Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

CIA memo: Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-03 12:43 AM
Original message
CIA memo: Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report
MODs: This is an official US Government document in the public domain and thus eligible for posting in its entirety, I believe.

DUers: This casts light on how scared the BFEE was about the Truth in 1967. Wonder WTF since then don't they want us to know about? Octafish


CIA Instructions to Media Assets

This document caused quite a stir when it was discovered in 1977. Dated 4/1/67, and marked "DESTROY WHEN NO LONGER NEEDED", this document is a stunning testimony to how concerned the CIA was over investigations into the Kennedy assassination. Emphasis has been added to facilitate scanning.

CIA Document #1035-960, marked "PSYCH" for presumably Psychological Warfare Operations, in the division "CS", the Clandestine Services, sometimes known as the "dirty tricks" department.


RE: Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report

1. Our Concern. From the day of President Kennedy's assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder. Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report, (which appeared at the end of September 1964), various writers have now had time to scan the Commission's published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission's findings. In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy, and often they have implied that the Commission itself was involved. Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission's report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse results.

2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization. The members of the Warren Commission were naturally chosen for their integrity, experience and prominence. They represented both major parties, and they and their staff were deliberately drawn from all sections of the country. Just because of the standing of the Commissioners, efforts to impugn their rectitude and wisdom tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society. Moreover, there seems to be an increasing tendency to hint that President Johnson himself, as the one person who might be said to have benefited, was in some way responsible for the assassination. Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.

3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active addresses are requested:

a. To discuss the publicity problem with and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors) , pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.

b. To employ propaganda assets to and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (II) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories. In the course of discussions of the whole phenomenon of criticism, a useful strategy may be to single out Epstein's theory for attack, using the attached Fletcher article and Spectator piece for background. (Although Mark Lane's book is much less convincing that Epstein's and comes off badly where confronted by knowledgeable critics, it is also much more difficult to answer as a whole, as one becomes lost in a morass of unrelated details.)


4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:


a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider. The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim Joesten and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case; however, unlike that case, the attack on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence, no new culprits have been convincingly identified, and there is no agreement among the critics. (A better parallel, though an imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire of 1933, which some competent historians (Fritz Tobias, AJ.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt) now believe was set by Vander Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for either Nazis or Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists, but the latter have been more successful in convincing the world that the Nazis were to blame.)

b. Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual witnesses (which are less reliable and more divergent--and hence offer more hand-holds for criticism) and less on ballistics, autopsy, and photographic evidence. A close examination of the Commission's records will usually show that the conflicting eyewitness accounts are quoted out of context, or were discarded by the Commission for good and sufficient reason.

c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc. Note that Robert Kennedy, Attorney General at the time and John F. Kennedy's brother, would be the last man to overlook or conceal any conspiracy. And as one reviewer pointed out, Congressman Gerald R. Ford would hardly have held his tongue for the sake of the Democratic administration, and Senator Russell would have had every political interest in exposing any misdeeds on the part of Chief Justice Warren. A conspirator moreover would hardly choose a location for a shooting where so much depended on conditions beyond his control: the route, the speed of the cars, the moving target, the risk that the assassin would be discovered. A group of wealthy conspirators could have arranged much more secure conditions.

d. Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or the other. Actually, the make-up of the Commission and its staff was an excellent safeguard against over-commitment to any one theory, or against the illicit transformation of probabilities into certainties.

e. Oswald would not have been any sensible person's choice for a co-conspirator. He was a "loner," mixed up, of questionable reliability and an unknown quantity to any professional intelligence service.

f. As to charges that the Commission's report was a rush job, it emerged three months after the deadline originally set. But to the degree that the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was largely due to the pressure of irresponsible speculation already appearing, in some cases coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit their errors, are now putting out new criticisms.

g. Such vague accusations as that "more than ten people have died mysteriously" can always be explained in some natural way e.g.: the individuals concerned have for the most part died of natural causes; the Commission staff questioned 418 witnesses (the FBI interviewed far more people, conduction 25,000 interviews and re interviews), and in such a large group, a certain number of deaths are to be expected. (When Penn Jones, one of the originators of the "ten mysterious deaths" line, appeared on television, it emerged that two of the deaths on his list were from heart attacks, one from cancer, one was from a head-on collision on a bridge, and one occurred when a driver drifted into a bridge abutment.)


5. Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to the Commission's Report itself. Open-minded foreign readers should still be impressed by the care, thoroughness, objectivity and speed with which the Commission worked. Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to add to their account the idea that, checking back with the report itself, they found it far superior to the work of its critics.

Source:

http://www.webcom.com/~lpease/collections/assassination...

