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

[Octafish]

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



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

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

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

RFK called the Warren Commission report "shoddy workmanship."

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

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

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

[blm]

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

.

[Octafish]

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

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

[zappaman]

13. Great smear!

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

[Octafish]

14. Project much?

I hadn't thought of you, until now.

Do you feel guilt?

[zappaman]

15. Nope.

The BFEE has my back!

[Octafish]

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

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

[zappaman]

20. Look up Lee Harvey Oswald

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

[stopbush]

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

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

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

[Zen Democrat]

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

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

Earl Warren was a Republican.

John J. McCloy was a Republican.

John Sherman Cooper from Kentucky was a Republican

Gerald Ford from Michigan was a Republican

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[stopbush]

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

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

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

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

[Octafish]

66. Well stated, Zen Democrat.

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

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



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

[stopbush]

79. What a laugh!

You wrote:

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

The facts:

JFK killed Nov 22, 1963

Ruby kills Oswald Nov. 24, 1963

WCR delivered to LBJ, Sept 24, 1964

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

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

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

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

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

[stopbush]

131. MAJOR woo.

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

[Hotler]

147. Kicking. n/t

[zappaman]

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

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/local-news/20121117-one-man-truth-squad-still-debunking-jfk-conspiracy-theories.ece

[Octafish]

195. Crapola at its deepest.

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

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


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

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


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

For details, go up and down the thread.

[MrMickeysMom]

161. What an ignorant comment.

Care to back it up?

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

Try reading something with a bibliography with references.

[zappaman]

163. Back what up?

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

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

[MrMickeysMom]

188. No you wouldn't...

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

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

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

[HiPointDem]

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

Unless you think rfk's kids are lying.

[stopbush]

80. CT paranoia.

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

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

[Octafish]

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

Oswald, the CIA and Mexico City

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

I. The Rosetta Stone

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTINUED...

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

[stopbush]

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

I feel sorry for people like you.

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

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

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

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

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

[Octafish]

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

Here's why that picture is so important:

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

CONTINUED...

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

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

[stopbush]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Octafish]

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

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

[stopbush]

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

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

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

[Octafish]

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

What's the technical term?

[stopbush]

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

[zappaman]

99. Speaking of smears...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022194573#post10

[RZM]

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

[alberg]

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

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

[stopbush]

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

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

[alberg]

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

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

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

[stopbush]

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

[MinM]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More on Richard A. Sprague here and here.

[happyslug]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mc Mike]

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

Last edited Sat Jan 19, 2013, 11:25 AM - Edit history (1)

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

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

(edited for clarity)

[Octafish]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[happyslug]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[AntiFascist]

255. I'm curious...

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

[stopbush]

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

to question EVERY piece of evidence in the case.

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

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

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

[AndyTiedye]

651. I Don't Believe in Magic…

…bullets.

[stopbush]

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

Typical of people who get their history from Oliver Stone.

[HiPointDem]

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

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

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

it's a stupid phrase.

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

politics = conspiracy.

[stopbush]

293. Talk about contradicting yourself!

You wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[AntiFascist]

302. Uhhh, what?

The legal definition of a conspiracy goes something like this:

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

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

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

[stopbush]

306. You wrote:

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

Agreed.

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

[AntiFascist]

318. From one point of view...

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

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

[HiPointDem]

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

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

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

[greytdemocrat]

170. Muahahahahaha!!!!

[stopbush]

29. Agreed.

[MrMickeysMom]

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

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

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

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

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

[zappaman]

162. Cool!

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

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

[MrMickeysMom]

176. Divert much?

Why answer a question when you can ask another one?

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

[zappaman]

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

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

[lonestarnot]

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

to do so.

[MrMickeysMom]

184. already have...

Not everyone knows... Now you do.

[lonestarnot]

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

[AntiFascist]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Octafish]

220. JFK never ordered the bubble top off.

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



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

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

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

The thing is PRESIDENT KENNEDY NEVER SAID THAT.

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

Agents Go On Record

[AntiFascist]

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

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

[stopbush]

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

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

[AntiFascist]

301. Wrong...

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

[zappaman]

304. uh huh

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

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

and so what if one was in development?

