "Presidential Historian" Michael Beschloss were especially troubling for me, exercises in hagiography of Reagan with no mention of the man's ties to organized crime.

Even in cases of suspicious death, the press does as it's told. The ultraconservative Mr Scarborough got a pass Lori Klausutis:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2823029

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:42 PM

10. But most of the population believes that JFK's assassination was a conspiracy, regardless.

 

So I guess we're a nation of conspiracy theorists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #10)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 11:08 AM

33. In 1964 Britain, Lord Bertrand Russell asked about the failure of the press...

"No U.S. television program or mass circulation newspaper has challenged the permanent basis of all the allegations—that Oswald was the assassin, and that he acted alone. It is a task which is left to the American people."

SOURCE: http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics/russell/sixteen_questions_russell.html


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #33)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 05:30 PM

71. Bertrand Russell, one of the century's greatest philosophers & mathematicians?

He's just another idiot! We've got some people on this thread with CAPSLOCK disease and inability to use apostrophes properly who are a lot smarter than him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #71)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 06:38 PM

76. The "idiot" "smack addict" who actually believes Ohio was stolen in 2004 guy.

Odd how when I ask them to show JUST ONE instance where they have posted something on DU critical of the BFEE, they can't.

But, oh can they ever find fault with anyone who won't go along with the plan that Bush and company are just, eh, incompetent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:45 PM

11. Been thoroughly debunked by respectable people and publications.

 

Everyone needs to let it go already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EastKYLiberal (Reply #11)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 11:50 PM

12. Respectable people

care more for their careers and status than they do for truth. That's what makes them so "respectable".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EastKYLiberal (Reply #11)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 04:55 AM

28. Not so much, no.

When every debunker has his own very different theory, that's not science, that's politics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EastKYLiberal (Reply #11)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 12:32 PM

40. "Respectable people" like those who have much to hide? The same folks who are enmeshed....

...with the Top 1%?

Just curious, but what is your definition of the word "respectable"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 11:57 PM

13. The OP is about the media non-coverage.

I'd at least like to see the audience reaction on the Charlie Rose video.

Poll: Distrust in media hits new high (ok it's a Gallup poll, so give or take ten points)
September 21, 2012
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57517656-503544/poll-distrust-in-media-hits-new-high/

Cable snooze sold the Iraq war, but that was everyday free-market persuasion, not wacko stuff.

Hardly anybody knows that CNN broadcast fake scud attacks during the first Gulf War, but that was just ordinary patriotic lying.



Same for the Jessica Lynch story and the incubator-babies story and the More-Doctors-Recommend-Brand-X-Cigarettes ads. Public Relations slanting is good for you!

I can't find anyone who ever heard of the 1999 Martin Luther King assassination conspiracy trial, but that's because the thirty-year family odyssey led by a close personal friend of MLK as plaintiff lawyer culminating in a three week trial in Memphis with seventy witnesses resulting in a verdict contested by the Department of Justice was such a boring human-interest story that it couldn't sell any commercials in a country where everybody loves conspiracies
http://www.thekingcenter.org/assassination-conspiracy-trial

Conspiracy Theory Rock - Saturday Night Live, 1998


Maybe it's all better now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnnyreb (Reply #13)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 11:55 AM

34. Bill Moyers: '... it is quite revealing that it's Oliver Stone that's forcing Congress to open up...

"...the files and not The Washington Post, The New York Times, or CBS."

The above quote is at the end of an important media analysis:



JFK: HOW THE MEDIA ASSASSINATED THE REAL STORY*

Robert Hennelly and Jerry Policoff

(Editor's Note: Robert Hennelly and Jerry Policoff trace
the role of the media, especially THE NEW YORK TIMES,
TIME-LIFE, and CBS, in distorting and misrepresenting
information about the death of JFK to the American people,
another sad chapter in dereliction of duty by the press.)

EXCERPT...

In its very first issue after the assassination, Life seriously misrepresented the content of the Zapruder film, a practice that would continue until the film finally gained general release in 1975. The doctors at Parkland Hospital, who had worked on the president, had reported that he had suffered an "apparent" entrance wound to the throat. Since the book depository, from which Oswald had allegedly fired, was to the presidential limousine's rear, how, some were beginning to wonder, did the president suffer a frontal throat wound? Life's December 6, 1963, edition gave a simple and conclusive explanation, based on the Zapruder film, an answer only Life could provide. Wrote Life: "The 8mm (Zapruder) film shows the President turning his body far around to the right as he waves to someone in the crowd. His throat is exposed to the sniper's nest just before he clutches it." This description of the Zapruder film went a long way toward allaying fears of conspiracy in those early days, for it explained away a troublesome inconsistency in the lone assassin scenario. There was only one problem: The description of the Zapruder film was a total fabrication. Although the film shows Kennedy turning to the right--toward the grassy knoll, that is--at no time does he turn 180 degrees toward the book depository. Indeed, by the time he is hit, he is once again turning toward the front.

SNIP...

According to an FBI memo obtained by the Voice," it didn't take the FBI or the Justice Department long to get the the press under control. On November 25, 1963, the White House learned that The Washington Post planned an editorial calling for the convening of a presidential commission to investigate the assassination. Though Lyndon Johnson planned to do just that, the strategy was to get the FBI report out first. The memo states that Katzenbach called Washington Post editor Russell Wiggins and told him that "the Department of Justice seriously hoped that the Washington Post would not encourage any specific means" by which the facts should be made available to the public. The memo also describes a conversation an FBI agent had with Al Friendly, The Washington Post's managing editor, discouraging publication of the editorial and suggesting that it would "merely `muddy the waters' and would create further confusion and hysteria." The editorial never appeared. Later that day Hoover triumphantly boasted in another FBI memo that "I called Mr. Walter Jenkins at the White House and advised him that we had killed the editorial in the Post." The FBI had the electronic media wired as well. A December 11, 1963, teletype from the FBI office in New York to J. Edgar Hoover indicates that NBC had given the bureau assurances that it would "televise only those items which are in consonance with bureau report (on the assassination)." The eight-page FBI message details the substance of NBC's research, including the development of leads. "NBC has movie film taken at some one hundred and fifty feet showing a Dallas Police Dept. officer rushing into book depository building while most of police and Secret Service were rushing up an incline towards railroad trestle (in front of the motorcade)."

SOURCE: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/mediaassassination.html



The article includes a special mention of the role played by John J. McCloy in the CBS side of things. Incredible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #34)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 08:19 PM

141. Another excellent post! Bookmarked! nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 12:14 AM

14. Don't trust the ... Media

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blkmusclmachine (Reply #14)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 02:49 PM

58. American mass media are tools of propaganda for the State (read: Ownership Class)

To help spread light, Maria Galardin's TUC (Time of Useful Consciousness) Radio:



Alex Carey: Corporations and Propaganda
The Attack on Democracy


The 20th century, said Carey, is marked by three historic developments: the growth of democracy via the expansion of the franchise, the growth of corporations, and the growth of propaganda to protect corporations from democracy. Carey wrote that the people of the US have been subjected to an unparalleled, expensive, 3/4 century long propaganda effort designed to expand corporate rights by undermining democracy and destroying the unions. And, in his manuscript, unpublished during his life time, he described that history, going back to World War I and ending with the Reagan era. Carey covers the little known role of the US Chamber of Commerce in the McCarthy witch hunts of post WWII and shows how the continued campaign against "Big Government" plays an important role in bringing Reagan to power.

John Pilger called Carey "a second Orwell", Noam Chomsky dedicated his book, Manufacturing Consent, to him. And even though TUC Radio runs our documentary based on Carey's manuscript at least every two years and draws a huge response each time, Alex Carey is still unknown.

Given today's spotlight on corporations that may change. It is not only the Occupy movement that inspired me to present this program again at this time. By an amazing historic coincidence Bill Moyers and Charlie Cray of Greenpeace have just added the missing chapter to Carey's analysis. Carey's manuscript ends in 1988 when he committed suicide. Moyers and Cray begin with 1971 and bring the corporate propaganda project up to date.

This is a fairly complex production with many voices, historic sound clips, and source material. The program has been used by writers and students of history and propaganda. Alex Carey: Taking the Risk out of Democracy, Corporate Propaganda VS Freedom and Liberty with a foreword by Noam Chomsky was published by the University of Illinois Press in 1995.

SOURCE: http://tucradio.org/new.html



If you find a moment, here's the first part (scroll down at the link for the second part) on Carey.

http://tucradio.org/AlexCarey_ONE.mp3

Helps explain how we got here and what we need to do to move forward, starting with putting the "Public" into Airwaves again, such as their once-Constitutional obligation required.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 12:57 AM

18. And it can't be discussed here ether.

Cause once someone calls it a CT it is then "crazy talk"....cause it is crazy to question the official story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #18)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 01:20 AM

22. Yep....ask Octafish what happens when somebody starts a thread that....

...gets labeled by a complainer as a "CT".

Don't you know conspiracies only happen in other countries?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 02:52 AM

25. Betsy lewis: so ignorant she doesn't know it's "Hear, hear" not "Here, here".

 

she does her editing with spell-check, apparently.

and note the gratuitous dig at baby boomers.

lewis is probably a young thing who got into 'journalism' after it became celebrity gossip and bootlicking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #25)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 12:28 PM

38. Yeah, I live in Dallas and read the Observer quite often...

I can tell you it's pretty much their shtick to write dismissively about certain stories, and they've been well known to be dismissive of JFK "conspiracy theories".

Betsy probably thinks that her writing is clever in a chichi sort of way that will be attractive to her readers, but it's hard to be chichi when you can't even use the correct word in your writing, then you just look like a silly poser.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tex-wyo-dem (Reply #38)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 09:54 PM

152. Here! Here!

And she used the wrong word numerous times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 02:54 AM

26. Even if JFK was the victim of a hit team, the fact is nobody went to prison.

If we assume that this was a hit job and that it was an assembled team of hit men who took out JFK, the bottom line is they all got away. The money men who financed it got away. The greasers and operators who turned the idea into an operational plan and assembled the team got away. They all got away.

Most if not all of them are dead of old age by now. Oswald being shot ensured that there wouldn't even be a trial of just him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Selatius (Reply #26)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 05:01 AM

29. Yes, and maybe someday we'll track the payoffs.

I note we haven't had a political small plane crash in years. I'm thinking the master mechanic for those specials is dead.

This country won't be back on track until the the handmade suit criminals go to jail in large numbers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Selatius (Reply #26)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 01:53 PM

51. How long do you really think the hit team lived after completing their task in Dealey Plaza? nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 05:56 AM

30. Can't fault the media -

- as there's nothing new here. Unless RFK had new evidence, what he thought really doesn't mean a thing. He's not here to say it himself, doubt he left any writings on his opinion as we would have seen them.

All we have here is his children passing on their father's opinion some 50 years later without any evidence that RFK held that opinion, much less any evidence to provide proof of his theory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lynne (Reply #30)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 11:29 AM

113. Yes, I can.

Three Things Every American Should Know About Corporate McPravda



Professional Liar by susan m hinckley.

The official voice of the Republikkkon Party also seems the official voice of Big Media:

ABC and the rise of Rush Limbaugh

The other thing the great Carl Bernstein reported should've got him another Pulitzer:

The CIA and the Media

His old paper still hits a homer on occasion, most recently on how the Government has privatized Secret Government:

Top Secret America: A Hidden World.

America's mass media were virtually silent about that series, too.

And that is why our nation creeps, literally and figuratively, rightward toward the "national security state" Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. described to Charlie Rose.

PS: This post really has four things everyone should know about Corporate McPravda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #113)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 12:29 PM

118. Sure. You can. -

- but it will do you no good. Not many are interested in 50 year old opinion that contains no new information and no documentation that the opinion even belonged to RFK. Just because RFK's children said it doesn't make it newsworthy. And that's why the media is ignoring it.

And what's with all the extra stuff and links in your response? Your thread topic is about RFK's supposed opinion of JFK's assassination. Can't get many to agree on your initial topic so you're pulling out all your guns now? We call that "changing horses in the middle of the stream" where I come from.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lynne (Reply #118)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 01:18 PM

120. +100 n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lynne (Reply #118)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 09:05 AM

199. I don't care if even one person didn't agree with me, lynne. I'll continue to post on JFK, RFK, MLK.

Why? For their sake, for the country's sake, and for Justice.

You may or may not be old enough to remember JFK, but the nation and world you live in today is all about that day almost 50 years ago. In the time of the greatest economic expansion in human history, it is only the rich who get richer. The poor get poorer and the middle class is squeezed into penury, followed by poverty. There's little money to fix the nation's problems, from creating jobs to providing healthcare, from fixing the problems of poverty to providing a quality education for all. And, even more importantly, in today's world, money trumps peace.

BTW: The information about Three Things Every American Should Know About Corporate McPravda is all about why, when you turn on your tee vee or open your newspaper, you won't find much about any of that, let alone any content or context supporting liberal and progressive causes, let alone democracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #199)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 09:25 AM

201. Thank you. Your posts are important and significant to many thinking people.

 

The energy expended by others to squelch what you are saying, and squelch what others are thinking, shows that your posts are also important to them as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #201)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 12:13 PM

301. Yeah.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lynne (Reply #118)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 05:23 AM

285. you can write that with a straight face? anderson fucking vanderbilt cooper did hours on

 

some casey-anthony-like murder that's absolutely irrelevant to anyone;s life but her own family -- and you can say that rfk's children saying he believed jfk's murder was a conspiracy isn't news anyone would be interested in?

jesus christ, to see what passes for 'news' these days. celebrity gossip, murderesses, teachers having sex with kids --

but gee, there's just no interest in the kennedy assassination at all. nope, nope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #285)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 06:59 PM

288. But but ... FBI Releases Whitney Houston Records

It's big news on Yahoo.com right now ... not to discount Whitney's legacy, loved her music etc ... but come on. I wasn't even aware of some extortion attempt to do with her in 1992? Not something think I will investigate further, unlike the CIA documents to do with the JFK assassination others have been after for the last 50 years ... Not News.

