Justice for JFK

[Octafish]

What Can We Do About JFK's Murder?

It's time to demand accountability from the officials who failed to protect the president -- and then spent decades covering up their mistakes.

by Jefferson Morley
The Atlantic, Nov. 21, 2012

As November 22 comes around again, the memory of John F. Kennedy's assassination seems to be fading in America's collective consciousness, save among aging Baby Boomers like myself. Few people younger than me (I'm 54) have any memory of the day it actually happened. 9/11 has replaced 11/22 as the date stamp of catastrophic angst.

Yet that doesn't mean people have stopped looking for answers. The buzz surrounding the release of Jackie Kennedy's private conversations and Tom Hanks' upcoming Dallas movie shows that the public is still seeking new theories and clues. Two years ago on this site, I tried to answer the question "What Do We Really Know About JFK?" With the 50th anniversary of JFK's assassination approaching next year, the time for conspiracy theories has passed and the time for accountability is coming. Now is the time to ask, "What can we do about JFK's assassination?"

For one thing, we can use the Internet. The World Wide Web has birthed many conspiracy theories (most of them easily debunked), but it has also made the historical record of JFK's murder available to millions of people outside of Washington and the federal government for the first time. I have to believe this diffusion of historical knowledge will slowly clarify the JFK story for everybody.

CONTINUED w links...

http://m.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/what-can-we-do-about-jfks-murder/265520/

[zappaman]

1. A sad anniversary

Amazing how one pissant with a rifle can alter history...

[lonestarnot]

4. One pissant? Really?

[stopbush]

8. Yep. One pissant.

[Politicalboi]

223. Yes One Pissant

Who had the ability to have the Presidents car unprotected through the motorcade. But Johnson's car had secret service flowing out of his. Just like the Pentagon that wasn't defending us on 9/11. But don't blame anyone, and go shopping, and accept our ONE blurry video as evidence.

[Cetacea]

285. Vince! Still hawking your book here?

Fortunately it is gone the way of "Case Closed"

[Octafish]

19. The 'pissant' in all likelihood wasn't Oswald.

Dallas Police Officer Marrion Baker and Building Manager Roy Truly saw Lee Harvey Oswald drinking a Coke in the Texas School Book Depository lunchroom less than 90 seconds after the shooting.

More on FAULTY EVIDENCE: PROBLEMS WITH THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD

[stopbush]

29. Why do you continue to excuse the person who actually killed JFK?

All of the REAL evidence points to Oswald. Yet CTists like yourself are hell bent on exonerating the fucking coward who did the killing.

Shameful.

[Octafish]

34. The evidence that points to Oswald was planted before Nov. 22, 1963.

That trail of dots also connects Dallas to Castro, starting in Mexico City.



Your kind reply is most appreciated -- and telling.

[stopbush]

50. Right. Someone got a hold of Oswald's rifle and fired a few bullets off

so they'd be able to match the stretcher bullet to Oswald's rifle thru ballistics tests which excluded every other gun in the world from consideration as the murder weapon. As John Canal wrote at alt.assassination.jfk:

Anybody who wants to posit that CE 399 was faked and planted by conspirators needs to supply plausible answers to all of the following questions. Why did the conspirators . . .

1. Plant it in a location where it could easily have been lost?
2. Plant a bullet that was only "slightly" damaged if its role was to have passed through at least the President? Why not shoot up some livestock and get a bullet a bit more mangled?
3. Plant it before it could have been known how many other bullets would be recovered? How could they have known that CE 399 would not be the "one bullet too many" that would blow the whole plot?
4. Plant the bullet so it was found before it was known how much lead was in JFK's neck/upper back? What if a big chunk of lead was found in JFK's neck or upper back, a chunk too big to have come from CE 399?

[MrMickeysMom]

76. That's fairly ignorant of you...

I suggest expanding your narrow circle (talk about conspiracy) of research.

I can always tell when I'm talking to an ideologue.

[stopbush]

84. And I know a CTist when I see one.

You throw out terms like "research" when you're actually talking about fantasy.