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

[AntiFascist]

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

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

[stopbush]

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

[AntiFascist]

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

and about that Neutron Activation analysis....

[stopbush]

309. You wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Woulda, coulda shoulda. Irrelevant.

[stopbush]

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

and part of JFK's "Irish Mafia."

It's in the WCR.

[stopbush]

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

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

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

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

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

[doublethink]

676. ...

http://vincepalamara.blogspot.com/2011/03/chapter-6-security-stripping-further.html

[stopbush]

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

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

[doublethink]

682. ...

[lonestarnot]

179. You have handily diminished your credibility.

[alberg]

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

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

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

[zappaman]

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

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

[alberg]

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

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

[zappaman]

622. I like busting you when you make things up

or don't acknowledge your own words.

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

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

[nyquil_man]

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

Good to know.

[Octafish]

619. Where did I write that?

Oh. I didn't.

[nyquil_man]

625. You didn't write it.

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

Pretty much what RFK Jr. has done.

[stopbush]

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

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

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

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

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

http://archive.org/details/RobertFKennedyAtSanFernandoValleyStateCollege

[Octafish]

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

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

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

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

[stopbush]

536. "In private, there are reports."

Meaningless.

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

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

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

[Octafish]

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

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

[zappaman]

545. Is that why you are now talking about nazis?

No one strays farther from the OP than you...always.

When will you be telling us whether or not Oswald was a hero?

You have some strange heroes, my friend...

[Octafish]

578. NAZIs played a MAJOR role in the United States after the war.

Even someone of small mind and narrow education should make an effort to learn the story. One's freedom, life or even country could depend on it.

CIA director Allen Dulles and German High Commissioner John McCloy helped NAZI war criminals escape justice. Both were in on the ground floor of the military-industrial complex in Washington and on Wall Street. Both served on the Warren Commission.

Coincidently, the escaped NAZIs now working for CIA as spies on Moscow in the fight against communism reported the Soviets were ahead of us militarily, helping needlessly fuel the Cold War and capitalize on all its costs.

We can see this all around us today. The nation runs on Reaganomics, where War Inc runs Washington.

Robin Hood in Reverse means policy, instead of making a level playing field, tilts things for the rich and the banks, that is not justice. That is gangsterism.

When the rich can buy justice and elections and the rest of the citizenry are regarded as serfs and cannon fodder, that's fascist.

When the nation attacks an innocent nation and kills millions of people to steal its oil, that is NAZI.

Links to details for all of this are posted throughout this thread.

Almost forgot: I'll post what I want. Obviously, you have a problem with that - among other things.

[zappaman]

579. You can post whatever you want

In fact you can make a post that lies about what I say...

"You spam: "So, when did you stop beating your wife?" "
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022194573#post497

Odd that you haven't provided a link to the quote you attributed to me...guess you made it up, huh?


Or you can make a post where you wonder if Oswald was 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

Just try not to cry when you get someone pointing out your lies, your bullshit, and your misplaced hero worship.

[stopbush]

547. And yet, RFK conducted his own INDEPENDENT investigation of the numerous JFK CTs AT THE TIME

and in the end, he agreed with the WC that there was no conspiracy.

He was supplied all of the information the WC had in their hands ("I have seen all of the archives&quot . He agreed with the findings of the WCR and is listed as doing so in the WCR:

"Based upon the investigation reviewed in this chapter, the Commission concluded that there is no credible evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald was part of a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy. The conclusion that there is no evidence of a conspiracy was also reached independently by Dean Rusk, the Secretary of State; Robert S. McNamara, the Secretary of Defense; C. Douglas Dillon, the Secretary of the Treasury; Robert F. Kennedy, the Attorney General; J. Edgar Hoover, the Director of the FBI; John A. McCone, the Director of the CIA; and James J. Rowley, the Chief of the Secret Service, on the basis of the information available to each of them." (http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo/wcr6.htm#p19 )

[AntiFascist]

647. As I've pointed out in my posts on this issue...

RFK may have had very good reasons related to national security for not wanting to cross the Warren Commission. Certain anti-Castro plans were still active, several of which RFK and others would have been well aware of. Calling into question the evidence presented in the WCR would have also risked exposing these operations. As decades have passed, the risks to national security have become infinitesimal, and the only risk that now remains is the exposure of right-wing corruption.