For what it's worth Whitney Link here ... News ... cheers
http://music.yahoo.com/news/fbi-releases-whitney-houston-records-213550270-rolling-stone.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doublethink (Reply #288)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 07:08 PM

290. the whitney houston files!!! news you can use!!!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #290)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 08:45 PM

291. Posting the whole importent story for ya ... :) ...

because it's less then 4 paragraphs long which is allowed by DU rules, with emphasis added by me on the so called 'important parts'. In my humble opinion the only relevant part of the article is in the middle ... '100 greatest singers and a link'

FBI Releases Whitney Houston Records

The FBI has released its records regarding three investigations conducted by the bureau on behalf of Whitney Houston. The files show the FBI investigated an alleged extortion attempt in 1992 but determined no crime occurred. Agents also looked into possible criminal threats against Houston in fan mail sent to the FBI in 1988 and 1999, but found no evidence of the threats.

>>>>100 Greatest Singers: Whitney Houston (some link in the middle of the page (commercial), which I think is the basis of this 'news' to take you elsewhere and take up more of your valuable time, and I bet will try to sell you something )<<<<

According to the Associated Press, the 128-page file doesn't contain any new personal details of the late singer. Though Houston was interviewed at the New Jersey offices of her management company regarding the extortion attempt, the FBI's records on the investigation are heavily redacted.

Houston was found dead on February 11th, 2012. Her death was ruled an accidental drowning, but authorities also said her death was complicated by cocaine use and heart disease.


I think the reason this so called 'story' and many like it makes headlines is because if you were even in the most remote possibility mindful of it or not , would at least deflect you to an add or make you buy some music, or deflect you to some ad etc... etc... It is so obvious, yikes. Sorry folks but this is not 'News' Imho ... but another way of dumbing down of society and trying to sell you something ... there just is no news here none whatsoever. And stuff like this is all over the internet and in the MSM, what a sad absurdity ... sigh carry on. http://music.yahoo.com/news/fbi-releases-whitney-houston-records-213550270-rolling-stone.html

again

ps: big surprise there, the FBI found nothing, or said they didn't ... like that's even news lol. Peace.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lynne (Reply #30)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 06:39 PM

177. Oh, but he did conduct his own investigations...

which may have been turned over to foreign investigators and published as a best selling book throughout Europe, yet not allowed into the US until recently. Funny how Americans have been so sheltered and isolated by their own media. Corporate McPravda indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #177)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 09:17 AM

200. Thank you, AntiFascist.

TV and the U.S. news media are notorious for telling one side, since November 22, 1963.

To gauge this for a class in grad school I briefly attended, I conducted a content analysis examining bias in The New York Times' coverage of the 30th anniversary of the assassination.

We examined every article o the assassination the "paper of record" published months of October and November, 1993. The three Coders were asked to read and gauge each article and state if they found each article pro-conspiracy (support HSCA), pro-lone gunman (support Warren Commission), or neutral (neither or both positions).

The results found fully three-fourths of the paper's space was devoted to the subject went to Gerald Posner's "Case Closed," a book of shoddy scholarship that supported the Warren Commission. A higher percentage was in support of the Warren Commission.

It would be interesting to conduct a similar study this year -- extended to broadcast, print and popular web sites.

PS: Thanks for standing up in this fight. Geesh. More than 10 years now on DU. How fast the time flies and how long Their lies last.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #200)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 07:24 PM

207. Thank you for all that you do Octafish...

if it wasn't for your detailed threads on DU, many of us would still be in the dark concerning much of right-wing treachery.

I keep going back to the book "Farewell America: The Plot to Kill JFK" as not only being one of the first books detailing a JFK conspiracy, but also reflecting RFK's personal beliefs, and there may have been plans to publish it in the US to assist RFK's run for president.

http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/24th_Issue/biblio_alph.html

Farewell America, by "James Hepburn"
1968. This curious book describes, seemingly from an insider's point of view, a plot to kill Kennedy that was hatched by ultra-right wing elements within the United States. The principal villains are Texas oilmen. Though appearing under the the byline "James Hepburn," Farewell America is believed to have been written by members of General Charles De Gaulle's intelligence squad, at the behest of Robert Kennedy. How trustworthy is it? We don't know, but it's definitely a collector's item.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 10:29 AM

31. The conspiracy theories will not go away until they release all of the JFK

materials. That and all of the info related to the Warren Commission.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blackspade (Reply #31)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 01:41 PM

48. The conspiracy theories will not go away, period

... because as Jonathan Swift noted, you can't reason someone out of a belief that wasn't based on reason in the first place. JFK conspiracy theories are based on paranoid speculation and the religious belief that all the evidence that tells a different story "must" be fake, and all the "real" evidence was covered up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blackspade (Reply #31)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 11:34 AM

114. Morley v CIA gets heard this week.

Morley v. CIA: Why I sued for JFK assassination records

by Jefferson Morley

EXCERPT...

These files contain a story about JFK’s assassination that is embarrassing to the CIA in 2013, the 50th anniversary year of JFK’s death. The CIA does not want the government of Cuba talking about this story. They don’t want President Kennedy’s only surviving child, Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg, to know it. They don’t want JFK’s outspoken nephew, Bobby Kennedy Jr., talking about. And they certainly don’t want the general public to know about it.

The story does not reflect well on a leading figure in the annals of the CIA, former director Richard Helms, who was a colleague of President Kennedy and Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy in 1963.

Here’s the story:

George Joannides, chief of CIA “psychological warfare” operations against the government of Cuba in 1963.
In the summer of 1963, one of Helms’ subordinates, George Joannides, was running highly-classified “psychological warfare” operations aimed at discrediting Castro’s supporters in the United States. Using the alias “Howard,” he funded the Cuban Student DIrectorate, a prominent anti-Castro organization in Miami, under a covert CIA program called AMSPELL.

Joannides was not a rogue operator. He was a forerunner of those CIA officers who worked with the Iraqi National Congress (INC) in the run-up to the war in Iraq in 2002. During the Bush years, the INC was a U.S.-funded exile group that supported a U.S. policy of “regime change.” That is precisely what the Cuban Student DIrectorate/AMSPELL was in 1963.

In other words, Joannides was carrying out U.S. policy in 1963. Based in Miami with chapters all over the Americas, the Directorate/AMSPELL was a large organization effective in spreading the message that Castro should be overthrown. CIA records show that Joannides gave the group $51,000 a month in 1963 (the equivalent of $3.6 million annually in today’s dollars). As I reported for Miami New TImes back in 2001, Joannides specialized in using the group to combat pro-Castro groups in the United States.

CONTINUED...

http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/morley-v-cia-why-i-sued-for-jfk-assassination-records/#more-3117

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 10:48 AM

32. Sorry, but, no

there's no story there. Bobby Kennedy was Attorney General at the time that the Warren Commission was convened. He had it within his power to significantly affect the investigation and to not accept the conclusions; he did not do so. He was in fact supportive in public of the conclusions of the Warren Commission. The inconvenient bit of the whole "RFK believed in a conspiracy" thing, for our latter-day conspiracy nutters, is the fact that if he did, it wasn't the sort of conspiracy they believe in. If RFK believed it was a conspiracy? He believed it was a Communist conspiracy. The KGB, or Castro, and probably the latter, given that he was intimately aware of the CIA's Operation Mongoose. So the reason he never said anything, even if he thought it? The Cuban Missile Crisis was a year in the past. The possibility of a very real war with the Soviets or Cuba was in the offing if the American public thought that an American president had been assassinated as a result of some Communist conspiracy. Never mind that the CIA had been attempting without success to assassinate Castro on multiple occasions, by then; if RFK's suspicions had been correct it would only have been what Malcolm X called "chickens coming home to roost".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #32)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 11:47 AM

115. The news CIA hired the Mob to assassinate Castro made big headlines in 1975.

What made little headlines was that the program began in 1960.



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

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

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

EXCERPT...

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Yes."

"Did it bother you at all?"

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

CONTINUED...

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



What made no headlines is who was in charge of the CIA when they hired the Mafia to kill Castro also was on the Warren Commission, Allen Dulles.

What a small world. Dulles also was a longtime business associate of Prescott Bush, father of George Herbert Walker Bush and grandfather of George Walker Bush.

That never made a headline, either. Why that is, I don't know. But I think it's important for people in a democracy to know about these ties, especially when the spooks are in bed with the Mob.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 12:05 PM

35. I think it's pretty simple:

It doesn't matter WHO believes it, or even how many, but WHY. What special insight do these particular people have? None, apparently.

Not that you'll be interested in my suggestions, but you could take a step back towards reality if you'd stop inventing reasons why so many people don't find your conspiracy speculations to be convincing. The simple reason is that many people agree that the Warren Commission reached the only conclusion that could be supported by the credible evidence -- whether or not it's "the whole truth" being a different story, just like virtually every murder investigation. If you've got a better story, you should be able to prove it, and then you won't need to worry about who doesn't accept it. One of the most annoying and obnoxious things about conspiracists is that they try to puff up their weak arguments by pretending that they are so overwhelming, you'd have to be ignorant or stupid to reject them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #35)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 12:37 PM

41. +1

"Credible evidence" being the key words.
But congrats to RFK jr for finding another way to garner some publicity.
Perhaps he will bring more to the table then what he was supposedly told?
Doubt it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #35)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 01:54 PM

52. Thank you. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 01:01 PM

44. That's because the facts don't support it

and I DON'T believe RFK believed in a "conspiracy."

Sorry. Making a bunch of idiotic statements 50 years after the fact by relatives doesn't cut it for me.

Simple facts don't show anybody other than Oswald committed the murders of Kennedy and Officer Tippit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duffyduff (Reply #44)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 08:18 PM

85. You mean the "facts" presented in the Warren Commission? Seriously?? nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 02:21 PM

54. Yet the 'mass media' couldn't keep Oliver Stone from making his film.

It didn't keep Garrison or Lane or Lifton or Prouty or dozens of others from publishing books advocating a conspiracy point of view.

A single smartassed article from the Dallas Observer negates all that?

If you guys are really 80% of the country, why the persecution complex?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nyquil_man (Reply #54)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 02:26 PM

55. Some folks are deeply invested in their belief of a conspiracy.

Some even believe Oswald may have been a hero!

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

That's what happens when you fall too far into the woo chamber, I suppose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #55)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 03:01 PM

62. I guess I don't get it.

We know there are doubts about the case against Oswald. That has been thoroughly covered. Hell, the idea of Oswald as a hero started with his mother. Even that's not new.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nyquil_man (Reply #54)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 01:21 PM

121. They did try their damndest to shut him and the film down, though.

The media were furious in their attempt to discredit the director and his film six months BEFORE release in theaters.



Why they hate Oliver Stone

By Sam Smith
From the Progressive Review, February 1992

In a hysterical stampede unusual even for the media herd, scores of journalists have taken time off from their regular occupations -- such as boosting the Democrats' most conservative presidential candidate, extolling free trade or judging other countries by their progress towards American-style oligopoly -- to launch an offensive against what is clearly perceived to be the major internal threat to the Republic: a movie-maker named Oliver Stone.

Stone, whose alleged crime was the production of a film called JFK, has been compared to Hitler and Goebbels and to David Duke and Louis Farrakhan. The movie's thesis has been declared akin to alleged conspiracies by the Freemasons, the Bavarian Illuminati, the League of Just Men and the Elders of Zion.

The film has been described as a "three hour lie from an intellectual sociopath." Newsweek ran a cover story headlined: "Why Oliver Stone's New Movie Can't Be Trusted." Another critic accused Stone of "contemptible citizenship," which is about as close to an accusation of treason as the libel laws will permit. Meanwhile, Leslie Gelb, with best New York Times pomposity, settled for declaring that the "torments" of Presidents Kennedy and Johnson over Vietnam "are not to be trifled with by Oliver Stone or anyone."

The attack began months before the movie even appeared, with the leaking of a first draft of the film. By last June, the film had been excoriated by the Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, and Time magazine. These critics, at least, had at least seen something; following the release of the film, NPR's Cokie Roberts took the remarkable journalistic stance of refusing to screen it at all because it was so awful.

Well, maybe not so remarkable, because the overwhelming sense one gets from the critical diatribes is one of denial, of defense of non-knowledge, of fierce clinging to a story that even some of the Stone's most vehement antagonists have to confess, deep in their articles, may not be correct.

Stephen Rosenfeld of the Washington Post, for example, states seven paragraphs into his commentary:

That the assassination probably encompassed more than a lone gunman now seems beyond cavil.


If there was more than one gunman, it follows that there was a conspiracy of some sort and it follows that the Warren Commission was incorrect. It should follow also that journalists writing about the Kennedy assassination should be more interested in what actually did happen than in dismissing every Warren Commission critic as a paranoid. Yet, from the start, the media has been a consistent promoter of the thesis that Rosenfeld now says is wrong beyond cavil.

In fact, not one of the journalistic attacks on the film that I have seen makes any effort to explain convincingly what did happen in Dallas that day. They either explicitly or implicitly defend the Warren Commission or dismiss its inaccuracy as a mere historic curiosity.

CONTINUED...

http://prorev.com/stone.htm



That was 1992. We've learned much since then, most of which refutes Warren Commission.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #121)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 03:38 PM

123. That article says nothing about anyone trying to shut Stone down.

Are you arguing that Stone's opinion should be immune from criticism?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nyquil_man (Reply #123)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 04:44 PM

125. The entire article is about the hostile media reaction to Stone.

Contrast the treatment of Oliver Stone with that given to lone gunman theorist Gerald Posner:



Michael Parenti on Oliver Stone's "JFK" and Gerald Posner's "Case Closed"

From: Louis Proyect
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 17:36:05 -0800

Michael Parenti, "History as Mystery":

Celebrities aside, who are the other writers whose books win special

EXCERPT...

An end run around the media blackout was achieved by Oliver Stone's film
JFK. Released in late 1991, the movie exposed millions of viewers to the
many disturbing aspects of the assassination. JFK was repeatedly attacked
seven months before it was released, in just about every major print and
broadcast outlet, usually in the most caustic and general terms. The
media's ideological gatekeepers poured invective upon Stone, while avoiding
the more difficult task of rebutting the substantive points made in his
film, and without ever coming to grips with the critical historical
literature upon which the movie drew. A full exposure of the assassination
conspiracy, that might unearth CIA or military intelligence involvement,
would cast serious discredit upon the nation?s major institutions.

Oliver Stone's JFK continued to be attacked years after its initial run.
Stone was pilloried as a "ranting maniac" and a "dangerous fellow," guilty
of "near-pathological monkeying with history." The idea of a conspiracy in
high places was ridiculed as a fanciful scenario that sprang from the
imagination of a filmmaker. Like the Warren Commission, the press assumed a
priori that Oswald was the lone killer. In 1978, when a House Select
Committee concluded that there was more than one assassin involved in the
Kennedy shooting, the Washington Post editorialized that there still
probably was no conspiracy, but possibly "three or four societal outcasts"
who acted independently of each other spontaneously and simultaneously to
shoot the president. Instead of a conspiracy theory the Post created a
coincidence theory that might be the most fanciful explanation of all.