BTW - be honest: have you ever read the Warren Commission Report? And can you answer that simple question without going off on a rant about the WCR being a pack of lies, etc, etc, etc. I'm asking, have you actually read the thing? Yes or no?

[MrMickeysMom]

161. I've never read all 26 volumes....

... and I'm betting neither have you.

That, and $2.50 will buy the right amount of toilet paper I'm betting I'll need for your commentary.

[stopbush]

188. In fact, I have read all 26 volumes.

I have also read Bugliosi's book which runs, what, 1600 pages or so. I have NOT gone through the entire reference CD-R that comes with the book.

I read both Bugliosi and the WCR because I have a genuine interest in the case, and in learning for myself what the truth of the matter is. For some reason, I don't find it boring to read lots of pages of information on a subject that interests me.

[Octafish]

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

To learn something new, try: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10182

Unlike many writers on the assassination, Prof. McKnight has no agenda other than the truth.

BTW: Do you read anything that doesn't support the Warren Commission?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

305. You "have read all 26 volumes". You seem obsessed.

[zappaman]

313. Doesn't seem "obsessed" to me.

Seems like someone who doesn't want to talk about something he hasn't read.
"Informed" about the subject he is discussing is more like it...

[AnotherMcIntosh]

317. Yea, sure.

[HiPointDem]

165. The history of the US is a history of conspiracy, as history in general is. "Conspiracy

theorist" is a phrase of the same sort as "entitlements"; intended to shut down thought and brand certain people & political issues as beyond the pale.

I notice your posts are peppered with it.

[coalition_unwilling]

181. Some wit I saw or read long ago said, "You can call me a 'conspiracy theorist' if I

can call you a 'coincidence theorist'" (in reference to 9-11 and alternate vs. establishment narratives).

I've always gotten a kick out of that

[Caretha]

189. There is no such thing as a coincidence n/t

[HiPointDem]

235. michael parenti quote.

[Ya Basta]

425. LOL The Warren Commission?

You mean the same commission with Allen Dulles former CIA Director who would be a prime suspect after having been recently fired by Kennedy? You cannot have someone on a fact finding commission on who murdered the boss who just recently fired them. Ridiculous.

But it is what it is, and not surprised the WCR discounting of eye wittinesses, the curious change of story by Governor Conley (first he said he saw the President slump, then, after the zapruder film showing the first bullet missed, his story changed to he didn't see the President). Plus the *several* pieces of evidence all indicating a frontal shot to the right temple area. All refuting Oswald as being the shooter or at least a lone shooter.

And how how the f*k do you lose a murdered President's brain? Well because if there was indeed a frontal shot, the brain is the diagram of the shooting. Plus a number of other pieces of evidence raising doubt to the WCR.

The Warren Commission is joke.

[stopbush]

429. Have you ever read the WCR? I doubt it.

As far as the single shot to JFK's head and where it impacted his skull, does the word "beveling" mean anything to you?

[stopbush]

433. How Does One Lose A Presiden't Brain??

In the case of JFK's brain, you handed it over to RFK, who most likely disposed of the brain and other autopsy materials himself.

The following is from Volume VII of the HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON
ASSASSINATIONS.

---------------------------------------------------------------


PART III. SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF MATERIALS

(114) On April 22, 1965, then Senator Robert F. Kennedy
sent a letter to Dr. Burkley directing him to transfer in person
the autopsy material being kept at the White House to Mrs. Evelyn
Lincoln, the personal secretary of President Kennedy, for
safekeeping at the National Archives. The letter also said that
Mrs. Lincoln was being instructed that the material was not to be
released to anyone without Robert Kennedy's written permission and
approval. This demonstrates Robert Kennedy's firm control over
the disposition of the materials.

(115) In response to this directive, Dr. Burkley notified
the Protective Research Division of Senator Kennedy's request.
Before transferring the material, Bouck, Burkley and other Secret
Service personnel carefully inventoried all the items present.
This was the first official inventory of these materials.