[stopbush]

648. That might be plausible if RFK was a coward. Or a political opportunist.

He wasn't.

You really think that RFK would have thought there were more important national security issues at risk than the murder of his own brother, the sitting president? You really think if he had good reason to distrust the WCR due to good information he had proving a conspiracy in the death of his brother that he would have held back? Especially when he still held all the power in his hands that came with being the AG? What, he wanted to wait until AFTER he left that position of power to look into his brother's death?

Ridiculous.

Seems like you think of him the way many CTists think about JFK - a man who wanted us out of Nam but was too big a coward to act on his "true" convictions.

One needs to ask: what was there to admire about two such craven cowards as JFK & RFK?

I'm always amazed when people like yourself will nitpick every detail of the evidence in this case as laid out in the WCR, looking for something, ANYTHING that you can believe serves as a linchpin whose removal destroys a logical conclusion in the JFK killing, and who then turn around and proceed to stack up an edifice of supposition and conjecture ("may have had very good reasons" etc) that you imagine has equivalency to proofs offered through the actual evidence in the case.

It's the same false equivalency we see in the media these days with their "Rs and Ds do it" bull.

If you spent half the time examining the evidence in the case as you spend conjecturing about how this or that MIGHT have happened, you'd be better off.

[AntiFascist]

656. In the course of this thread...

I've been analyzing certain evidence very carefully and I'm now even more convinced that the WCR has problems.

As for RFK being a coward, I stongly disagree. If anything, it demonstrates that RFK placed the national security needs of the nation above those of his selfish desire to prosecute his brother's death. As president in 1969, he could have done more to investigate the case, but in 1963-64, the danger of right-wing hardliners leading us to war with the Soviets was too great and I'm sure it was of paramount importance not to upset the delicate balance that LBJ had to then deal with.

You are the one insinuating that RFK must have been a coward in this case. The anti-conspiracy group on this thread also engage in character assassination of RFK, Jr., as well as implying that the Kennedy family itself was corrupt from the time of Joseph Kennedy, and had its own ties to the mafia. Why don't you just admit that, much like J. Edgar Hoover, you really don't like the Kennedys?

[stopbush]

658. "It demonstrates that RFK?" You know, these aren't FACTS that we're talking about here.

It's all speculation, and rank speculation at that. Your peddling it like it's a fact doesn't make it so.

You're convinced by rank speculation that RFK thought there was a conspiracy, yet the overwhelming evidence laid out in the WCR has you "convinced that the WCR has problems."

I'll retire to Bedlam.

Your final paragraph wherein you compare me to Hoover and say I don't like the Kennedys is contemptible. You have a problem with my liking evidence over fantasy. Period. That's why I take RFK Jr's various pronouncements - be they about vaccines and autism or a woman's right to abortion - with a huge grain of salt.

Preferring fantasy to fact is YOUR problem, not mine.

[AntiFascist]

659. Contemptible?

Please tell me, what did you mean in Post 475 where you indicated that one of JFK's top aides was part of JFK's "Irish Mafia"? (then cited the Hoover inspired WCR).

[stopbush]

662. Now, I'm forced to give history lessons.

"David Francis Powers, 85, who helped a young Navy veteran named John F. Kennedy win his first election to Congress and then served as his personal aide and confidant through his presidency, died March 27 at a medical facility in Arlington, Mass.

"He was part of the original coterie of Kennedy aides who with Lawrence F. O'Brien and Kenneth O'Donnell came to be known as the Irish Mafia." - Source: The Washington Post, March 28, 1998; Page B06

[AntiFascist]

664. It could also imply...

JFK's recently alleged entanglement with a criminal organization. Careful there, stopbush.

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

Paddy Whacked: The Irish Mob (2006), a documentary tracing the rise and fall of the Irish mob, including an alleged involvement in the John F. Kennedy assassination

[stopbush]

667. It implies no such thing. The fact that the Washington Post called these aides the Irish Mafia

proves that they were known as that during the day, and that it was obviously a term of affection.