Meanwhile, in answer to the question, Did Oswald act alone? most
independent investigators concluded that he did not act at all. He was not
one of the people who shot Kennedy, although he was involved in another
way, in his own words as "a patsy," concluded the critics.

In the wake of the public's renewed interest in the Kennedy assassination,
the media bestowed fulsome publicity on one Gerald Posner, a little-known
NewYork lawyer and writer, helping to catapult his book, Case Closed, onto
the national bestseller list. Posner's book ignored the abundant evidence
of conspiracy and cover-up and used outright untruths to conclude that Lee
Harvey Oswald was a disturbed lone leftist who killed Kennedy. Neither
before nor since has a writer about the Kennedy assassination been accorded
such lavish fanfare. Posner's book was featured in prime display spaces at
major bookstores around the nation. It was quickly adopted for book-club
distribution. Posner himself enjoyed ubiquitous major media exposure, being
treated as the premier authority on the case. He was granted guest columns
and lead letters, lead articles, and adulatory reviews in just about every
major publication in the United States. A review of his book in the Journal
of American History reads more like a promotional piece than an evaluation
of a historical investigation. Case Closed was hailed as "brilliantly
illuminating" and "lucid and compelling" by New York Times reviewers who
knew all along that conspiracies to murder the president do not happen in a
nice country like the United States.

The gaping deficiencies in Case Closed went unnoticed in the major media.
None of the pundits or reviewers remarked on Posner?s bad habit of
referring to sources as supporting his position, when in fact they did not.
Thus, he very selectively cited as new scientific "proof" the
computer-enhanced studies by Failure Analysis Associates, without
mentioning that the company had produced evidence for both sides in an
American Bar Association mock trial of Lee Harvey Oswald. In a sworn
affidavit, the CEO of Failure Analysis, Roger L. McCarthy, pointed out that
"one Gerald Posner" consulted only the prosecution materials without
acknowledging "that there was additional material prepared by FaAA for the
defense. Incredibly, Mr. Posner makes no mention of the fact that the mock
jury that heard and saw the technical material that he believes is so
persuasive and 'closed' the case . . . also saw the FaAA material prepared
for the defense, (and) could not reach a verdict."

Posner has another bad habit. He cites interviews with people whom he never
actually interviewed and who repudiate the representations he made about
their views. Thus, before the House Committee on Government Operations in
November 1993, he claimed to have interviewed two of Kennedy's
pathologists, James Humes, M.D., and I. Thornton Boswell, M.D., who
supposedly admitted to him that they had erred in their original judgment
about the location of Kennedy's skull wound, opting for a higher entrance
wound that would better fit the theory that the shot came from the book
depository where Oswald was supposedly perched. But Gary Aguilar, M.D., an
expert on the medical evidence relating to the assassination, telephoned
Humes and Boswell: "Both physicians told me that they had not changed their
minds about Kennedy's wounds at all. They stood by their statements in JAMA
(Journal of the American Medical Association), which contradict Posner.
Startlingly, Dr. Boswell told me that he has never spoken to Posner."

CONTINUED...

http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2001w13/msg00181.html



When it comes to discerning the truth about the assassination of President Kennedy, no one's opinion should be immune from criticism.

Why do you write that I implied otherwise?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #125)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 06:17 PM

128. Once again, all you're showing is that people criticized Stone.

The film was still made. It is readily available for viewing to this day. It wasn't shut down. Neither were all the dozens of books, newspaper/magazine articles, television programs, and websites which have advocated a position contrary to the Warren Report. What is being shut down?

I asked you who was shut down and all you offered were articles criticizing Stone. If you didn't mean to equate suppression with criticism, why did you offer those articles as your proof?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nyquil_man (Reply #128)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 06:41 PM

129. Where are all the articles in mass media in support of Oliver Stone?

They don't exist. The only position allowed any meaningful space in-print or on-air are in support of the lone gunman theory, the Warren Commission theory.

BTW: The articles I referenced that support Stone are thanks to GOOGLE. That doesn't count as mass media.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #129)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 06:53 PM

132. 'They did try their damndest to shut him and the film down, though."

You sure do have a way of running from your words.
How about backing that statement up?
You've yet to do so...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #129)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 06:55 PM

133. Stone had support to the tune of $40 million.

The film was distributed by Warner Brothers which is owned by Time Warner, one of the largest media conglomerates in the world.

Does that not count as mass media either?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nyquil_man (Reply #133)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 08:26 PM

142. Time Warner knew the film would make a ton of money....

....and money in this country is the ultimate trump card.

JFK went on to make $205 million...quite a return on investment, wouldn't you say?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #142)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 08:45 PM

144. Thank you for making my point.

More people have seen JFK than have ever read the Warren Report. It is probably the most well-known indictment of the WR in the world.

But you guys think you're being shut down and suppressed. Why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nyquil_man (Reply #54)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 12:19 AM

164. The 'mass media' neglected to do its job, so Oliver Stone

stepped into the void and made a movie about this historical event. I wonder why there were so many attempts to sabotage the making of that movie also, thanks for reminding me.

Unfortunately we do not have a news media in this country so people like Michael Moore and Oliver Stone do the best they can to try to at least raise these issues and they are generally vilified, attacked, and need body guards to protect themselves and their families when they do.

It takes a lot of guts to do what they do, it shouldn't if we truly were a democracy, but it does. It's shameful how much money was spent to try to discredit MM for making his documentaries, on the Gun Lobby, on the Health Care scandal in this country, Sicko, and on Bush's treasonous lies in Fahrenheit 9/11. And shameful what was done to try to stop Oliver Stone from making JFK, and the ongoing attempts to discredit both of them.

I wonder why, if they are so irrelevant, so much money, effort and time is spent on trying to discredit them? Some unknown entities with lots of money sure don't want us to be talking about these issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #164)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 09:56 AM

169. In other words, the fact that the film is full of bullshit

... does not make the slightest difference to you. In what passes for "reasoning" in you head, even pointing out that it's full of bullshit is another "reason" to think it's true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #169)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 12:12 PM

172. The fact that it was that film that began to cause many people to begin doubting

the official story doesn't mean anything other than it was movie, it raised questions, it gave gave people food for thought while before people did not question the story they were told.

It is a MOVIE, not a news report. But it did far more than the media would ever have done to raise legitimate questions that should have been raised by them. We all know that movies are not meant to be taken as fact. .

Otoh, are you saying our media which is full of bullshit should ever be taken seriously? How about the years of fabrications and lies the media told the public about Iraq? Do you think we should simply have accepted those fantasies from our 'News Media' without question? A lot of people did, and hundreds of thousands died as a result.

Yet we are told that a movie which did contain some facts, is less credible than the decade long 'news reports' which contained no facts and led this country into a tragic war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #172)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 10:29 PM

190. That's exactly what I said: Bullshit is just fine with you

... if it might lure some new blood into the cult. Like the stereotypical conspiracy huckster, Stone wasn't "raising questions": he was asserting "answers" that he pulled straight out of his ass. If you can't make a case without resorting to bullshit, then that ought to be a clue, but you're okay with the fact that a lot of people thought that bullshit was some kind of documentary. But then you hypocritically complain about bullshit in the media? On what basis? Obviously, it's not an aversion to bullshit per se.

Sorry, but I believe bullshit is bullshit, regardless of the source, and bullshit never did anyone any good. If that makes me an enemy of conspiracists and ghost hunters, I can live with that.

Here's what I find really annoying about conspiracists: On the one hand, we have to put up with their self-righteous pretense that they are oh so much more concerned about seeking the truth than we "sheeple", but then they prove over and over that if truth interferes with foisting their delusions on others, they have no use for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #190)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:12 AM

210. Yes, conspirators are annoying. They let others tell them stories about what happened in

major events where the fact is NO ONE most often has any idea what happened, they accept the stories told to them by figures of authority, stick to them like glue, and name-call intelligent people who dare to say 'but what about this'?

But they can acknowledge that it is they who are the CTs, that when a majority of people around the world see problems with some official story, that maybe it's because there are problems.

They generally resort to insulting and name-calling anyone who refuses to accept their way and then wonder why they have zero credibility.

I have no idea what happened that day, I wasn't there and neither were you. But I do know that lies were told, that huge questions remain because we were deprived of a trial where actual facts would have been presented and view the official story as just as much guess-work as any other we have been told. And if that bothers you, that I am in the majority on this, that is not my problem. But you need to know this, using Bush Sr's terminology to try to bully those who question, 'conspiracy theorists', could not be a worse strategy, especially when you are talking to Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #210)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 08:16 PM

211. Oh, bullshit. I don't know anyone whose world view depends on

... "stories told to them by figures of authority."

MOST -- almost all, actually -- of what we know about the events that conspiracists love to fantasize about comes from ordinary citizens and career civil service people, and from the evidence, not from "stories told to them by figures of authority." It's just a necessary part of conspiracists' fantasies to believe that all those people are just flying monkeys who willingly do the bidding of the omnipotent "figures of authority," and that all the evidence was faked. For some strange reason, the "figures of authority" can't assassinate anyone or blow up buildings without having a hoard of these flying monkeys to carry out and cover up pointlessly complicated hoaxes and create mountains of fake evidence. Why that's necessary is never even considered, much less explained.

You "have no idea what happened that day" but it's completely inconceivable to you that the Warren Commission got it right when they reached the only conclusion that can be supported by the credible evidence?

No, I don't know for certain what happened that day, but I do have some idea how rational people arrive at their best estimation: It's called "evidence-based reasoning." As we just discovered, you're okay with Stone and hundreds of other conspiracy hucksters spreading bullshit, and then you want to claim validation simply by counting how many people have fallen for it?

I literally laughed out loud when you suggested that a trial might have the slightest impact on conspiracists. That's because conspiracists aren't "asking questions"; They are trying to sell "answers" that they can't substantiate. Anyone who is genuinely interested in getting at the truth would welcome attempts to weed out the bullshit, but no, such efforts just make conspiracists apoplectic. The one and only thing they seem to care about is how many people believe what they believe.

You jumped into this thread by claiming that only "right wingers" challenge the bullshit that conspiracy hucksters are selling and then you hypocritically started whining about "name callers" trying to "bully" people into silence. Maybe you could use a new strategy, too, but let's be clear about this: I don't give a damn about what conspiracists believe, only about what they try to sell to others without substantiation, and I wouldn't waste one minute trying to change your mind.

Here's a factoid for you: In 42 years of voting in every election cycle, I've never once voted for any Republican. That means I have unequivocal proof that your intuition is not nearly as reliable as you seem to think it is. Get over yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #211)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 03:21 PM

221. Your entire comment is based on a personal opinion that anyone who dares to ask

questions as citizens are supposed to do, as Bush Sr. said, must be 'a conspiracist'. There is simply no room in your opinion for the possibility that maybe some things don't make sense to an awful lot of people and they ask questions, which in my world, is normal. If the word 'conspiracist' is meant to demean the majority of people who do not accept the WCR, including we know now, people like Robert Kennedy, then call me a conspiracist, the word has apparently come to mean 'the majority/normal'.

As for your assertion that I accept Stone's or anyone else's opinion of what happened that day, that is an assumption on your part. I accept nothing that relates to that day because we never did get all the facts and unless new technology can provide new evidence, we never will. His version is as good or bad as the WCR with aspects of it that are not believable, and some that are. If you paint every person in the world who refuses to accept your opinion as a conspiracist all I can say again is that the word has now come to mean the majority, the norm and I have zero problem with it as it long ago lost whatever impact Bush Sr.. intended when he used it, before anyone even began to ask questions.

Btw, why do you think he refused to answer the question nearly everyone in the world who was alive at the time, answered and certainly remembered 'where were when JFK was assassinated'? We know now, no thanks to him, where he was. Why was he afraid to answer that question? Lots of people were in Dallas that day, but he for some reason, didn't want anyone to know this. Just another one of those questions that has never been answered. So people will keep on asking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #221)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 09:45 PM

222. You're not responding to what I'm actually saying

> Your entire comment is based on a personal opinion that anyone who dares to ask questions as citizens are supposed to do, as Bush Sr. said, must be 'a conspiracist'.

No, it certainly is not. You seem to be deliberately avoiding what I've actually said several times, so let's try it one last time: I don't have any problem whatsoever with "anyone who dares to ask questions," and I defy you to find any example from me (or anyone else on this board, that I know of) who "attacked" someone for "asking questions." But conspiricists only "ask questions" as a rhetorical device, as if to say there can't be any other answer than the one they've already decided on. Don't call it "asking questions" if you're going to ignore any answers that don't fit what you've already decided; you're not being intellectually honest. My problem is with people who ignore what the evidence says is the best answer in order to assert implausible answers that they can't substantiate and which are based on paranoid intuition rather than credible evidence. I happen to think it really does matter whether or not there was a conspiracy to kill JFK and whether or not "9/11 was an inside job," so I want the best possible answer, not bullshit based on starting with a conclusion and digging backwards through the evidence looking for nothing but validation and either ignoring everything that doesn't fit or dismissing it out-of-hand as being faked. Contrary to your assertion, my entire comment is based on a personal opinion that that's not what "citizens are supposed to do." The issues are too important for sloppy thinking.

> As for your assertion that I accept Stone's or anyone else's opinion of what happened that day, that is an assumption on your part.

You've made it quite clear that you are absolutely certain there was a conspiracy, and you assert that anyone who disputes that claim must be a "right winger." The fact that you can't say what "really" happened that day should be a clue that perhaps you're wrong, but you completely dismiss that possibility and then put on a pretense of being more open-minded than people who have paid careful attention to what conspiracists claim and simply found it sadly lacking in credibility. If you're uncritically open to virtually anything except the "official story," that's really pretty much the opposite of open minded.

> His (Stone's) version is as good or bad as the WCR with aspects of it that are not believable, and some that are.

Say WHAT?! Stone's film is a fantasy presented as if it were historical fact, while the Warren Commission's conclusions are still the only ones that actually fit the credible evidence. And to you, they're equivalent? If your definition of "believable" is that broken, I guess I shouldn't be surprised at what you find believable.

> Btw, why do you think he (Bush) refused to answer the question nearly everyone in the world who was alive at the time, answered and certainly remembered 'where were when JFK was assassinated'? We know now, no thanks to him, where he was. Why was he afraid to answer that question?

"Refused to answer" is your characterization, since his answer was that he didn't remember, but more importantly your implicit logic is clearly not valid. Even if you are correct that he hadn't really forgotten, who knows; maybe he was visiting his mistress or any number of other possible personal reasons why he didn't want to answer. For all you know (which is basically nothing), he really was there involved in criminal activities, just not a murder conspiracy. But to conspiracists, everything that did or didn't happen is taken as "evidence" of a conspiracy, logic be damned.

You're not refuting what I'm saying about conpiracists; you're illustrating it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #172)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 04:29 PM

204. Do you think Time Warner is some smallfry media org?

Last edited Tue Feb 26, 2013, 09:17 PM - Edit history (1)

If they were willing to distribute Stone's film, how can you damn the media for suppressing criticism of the Warren Report?

Warner Books even reprinted Garrison's On the Trail of the Assassins as a tie-in with the film. I know because I bought it. And still own it, for some reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #164)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 04:00 PM

202. JFK made $205 million at the box office.

Some sabotage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 02:41 PM

56. The M$M has always been a corporate profit maker first

and a 'news organization' second. They ALWAYS side with the 1%ers (but will sensationalize a story for ratings) and could care less about The People. We need a truly original, objective news station that doesn't weigh itself down with favored politicians and the crushing plutocracy.

I know right? Never going to happen in New America(tm).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #56)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 02:47 PM

57. It hasn't always been that way

but the last 3 decades have seen a consolidation of the news by a very small handful of corporations.
And they realize entertainment brings more ratings than news.
Add to that the 24 news cycle, and every bit of crap you can imagine is suddenly a "breaking news" story.

CNN went wall to wall on a cruise ship that wasn't moving. You would think "who gives a shit?" but they were rewarded with some of their highest ratings ever!
So, in a way, we the people are just as much to blame for the death of news as anything else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #57)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 02:54 PM

61. Yeah I am pretty much starting from the day CNN went for profit.

Around the first Gulf War (I think). Agree completly - I believe 5 companies now control all of US media, that should have never been allowed to happen.

I do remember the objective days of news. When it was still mostly black and white and the reporters didn't all have to look like super-models and have a prefect smile either.

I blame this 'reality me' craze more than anything else atm. I couldn't believe all the coverage I heard about over the cruise ship...you'd think there was aliens or santa clause onboard with all the publicity!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 03:05 PM

63. Codswallop. It is not news.

It's not new information that sheds light on the assassination. Now maybe RFK did talk about it with RFK, Jr- the latter was 14 when his father was killed, but there is no way, of course, that RFK talked with Rory about it. She wasn't even born when her father died.

It merely opinion. The only thing noteworthy about it is that it's RFK, Jr and his sister.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #63)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 03:50 PM

66. Horse syrup! It IS news!

Thousands of comments on yahoo, huffingtonpost etc. Maybe not headline news, but our commercial news could sell commercials with it.

"Why now, at fifty-years? Tell us more. How did the audience respond? What do viewers think. Call in now!"

These items weren't news either:

Tucker Carlson took to the airwaves to defend convicted Cheney chief-of-staff Scooter Libby without divulging that his father Richard was a key player in the Libby legal defense fund.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/07/23/886894/-Is-Scooter-Libby-Tucker-Carlson-s-Own-Journolist-Scandal


"The 9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism civil action, Thomas Burnett Sr., et. al. vs. Al Baraka Banking and Investment, et. al, was filed on August 15, 2002, on behalf of 500 pioneer survivors and victims' family members after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The plaintiffs grew to much larger numbers, and today the legal action includes more than 6,500 survivors and family members. The litigation focuses on individuals, banks, corporations and Islamic charities historically implicated in the sponsoring al Qaeda's terrorist activities. "
http://www.motleyrice.com/anti-terrorism-and-human-rights/9-11-families-united-to-bankrupt-terrorism

Should Americans be aware of this ten-year lawsuit? Two prominent Democratic former senators who were involved in the investigations, now supporting this suit with affidavits. Two wars? 18 veteran suicides a day? Hey, Scarborough sorta covered it:


Who cares who did 9/11 - "WE" need Saudis against Iran (Feb/March 2012)
"But speaking of Bob Kerrey, his name is attached to another story about the Saudis, and WOW, it's a big one."



Where's the Charlie Rose video? I'd at least like to see the audience reaction to RFK's remarks.

Video: "Organizers have reportedly said there were no plans to broadcast the event."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/12/assassination-of-jfk_n_2463184.html


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 04:46 PM

67. very depressing...

Reading these comments. Why is it that when someone disagrees with something they find it necessary to debase anyone who has another opinion? Is it entertainment? Is it something lacking in people that creates such arrogance?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stillcool (Reply #67)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 07:13 PM

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

This "treatment" has become routine for me whenever I post about President Kennedy, the BFEE, and other topics that question the legitimacy of the national security state.

Sometimes the respondents change, but never their central message: the questions have all been answered by one official report or another and anyone who questions it is ignorant, irrational or insane. These are the tools of the propagandist.

I have asked many to show me where I am wrong and they can't. I have asked a few to show me where they have posted even one time against the official position snd they can't.

Thank you, stillcool, for noticing. Thanks also for standing up to their undemocratic approach to discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 06:15 PM

74. Dale Myers' computer reconstruction is amazingly detailed

He created an accurate model of Dealey Plaza and used the Zapruder film to simulate the motion of the car, Governor Connolly, and President Kennedy. When you watch the simulation and compare it to the video, you can see the single bullet theory is anything but crazy. A lot of the reason people call it the "magic bullet" theory is because they incorrectly assume Connolly and Kennedy are relatively the same distance away from the car door, when Kennedy is much closer to the door, allowing the angle to perfectly match a single shot from the Texas School Book Depository hitting both men.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tarheelsunc (Reply #74)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 08:06 PM

80. Shhhhh!

They conspiracy "theorists", as you can see by the response below, believe what they want to believe.
Evidence and science be damned!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #80)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 12:03 PM

117. Evidence and science? These guys reject geometry (n/t)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #117)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 08:10 PM

137. Bertrand Russell rejected geometry?

One the 20th century's greatest mathematicians clearly saw and understood what happened in 1964.



16 Questions on the Assassination

By Bertrand Russell


EXCERPT...

8: Changing the Evidence

After the assassination and Oswald’s arrest, judgment was pronounced swiftly: Oswald was the assassin, and he had acted alone. No attempt was made to arrest others, no road blocks were set up round the area, and every piece of evidence which tended to incriminate Oswald was announced to the press by the Dallas District Attorney, Mr. Wade. In such a way millions of people were prejudiced against Oswald before there was any opportunity for him to be brought to trial. The first theory announced by the authorities was that the President’s car was in Houston Street, approaching the book depository building, when Oswald opened fire. When available photographs and eyewitnesses had shown this to be quite untrue, the theory was abandoned and a new one formulated which placed the vehicle in its correct position. Meanwhile, however, D.A. Wade had announced that three days after Oswald’s room in Dallas had been searched, a map had been found there on which the book depository building had been circled and dotted lines drawn from the building to a vehicle on Houston Street, showing the alleged bullet trajectory had been planned in advance. After the first theory was proved false, the Associated Press put out the following story on November 27: “Dallas authorities announced today that there never was a map.”

The second theory correctly placed the President’s car on Elm Street, 50 to 75 yards past the book depository, but had to contend with the difficulty that the President was shot from the front, in the throat. How did Oswald manage to shoot the President in the front from behind? The F.B.I. held a series of background briefing sessions for Life magazine, which in its issue of December 6 explained that the President had turned completely round just at the time he was shot. This too, was soon shown to be entirely false. It was denied by several witnesses and films, and the previous issue of Life itself had shown the President looking forward as he was hit. Theory number two was abandoned.

In order to retain the basis of all official thinking, that Oswald was the lone assassin, it now became necessary to construct a third theory with the medical evidence altered to fit it. For the first month no Secret Service agent had ever spoken to the three doctors who had tried to save Kennedy’s life in the Parkland Memorial Hospital. Now two agents spent three hours with the doctors and persuaded them that they were all misinformed: the entrance wound in the President’s throat had been an exit wound, and the bullet had not ranged down towards the lungs. Asked by the press how they could have been so mistaken, Dr. McClelland advanced two reasons:

* they had not seen the autopsy report

* and they had not known that Oswald was behind the President!


The autopsy report, they had been told by the Secret Service, showed that Kennedy had been shot from behind. The agents, however, had refused to show the report to the doctors, who were entirely dependent on the word of the Secret Service for this suggestion. The doctors made it clear that they were not permitted to discuss the case. The third theory, with the medical evidence rewritten, remains the basis of the case against Oswald at this moment. Why has the medical evidence concerning the President’s death been altered out of recognition?

CONTINUED...

http://22november1963.org.uk/bertrand-russell-16-questions-on-the-assassination



That was in 1964, before the Warren Commission report was published. The guy sounds rational, logical and scientific. Has geometry changed that much since then?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #137)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 09:00 PM

146. Again: It doesn't matter WHO believes it, but WHY

> That was in 1964, before the Warren Commission report was published.

Ah. So there's no chance he was basing his speculation on incomplete or inaccurate information, so his claims about things like the paraffin tests must be correct. And if the Warren Commission reached a different conclusion than Russel, that proves they were covering up.

Nope, that's not how it works, Octafish. If Russel rejected the "single bullet theory" then yes, he rejected geometry. If he believes JFK throat wound was from the front, then he either believed JFK was shot from inside the limo or he rejected geometry.

Smart people are just as capable of deluding themselves as anyone else, maybe more so. The issue remains: Can you or can you not PROVE there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. After 50 years, the apparent answer is no.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #146)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:37 PM

216. If the geometry works, why did WC member and FBI spy Gerald Ford have to alter the report?

The evidence shows President Kennedy was struck by a bullet in the back, not the neck.



Gerald Ford's Terrible Fiction

Moving the Back Wound and the Single Bullet Theory

Read Gerald Ford's correction to the Warren Commission Report Draft:

page 1 page 2

The initial draft of the report stated:

"A bullet had entered his back at a point slightly above the shoulder to the right of the spine."

Ford wanted it to read:

"A bullet had entered the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine."

Autopsy Face Sheet
Drawing showing area of back wound

JFK assassination eye-witnesses, including the observations of at least one Secret Service man in Dealey Plaza and several FBI agents present at the Bethesda autopsy, placed the president's back wound exactly where the mute testimony of the president's jacket and shirt showed where the wound was: six inches below the collar line.

CONTINUED w DOCUMENTS, EVIDENCE, LINKS...

http://jfklancer.com/Ford-Rankin.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #216)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 02:29 AM

217. I'm sure you know there are PHOTOS of the back wound

We don't have to guess where it was by looking at the shirt:



I'm pretty sure you know why Ford said he changed the wording -- '"My changes were only an attempt to be more precise" -- and I'm sure you have no interest in my opinion that, looking at the photo, his description is indeed more precise.

I'm also pretty sure you know what the HSCA concluded after re-examining all the available evidence and specifically considering all of the claims made by conspriracists.

If you want to ignore the evidence and/or claim it was faked, you need a better reason than it spoils your conspiracy fantasies. What is it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #217)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 03:51 PM

237. Was that the photo Regis BLAHUT was looking at? The guy CIA had at HSCA before George Joannides?

The CIA liaison to the HSCA, Blahut was caught breaking into a committee safe to examine JFK autopsy photos.

From HSCA investigator Gaeton Fonzi (The Last Investigation, pp. 218-219)



One day, a staffer, with authorization, removed some photographs for study in another office and closed the safe but neglected to lock it. When she returned, she noted that one of the autopsy photographs, instead of being in its plastic jacket in its book, was loose and lying on top. It was as if someone had removed it for examination and then, perhaps hearing her return, quickly tossed the photograph back without putting it back in its protective jacket. Blakey called the FBI and a fingerprint check revealed that the person who had touched the photograph was Regis Blahut, the CIA's security representative. Confronted, Blahut first denied and then, after failing three polygraph tests, admitted he had handled the autopsy photo. Blakey later attributed Blahut's act to "curiosity," but Blahut blurted to a reporter, "There are other things involved that are detrimental to other things." The CIA fired him but, in the end, the committee never did find out what the incident was really all about, or whether it was related to any of Bob Groden's claims.



Regarding the photo: If that is President Kennedy's wound, note it is way below the neck, the point where Gerald Ford needed move it in the Warren Report for the single bullet theory to have any plausibility.



The final report said: "A bullet had entered the base of the back of his neck slightly to the right of his spine." A small change," said Ford on Wednesday, one intended to clarify meaning, not alter history.

"My changes had nothing to do with a conspiracy theory," he said. "My changes were only an attempt to be more precise."

http://www.jfklancer.com/Ford-Rankin.html



More precise. Right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #237)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 05:02 AM

242. LMAO, spin away, Octafish. The photo still speaks for itself

... which is exactly the one and only reason conspiracists need to declare it fake.

The wound is about on line with the top of the shoulders. Ford's wording didn't move it, and neither does your obfuscation and innuendo. The line from that wound through the neck wound still points down to Connally and back to the 6th floor window. We don't need Sherlock Holmes to solve this one: If the doctors at Parklawn who guessed that the throat wound was an entrance wound were correct (and we ignore that the back wound actually looks more like an entrance wound), then the bullet came from within the limo. Did Connally shot himself and the bullet went back through JFK? Inquiring minds want to know.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #242)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 09:34 AM

243. Nothing to laugh at, William Seger. Ford was FBI stooge who obstructed justice.

News most of America should know:



Exclusive: Gerald Ford, JFK and the FBI

POSTED: 12:20 PM ET, 08/ 7/2008 by The Editors
The Washington Post

Two members of the Warren Commission were initially not convinced that President John F. Kennedy had been shot from the sixth floor window of the Texas Book Depository, according to confidential FBI files released this week to The Post's Joe Stephens.

The files detail the inner workings of a secret back channel that Gerald R. Ford, then a Michigan congressman who was one of seven members of the Warren Commission, opened in 1963 to J. Edgar Hoover's FBI. The declassified FBI memos are among scores of documents in the file on President Ford, who died in December 2006. At the request of The Post, the FBI this week released 500 pages of the bureau's voluminous file.

Although it has long been known that he secretly spoke with the FBI, the newly obtained, previously classified records detail one visit Ford made to one of Hoover's deputies just three weeks after joining the panel.

A December 1963 memo recounts that Ford told FBI Assistant Director Cartha D. DeLoach that two members remained unconvinced that Kennedy had been shot from the sixth floor window of the Texas Book Depository. In addition, three commission members "failed to understand" the trajectory of the slugs, Ford said.

Ford told DeLoach that commission discussions would continue and reassured him that those minority points of view on the commission "of course would represent no problem," one internal FBI memo shows. The memo does not name the members involved and does not elaborate on what Ford meant by "no problem."

CONTINUED...

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/washingtonpostinvestigations/2008/08/exclusive_inside_gerald_fords.html



Inquiring minds would know, if the nation's news media weren't owned and operated by a handful of conservative corporations.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #243)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 12:39 PM

248. Ah, the "Octafish Gambit"

When challenged about specific assertions, just make some more and link to articles as if they are proof. "Proof by exhaustion" -- of the reader.

I assume this tangent means you accept my analysis that conspiracists need to declare that the photo is fake, despite having no reason other than it tells a different story than the one they want to sell. Even though it does show that the wound was at the "base of the neck," obviously only an "FBI stooge" would say so. Now we can move on to declaring that if Ford reached a different conclusion than you, he must have been obstructing justice and part of the conspiracy -- facts be damned, since we can just dismiss those when we're dealing with conspiracies.

But that article (hidden away in the Washington Post ) proves no such thing. Once again, innuendo is the best you can do. On and on and on, for fifty years now: The things you claim that appear to be true do not prove a conspiracy, and the things you claim that would prove a conspiracy don't appear to be true.

But who knows what tomorrow will bring.. As I've said before, if you could actually prove your assertions, you won't have to worry about what William Seger believes.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #248)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 06:14 PM

256. Call it what you want. Ford and the FBI obstructed Justice.

For complete details, read "Act of Treason" by Mark North.

From the article "(hidden away in the Washington Post)" that seems to have never made a blip on the national media radar:



"My dear Congressman:

I want to let you know how much I enjoyed talking to Mrs. Ford and you during the party at DeLoach's home last night. Particularly, I was very pleased to discuss in this informal manner some vital issues of interest to you as well as the FBI. Let me say that I found your observations to be both helpful and germane. It is always encouraging to know that we have alert, vigorous Congressmen, such as you, who are aware of the needs and problems confronting our country, and I wish you every success in meeting your grave responsibilities.

Whenever you have an opportunity, I would be happy to have Mrs. Ford and you drop by FBI Headquarters for a special tour of our facilities, and of course, I would like you to feel free to call on me any time our help is needed or when we can be of service.

With kind personal regards,
Sincerely yours,
J. Edgar Hoover."

SOURCE: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/washingtonpostinvestigations/2008/08/exclusive_inside_gerald_fords.html



BTW: If I was so wrong, you wouldn't find it necessary to respond to my posts.

As for what you write or think: Please keep a journal and use links for your assertions. It'll make it easy to find all your contributions to DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tarheelsunc (Reply #74)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 08:47 PM

95. And using computers, Peter Jackson can make cave trolls act like real live creatures,

 

Breathing, blowing snot, the whole works.

Amazing what computers can do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #95)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 12:40 PM

119. The computer-generated view from the TSBD if the Secret Service had stayed on the car...



But, they were ordered off at Love Field.

The agent throwing up his hands in apparent disgust upon being ordered off the bumper at Love Field was Donald J. Lawton, not Henry J. Rybka as originally identified by Vince Palamara and repeated by me. The thing is, no one in the nation's mass media have seen fit to air the video or discuss its implications in print. Thank Moon for Palamara and DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tarheelsunc (Reply #74)

Sat Mar 16, 2013, 10:43 PM

325. DEBUNKED ... old shit just like the WR.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 07:15 PM

78. Oswald Was What Pros Call A Throwaway

Look at Oswald after the assassination, until he got snuffed (and silenced). Lone nuts are almost always proud of what they did and take the credit - Oswald seemed bewildered, denied he did it, and seemed to be sensing he got set up - it didn't add up to him being a lone nut.

The two nutball shooter women who shot at Ford didn't even hit him. The nut who shot Reagan didn't get it done. JFK, RFK, MLK, nobody was missing there.

People can believe what they want, but I'll always believe the fatal shot came from the so called Grassy Knoll - and that there is more than most people think with the RFK and MLK hits.

On RFK one simple thing is the route Bobby took from the podium that night. All plans were for him to go a different way than through the pantry area, one of his people, above reproach, changed his exit route as he was leaving the podium. How would Sirhan and/or whoever know that? My guess is that people were put in place no matter which route was taken.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to colsohlibgal (Reply #78)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 12:07 AM

105. Know about E. Howard Hunt's deathbed confession?

that he was one of the three bums on the grassy knoll, and one of the conspirators?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manifestor_of_Light (Reply #105)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 12:02 PM

116. This "confession"?

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/mar/20/nation/na-hunt20/2

Hunt answers questions on a videotape using speculative phrases, observing that various named figures were "possibly" involved. A chart Hunt sketched during one conversation with St. John shows the same rogue CIA operation he describes in the memoir. None of the accounts provides evidence to convincingly validate that their father disclosed anything revelatory.

Hunt's widow and her two children, 27-year-old Austin and 23-year-old Hollis, dismiss the brothers' story, saying it is the result of coaching an old man whose lucidity waxed and waned in his final months.

Kevan bitterly accuses her brothers of "elder abuse," saying they pressured their father for dramatic scenarios for their own financial gain. Hunt's longtime lawyer, Bill Snyder, says: "Howard was just speculating. He had no hard evidence."



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #116)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 08:29 PM

143. You're using an article written for the LA Times as a rebuttal? Really?? nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #143)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 09:02 PM

148. That's the best you could do? Really???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to colsohlibgal (Reply #78)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 10:09 PM

153. Exactly right.

 

If Oswald shot JFK, what was his motive?

None can be shown.

If he was a "nut" who either wanted to be famous for assassinating a president or wanted to avenge a perceived political wrong, his bewilderment when saying "I'm just a patsy" is inconsistent with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 08:03 PM

79. Seems as though a mockinbird is still on the roost.

It's a shame they create so many mourning doves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hootinholler (Reply #79)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 09:50 PM

151. x2

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hootinholler (Reply #79)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 09:50 AM

168. There is a sort of pecking order...

No matter the feather, though, Plausible Deniability is their common theme.

Certainly Indicates Authority.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #168)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 12:45 PM

302. Excerpts from the book "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters"

Excerpts from the book
JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters
by James W. Douglass
Touchstone Books, 2008

pxvi
Our collective denial of the obvious, in the setting up of Oswald and his transparent silencing by Ruby, made possible the Dallas cover-up . The success of the cover-up was the indispensable foundation for the subsequent murders of Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, and Robert Kennedy by the same forces at work in our government - and in ourselves. Hope for change in the world was targeted and killed four times over. The cover-up of all four murders, each leading into the next, was based, first of all, on denial - not the government's but our own.
pxvii
The only trial ever held for took place in Memphis, only a few blocks from the Lorraine Motel where King was killed. In a wrongful death lawsuit initiated by the King family, seventy witnesses testified over a six-week period. They described a sophisticated government plot that involved the FBI, the CIA, the Memphis Police, Mafia intermediaries, and an Army Special Forces sniper team. The twelve jurors, six black and six white, returned after two and one-half hours of deliberation with a verdict that King had been assassinated by a conspiracy that included agencies of his own government.
pxvii
JFK , Malcolm , Martin , and were four proponents of change who were murdered by shadowy intelligence agencies using intermediaries and scapegoats under the cover of "plausible deniability".
pxvii
Our citizen denial provides the ground for the government's doctrine of "plausible deniability". John F. Kennedy's assassination is rooted in our denial of our nation's crimes in World War II that began the Cold War and the nuclear arms race. As a growing precedent to JFK's assassination by his own national security state, we U.S. citizens supported our government when it destroyed whole cities (Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki), when it protected our Cold War security by world-destructive weapons, and when it carried out the covert murders of foreign leaders with "plausible deniability" in a way that was obvious to critical observers.
pxxvi
June 10, 1963: President Kennedy delivers his Commencement Address at American University in Washington proposing, in effect, an end to the Cold War. Rejecting the goal of "a Pax Americana enforced on the world by "American weapons of war," Kennedy asks Americans to reexamine their attitudes toward war, especially in relation to the people of the Soviet Union, who suffered incomparable losses in World War II.
pxxviii
October 11, 1963: President Kennedy issues National Security Action Memorandum 263, making official government policy the withdrawal from Vietnam of "1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963" and "by the end of 1965 ... the bulk of U.S. personnel."
p33
The national security doctrine of "plausible deniability" combined lying with hypocrisy. It marked the creation of a Frankenstein monster.
Plausible deniability encouraged the autonomy of the CIA and other covert-action ("intelligence") agencies from the government that created them. In order to protect the visible authorities of the government from protest and censure, the CIA was authorized not only to violate international law but to do so with as little consultation as possible. CIA autonomy went hand in glove with plausible deniability. The less explicit an order from the president, the better it was for "plausible deniability".
p36
The military-industrial complex was totally dependent on "a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war." That Pax Americana policed by the Pentagon was considered the system's indispensable, hugely profitable means of containing and defeating Communism. At great risk Kennedy was rejecting the foundation of the Cold War system.
p137
The pressures on President Kennedy came less from constituents than from the weapons-making corporations that thrived on the Cold War, and from the Pentagon and the CIA that were dedicated to "winning" that war, whatever that might mean.
p137
In the summer of 1963, the leaders of the military-industrial complex could see storm clouds on their horizon. After JFK's American University address and his quick signing of the Test Ban Treaty with Khrushchev, corporate power holders saw the distinct prospect in the not distant future of a settlement in the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union.
... In direction of U.S.-Soviet disarmament lay the diminished power of a corporate military system that for years had controlled the United States government. In his turn toward peace, Kennedy was beginning to undermine the dominant power structure that Eisenhower had finally identified and warned against so strongly as he left the White House.
p140
John and Robert Kennedy had become notorious in the ranks of big business. JFK's strategy of withdrawing defense contracts and RFK's aggressive investigating tactics toward men of power were seen as unforgivable sins by the corporate world. As a result of the president's uncompromising stand against the steel industry - and implicitly any corporation that chose to defy his authority - a bitter gap opened up between Kennedy and big business, whose most powerful elements coincided with the military-industrial complex.
p142
President Kennedy to his advisors Sorenson, O'Donnell, and Schlesinger
I understand better every day why Roosevelt, who started out such a mild fellow, ended up so ferociously anti-business. It is hard as hell to be friendly with people who keep trying to cut your legs off.
p142
In his deepening alienation from the CIA, the Pentagon, and big business, John Kennedy was moving consciously beyond the point of no return. Kennedy knew well the complicity that existed among the Cold War's corporate elite, Pentagon planners, and the heads of "intelligence agencies." He was no stranger to the way systemic power worked in and behind his national security state.
p143
We have no evidence as to who in the military-industrial complex may have given the order to assassinate President Kennedy. That the order was carried out by the Central Intelligence Agency is obvious. The CIA's fingerprints are all over the crime and the events leading up to it.

/... http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Assassinations_page/JFK_Unspeakable.html

See also: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=209x6350 (Mar-31-08)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 08:44 PM

94. It's really very obvious that Right Wingers will attack anyone who dares to

question the official story of the JFK assassination. I wonder why it is always right wingers who refuse to even consider the evidence or, as in this case I'm sure they will slam JFK Jr and any other Kennedy family member who suggests that the official story was not accepted by them.

The media is owned by Corporations who are generally on the Right of the political spectrum and since we have no real independent media, it is no surprise that this story would not be covered by them.

Kudos to Charlie Rose for the interview.

And thanks for the OP, Octafish. A majority of people do not believe the official story of that tragic day so even with all the attempts to silence anyone who questions, they cannot stop people from forming their opinions.

And I see the usual old 'conspiracy theorist' accusation gets dragged out again, in yet another attempt to silence people. Why do they care what people talk about? The more I see the effort to silence people, the more I agree with those who keep on asking the questions. It seems to have the reverse effect, this effort to silence people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #94)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 08:50 PM

98. so your logic is ..

the more people argue against a conspiracy, the more likely it is true?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #98)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 09:01 PM

99. My observation is that the more people are silenced, the more curious they become

as to why there is an attempt to silence them. Especially those who weren't all that interested in the first place.

And the effort to suppress any discussion of the JFK assassination, among other tragedies in this country, have been remarkable not to mention always using the same tactics which in itself raises suspicions about who is behind these attempts to demonize anyone who even asks a few questions.

It doesn't work thankfully, and people are even more likely to question when they feel the pressure to not do so. And my other observation that for some reason Right Wingers absolutely cannot tolerate any questioning of these 'official stories' about major events such as the JFK assassination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #99)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 02:28 AM

108. What we are having here and in Octafish's other thread *are* discussions.

I don't understand what discussion is being suppressed. Opinions are being challenged, yes, on all sides. Opinions should be challenged; a logically considered opinion will hold up under scrutiny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #94)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 10:58 AM

111. Conspiracist "questioning" the assassination: "Oswald didn't do it!"

"Right winger" "attacking" the "daring questioner": "Where's your evidence?"

Conspiracist: "Bla bla bullshit bla bullshit bullshit bla bla bla."

"Right winger": "That's bullshit."

Conspiracist: "YOU'RE TRYING TO SILENCE ME!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #111)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 06:48 PM

131. That's pretty much the size of it. Spot-on post. n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #111)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 11:25 PM

159. Right wingers, like the Bush gang eg. See Octafish's links in his response to me.

Bush Sr was one of the first to attempt to squash any questioning of the JFK assassination by using the old 'Conspiracy Theorist' label in a pre-emptive attack on anyone who dared to question their version of the 'truth'.

Truthers, the original truthers were the Bush gang going back several decades now. The very fact the any of that gang of traitors to this country were determined to silence ANY questioners, makes it all the more suspicious AND all the more imperative, that Democrats at least refuse to shut up and continue to question, to investigate and try to find out just why this was so important to them. It certainly wasn't out of any great love or concern for a Democratic President, was it? Not to mention known liars like the Bushes have, or should have considering their record, zero credibility with any Democrat worthy of the title.