(116) On April 26, 1965, Burkley and Bouck transferred the
materials to Evelyn Lincoln. A letter from Burkley to Lincoln
documenting the exchange included the inventory, which documented
that a stainless steel container 7 by 8 inches in diameter,
containing gross material was transferred. On the last page of
the inventory, Lincoln wrote: "Received, April 26, 1965, in room
409, National Archives, Washington, D.C., from Dr. Burkley and
Robert Bouck." At the time of the transfer, the items now
missing, which are those enumerated under item No. 9 of the
inventory, were allegedly present.

(117) In his testimony before the committee, Bouck stated
that he is quite positive all the autopsy-related material that
came into his possession was given to Mrs. Lincoln at the time of
the 1965 transfer. He also stated that he was uncertain whether
Dr. Burkley had custody of the brain, but that if the brain was
part of the autopsy materials in the custody of the Secret
Service, it was transported to the National Archives.

(118) Dr. Burkley clarified this issue, saying that the
stainless steel container mentioned in the inventory held the
brain and that he saw the bucket in April 1965, when he and Bouck
transferred the autopsy materials to Lincoln. Since this transfer,
Dr. Burkley maintains that he has had no further knowledge of or
association with these materials.

(126) Mrs. Lincoln stated that within approximately 1
month, Robert F. Kennedy telephoned her and informed her that he
was sending Angela Novello, his personal secretary, to move the
footlocker that Dr. Burkley had transferred. She believed they
wanted the materials moved to another part of the Archives,
presumably where Robert F. Kennedy was storing other materials.
Angela Novello soon came to her office with Herman Kahn, Assistant
Archivist for Presidential Libraries, and one or more of his
deputies, to take the trunk. Lincoln believes she had Novello sign
a receipt for the materials, which was Lincoln's routine practice,
but she is uncertain where it would be today. Lincoln also said
that she gave Novello both keys to the trunk. She added that the
trunk was never opened while it was in her office.

(127) Lincoln had no further direct contact with the
material, but did state that after the assassination of Robert
Kennedy, she began to wonder what happened to it. Consequently,
she contacted Kenneth O'Donnell, former aide to President Kennedy,
to make sure the family was aware of its existence. Mrs. Lincoln
said it was her understanding that Mr. O'Donnell then called
Senator Edward Kennedy, subsequently calling her back to tell her
everything was under control.

(130) While Burke Marshall also maintained that he had no
actual knowledge of the disposition of the materials, he said it
was his speculative opinion that Robert Kennedy obtained and
disposed of these materials himself, without informing anyone
else. Marshall said Robert Kennedy was concerned that these
materials would be placed on public display in future years in an
institution such as the Smithsonian and wished to dispose of them
to eliminate such a possibility. Marshall emphasized that he does
not believe anyone other than Robert Kennedy would have known what
happened to the materials and is certain that obtaining or
locating these materials is no longer possible.


Lots more on this at the below link:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/brain.txt

[zappaman]

434. That just shows RFK was in on it.

Why not?
Apparently the rest of the world was...

[stopbush]

436. Ha! Of course, that's the only logical conclusion that one could draw!

Which means that RFK was expecting that call from J Edgar confirming the death of his brother!

Couple that with the fact that it was Jackie who had the autopsy moved from Walter Reed to Bethesda. You know, so the "good" autopsy team wouldn't get to examine JFK.

It all makes sense now. Jackie and RFK were in the assassination as well!!

But wait, there's more! There's that JFK quote from the morning of the assassination (overheard by Jackie and Ken O'Donnell) where JFK outlines exactly how his own murder will go down: high building, high-powered rifle, and there's nothing anyone could do to stop it.

Jesus! JFK was in on his own murder!!

[The Doctor.]

38. Ummm.... if what he said is true, it's not an 'excuse'.

It's an alibi.

The problem is that when we refuse to believe in even the possibility that our own powerful denizens might seek to advance their own agenda through extraordinary means, then there is no possibility that they could be stopped if that was their aim.

Refusing to believe there is a villian in one's house allows those in the house to become villians with impunity.

[BlueCaliDem]

301. + 1000. eom

[jeggus]

39. There it is..........................................

The dismissal by speaking the code word! "CT'rs"! Wow people who buy into the official story. And 911 was pulled off by angry Muslim terrorists of who nine are still alive. Way to go believing known liars in our corporate owned government media military and intelligence. Damn proud of you son. Now go back to sleep!