Please cite a newspaper, reference work or anybody who has ever referred to JFK's aides using the term "Irish Mafia" who were implying that he or those aides had ties to "The Irish Mob."

I once worked for a Jewish family who owned a business. They referred to themselves as the "Their surname Crime Family." It was an affectionate use of a stereotype applied to themselves.

Again, you don't know your history, and since I'm not a CTist, you assume that my using the term Irish Mafia in connection with JFK is somehow a dig at the Kennedys.

Your lame "it could also imply" only implies something else to those ignorant of their history.

[AntiFascist]

669. I only assume that there are a lot of young people viewing this forum...

and when they see the term "mafia" it could imply many things to them, not always as a historically understood "term of affection".

I would hasten to point out that there are also many right-wing theories out there related to Joseph Kennedy's founding of his dynasty "in part related to the bootleg industry"

http://www.netplaces.com/mafia/did-the-mafia-kill-kennedy/papa-joe-and-booze.htm

Joseph Kennedy lived to bury three of his sons (Joseph Jr., John, and Robert), plus endure many other family tragedies, including a crippling stroke that left him paralyzed and speechless in his last years. This was after he promised the Mafia to reign in his son Bobby's crusade against organized crime. He was never able to fulfill that promise to the mob.

I do not endorse such theories, but I would remind you that the use of the term mafia is not always assumed to mean a term of endearment.

[stopbush]

670. So, you're suggesting that people who DO know their history should walk on eggs

and avoid using political terminology that is well known to many because those who can't bother to become informed might take offense?

Sorry, but I don't have time for such politically correct nonsense.

BTW - this latest post comes off as nothing more than a lame defense of your own ignorance on this subject.

[AntiFascist]

674. Nonsense aside...

(and your posts are often full of it) this thread contains a number of attacks on the character of the Kennedy family, at large. The insinuation that JFK was somehow entangled with the Irish Mafia only adds to that conjecture.

[stopbush]

681. Do you have comprehension problems?

The term "Irish Mafia" when used in connection with JFK is an extremely specific reference to specific aides. There is absolutely NO insinuation that JFK was involved with an organized crime group of Irish heritage when using the term "Irish mafia."

You're now making shit up. it's desperate. Please stop.

Following your "logic," people should be very careful when referring to the sports teams at Notre Dame as "The Fighting Irish." After all, half the men who died at The Alamo were Irish. I'd hate to have the young people thinking that the basketball team they're watching on TV is busy fighting Santa Ana at The Alamo.

[AntiFascist]

684. I'm complaining about the use of the word "mafia" not the use of "Irish"...

although the Kennedys and their aides may have endured being called the Irish Mafia jokingly, and perhaps grew used to it, the real Irish Mob was a distinct entity. As I pointed out, there are references to Joseph Kennedy's relationship during Prohibition. Some (not including myself) even cite a dispute between the Irish and Italian mafias as resulting in the Assassination. I find your use of the term, where you are clearly on the side of those calling into question the character of members of the Kennedy family, to be in very poor taste. Apparently you are oblivious to all this. No doubt, if and when more evidence is brought forth about RFK's conspiratorial beliefs, you will then completely turn on him, in addition to his children.

Other family details have been brought out in the open via Rory Kennedy:

http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/movies/ethel_kennedy_spills_family_secrets_q8W0ISFWNaVdSQISXYEfdK

PARK CITY, Utah — Robert F. Kennedy feared the Mafia would try to blind his young children in an acid attack to deter his investigation into labor racketeering, his widow, Ethel, reveals for the first time.

...

One of her favorite stories is that when Robert was attorney general, Ethel would take the older kids to watch sharpshooters in the basement of the FBI building (the bureau fell under Robert Kennedy’s jurisdiction).

Kathleen says in the documentary, “One day she noticed a suggestion box. She took out her signature red pen, wrote, ‘Get a new director’ and put it in the box.’’

Rory Kennedy — who will be joined by her mother and about 25 other family members for the premiere in Park City, Utah — adds that longtime FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, no fan of his nominal boss Robert Kennedy, quickly discovered what happened.