Emphasis from webcom version. I thought it best to leave it in, eh Lone Nutters?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-03 01:19 AM
Response to Original message
1. CIA: Blame Conspiracy Talk on Commies
Whose definition of "unfounded and irresponsible speculation" should we use? J Edgar Hoover's? LBJ's? Allen Dulles's? Octafish in an attempt at generating discussion.

Excerpt from the memo above:

3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active addresses are requested:

a. To discuss the publicity problem with and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors) , pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DUreader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-03 08:06 AM
Response to Original message
2. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-03 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Thanks, DUreader! Here's an interesting photo...
... spanning the worlds of sports, law enforcement and murder.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fujiyama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-03 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #4
20. I could think of another caption for that photo...
"We're both looking for the real killers"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
9215 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-03 09:59 AM
Response to Original message
3. The way to dispel a conspiracy theory
is to tell the truth.

Just look at this piece of blankety,blank!

The CIA is freaking out about people questioning the official word. This is what people in a democracy are suppose to do!

QUESTION AUTHORITY

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-03 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. The memo is from April 1967 when Garrison was ramping up...
... his investigation, tying together the assassination in Dallas with ex-FBI SAC Guy Bannister, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, PERMINDEX, the anti-Castro Cubans, Mafia don Carlos Marcello, Jack Ruby, Lee Harvey Oswald and the rest of the assorted criminal associates of certain members of the CIA.

Gov. Ronald Reagan of California didn't like the truth then, either. He refused to enforce a subpoena and protected a witness called to testify. Nice guy, that Pruneface Dutch, a real pro-law and order type.

Hear recordings on Jim Garrison and why he drove the CIA and FBI brass nuts:

http://www.prouty.org/garrison.html



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
9215 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-03 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #6
7.  CIA and assoc. has failed in its primary objective:
to kill the Kennedy idea. Interest and skepticism has grown and now we have the Internet to keep skeptical inquiry alive.

:bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #7
11. The Kennedys are about using government to create a better future!
That's what the New Frontier was all about a continuation of the New Deal into the second-half of the 20th century. And instead of squandering our nation's wealth on a Cold War, they fought to use it to build a better life for ALL Americans.

Still, there are those who favor war and oppose the Kennedys and their followers. Not even an assassin's bullets can change the good they've done and the good that is happening and will continue through their examples. And no amount of character assassination can change what using the power of politics governance to make this a better nation for ALL its people!

Great reminder, 9215! Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Minstrel Boy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. It wasn't enough to kill them.
They had to be discredited. The character assassination continues.

It's interesting how sex has been employed posthumously to try to snuff out their legacies. Sex is a popular discrediting device of intelligence agencies and the far right.

By his death JFK had determined to smash the CIA, find an accomodation with Castro, withdraw from Vietnam and end the Cold War. And by his death RFK - who as Attorney General was the first to mount a charge against the CIA's asset, organized crime - had moved even further left, and had become a comrade-in-arms of Cesar Chavez. But that historical memory is forever being effaced by those who prefer we think of them as Rat Pack satyrists and high-rolling mobsters who probably whacked Marilyn. Because if that's what we think, then we'll never regard their assassinations as anything more than curios of history. We won't see how the course of America changed with their deaths, and that the interests their killers represented have had the nation in a death grip ever since.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-03 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. The Kennedys believed in making this a better world for ALL...
...in addition to making this country a better place for ALL Americans. That sounds threatening to many of the world's most powerful people. To intelligent people poor or rich the Kennedys sound like great people with great ideas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Minstrel Boy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-03 10:19 AM
Response to Original message
5. "Do these sentiments sound familiar?
Edited on Mon Nov-24-03 10:20 AM by Minstrel Boy
If you've been reading anti-conspiracy literature, they should. These themes are often hit hard and repeatedly in such literature. This document was marked for destruction, but somehow survived. How many other such directives will we never see because destructive instructions were followed?

"Who received these instructions, ultimately? While the answer to that question cannot easily be proven, as the CIA never acknowledges outright its assets and works hard to protect their anonymity, it is indeed curious how many of the anti-conspiracy crowd have ties to the CIA.

"Cosider the journalists most vocally nipping at Garrison's heels throughout the investigation: Hugh Aynesworth, James Phelan, and Edward Epstein. Would it be simply coincidence if all of them were found to have a relationship with the CIA?" - The Assassinations, p 308.

Aynesworth: applied to work for the CIA in Oct 1963. During Garrison investigation informed to both the FBI and the White House.

Phelan: FBI informant. Tried to bribe a witness to change his story. Good friend of Robert Maheu, who had job of formulating CIA plans to assassinate Castro.

Epstein: CIA recommended using Epstein to counter Garrison's case. Epstein openly boasted about close working relationship with CIA when he worked on book suggesting assassination was a Soviet conspiracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
9215 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-03 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. Great work!
Hayzoos! These people are suppose to be "independent"!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-03 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Minstrel Boy for Attorney General! Here's what CIA feared...
The man the CIA told the Warren Commission was Oswald,
trying to get a visa at the Soviet and Cuban embassies in Mexico City.