[YoungDemCA]

49. Oh, a 9/11 CT'er too?

Next you're gonna being telling us you're a Holocaust denier.

[MrMickeysMom]

78. logical fallacy...

... permeates that comment.

[Octafish]

444. Speaking of logic...

...what the Washington Post wrote on Jan. 6, 1979, regarding the HSCA's conclusions of conspiracy:

Could it have been some other malcontent who Mr. Oswald met casually? Could not as much as three or four societal outcasts with no ties to any one organization have developed in some spontaneous way a common determination to express their alienation in the killing of President Kennedy? It is possible that two persons acting independently attempted to shoot the President at the very same time.

It is odd, the lengths certain circles have to go and contort in order to arrive at the necessary conclusion for business to continue as usual: "Move along, folks. Nothing to see here. The suspect is apprehended and awaiting trial. Er, burial."

Doing that is what you, MrMickeysMom, and I would call "Justice." Unless we work to learn all the facts -- whether they support one contention or another, one theory or another, one suspect or many -- and letting the People examine them, it is not Justice.

PS: Michael Parenti in his 1996 address on The JFK Assassination: Defending the Gangster State spells out the Big Picture.

Text version: http://www.michaelparenti.org/JFKAssassination.html

Audio version (scroll down or word-search "gangster&quot : http://www.tucradio.org/parenti.html

PS: A belated Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours, MrMickeysMom! I am infinitely grateful for Friends like you.

[EOTE]

337. Wow, straight to the holocaust remarks.

That's pretty brazen and sick. And fairly ironic considering the large number of people who considered the holocaust to be a conspiracy theory prior to our involvement in WWII.

[Warren DeMontague]

150. Who do you believe was responsible for 9-11?

[colorado_ufo]

40. There is one related event that forever muddied the picture:

Oswald's televised murder by mobster Jack Ruby. There was no need for Ruby to do this out of some sort of patriotic "passion"; Oswald was already under arrest. If it WAS "patriotism," and Oswald were somehow acquitted, then Ruby and his connections could have taken Oswald out at that time.

Ruby took out Oswald because he was convinced Oswald would sing like a canary.

[arthritisR_US]

55. He had good reason to feel that way, Oswald was already shouting to anyone who would listen that he

was just a patsy...

[hifiguy]

485. Because he was.

Read James Douglass' "JFK and the Unspeakable" and you will learn that there were as many as three people identified or identifying themselves as "Lee Harvey Oswald" running around this country and Mexico in the months before the assassination. The real Oswald, killed by Ruby, was the fall guy.

[arthritisR_US]

497. I have that book and so far I think it is one of the best I have read on the assassination.

Great minds think alike

[Democracyinkind]

158. The notion that Ruby turned Patriot one day in November

is just so bizarre... Can't even fathom why anyone would swallow it...

Then again... The myth of the lone gunman is one of America's favorites, isn't it. Rugged individuals, right?

[HiPointDem]

168. history is full of heads of state & other political actors who were killed by conspirators,

but in the US all our political actors are killed by crazy loners.

we're special that way.

[stopbush]

193. You would do well to read a book, any book on Jack Ruby.

The man was a huge JFK fan. The man was in no way a mobster except in his own mind. His rationale for killing Oswald was entirely personal and based on the shock he felt over his hero JFK being killed.

BTW - you do know, do you not, that had Oswald's transfer from the Dallas police station come off at the scheduled time that Ruby would have missed the transfer by an hour.

[Democracyinkind]

199. That may very well be the case.

I am also aware that the very first people to implicate Ruby as part of a conspiracy were to good folks at JBS.

So yes, it is entirely possible that Ruby acted on his own (even though an avid conspirationalist may incorporate Ruby's acting alone into the conspiracy). You were responding to the first post I made in this thread in which I may have sounded more convinced than I actually am. I admit that I have nothing more than a simlpe argument from incredulity as far as Ruby is concerned.

[sabrina 1]

220. Another incredible coincidence. How on earth was Ruby lucky enough to

know just when to be there?

[stopbush]

251. You say you've read the WCR so you know the answer to your question.

And the answer is that he didn't know when to be there. Do the words "Western Union" ring a bell?

[sabrina 1]

253. Do the words House Select Committee ring any bells with you btw?

[stopbush]

275. Some do, some don't.

[AntiFascist]

377. Was he a LBJ fan?

There seems to be evidence of a letter where he called LBJ "a Nazi in the worst order". The letter also seems to indicate that he believed Oswald was working for LBJ. In his testimony to Chief Justice Warren he stated:

"All I know is maybe something can be saved. Because right now, I want to tell you this, I am used as a scapegoat, and there is no greater weapon that you can use to create some falsehood about some of the Jewish faith, especially at the terrible heinous crime such as the killing of President Kennedy.

...

All I want is a lie detector test, and you refuse to give it to me.

Because as it stands now--and the truth serum, and any other--Pentothal--how do you pronounce it, whatever it is. And they will not give it to me, because I want to tell the truth.

And then I want to leave this world. But I don't want my people to be blamed for something that is untrue, that they claim has happened."

Could this provide more insight into why he killed Oswald?

[coalition_unwilling]

45. Oswald called himself a 'patsy'. What do you think Oswald meant by that term? To me,

Oswald was admitting some level of involvement and knowledge but also alleging layers within layers. Now that may be what you'd expect someone caught committing the crime of the century to say, but my ear has always perked up to question why Oswald chose that particular word to refer to himself.

[arthritisR_US]

58. Pair that with the suspicious tracks they laid down of Oswald's "supposed" trip to Mexico prior to

Nov 22...

[coalition_unwilling]

69. If only we knew who the 'they' were, eh? - n/t

[arthritisR_US]

117. That has always been the key to it all, a lock

that has yet to be keyed. I think it is sad how those who question the "facts" are so disparaged.

[coalition_unwilling]

134. I count myself agnostic on this issue. I know that Vincent Bugliosi, of

Helter Skelter fame, published a massive volume whose conclusion is that Oswald acted alone. Lest one doubt Bugliosi's bona fides, he also published a book that called for the prosecution of George W. Bush for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

I have not yet had a chance to look at Bugliosi's book. It's really expensive to buy and I keep forgetting to request it from the Los Angeles Public Library. One of these days, I will probably dive in.

I also understand that Bugliosi's conclusions and his research have drawn criticism from Warren Commission critics. Again, I have not had time to review the Bugliosi critics' work either.

[zappaman]

136. I highly recommend the book and it is 17.99 on Kindle

http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-History-Assassination-President-Kennedy/dp/0393045250/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1353616656&sr=8-4&keywords=vincent+bugliosi

[arthritisR_US]

157. Thom Hartmann and another chap have a huge

one too, I have it but haven't had a chance to read yet...they draw a different conclusion. I have others I have read but their titles evade me. I don't buy into the Warren commission's conclusions but have no definitive opinion as yet, on the others.

[cpwm17]

231. I heard Thom Hartmann mention his Kennedy book on his radio show

He seemed to not know what was in the book. He indicated that his co-writer did most of the work. I'm not sure if he was distancing himself from the book, or he only put his name on the book for promotional reasons.

Either way, like other similar books, they are written to make an easy buck.

[Democracyinkind]

163. My beef with Bugliosi is that he repeated his Helter-Skelter schtick with JFK

I respect him, and I find his books well researched and mostly full of convincing arguments.

His book convicts Oswald in the same way that Helter Skelter convicts Manson - I for one was never definitely convinced by it.


A little bit clearer: I think "convergence of indirect evidence" theories are, scientifically speaking, not of much worth. I remain unconvinced when "Conspiracy Theorists" use them, and I remain unconvinced when "Establishment Theorists" (or whatever you wanna call Bugliosi's stance) use them.

[stopbush]

190. Did you actually read "Reclaiming History," or are you assuming

it's the same "schtick" as Helter Skelter?

[Democracyinkind]

192. I've read it...

... and yes, it seems to me that the same methodology was used in both cases/books. I'm not convinced by either.