[stopbush]

686. What you're doing is over reaching to make a point that doesn't exist

anywhere but in your mind...and it's only in your mind because you're trying to cover for the fact that you had no idea that JFK's top aides were know as the Irish Mafia.

Stop digging the hole deeper. You're getting more ridiculous as you go.

[AntiFascist]

688. All you have to do is google and you will find...

a number of references to the Kennedys as Irish Mafia, some derogatory. One of the more infamous is LBJ's mistress interview regarding LBJ's reaction after attending the Murchison party in Dallas prior to the assassination, stating that "the Irish Mafia will never embarass me again." Doubtless you will now go off on a tangent about how this is yet another CTist's fantasy. I'm merely citing it as an example of the use of the term.

[zappaman]

689. Those are not the words she claimed he used...

"After tomorrow those goddamn Kennedys will never embarrass me again — that's no threat — that's a promise."

Not sure which google you are using...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Duncan_Brown
http://dperry1943.com/browns.html


And of course, her credibility is zero.
LBJ was not even in town that night she claimed he was at that super secret party.

[AntiFascist]

690. You guys are so predictable...

I did not say that LBJ was necessarilly a participant in the conspiracy nor did I claim that Madeleine Brown's statements were accurate. The reference may have come from E. Howard Hunt. Regardless, the phrase is out there when you do a search on various search engines, and not always does it refer only to JFK's aides in an endearing way. Other examples found from the first page of search results on "Irish Mafia"+Kennedy:

"The Irish Mafia around JFK - posted in JFK Assassination Debate: It's a worthwhile question, given Joe Kennedy's background."

"His assassination was the culmination of a much more sophisticated and subtle gang struggle between the Irish Mafia and the Italian Mafia"

"The Kennedy dynasty was founded in part on the bootleg whiskey trade during Prohibition."

Urban dictionary: "some people make a link between J.F.Kennedy and the Irish mob"

You simply cannot deny that these ideas are out there in ciculation, and when stopbush makes reference to the "Irish Mafia" it keys right into them, further chipping away at the Kennedy legacy.

[zappaman]

691. You said...

"One of the more infamous is LBJ's mistress interview regarding LBJ's reaction after attending the Murchison party in Dallas prior to the assassination, stating that "the Irish Mafia will never embarass me again.""

You certainly did say MB said this as you quoted it.

What's predictable is your inability to admit a mistake and move on.

[AntiFascist]

693. You are clearly the expert on precisely what Madelaine Brown said...

I stand corrected.

Regardless, there are those who seem to misquote her and those misquotes do come up in engine searches. The point I was trying to make, which you fail to acknowledge, is that there is derogatory info floating about the web related to Kennedys and the Irish Mafia, most of which I do not agree with.

Even the Irish themselves don't use it in an endearing way when quoting Jackie Kennedy. From the IrishCentral.com website:

In a new book "Jacqueline Kennedy: Historic Conversations on Life with John F. Kennedy," by Kennedy aide and historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr written soon after Jack Kennedy was killed, she spoke out against the Irish Americans who surrounded her husband.

Speaking of those close to Kennedy she stated ‘there was the Irish Mafia... who now, some of them, at least from the Irish-- are just so bitter about everyone else. ”

Read more: http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Jackie-Kennedy-disliked-the-Irish-and-cooking-Irish-stew-129712128.html#ixzz2JJFa8ciC
Follow us: @IrishCentral on Twitter | IrishCentral on Facebook

Here is a clear reference to Irish Americans surrounding JFK as the "Irish Mafia", not just the aides themselves.

[zappaman]

694. I wouldn't say I'm an expert on what she said...

I just know she didn't say what you said she did according to every site I've ever seen and every book I've ever read.

"I only assume that there are a lot of young people viewing this forum...
and when they see the term "mafia" it could imply many things to them, not always as a historically understood "term of affection"."

I appreciate you trying to protect the children, but if they follow the link and explanation of the term that STOPBUSH provided, I think they will be fine.

[AntiFascist]

695. "protect the children"...what an understatement n/t

[stopbush]

696. Are you effing kidding us? Madeline Brown? You're actually putting that NUT forward

as a witness against LBJ and his using the words Irish Mafia?

YOU. ARE. CITING. A . FICTION.