Of course it isn't Oswald, but that didn't stop the CIA from sticking to its story.
Why? Or should I say, "Warum?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
9215 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-03 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Like "back and to the left" means
Kennedy was shot from behind and to the right.

Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices.

- Voltaire, 1767.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. Yes and LBJ continued JFK's policies!
Professor Peter Dale Scott said he once believed what Cockburn and Chomskey thought. He changed his mind when he checked out National Security Action Memorandum 263, where JFK in November 1963 said all American troops would be out of South Vietnam by 1965 with NSAM 273, where LBJ ordered the US to provide whatever level of support necessary to protect the government of South Vietnam just days after Dallas.

Interview with
Peter Dale Scott

JFK Conspiracy Researcher
Comes in From the Cold


EXCERPT...

In his 1972 book, The War Conspiracy, Scott went out on a limb to write, "The systematic censorship and distortion of NSAM 273, first by the Pentagon study and later by the New York Times, suggests that the Kennedy assassination was itself an important, perhaps a crucial, event in the history of the Indochina war conspiracy."

Here's what Scott discovered in his readings of the NSAM documents: Despite intense opposition within his administration, Kennedy's NSAM 263 authorized plans "to withdraw 1000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963" as "an initial step in a long-term program to replace U.S. personnel." Elsewhere, Kennedy's administration had declared its intention to "withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel. . . by the end of 1965."

Johnson's NSAM 273, drafted before Kennedy's death but not approved by Kennedy, was significantly rewritten on Johnson's orders. It was, as Scott and his critics both agree, intended to reassure the nation that Johnson had not changed national policy. But a close reading of the document suggests the opposite. Johnson's NSAM ignored NSAM 263's explicit authorization of the 1,000-man withdrawl, stating instead, "The objectives of the United States with respect to the withdrawl of U.S. military personnel remain as stated in the White House statement of October 2, 1963." That White House statement was not Kennedy's binding NSAM 263, but a non-binding advisors' report. Therefore, when the Pentagon failed to withdraw 1,000 men by the end of the year, the false impression was that no binding orders were broken.

NSAM 273's doublespeak included a provision directing that military assistance programs to Vietnam should not be reduced, which seems to contradict NSAM 263 and other Kennedy policy statements. The clearest signal of a sweeping policy change, though, was NSAM 273's explicit plans for escalating the war--including carrying the war north--plans that Kennedy had vigorously resisted. These "actions of graduated scope and intensity," as a key Johnson advisor described NSAM 273's orders, led directly to U.S. destroyer patrols and the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which marked America's belly flop into the proverbial quagmire. These plans, long promoted by the Pentagon, were shoe-horned, two days before his death, into the draft NSAM that Kennedy never approved.

CONTINUED...

http://www.conspire.com/scott.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
9215 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-03 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. For the record
Edited on Fri Nov-28-03 06:28 PM by 9215
On Frontline last week the topic was Lee Harvey Oswald. Kennedy was being interviewed by Walter Cronkite about Vietnam. Kennedy said, in no uncertain terms, that the struggle in Vietnam was ultimately the responsibility of the Vietnamese. He said that the US may supply the S. Vietnamese, but that they would have to fight the thing on their own.

IMHO we never would have gotten bogged down in Nam if it hadn't been for the Kennedy coup. It was the coup leaders, The Gulf of Tonkin deception and Pentagon Papers scandal and the October Surprise of 68' when Kissinger sabotaged the Paris Peace talks that caused the Vietnam disaster to be as bad as it was. Presently I think Johnson was duped by the denizens of "Deep Politics" into believing the veracity of the Gulf of Tonkin "attacks". Truman was probably duped similarly by Dulles in late WWII and at the creation of the CIA in 1947.

We are repeating what happened with Vietnam, at least politically, and the Bushistas have a problem: they can't pawn off the responsibility for this mess on some third party, or say they inherited it. Iragate II is their baby and it is going to get worse and worse. IMO the fascists ran things after Kennedy was shot, and cemented their control after MLK Jr. and JFK's murder and were able to fly under the radar when dems were "officially" in power. Nixon simply "inherited" Vietnam so he got off the hook for awhile. Bush did Iraqgate II and their is absolutely no way that anyone else is to blame. He went against strong opposition, bribed foreign countries, lied to Congress and the American people about the threat Iraq posed and, well, we already know the rest. Importantly he didn't plan for the kind of resistance we now have. Bush's only hope is that the dumb and dumber US public will never know what is going on, but even then the US will simply go down the tubes economically and lose what little credibility and few friends it now has in the world.