[stopbush]

195. I'm curious as to what methodology you're talking about.

The book basically lays out the WCR and offers supporting evidence, while using the forensic evidence etc to debunk most of the cherished CTs out there.

I think the methodology you're talking about is usually called a fact-based analysis.

[Democracyinkind]

203. I've written about "convergence of evidence" in other posts in this thread.

That would be the methodology I had in mind. I could elaborate futher, but that would be completely of topic and I would struggle against a language barrier as all my training in philosophy of science was in german. The point I am making is not that Bugliosi doesn't present a good case (I have written as much in this very thread), but is rather of a technical nature. As far as I am concerned, these are all moot details as long as the full documentary evidence is not established in this case (something I have written about too, in this very thread, and which represents my preliminary judgement of the case).

[Hermes Daughter]

222. Godzilla vs Gamera

stopbush seems to have met more than his/her match in you, Democracyinkind. Insulting to jump to the assumption ythat ou hadn't read Bugliosi, but no harm done. Your knowledge of this is most impressive!

[sabrina 1]

264. In 1979 the House Select Committee concluded that

there was good reason to believe that the murder was committed by two people. They reviewed evidence that was not considered in the Warren Commission.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Harvey_Oswald#House_Select_Committee

In 1979, after a review of the evidence and of prior investigations, the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations was preparing to issue[citation needed] a finding that Oswald had acted alone in killing Kennedy. However, late in the Committee's proceedings a Dictabelt was introduced, purportedly recording sounds heard in Dealey Plaza before, during and after the shots were fired. After submitting the Dictabelt to acoustic analysis, the Committee revised its findings to assert a "high probability that two gunmen fired" at Kennedy and that Kennedy "was probably assassinated as the result of a conspiracy." Although the Committee was "unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy," it made a number of further findings regarding the likelihood or unlikelihood that particular groups, named in the findings, were involved.[179]

More questions were raised about the evidence itself, but if Congress has had to re-look at and question the results of the WCR, then it has to be expected that ordinary people will too.

[coalition_unwilling]

279. I am aware of this but also am (dimly) aware that the supposed Dictabelt evidence

Last edited Fri Nov 23, 2012, 04:52 PM - Edit history (2)

has itself been subsequently called into question and its authenticity (?) questioned by independent scientists. (I used the word 'authenticity' b/c I think the scientists question whether the Dictabelt captures the sounds of gunshots or some other noise.)

I would be suspicious from the get-go of any Commission that included Allen Dulles as one of its members. (Arlen Specter and Gerald Ford also caused me to raise my eyebrows, but Dulles really sticks in my craw.)

I count myself agnostic on the question of a conspiracy and have started to read the WCR now to educate myself further and broaden my understanding. Next up, Bugliosi's book from LA Public Library.

Last night, my wife said, "What difference does it make now?" (knowing who was responsible for JFK's murder). I replied, "This thread and others on DU show how deeply the assassination affected people and hurt them. And there's the whole question of making sure to the extent we can that justice has been done." I think my wife was worried that I, in true obsessive-compulsive fashion, was preparing to slip down the rabbit hole

On edit: My wife has just reminded me that a majority of today's Americans were not even born yet when JFK was assassinated and thus do not have this in their consciousness as important.

[stopbush]

276. Viewed in isolation, Oswald's calling himself "a patsy" sounds suspicious.

However, anyone knowing the basics of Oswald's background knows that he felt the world was against him. He believed that he was a great man who was going to be famous for something at some point. He felt that he was being used by the powers that be.

For instance, he expected to be greeted as a defecting hero when he went to the USSR. Instead, he was looked on with suspicion and given a drone-like job. He played by what he thought were the rules, yet he didn't get his just reward. Oswald's life is filled with such incidents.

Perhaps Oswald calling himself "a patsy" was just more of the same, ie: the system was using him again.

[coalition_unwilling]

281. That's an interesting interpretation for sure. I think for me it's the

fact that Oswald called himself a 'patsy' combined with the fact of his extra-judicial execution by Ruby that makes me very uneasy. I'll grant you that there are innocent explanations for each of those two facts taken in isolation (as your posts here and elsewhere on the thread suggest), but the combination of the two is what raises my hackles.