You're NOT citing an example of the words "Irish Mafia" being used because LBJ was never at the party Brown alleges took place for him to say those words to her.

Here's a few of the many claims made by Madeline Brown:

In the documentary The Men Who Killed Kennedy, Brown placed FBI director J. Edgar Hoover and Richard Nixon at a social gathering at Murchison's Ft Worth mansion on November 21, 1963 — the night before the assassination of President Kennedy. This is the party where Brown would have us believe LBJ expressed prior knowledge of JFK's assassination. Unfortunately, all a lie:

1. J Edgar was in Washington DC on Nov 21 & 22. That's been thoroughly document. Easily disproved lie #1.

2. LBJ was seen at a political rally in Houston with JFK until about 10 on Nov 21. He then flew to Carswell Air Force Base near Fort Worth. After touching down at 11:07 p.m., he was driven to the Texas Hotel in Fort Worth, where he and Lady Bird were photographed at 11:50 p.m. on their arrival. No way LBJ was at that alleged party. Easily disproved lie #2.

3. The alleged "Murchinson Party" was held at a home which Murchinson had moved out of 4 years before the assassination. On Nov. 21, he was living at his Glad Oaks Ranch between Athens and Palestine, ie: 100-plus miles outside of Dallas. Two longtime personal assistants to Murchinson placed him at his East Texas ranch on Nov. 22, receiving the news of JFK's death at that ranch around 1pm. Easily disproved lie #3.

4. Tony Zoppi, the longtime entertainment columnist for The News, said he had seen Nixon introduced at a bottlers convention at a downtown Dallas hotel about 11 p.m. on Nov. 21. That sighting made it virtually impossible that Nixon could have attended the alleged Murchison party. Easily disprove lie #4.

"Brown also claimed to have seen Lee Harvey Oswald with Jack Ruby in the latter's Carousel Club prior to the assassination. In addition, Brown said that on New Year's Eve 1963, Johnson confirmed the conspiracy to kill Kennedy, insisting that "Texas oil and those fucking renegade intelligence bastards in Washington" had been responsible. Brown said that the plan to kill the President had its origins in the 1960 Democratic Convention, at which John F. Kennedy was nominated presidential candidate with Johnson as his running mate." (Source: Wikipedia)

Is it plausible to believe that LBJ - who had been sworn in as president on Nov 22, 1963 - would actually put himself in a situation where he would be able to meet with a mistress on a holiday evening that is one of the biggest nights of the year around the world? Really? Did LBJ have Brown invited to the various Presidential New Year's Eve functions in DC, where his wife Lady Bird would most surely also be, and where he (LBJ) would be surrounded by staff, pols, flacks and hacks all seeking to be close to the president on a holiday eve?

You believe THAT, but you don't believe the forensic evidence in the case presented in the WCR?

Brown was a liar and a spinner of fables who didn't know enough to shut up before her tales lurched into absolute absurdity. One could perhaps believe that she was a mistress of LBJ, but to then believe that she also saw Oswald and Ruby together pre-assassination, that LBJ told her he was plotting to kill JFK, and that she just happened to be in all the right places at all the right times to hear LBJ confirm that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK is beyond what any rational person could possible believe as being true.

Yet here you are, citing her as yet another of your "I have no evidence for this, but maybe it really happened, hee-YUCK!!" fantasies about the JFK killing, while denying the science that lies behind the evidence of the WCR.

At this point, I really can't take anything you're saying seriously. Obviously, you have a far-out "pet theory" about the JFK assassination that would make Oliver Stone throw up in his mouth. You've been slowly rolling out your pet theory over the course of this thread. First, you start with a faulty look at the real evidence in the WCR, trying to look reasonable about it so you can say, "I've looked at YOUR evidence, and I have problems with it. Here's what I think..." This is important for you to do because you hope it will rope others into a false equivalency, where the WCR believers will feel the need to be nice and "look at AF's "evidence," just as he looked at the WCR evidence.

You then hope to get the WCR believers to give up a point or two in the WCR argument because you believe that will open the door for you to claim - as you have - that doing so "destroys" the WCR evidence in the case. It doesn't.