If I were to venture a prediction I would say that the conservative stranglehold on the US Press will give way as it seems to already be doing somewhat and if that happens it won't be long before more of what we here a DU are talking about gets out in the mainstream.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-03 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. Excellent post...right on the money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andyjunction Donating Member (167 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-03 06:40 PM
Response to Original message
16. Well that proves it
:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-03 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. Mock all you want. Certainly you know about MOCKINGBIRD...
Edited on Fri Nov-28-03 08:56 PM by Octafish

If not, thanks anyway, Andyjunction, for reminding me of the Alex Constantine Article:


Tales from the Crypt

The Depraved Spies and Moguls

of the CIA's Operation MOCKINGBIRD


by Alex Constantine

Who Controls the Media?

Soulless corporations do, of course. Corporations with grinning, double-breasted executives, interlocking directorates, labor squabbles and flying capital. Dow. General Electric. Coca-Cola. Disney. Newspapers should have mastheads that mirror the world: The Westinghouse Evening Scimitar, The Atlantic-Richfield Intelligentser. It is beginning to dawn on a growing number of armchair ombudsmen that the public print reports news from a parallel universe - one that has never heard of politically-motivated assassinations, CIA-Mafia banking thefts, mind control, death squads or even federal agencies with secret budgets fattened by cocaine sales - a place overrun by lone gunmen, where the CIA and Mafia are usually on their best behavior. In this idyllic land, the most serious infraction an official can commit is a the employment of a domestic servant with (shudder) no
residency status.

This unlikely land of enchantment is the creation of MOCKINGBIRD.

It was conceived in the late 1940s, the most frigid period of the cold war, when the CIA began a systematic infiltration of the corporate media, a process that often included direct takeover of major news outlets.

In this period, the American intelligence services competed with communist activists abroad to influence European labor unions. With or without the cooperation of local governments, Frank Wisner, an undercover State Department official assigned to the Foreign Service, rounded up students abroad to enter the cold war underground of covert operations on behalf of his Office of Policy Coordination. Philip Graham, __a graduate of the Army Intelligence School in Harrisburg, PA, then publisher of the Washington Post., was taken under Wisner's wing to direct the program code-named Operation MOCKINGBIRD.

CONTINUED...

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/MOCK/...

EDIT: In such a hurry to share with you that I forgot the fucking link.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andyjunction Donating Member (167 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-03 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Thank you
Edited on Fri Nov-28-03 09:42 PM by Andyjunction
There are plenty of real cases of coverups and conspiracies. I only mock the ones which are obviously false. But thank you for the permission to keep doing so. :hi:

Everyone was agreeing in this thread. I just thought you might appreciate having someone to throw rocks at =P

edit: I just wanted to mention that I acknowledge the possibility that there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. But I don't believe the predominant theory that there was more than one shooter and that no shots came from the book depository. I see two shots hitting, both from the book depository and one of them hitting both Kennedy and Connally. If you can show me a theory that includes those things as facts, I'll listen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. 
... of inflicting seven different wounds in two different people. So you don't want to believe what forensic pathologists say about the case, too bad. Here are the facts, not theory, that describe the ALLEGATION you describe as "facts."

One bullet went through President Kennedy's back, five inches below the shirt collar and continued to travel through his body, although the autopsy doctors could not probe the wound deeper than an inch.

The bullet continued to travel upward and then out through the throat, shirt and tie, although it did not make any signs of exit, only marks of entry.

The bullet continued through space and into the back of Governor Connally, striking a rib.

The bullet continued through the chest and exited just underneath his breast.

The bullet continued through the Governor's arm, striking bone and leaving fragments in his wrist before exiting the other side of the forearm.

The bullet continued until plunging into the Governor's thigh.

The bullet stayed there until it plopped out at Parkland Memorial Hospital.

Strange how it was discovered on a hospital gurney Connally never used.

Supposedly, this is the single bullet. Heres a photo.



From left to right: The first is the Magic Bullet ALLEGED to have accomplished what the Warren Commission and Andyjunction claim. Next two are bullets fired into water. Hmmm. Notice the similarity to the MB. The next bullet was fired into cotton wadding. The flattened bullet on the far right was shot into ONE sheep bone.

Here's a FACT: Present at Parkland Hospital at the same time was one Jack Ruby. Dallas newsman Seth Kantor reported Jack Ruby came up to him at the time, identified himself, and made certain he was recognized. Another person reported seeing Ruby at Parkland that day, as well.

http://www.jmasland.com/testimony/media/kantor.htm

http://members.tripod.com/bigunreal/jfktidbits.html


Those allegations of the Warren Commission and the Lone Nutters arent fact. Theyre Bullshit Magic Bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Jan 24th 2020, 01:05 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC