documentary coming out on the extra shots and cia in the room when RFK was killed

[ORDagnabbit]

seems somebody is doing a documentary www.rawstory.com


from wikipedia.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_assassination#Second_gunman

CIA involvement
In November 2006, the BBC's Newsnight program presented research by filmmaker Shane O'Sullivan alleging that several CIA officers were present on the night of the assassination.<46> Three men who appear in video and photographs from the night of the assassination were positively identified by former colleagues and associates as former senior CIA officers who had worked together in 1963 at JMWAVE, the CIA's main anti-Castro station based in Miami. They were JMWAVE Chief of Operations David Morales, Chief of Maritime Operations Gordon Campbell and Chief of Psychological Warfare Operations George Joannides.<46>

The program featured an interview with Morales's former attorney Robert Walton, who quoted him as having said, "I was in Dallas when we got the son of a bitch and I was in Los Angeles when we got the little bastard."<46> O'Sullivan reported that the CIA declined to comment on the officers in question. It was also alleged that Morales was known for his deep anger with the Kennedys for what he saw as their betrayal during the Bay of Pigs Invasion.<47>

After further investigation, O'Sullivan produced the feature documentary, RFK Must Die. The film casts some doubt on the earlier identifications and ultimately reveals that the man previously identified as Gordon Campbell was in fact Michael D. Roman, a now-deceased Bulova Watch Company employee, who was at the Ambassador Hotel for a company convention. O'Sullivan ultimately expresses his doubt that the "Morales" in the film footage at the Ambassador Hotel and the man positively identified as Morales in later photographs are the same man.<48>


Second gunman
The location of Kennedy's wounds suggested that his assailant had stood behind him, but witnesses said that Sirhan faced west as Kennedy moved through the pantry facing east.<49> This has led to the suggestion that a second gunman actually fired the fatal shot, a possibility supported by coroner Thomas Noguchi.<50> Several witnesses, though, said that as Sirhan approached, Kennedy was turning to his left shaking hands, facing north and so exposing his right side.<51> During a reexamination of the case in 1975, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered expert examination of the possibility of a second gun having been used, and the conclusion of the experts was that there was little or no evidence to support this theory.<52>

More recently, analysis of audio recordings of the shootings taken by freelance reporter Stanislaw Pruszynski appear, according to forensic expert Philip van Praag, to indicate that thirteen shots were fired, even though Sirhan's gun held only eight rounds.<49> While this would strongly indicate a second gunman, further independent analysis by a series of other experts indicates that there are only eight shots present on the tape.<53>

[niyad]

1. apart from all of this, what has never been explained to my satisfaction is why the gunman

was even where he was, since that wasn't the way RFK was supposed to go out. sheer chance? yeah, right.

the official story of the assassination bears no more relation to the truth than the story on his brother.

[democraticinsurgent]

2. RFK Must Die is "Must See" Documentary

Extremely well done video that pre-dates the latest audio/gunshot info but leads perfectly into that. Once you see it you will be convinced that Sirhan could not have killed RFK and that the CIA was behind it.

http://www.rfkmustdie.com/

[Peace Patriot]

3. Who benefits?

Looking back on those assassinations now--JFK, RFK and MLK, all in the space of five years, during the build-up in Vietnam--through the lens of the Bush Junta, there is no question in my mind that all three were killed by our own war profiteers, who needed a big war to keep their booty coming in (--never demobilized after WW II, as they should have been). So the CIA literally manufactured a war--completely unnecessary, unjust, horrendous slaughter--for the war profiteers.

JFK and RFK both approved of U.S. activities in Vietnam, at first--they were both products of the 1950s anti-communist hysteria. You couldn't support a sane policy on a country like Vietnam (where the communists wanted an ELECTION--and would have won), and who were no threat to us whatsoever (and a possible ally in the communist world)--and expect to go anywhere politically. But once in office, and hit with the CIA's planned invasion of Cuba very early in JFK's presidency (an invasion that he did not support--he called off the Air Force), their views of the world began to change. I've seen documents on-line of JFK executive orders, just before he was killed, starting to call back U.S. military "advisers" from Vietnam. Four years later--after much turmoil in the country--Bobby decided to run for president ('68) at considerable risk to his own life, because of the huge anti-war movement. And I have no doubt that he was influenced in that decision by Martin Luther King's awesome and courageous anti-Vietnam War speech at the Riverside Church in New York, in 1967.

With their deaths, the three major leaders who could have stopped that war were gone. All three of the greatest leaders of that era--men with open minds, men of vision, men with passionate desires to change things and make them better, and all three with extraordinary charisma--brought down by bullets, in mysterious circumstances that remain unsolved to this day.

I think it's VERY CLEAR who benefited, and why they did it. But they covered their tracks well, and we may never know their names for sure. Today we have stolen elections. Then we had assassins' bullets. Same outcome. Same beneficiaries--the war industry.

[ORDagnabbit]

4. today we also have small plane crashes. n/t

[Peace Patriot]

5. Nope, those went out with Diebold--in the same month actually (10/02). nt