Now, you're at the point where you're rolling out your REALLY crazy JFK CT crap, hoping it will resonate with others. Unfortunately, you haven't laid the ground work for others to make the giant leaps that you have (ie: believing Madeline Brown's fantasies about LBJ) to get to your "pet theory," which is simply ridiculous on its face. The reason you didn't lay the groundwork was because your half-truths and faulty reading of the evidence in the case has been thoroughly and effectively dismantled by the science-believing contributors to this thread.

Madeline Brown. That's like shit icing on top of the shit CT cake you've been baking in this thread.

[AntiFascist]

697. Once again you misconstrue what I have said, and then elaborate endlessly on your own...

idiotic chain of reasoning.

All I said was that this was one example, among many, where the use of "Irish Mafia" was not particularly endearing, in relation to the Kennedys. You have completely IGNORED all the other examples I have cited.

You seem to think that just because we question the WCR, we must all subscribe to the same conspiracy theories because, after all, we ARE conspiracy theorists! This is not only idiotic, but it shows just how reckless your counter-arguments tend to be. When in doubt, you always fall back on the ad hominem attack because that's all you really have to defend yourself.

As for the theories that LBJ participated in the conspiracy, I would argue that these particular theories have been mostly put forth by Republicans (namely E. Howard Hunt and even Gerald Ford, while on their respective death beds) in a last ditch effort to blame a Democrat, and shift attention away from the extreme right-wing individuals who were truly responsible, and who would have been characterized as the real enemies of JFK.

As for your endless blabbering on Madeline Brown, I really could care less one way or another.

[stopbush]

700. You may not care about my blabbering on about Madeline Brown,

but as you yourself have pointed out, there are many uninformed young people reading DU, and I felt it was important to give them a little background on the person you were citing as a source for using the words "Irish Mafia" in a derogatory way.

[AntiFascist]

702. Doing a little more searching on the matter...

she does seem to use the phrase in her autobiography, but not necessarilly in her televised interview. The may explain the discrepancy.

While I don't want to entertain theories about LBJ participation in a conspiracy, I would point out that Clint Murchison, Jr. himself would fit the profile better. It's not clear to me whether we are referring to Clint Murchison, Jr or Sr. This bio would seem to be referring to Junior, who was born in 1923:

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

and according to this obituary maintained a 25-acre estate in North Dallas until it was liquidated in 1985:

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/04/01/obituaries/cw-murchison-jr-dies-in-texas-at-63.html

[stopbush]

703. What does any of that matter? LBJ wasn't at that party to say what he didn't say

even if that party ever occurred (which I seriously doubt, considering the mendacity of Ms Brown).

The question I have to ask is: why you would toss out the whole Brown/LBJ/Murchinson party fiction without having first done "a little more searching on the matter?" You may have saved yourself some embarrassment.

I'm guessing that you've been on a tear - scouring the internet looking for something, anything to support your errant remarks about the "Irish Mafia" as it relates to JFK's aides, ever since I called you on it.

[AntiFascist]

705. You are confusing two different issues....

and you seem to be avoiding my question about whether you were referring to Murchison (note spelling) Senior or Junior.

The "Irish Mafia" issue should be settled, why do you insist on shifting attention back to it? You are correct that it was used to refer to Irish-Americans surrounding JFK in a familiar way. I am, however, also correct in that it is sometimes used in a derogatory way by those who question JFK's crowd.

I never "tossed" the whole Brown/LBJ/Mucrhinson party story, in fact I think it is very much worth pursuing. The facts are certainly not clear to me, particularly in whether we are really talking about Murchison Junior or Senior. The only thing I am willing to "toss" is any discussion of LBJ, particularly since there are other more extreme right-wing entities associated with the Murchisons. I would view LBJ as a compromised individual who had become painfully aware of what he was up against on the Republican side.

[stopbush]

706. The only "issue" about Murchison is whether M Brown was lying about the party.

She was.

What issue is there beyond that? What matter if it was the home of the father or the son where the party never took place?

[AntiFascist]

707. I would refer back to the book "Farewell America"...

which I believe may represent the state of RFK's knowledge prior to his death.

There are extensive sections on "oilmen" and "Texans", ending with discussion of associations between H.L. Hunt, General Walker, the Minutemen, and others that were tied together in the alleged "Plot". If Murchison was also tied up in this group, then he would be a highly relevant figure, regardless of any specific social gathering.

[stopbush]

708. Fiction makes up a very small percentage of my reading list these days.

I don't think I have room there for "Farewell America."

[AntiFascist]

698. Fine...

my point is, these days you also get right-wing drivel like the following (I won't link to the forum where this came from and I eliminated some names and info to conform to DU rules):

Posted 18 September 2009 - 05:38 PM


..., on Sep 18 2009, 12:05 PM, said:


Does anyone know whether the Irish Mafia that Kennedy had round him in the White House WERE actually Irish Mafia? Kenny O'Donnell, for example?

Or were they just clannish and a bit ruthless?

An important member of the Irish Mafia around Kennedy was ...


... However, he was also involved with the Mafia He was forced to resign in July, 1962. He was replaced by another member of JFK's Irish Mafia, ... He was also part of the ... set-up and he was forced to resign over the same issue.


... died on ... when he fell (or was pushed) from his office on the thirteenth story of the ... Building in Miami. ... did not leave a suicide note but his friend, ... claimed that he had become depressed as a result of the death of JFK. However, his daughter told me via email that she was convinced that ... was murdered to keep him quiet about what he knew about the assassination and the ... case.

Other members of the Kennedy's Irish Mafia included Dave Powers, Larry O'Brien and Kenneth O'Donnell.

.

[stopbush]

699. Why you'd waste your time worrying abut RW drivel is beyond me. It's drivel!

[Scuba]

2. I have no clue what really happened, but never bought the official story.

[Octafish]

16. 'Breach of Trust' by Gerald D. McKnight spells out how the Warren Commission failed the nation.

Published by the University of Kansas, the work by the Hood College professor emeritus of history spells out precisely how.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10182

The Warren Commission Report on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy . . . was instantly implausible because the authors hid the secrets they knew (and ignored the ones they didn't). -- David Ignatius, Washington Post Book World

[zappaman]

19. Reclaiming History by Vincent Bugliosi spells out how the Warren Commission got it right.

Published by W. W. Norton & Company in 2007, the work by the author of "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder" spells out precisely how the WC got it right, and how conspiracy theorists cherry pick quotes, leave out important information which doesn't align with their particular theory, and just plain make shit up.


"This weighty book (its pages number sixteen hundred and twelve) claims to be the final word on the assassination of President Kennedy. It is as if Bugliosi, who prosecuted the Manson murders, intended to overwhelm with sheer, footnoted bulk. But in the way that others have "proved" conspiracies, Bugliosi "proves" yet again the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald. He does this by reëxamining familiar evidence but also by dismissing preposterous theories, such as one that J. Edgar Hoover masterminded the murder to keep his job. Bugliosi steps less certainly in considering the work of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, which, in 1978, concluded that J.F.K. was "probably" killed as the result of a plot. Citing a National Research Council study, Bugliosi brushes aside the committee’s acoustic evidence suggesting that four shots were fired in Dallas (a fourth shot would confirm a second gunman); he is uncomfortable with a subsequent analysis, by the British Forensic Science Society, which challenged the N.R.C. opinion. Mysteries are like that." -The New Yorker

[stopbush]

30. Agreed again. But don't expect the CTists to read Bugliosi when 99% of them

have never bothered to read the WCR.

[Octafish]

43. That is your recurrent theme, encouraging DUers to read the WCR, stopbush.

The reason they don't is that they're not stupid and don't want to waste time, as the Warren report is largely wrong.

Here's your Warren Commission's entire argument ... The Magic Bullet.



JFK Exhibit F-294

Photo of 5 bullets fired from the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle: (left to right) the "magic bullet" (CE 399), two bullets fired into cotton wadding(CE 572), a bullet fired through a goat rib (CE 853), and a bullet fired through the wrist of a human cadaver (CE 856).

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=45739

The magic bullet appears to have been fired into cotton wadding.

That makes clear why the Warren Commission's case is bogus.

[zappaman]

45. Why not show the other pictures, my friend?

Why so selective?