The real CTs imo, are the 'magic bullet' believers. That's MY opinion and just as valid as Bush Sr's. But if you don't mind being silenced by some of this country's most treasonous liars, that's your right. Just knowing they are afraid of any questions being asked means those questions need to be asked.

And the first question I would ask Bush Sr is 'where were you on the day President Kennedy was assassinated'?? But I would not receive an answer because he refuses to answer that question for some reason. He is probably the only man in America who doesn't remember where he was on that historic day. Unfortunately for him, however, with the passage of time we DO know where he was and we know a little now about what he was doing there.

I wonder why he tried to hide that fact for so long and why he was allowed to do so?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #159)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 01:43 AM

165. There was nothing "magic" about the bullet

... and there's nothing "right wing" about thinking that "conspiracy theorists" and their pathological epistemology are just as much of a blight on the intellectual landscape as ghost hunters. That's because "conspiracy theorist" has come to mean someone who starts by assuming a conspiracy, and then "concludes" that means all the evidence that says otherwise must have been faked and all the "real" evidence that would prove them right must have been covered up. That kind of "reasoning" leads to nothing but spiraling delusions like the "magic bullet" nonsense.

It really is this simple: After 50 years, nothing that conspiracy theorists claim that appears to be true proves a conspiracy, and nothing they claim that would be conclusive of a conspiracy appears to be true. Get over yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #159)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 09:02 AM

166. And, BTW...

Octafish started this thread to promote the idea that if these two Kennedy kids claim RFK believed in a conspiracy, then that's a good reason we should believe it, too, even though they don't even substantiate that claim much less give any reason why RFK would have thought that. In a reply to me above, Octafish further implied that if Bertrand Russel didn't accept the "single bullet theory" then it must not be true. Then, in the post you're referring to, Octafish implies that if GHW Bush didn't believe there was a conspiracy, then we should, and apparently you agree with that "reasoning."

When you see someone commit the same logical fallacy over and over and over, even after the fallacy has been brought to their attention, then it's pretty obvious that it wasn't an accident -- that it's fundamental to their thinking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #166)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 11:58 AM

170. Well, put it this way. I would believe the Democratic Kennedy kids over the lying,

cheating, war-mongering Bush dynasty any day. I would also have more faith in Robert Kennedy's instincts about the murder of his own brother, not to mention he was an AG and very much more familiar with the elements that hated his brother at that time, than any Right Wing liar such as the Bushes.

The very fact that we now know that Robert Kennedy for the sake of the country publicly accepted the WC, a fact that has been used by those who believe the official story for decades as proof that it must be true, actually never did believe it, is enough to create even more doubts about that report.

But the very same people who used Robert Kennedy's public position on the issues to bolster THEIR theories, will now do an about turn and suddenly decide he's not credible after all. Either he was when they did not know what he privately believed despite his public position, or he never was.

However all this does is confirm what a majority of people have believed for a long time, that the country never got the truth about that tragedy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #170)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 11:51 PM

196. Ah, so you think both of them know the truth

... but Bush is a liar, so that means there was a conspiracy.

That's a fine example of what I meant by "pathological epistemology."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #94)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 05:32 PM

127. Yes, if it doesn't matter, why does it matter? The most obvious explanation is that it involves CIA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #94)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 07:54 PM

135. You know who else calls people ''conspiracy theorists''?

Members of the Bush family, particularly when people question their official take on things:

''Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories.'' -- George W Bush, when addressing the United Nations in reference to the attacks of September 11.

"After a deluded gunman assassinated President Kennedy, our nation turned to Gerald Ford and a select handful of others to make sense of that madness. And the conspiracy theorists can say what they will, but the Warren Commission report will always have the final definitive say on this tragic matter. Why? Because Jerry Ford put his name on it and Jerry Ford’s word was always good." -- George Herbert Walker Bush, when delivering a eulogy at the funeral of former President and Warren Commissioner (and FBI stooge)

Why a certain number of DUers feel likewise is disturbing, for several reasons. Why they feel that way is their business, however.

Most importantly: Thank you for standing up to them, sabrina 1. It's more than keeping an open mind, it's for democracy -- and the idea that everyone's voice deserves to be heard, even those with whom we disagree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 08:55 PM

145. The media sold us Iraq Wars One and Two,

They lied, obfuscated, omitted, cajoled, distorted, distracted, pressured and ridiculed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnnyreb (Reply #145)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 09:20 PM

149. We also were not vigilent. Too trusting of the media. NEVER again! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 10:16 PM

155. OR...this was fifty years ago, and the Public (and media) are focused on more topical matters...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #155)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 10:35 PM

156. Such as: L.A. County coroner changes Natalie Wood's cause of death (31 years)

January 14, 2013

When the L.A. County Sheriff's Department reopened the case in November 2011, around the 30th anniversary of her death, skeptics questioned the timing and doubted whether there was anything new to be learned.

Instead of quieting speculation, however, the investigation has raised fresh — and probably unanswerable — questions about one of Hollywood's most enduring puzzles.
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/14/local/la-me-01-14-natalie-wood-20130115

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnnyreb (Reply #156)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 10:37 PM

157. I'm still waiting to find out what happened to Judge Crater.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #157)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 10:55 PM

158. Sorry... today's news was

Tabasco hot sauce king dies at age 68

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnnyreb (Reply #156)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 11:43 PM

162. Lol, that is so topical, and so much more important than the murder of a US

president. Thanks for the reality check and welcome to DU btw!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #162)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 12:10 AM

163. Thanks for the welcome, sabrina 1! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #155)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 11:34 PM

160. You mean like what the Kardashians are doing lately? Yes, you are certainly correct

about the media, the murder of a US President could never take precedence over the important 'topical' issues they cover these days. Frankly I never watch the media for news, I watch it occasionally for entertainment. They lost credibility long ago as news reporters.

Fortunately today we have access to some real news, from some real journalists so we can continue to learn more about that murder, to question the official stories we are fed, as the House Select Committee on Assassinations finally did when they re-investigated the JFK assassination, stating in that report that they had come to believe that Oswald did not act alone, that there WAS a conspiracy to kill Kennedy but they could not name the conspirators.

We don't need the media, no one who really is interested in news, bothers with the US media for that purpose. No wonder our media landed in 47th place on the list of the World's Free Press.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 05:13 PM

174. Wonder how Morley vs CIA went today? (Feb 25,2013)

From twitter ...

Jefferson Morley ‏@jeffersonmorley

In a few minutes: face to face with CIA and DOJ re; #JFK in DC Court of Appeals. I like my chances. http://ow.ly/i15JG @trevortimm @aclu



Morley v. CIA: JFK at issue in federal court next week

In a federal court filing last November, U.S. Attorney Ron Machen sought to discredit my efforts to obtain CIA records related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, by saying that documents I obtained via litigation were of “no public benefit” and would not help U.S. citizens make “vital public choices.”

Why, I wondered, was the top law enforcement officer in the nation’s capital so determined to dismiss my efforts to shed new light on something that happened nearly 50 years ago?

The answer will be heard on Monday, February 25, in a federal courtroom in downtown Washington, D.C.That’s when a three-judge panel of the DC Court of Appeals is scheduled to listen to oral arguments in my long-running Freedom of Information Act lawsuit for certain ancient JFK assassination records that the U.S. government wants to keep from public view during the 50th anniversary year of JFK’s death.
-snip-


rest here ...
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/morley-v-cia-jfk-at-issue-in-federal-court-next-week/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doublethink (Reply #174)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 06:20 PM

176. "Not News" ...

Withheld In Full - Episode 1: Morley V. CIA

#!


Gets very interesting about 3:20 into the video. Morley's 10 years of FOIA court cases on this. Funny how Morley uses the words "Not News" ... which again reminded me of this thread in here at DU. Think we need to Occupy Dealey Plaza Nov 22 2013 ... 50 years ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doublethink (Reply #176)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 08:45 PM

184. Morley is a great guy, a real reporter.

"I’m only asking that the CIA obey the law." -- Jefferson Morley

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

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

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

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

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #184)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 09:59 PM

188. Only update so far that I can find on what went on today ...

a few excerpts ...

JFK Death Secrets Test CIA, Court Procedures

The appellate panel reserved decision. The case is yet-another test of whether agencies can grind down researchers in near-endless and expensive litigation despite congressional intent with the 1974 FOIA to open public records under reasonable conditions.


James Lesar, a specialist in FOIA litigation, argued for Morley in court. Staff for U.S. Attorney Ronald Machen represented the CIA. The decision will be from Circuit Court Judges Stephen Williams and Brett Kavanaugh, and District Judge Harry Edwards.


In a related dispute, the National Archives announced last year that it will not release 1,171 top-secret CIA documents related to the assassination of President Kennedy in time for the 5Oth anniversary of JFK’s death in November 2013. Morley has taken the lead in trying to make the documents visible.


"In this media spectacle, the Internet is a mixed blessing," Morley has written. "The Web keeps the JFK story alive by providing a platform and audience for ever more fantastical theories about the death of the 35th president. More constructively, the Web has made the government's troubling records about JFK's death available for the first time to millions people outside of Washington and the federal government. I believe this diffusion of knowledge is slowly clarifying the JFK story for everybody."


rest here ...

http://www.justice-integrity.org/faq/442-jfk-death-secrets-test-cia-court-procedures

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doublethink (Reply #188)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 08:54 AM

198. 'The web keeps the story alive.' Thank you for the heads-up. Here's a bit more from Bill Kelly...

Monday, February 25, 2013

Morley v. CIA in Court

Jeff wrote on Facebook:
The hearing at the DC Court of Appeals went very well this morning. Judge Harry Edwards, a liberal, was clearly sympathetic to my case. Judge Stephen Williams, a conservative, was skeptical, though less vocally. Judge Brett Kavanagh, also conservative, didn't say much. I'll have a more detailed take on JFK Facts later today but for now I'm relieved its over. And I likes my chances!


Anonymous report from someone who was there:
I attended oral argument this morning in the US Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit on the Morley v. CIA case where the issue was whether the district judge abused his discretion in denying attorneys fees. During the government's argument Judge Edwards gave a strong defense of FOIA researchers and awarding attorneys fees. He said it is not for the government alone to determine whether a researcher should be interested in a topic or whether the topic is in the public interest. He said the test under court precedent is a topic/subject test rather than a content of documents test. It is irrelevant for the government to argue the documents released did not contain important information if the topic or subject was one of public interest- it is not possible for a researcher to know where the research will ultimately lead when beginning a project. Judge Edwards stated the district judge did not following circuit precedent in the case by not following Davy. Judges Kavanaugh and Williams remained silent and did not defend the government on this. Judge Williams had some negative-sounding questions for Jim Lesar during plaintiff's argument. J. Edwards was so strong on his points that it gave some hope he might carry the day with his colleagues, or if not it would be a split decision.

SOURCE: http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #198)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 04:41 PM

205. “A smart researcher might come in and see some connections that the government doesn’t,”

quote from Judge Harry T. Edwards ... (from yesterday Feb 25,2013)

unquote ....


Exemplified when journalist Jefferson Morley discovered that George Joannides (under the code name 'Howard') was running “psychological warfare” operations for the CIA against the Castro government out of Miami and New Orleans in 1963. George Joannides' Cuban exile agents had brawled with Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans. The CIA’s boys debated Oswald on the radio, and after the Kennedy assassination Joannides’ agents publicized the accused assassin’s pro-Castro activism etc... etc...

Fast forward to 1978 when the CIA calls Joannides out of retirement to be the 'go between' from the organization and the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA).

Problem is that the CIA never told the HSCA of Joannides' activities in 1963. And claimed the 'Howard' might not even of been a real person but some kind of 'routing indicator' ... etc... etc....

Anyway the above info came to light by Morley's research. But of course it's not news, so now back to our 'regular' programing by the thought police.

Nothing to see here ... and as the CIA states ... “substantial logistical requirements” make it impossible to release 1,171 CIA documents related to the assassination of President Kennedy, they've only had 50 years ya know. What does substantial logistical requirements mean anyway?

Keep the info coming Octafish, really appreciated. Peace.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doublethink (Reply #205)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 03:58 AM

208. Immediately after the assassination, government agencies were specifically directed...

by Katzenbach (substituting for Robert Kennedy who was in mourning) to quell any rumors of a conspiracy, which explains why both the FBI and the Warren Commission had to come to the conclusion of a lone assassin:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oswald/conspiracy/doc15.html

Katzenbach noted that it is, of course, more difficult to prove that something did not occur than to prove what actually happened. As a consquence, it is his belief there might have to be some so-called editorial interpretation...


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oswald/conspiracy/doc11.html

Speculation about Oswald's motivation ought to be cut off, and we should have some basis for rebutting thought that this was a Communist conspiracy or (as the Iron Curtain press is saying) a right-wing conspiracy to blame it on the Communists. Unfortunately the facts on Oswald seem about too obvious (Marxist, Cuba, Russin wife, etc.). The Dallas police have put out statements on the Communist conspiracy theory, and it was they who were in charge when he was shot and thus silenced.


Also Hoover was upset about the CIA "double dealing":

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oswald/conspiracy/doc29.html

OK, but I hope you are not being taken in. I can't forget CIA withholding the French espionage activities in USA nor the false story re Oswald's trip in Mexico City only to mention two of their instances of double dealing."


More from Prof. John Newman here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oswald/conspiracy/newman.html#16

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #208)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 07:36 PM

238. Old newspaper from Nov 25 1963 ...



that my dad had stuffed in his personal archives. This was published the morning after Oswald was shot. So it basically had the first 'Oswald did it', 'Dallas Police and authorities say so' journalism slant & articles that I'm sure anyone interested in this subject would be familiar with.

The one article that stood out to me was an interview with Henry Wade, DA for Dallas at the time who
took the lead in convicting Oswald of JFK and officer Tippets murders in public opinion.

From your second link … which bears repeating …

Speculation about Oswald's motivation ought to be cut off, and we should have some basis for rebutting thought that this was a Communist conspiracy or (as the Iron Curtain press is saying) a right-wing conspiracy to blame it on the Communists. Unfortunately the facts on Oswald seem about too obvious (Marxist, Cuba, Russin wife, etc.). The Dallas police have put out statements on the Communist conspiracy theory, and it was they who were in charge when he was shot and thus silenced.


rest here ...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oswald/conspiracy/doc11.html


Ya know, my continued delving into the JFK assassination stems from a lot of varied reading interests in today's world. One of which I stumbled upon while delving into 'The Innocence Project' a few years back … anyway can't locate the original AP article (which I believe was around 2008) but here is part of what I'm getting at from a blog …


The reputation of Dallas D.A. Henry Wade who gathered evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald and also prosecuted Jack Ruby is under assault. The Associated Press reports tonight that 19 of Wade's convictions have been overturned by DNA evidence; and 250 more of his cases are under review: No other county in America — and almost no state, for that matter — has freed more innocent people from prison in recent years than Dallas County, where Wade was DA from 1951 through 1986. -snip-


rest here ...
http://www.jfklancer.com/blogger/2008_07_01_archive.html

Wade really didn't care about justice, he just wanted to keep his conviction rate at above 86%. So a lot of innocent people have spent a lot of time behind bars, not to mention some who have been 'put to sleep' permanently under his 'watch' as Dallas DA back then. And looking back I don't think this guys credibility for convicting anyone in real life or public opinion ought to be taken seriously anymore.

Another interest of mine is forensic science and to learn again a few years back that neutron activation analysis (INAA) turns out to be 'junk science' well I'll just let James Di Eugenio explain it for anyone still reading this post … lol …

Since the time of the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), Oswald-did-it-advocates have trumpeted the neutron activation analysis test as the crown jewel of their case against the accused assassin. Former Chief Counsel of the HSCA, Robert Blakey leaked the results of the NAA testing to the press in advance of its actual presentation in the public hearings in a clear attempt to influence media coverage of his verdict against Oswald. Let me quote from The Assassinations in this regard:

Guinn's findings were very important to Blakey. He leaked them to the press early in 1978 as the final nail in the HSCA's verdict against Oswald. It was the rigorous scientific analysis that he so much admired and enthroned. And it showed that the single bullet theory was not just possible but that it actually happened.

Yet today, after the peer reviewed and published work of Erik Randich and Patrick Grant (Journal of Forensic Science, July 2006), Blakey is singing a different tune. The work of these two men has been so destructive of both the HSCA analysis and their NAA interpretation that Blakey now has termed the whole exercise "junk science". Further, the FBI has made the decision they will not use the process in court again. To understand why this astonishing retreat has taken place in broad daylight, let's go back to the beginning.

According to the Warren Commission, the FBI had done what was called "spectrographic analysis" on some of the ballistics evidence in the JFK case. According to Henry Hurt's discussion of this in his book Reasonable Doubt, both the FBI and the Commission were maddeningly vague about the results of the analysis. According to Hurt, this issue was to be addressed by the last witness called by the Commission, who was involved in the spectrographic analysis. Yet, during his interview, the commissioners never asked him a question on the issue. The Warren Report then noted that there were similarities in the metal composition of some of the bullet fragments. With the actual analysis not present and these vague generic terms in play, most considered that what the FBI did was not of any forensic value. -snip-


rest here …
http://www.ctka.net/death_of_naa.html


on and on and on … Peace.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doublethink (Reply #238)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 04:07 PM

251. Thanks for pointing out the abuses within the criminal justice system doublethink...


In 2005, the FBI was forced to issue this press release where it "voluntarilly" will no longer conduct the examination of bullet lead because:

http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-laboratory-announces-discontinuation-of-bullet-lead-examinations

neither scientists nor bullet manufacturers are able to definitively attest to the significance of an association made between bullets in the course of a bullet lead examination.


The FBI is also under pressure to review 2500 cases that were decided since the early 1960s using CBLA techniques:

http://m.deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/2219

An investigation by The Washington Post and 60 Minutes has cast doubt on at least 250 criminal cases in which the defendant was convicted based on FBI bullet-lead test evidence. Since the early 1960s, the FBI has used a technique called comparative bullet-lead analysis on an estimated 2,500 cases, many of which were homicide cases prosecuted at state and local levels. Comparative bullet-lead analysis, based on the assumption that all bullets in one batch will be chemically similar, examines the chemical compositions of bullets to determine if crime-scene bullets match bullets in a suspect’s possession. FBI labs have since concluded that all bullets in a single batch are not always chemically matched “because subtle chemical changes occurred throughout the manufacturing process.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #208)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 08:07 PM

241. Almost forgot Wade was also 'the Wade' ...

ending up on the wrong side of history in 'Roe vs Wade' ...

Excerpt from this guys blog reminded me ...

You probably have heard of Henry Wade, even if you didn't read the interview segment above. Henry Wade was the Wade in Roe v. Wade. He was the person sued by Norma McCovey (aka "Jane Roe") over Texas' abortion laws.

Henry Wade was also the person who was going to prosecute Lee Harvey Oswald. After a bad break in which Jack Ruby killed Oswald before Wade could get a chance, Wade had to settle for trying to kill Jack Ruby. Unfortunately, Ruby died of cancer before he could be executed by Texas. It was pretty much a bummer all around for Wade.

It is not, however, because of Roe v. Wade or Texas v. Ruby that causes me to list Henry Wade as "The Bad." I award him the title because of Randall Dale Adams, and Vernon McManus, and Clarence Bradley, and John Skelton, and Lenell Geter, and James Lee Woodard, and Eugene Henton, and James Waller, and Greg Wallis, and James Giles, and Billy Smith, and the scores of others that Wade wrongfully put behind bars and wrongfully exposed to the gurney.

Crag Watkin's office has corrected, best they can, some of the harm done during Henry Wade's tenure. There is no chance, however, that all those wrongfully convicted by Wade and his prosecutorial hacks have been identified and released. It's likely many of them only gained their freedom at the end of a needle. -snip-


rest here ...
http://www.skepticaljuror.com/2010_11_08_archive.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doublethink (Reply #241)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 05:21 PM

254. Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade was poised to profit off JFK files

Thank you for the important information, doublethink. I'd just about forgotten that important news.

Here's a blip that disappeared from the media radar screen, almost as soon as it registered, what the new D.A. found in the office safe:



Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade was poised to profit off JFK files

01:20 AM CST on Sunday, February 24, 2008
By DAVID FLICK and DAVID TARRANT / The Dallas Morning News

Henry Wade was known for his no-nonsense style as a Dallas County district attorney. But even he, it seems, was not immune to the lure of Hollywood. And the man with a reputation for unshakeable integrity was agreeable to receiving thousands of dollars in return for giving filmmakers exclusive access to legal documents connected to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, some of which were kept from the public for another four decades.

The existence of 15 boxes of JFK-related material, locked away in a DA's office safe, was announced Monday by Craig Watkins, the current district attorney, who said his predecessors had kept the documents under wraps even after Mr. Wade's retirement.

Mr. Wade died in 2001, and several calls to surviving family members were not returned.

Tantalizing new details about the little-known episode of Mr. Wade's involvement in a movie venture about the Nov. 22, 1963, JFK assassination and the trial of Jack Ruby were found in a Dallas Morning News examination of the long-hidden files.

CONTINUED...

ORIGINAL LINK: http://www.dentonrc.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/022408dnmetjfkmovie.3d7772b.html#

The Wayback internet archive doesn't have that article.



So, the ex-FBI Dallas District Attorney Wade who told the world 'Oswald is guilty' was corrupt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doublethink (Reply #188)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:15 PM

215. Federal judges hear arguments about CIA JFK assassination records

by Jeff Morley
February 26, 2013

A three-judge federal appellate court in Washington DC heard oral arguments Monday about the significance of certain CIA records related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, a rare event in the long-running controversy over the murder of the popular chief executive almost 50 years ago.

While JFK’s assassination in Dallas on November 22, 1963, has been the subject of six governmental investigations, and will be the focus of a dozen new books and at least three major motion movies in 2013, the federal courts have rarely sat in judgment on issues related to the crime. That changed Monday morning when the U.S. Court of Appeals heard two lawyers clash over the public benefits of JFK documents released as a result of Morley v. CIA, a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit that I filed in 2003.

The senior jurist on the panel, Judge Harry Edwards, challenged the government’s contention that the records are not related to JFK’s assassination, while Judge Stephen Williams expressed skepticism about my argument that the litigation has been beneficial because it made JFK records more readily available to the public.

At issue in the hearing was a narrow legal question: whether lower court Judge Richard Leon had abused his discretion in a Sept. 2012 ruling supporting the CIA’s refusal to pay my court costs incurred in the course of a decade of litigation. Under FOIA, successful plaintiffs are entitled to have the government pay their court costs. After a three-judge panel from the Court of Appeals unanimously ruled in my favor in December 2007, my attorney Jim Lesar requested the government pay his legal fees, now estimated to be $150,000.

But the broader issue of the significance of the released CIA documents took up much of the hour-long hearing in the E. Barrett Prettyman Courthouse, located a few blocks from the U.S. Capitol.

“The lower courts erred in three ways. The new documents contain new information. They contain important information, and that information is related to the JFK assassination,” said Lesar in his opening remarks, citing the agency’s 2008 disclosure that undercover CIA officer George Joannides had received a Career Intelligence Medal in 1981, three years after serving as the agency’s liaison to congressional JFK investigators. Lesar argued that Joannides was honored for his JFK-related duties

“Was the information weighty enough to rule in favor of the plaintiff?” replied Assistant U.S. Attorney Benton Peterson on behalf of the CIA. “The answer is no.” Peterson argued that a civilian review panel, the Assassination Records Review Board, had seen the Joannides records in the 1990s and concluded they were not related to JFK’s assassination.

Judge Williams, a conservative appointed by President Ronald Reagan, opened the questioning by challenging Lesar’s contention that the lawsuit had benefited the public by bringing together all the Joannides records in one place. “Aren’t all these records now available at NARA ?” he asked.

Lesar said the documents were not available online as the government contended and were not easily searchable. He added that the document disclosing Joannides’ Career Intelligence Medal was not available before the lawsuit.

“You’re pinning a lot on that one document, aren’t you?” asked Judge Brett Kavanagh, a conservative appointed by President George W. Bush.

“The lawsuit produced other important documents,” Lesar replied, such as a travel expense form showing Joannides’ duties included travel to New Orleans, where accused assassin Lee Oswald lived for much of 1963. Lesar also said that the lawsuit had forced the CIA to acknowledge that it retains 295 documents about Joannides’ career that have not been released in any form.

“That’s an important piece of information we did not have before,” he said.

The sharpest questioning came from Judge Edwards and was directed at Peterson’s argument that the litigation had produced no information of public benefit.

“The law of the circuit is that the test for public benefit is the topic and the purpose of the search, which is appropriate because we don’t have the expertise to assess the significance of the research,” said Edwards, a liberal appointed by President Jimmy Carter. “You’re talking a lot about what’s in the records but that’s not the test. The lower court applied the wrong test.”

“There wasn’t any information requested and received that was weighty enough to benefit the public,” Peterson replied.

“If you use the topic test,” Edwards said, referring to JFK’s assassination, “it is weighty. I think they met their burden in topic and purpose.”

Edwards also questioned Peterson’s claim that the ARRB review of the records settled the question of their relevance.

“A smart researcher might come in and see some connections that the government doesn’t,” he said.

The issue will be decided by a vote of the three judges. A decision is expected in four to eight weeks.

SOURCE: http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/federal-judges-hear-arguments-about-cia-jfk-assassination-records/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #215)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 07:41 PM

239. 4 to 8 weeks ... thanks again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doublethink (Reply #174)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 06:53 PM

178. Not help U.S. citizens make vital public choices? Like choosing Democrats over Republicans?

What they really must fear is the death of the Republican Party, this could be the final nail in the coffin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #178)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 08:22 PM

181. Well there is more evidence by day that Texas is turning 'Blue' ...

because of the changing demographics around the big cities and such. By 2016. maybe a bit soon, maybe not?

Anyway here's another bit of news trivia concerning Nov 22, 1963 ... from today Feb 25 2013 ... Robert Groden is still undefeated !! This having to do with Civil Rights issues and more 'non news' etc... relating to the OP of this thread.

JFK Conspiracy Theorist Robert Groden goes 81-0 with Latest Win Against City Censors

By Jim Schutze Mon., Feb. 25 2013 at 10:37 AM
Categories: Get Off My Lawn

Wanted to go ahead and let you know, since apparently nobody else is going to do the story, that Robert Groden, the Kennedy assassination author, has won yet another legal victory in his fight against the city's years-long efforts to muzzle him.

And, sorry, certain commenters here, but that's what it is. This isn't about tidying up a park. It's a campaign to shut down free speech on the still sensitive issue of whether John F. Kennedy's murder in Dallas 50 years ago was the work of multiple conspirators.

Don't believe me? Still think it's Groden who's the out-of-line wack-job? Groden's virtually unbroken record of judicial exoneration in 81 separate arrests or tickets by the city is now crowned by a recent decision of County Criminal Court of Appeals Judge Kristin Wade. Wade said the same thing a parade of judges have said before: It's the city that's outside the law in this.
-snip-

rest here ...
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2013/02/jfk_conspiracy_theorist_robert.php

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #178)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 08:36 PM

183. If the Dems wanted to (or could), they'd have BUSTED the BFEE.

Instead, they let 'em slide.



The Dark Continuum of Watergate

Special Report: The 40th anniversary of the Watergate break-in has brought reflections on the scandal’s larger meaning, but Official Washington still misses the connection to perhaps Richard Nixon’s dirtiest trick, the torpedoing of Vietnam peace talks that could have ended the war four years earlier, Robert Parry reports.

By Robert Parry
Consortiumnews June 12, 2012

EXCERPT...

In a conference call on Nov. 4, 1968, the day before the election, Johnson considered confirming a story about Nixon’s interference that a Saigon-based reporter had written for the Christian Science Monitor, but Johnson was dissuaded by Rostow, Secretary of State Dean Rusk and Defense Secretary Clark Clifford.

“Some elements of the story are so shocking in their nature that I’m wondering whether it would be good for the country to disclose the story and then possibly have a certain individual elected,” Clifford said. “It could cast his whole administration under such doubt that I think it would be inimical to our country’s interests.”

Three years later as Nixon headed toward his re-election campaign, he worried about what evidence Johnson or the Democrats might possess that could be disclosed to the American people. According to Nixon’s taped White House conversations, he remained obsessed with getting the file.

On June 30, 1971, he again berated Haldeman about the need to break into Brookings and “take it out.” Nixon even suggested using former CIA officer E. Howard Hunt (who later oversaw the two Watergate break-ins in May and June of 1972) to conduct the Brookings break-in.

CONTINUED...

http://consortiumnews.com/2012/06/12/the-dark-continuum-of-watergate/



Clifford. Clark Clifford. BCCI Clifford.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 11:01 PM

194. **** k & r! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wildbilln864 (Reply #194)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:24 AM

209. It is possible to 'regiment the public mind every bit as much as an army regiments their bodies.'

What Noam Chomsky, famous linguist and smart guy, said:



Propaganda

(The) American business community was also very impressed with the propaganda effort. They had a problem at that time. The country was becoming formally more democratic. A lot more people were able to vote and that sort of thing. The country was becoming wealthier and more people could participate and a lot of new immigrants were coming in, and so on.

So what do you do? It's going to be harder to run things as a private club. Therefore, obviously, you have to control what people think. There had been public relation specialists but there was never a public relations industry. There was a guy hired to make Rockefeller's image look prettier and that sort of thing. But this huge public relations industry, which is a U.S. invention and a monstrous industry, came out of the first World War. The leading figures were people in the Creel Commission. In fact, the main one, Edward Bernays, comes right out of the Creel Commission. He has a book that came out right afterwards called Propaganda. The term "propaganda," incidentally, did not have negative connotations in those days. It was during the second World War that the term became taboo because it was connected with Germany, and all those bad things. But in this period, the term propaganda just meant information or something like that. So he wrote a book called Propaganda around 1925, and it starts off by saying he is applying the lessons of the first World War. The propaganda system of the first World War and this commission that he was part of showed, he says, it is possible to "regiment the public mind every bit as much as an army regiments their bodies." These new techniques of regimentation of minds, he said, had to be used by the intelligent minorities in order to make sure that the slobs stay on the right course. We can do it now because we have these new techniques.

This is the main manual of the public relations industry. Bernays is kind of the guru. He was an authentic Roosevelt/Kennedy liberal. He also engineered the public relations effort behind the U.S.-backed coup which overthrew the democratic government of Guatemala.

His major coup, the one that really propelled him into fame in the late 1920s, was getting women to smoke. Women didn't smoke in those days and he ran huge campaigns for Chesterfield. You know all the techniques—models and movie stars with cigarettes coming out of their mouths and that kind of thing. He got enormous praise for that. So he became a leading figure of the industry, and his book was the real manual.

—Noam Chomsky

http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/bernprop.html



History Is a Weapon

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #209)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 11:13 PM

224. "Propaganda is ..."

"... a form of communication that is aimed towards influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position by presenting only one side of an argument." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

How ironic that DU's most prolific propagandist would post a criticism of propaganda, especially one from famous linguist and smart guy Chomsky, who says of JFK conspiracy theories: "If there was some reason to believe in a high-level conspiracy, that might be interesting, but the evidence against that is overwhelming... It's just taking energy away from serious issues onto ones that don't matter."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #224)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 08:44 AM

229. Chomsky credits Alex Carey. For some reason, re Dallas, he agrees with Alexander Coburn.

An excellent critique of (or "propaganda" on) Chomsky and Coburn regarding their skewed anslysis of the assassination of President Kennedy:



The Posthumous Assassination of JFK

Judith Exner, Mary Meyer, and Other Daggers


By James DiEugenio
Probe
From the September-October, 1997 issue (Vol. 4 No. 6)

Current events, most notably a past issue of Vanity Fair, and the upcoming release of Sy Hersh’s new book, extend an issue that I have dealt with in a talk I have done several times around the country in the last two years. It is entitled “The Two Assassinations of John Kennedy.” I call it that because there has been an ongoing campaign of character assassination ever since Kennedy was killed.

In the talk to date, I’ve dealt primarily with the attacks on Kennedy from the left by Noam Chomsky and his henchman Alexander Cockburn which occurred at the time of the release of Oliver Stone’s JFK. But historically speaking, the attacks on the Kennedys, both Jack and Robert, have not come predominantly from the left. The attacks from the right have been much more numerous. And the attacks from that direction were always harsher and more personal in tone. As we shall see, that personal tone knows no limits. Through papers like the New York Times and Washington Post, the attacks extend into the Kennedys’ sex lives, a barrier that had not been crossed in post-war mainstream media to that time. To understand their longevity and vituperativeness, it is necessary to sketch in how they all began. In that way, the reader will be able to see that Hersh’s book, the Vanity Fair piece on Judith Exner, and an upcoming work by John Davis on Mary Meyer, are part of a continuum.

The Right and the Kennedys

There can be no doubt that the right hated the Kennedys and Martin Luther King. There is also little doubt that some who hated JFK had a role in covering up his death. One could use Secret Service agent Elmer Moore as an example. As revealed in Probe (Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 20-21), Moore told one Jim Gochenaur how he was in charge of the Dallas doctors testimony in the JFK case. One of his assignments as liaison for the Warren Commission seems to have been talking Dr. Malcolm Perry out of his original statement that the throat wound was one of entry, which would have indicated an assassin in front of Kennedy. But another thing Gochenaur related in his Church Committee interview was the tirade that Moore went into the longer he talked to him: how Kennedy was a pinko who was selling us out to the communists. This went on for hours. Gochenaur was actually frightened by the time Moore drove him home.

But there is another more insidious strain of the rightwing in America. These are the conservatives who sometimes disguise themselves as Democrats, as liberals, as “internationalists.” This group is typified by men like Averill Harriman, Henry Stimson, John Foster Dulles and the like. The common rubric used to catalog them is the Eastern Establishment. The Kennedy brothers were constantly at odds with them. In 1962, Bobby clashed with Dean Acheson during the missile crisis. Acheson wanted a surprise attack; Bobby rejected it saying his brother would not go down in history as another Tojo. In 1961, JFK disobeyed their advice at the Bay of Pigs and refused to add air support to the invasion. He was punished for this in Fortune magazine with an article by Time-Life employee Charles Murphy that blamed Kennedy for the failure of the plan. Kennedy stripped Murphy of his Air Force reserve status but — Murphy wrote to Ed Lansdale — that didn’t matter; his loyalty was to Allen Dulles anyway. In 1963, Kennedy crossed the Rubicon and actually printed money out of the Treasury, bypassing that crowning jewel of Wall Street, the Federal Reserve Board. And as Donald Gibson has written, a member of this group, Jock Whitney, was the first to put out the cover story about that Krazy Kid Oswald on 11/22/63 (Probe Vol. 4 No.1).

Killing off the Legacy

In 1964, author Morris Bealle, a genuine conservative and critic of the Eastern Establishment, wrote a novel called Guns of the Regressive Right, depicting how that elite group had gotten rid of Kennedy. There certainly is a lot of evidence to substantiate that claim. There were few tears shed by most rightwing groups over Kennedy’s death. Five years later, they played hardball again. King and Bobby Kennedy were shot. One would think the coup was complete. The war was over.

CONTINUED...

http://www.ctka.net/pr997-jfk.html



While unmentioned in the American mass media, that information should be no mystery to you and the rest of the debunking devotees from the Amazing Randi J-REF Forum and acolytes of John McAdams who flock together on DU. For some plausible reason, when the subjects are the crimes of the national security state and secret government, you always side with Big Brother.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Octafish/700

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 11:21 PM

225. Here are just SOME eyewitness statements

Secret Service agent Samuel Kinney, who drove the follow-up car, said, “I saw one shot strike the President in the right side of the head. The President then fell to the seat to the left toward Mrs. Kennedy.”

Agent George Hickey, also directly behind the President, said, “I heard what appeared to be two shots and it seemed as if the right side of his head was hit and his hair flew forward.”

Agent Emory Roberts, in the front seat of the follow-up car, said, “I saw what appeared to be a small explosion on the right side of the President’s head, saw blood, at which time the President fell further to his left.…I could not determine from what direction the shots came, but felt they had come from the right side.”

Agent Clinton Hill said he saw the President slump “noticeably to his left.”

Another amateur photographer, Orville Nix, also filmed the assassination. Although viewing of this film by researchers is still restricted, an FBI report of what the film shows describes the head hit: “…when the President’s head suddenly snaps to the left and the car picks up speed as a man jumps on the left foot-hold.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #225)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 11:07 AM

245. Normally, the press appreciates an eyewitness - esp. Police Officers

For some reason, these stories have disappeared from national memory. Without them, future generations won't know what hit democracy.

To add to the record, something important I never saw in the coverage:



THE MAN WHO WASN'T THERE,

WAS THERE

PHONY SECRET SERVICE AGENTS IN DEALEY PLAZA


Michael T. Griffith
1996@All Rights Reserved

"Don't you all come up here any further, you could get shot, or killed..." -- the mystery Secret Service Agent

Some witnesses said they encountered Secret Service agent in Dealey Plaza moments after the assassination. These reports continue to be the subject of much controversy. Why? Because it has long been established that no genuine Secret Service agents on the ground in Dealey Plaza until later that afternoon. This fact suggests phony Secret Service agents were in Dealey Plaza, and that they were there to help the assassins escape. David Scheim(1) summarizes:

"After the shooting, Dallas Police officer Joe M. Smith encountered another suspicious man in the lot behind the picket fence . Smith told the Warren Commission that when he drew his pistol and approached the man, the man "showed that he was a Secret Service agent."

Another witness also reported encountering a man who displayed a badge and identified himself as a Secret Service agent. But according to Secret Service Chief James Rowley and agents at the scene, all Secret Service personnel stayed with the motorcade, as required by regulations, and none was stationed in the railroad parking lot . It thus appeared that someone was carrying fraudulent Secret Service credentials--of no perceptible use to anyone but an escaping assassin. (Scheim 30-31)

Not only were there no Secret Service (SS) agents stationed on or behind the grassy knoll, but there were no FBI or other federal agents stationed there either. Officer Smith was not the only witness who encountered an apparently phony federal agent. Malcolm Summers ran to the knoll moments after the shooting. He related the following in the 1988 documentary Who Murdered JFK?:

"I ran across the--Elm Street to right there toward the knoll. It was there --and we were stopped by a man in a suit and he had an overcoat--over his arm and he, he, I saw a gun under that overcoat. And he--his comment was, "Don't you all come up here any further, you could get shot, or killed," one of those words. A few months later, they told me they didn't have an FBI man in that area. If they didn't have anybody, it's a good question who it was. " (Anderson 14)

CONTINUED...

http://www.jfklancer.com/ManWho.html



Thank you, Bonobo, for standing up to the Liars and traitors.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 02:29 AM

226. Dallas oppresses JFK truth activist

Dallas oppresses JFK truth activist

February 27, 2013
By: Jeffrey Phelps
Examiner.com

The 80th ticketing or arrest and subsequent exoneration of a JFK-truth-activist from Dallas showcases what the establishment fears most.

A problem has emerged for the people of America, in Dallas. Ironically and for very good reason, those that currently occupy the seats for which they were appointed, by the people, have forgotten their oaths to uphold both their state’s and nation's constitutions. Otherwise known as the documents that spell out the laws protecting the rights of the very people they were appointed by to uphold in the first place. -snip-


Obviously not just your everyday activist looking to aggravate the local police for fun, Groden can still be seen almost every weekend, after 14 years since his first ticket by the Dallas Police Department, hanging around the “grassy knoll” area of the memorial. The area where he believes one of the multiple shots hitting Kennedy came from and where he freely discusses his research and thoughts about the assassination.

Considering how much he knows about Kennedy's murder, it's no wonder the powers-that-be don't want him hanging around while tourists stream through the area on the weekends he comes to lecture. He usually attracts the attention of a fairly large crowd and security working in the museum from the sixth floor of the book depository building have no choice but to look down at the crowd, knowing he's giving the audience a much different version of the story than they give in the museum. -snip-



rest here ... http://www.examiner.com/article/dallas-oppresses-jfk-truth-activist


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doublethink (Reply #226)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 10:24 AM

244. Robert Groden is a Patriot.

Thank you for the heads-up, doublethink.

Robert Groden served as the HSCA staff photographic expert. He's written several book's on the assassination of President Kennedy. He's given up other opportunities to devote his talents, treasure and time for Truth.

His CV:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14572

His example is unlike the nation's mass media, which largely do the bidding of War Inc. It's understandable why the warmongers and greedheads don't want Groden's side of the story heard. Same goes for the cowardly politicians in Dallas and throughout the country who don't want anybody to rain on their 50th anniversary parade.

In the early 90s, I attended a lunch with a man who had served on the HSCA as a staffer for a Congressman. We talked about the subject of lunch - corrupt banks and S&L- and then conversation turned to the assassination, which ended up turning toward rogue CIA-anti Castro Cuban involvement. He indicated he had taken a secrecy oath, in order to serve the HSCA, and could not go into details about anything not publicly available. So, I asked him, point blank if they - the HSCA - knew who was behind the assassination. He gave me a stare that said, "You got to be kidding."

Thinking back, I don't think it was irritation with an impertinent question, rather it was a confirmation of his disgust at the knowledge of who was responsible for the assassination, not just one agency, but powers within the government. We went on to talk about other things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #244)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 12:59 PM

250. A patriot AND a nice guy!

Spent an evening drinking with him and other conspiracy buffs back in the early 90's.
Unfortunately, what Robert Groden is NOT is a expert in photography.
In fact, he got his ass handed to him at the OJ Simpson trial and was completely discredited.

At the trial, we learned he dropped out of high school.
Not only does he not belong to any professional group that authenticates photos, he can even name a group that does. Not to mention, he has never taken a course in photography or taught one for that matter.

But the best part?
He asserted that a photograph of O. J. Simpson wearing those "ugly-ass" shoes was somehow altered.
AND after being shown 30 other photos of Simpson wearing the same shoes, he refused to change his obviously wrong-headed view.

He's some expert, eh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #250)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 05:03 PM

252. Testimony of Robert Groden to HSCA

"My major responsibility was to present to the committee those issues dealing with photographic evidence that it was felt could be scientifically addressed, perhaps improved upon as the knowledge of the critics has lasted through these years and perhaps give new information relating to those particular photographs and films."

CONTINUED...

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/pdf/HSCA_Vol1_0906_5_Groden.pdf

Shows people can become experts in photography without having to complete college or high school. That may be why OJ Simpson's attorneys called him as an expert witness for their successful defense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #252)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 05:11 PM

253. Some expert!

He was exposed as a fraud at the OJ trial.
He is no expert.
You know this...you just won't admit it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #253)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 05:23 PM

255. Prove he's a fraud, zappaman.

Otherwise, I'll continue to take his word over yours.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #255)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 06:35 PM

259. Sure thing, my friend.