[stopbush]

375. Read up on Jack Ruby. It might give you more perspective on his killing Oswald.

To me, both the killing of JFK and Oswald were crimes of opportunity. Had JFK's motorcade not gone past the TSBD, Oswald wouldn't have had the opportunity to kill JFK. It did, and he did.

As far as Ruby killing Oswald, there's much to consider. First off, Ruby was very vocal to friends about how distraught he was over JFK's killing. IIRC, he made comments to the effect of "someone oughta kill that guy." His eventual killing of Oswald was premeditated in some respects. But the opportunity to kill Oswald was not premeditated. In other words, Ruby didn't go to the police station with the intent to kill Oswald. He went there because Ruby went to the police station all the time anyway.

Consider that Ruby was only in the vicinity because he had gone to the Western Union office to wire money to a former employee. Consider that he had one of his beloved dogs with him on that trip and left that dog in the car when he went to the police station. Does that sound like the action of a man who is on his way to kill someone? To leave a beloved pet in a car to which he has no intention of returning?

Most of all, Oswald was scheduled to be moved from the police station a full hour before the time that Ruby showed up and killed him. The delay in transfer was partially Oswald's own doing, as he wanted to change into clean clothes. If Ruby was plotting with others to kill Oswald at the police station, why would he not have been there at the scheduled time of Oswald's transfer? Why show up an hour after Oswald was scheduled to have been long gone from the police station? Why - if you are on the way to kill someone - go to a Western Union office to wire money? Wouldn't you worry that you'd end up getting delayed at WU and miss your "appointment" to kill Oswald?

Detective James R. Leavelle - the guy in the white hat in the picture of Oswald being shot - escorted both Oswald and Ruby from police headquarters. Unlike Oswald, Ruby was not handcuffed to Det Leavelle during his transfer. Leavelle reported that Ruby told him that he shot Oswald because he wanted to be a hero. To which Leavelle replied, “You didn't do us any favors by killing Oswald.”

In this case, the innocent (simple?) explanations are the most believable, for no other reason than the fact that if Ruby's killing of Oswald were part of some plot to silence Oswald, he was displaying a rather cavalier attitude towards getting the job done, wouldn't you say?

[coalition_unwilling]

396. Thanks again for your pretty awesome analysis and interpretation. Definitely gives

me something to consider.

As for the 'crimes of opportunities', I am so struck by the amazing chains of coincidences (if you're not a CT-er, that is) that transpired. In the official account of the WCR, Oswald had only begun working at the TSBD about 45 days before the assassination. That just blows my mind, that Oswald just happened to start working at the place barely a month before.

As you note, the chain of coincidences with Ruby are likewise simply amazing (provided again that you're not a CT-er).

Speaking as an (untrained) layperson in psychology, I wonder whether it is these tragic chains of coincidence that help lead so many into conspiracy theorizing. (Someone in this thread actually posted that there is no such thing as coincidence.) To wit, if only one coincidence in the chains is altered by even the tiniest factor, JFK is not assassinated and\or Oswald is not executed before his trial. It really make me want to weep every time I think of it.

[stopbush]

417. One very interesting thing about Oswald that never gets mentioned: he was a fan of JFK.

He appreciated JFK's stand on minorities. Bugliosi goes into some detail on Oswald's feelings about JFK. It's a bit shocking to read if you've never considered it.

What that means is that Oswald killing JFK didn't happen because he held any malice toward JFK. He killed him because who he was (POTUS) would propel Oswald into the fame he always sought. Just as Oswald took a shot a Gen Walker, not because he hated the man, but because Walker had some notoriety, and his being killed would have made the front pages, and that wold have stoked Oswald's ego.

I wouldn't say that Oswald was a fan of JFK on the level that the jerk that killed John Lennon was a fan. But it does help to show that the only motive Oswald had for killing JFK was self aggrandizement.

[AntiFascist]

486. Occam's razor suggests...

Oswald was seeking money rather than fame, perhaps as a covert operative:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2544

Needless to say I have embraced it as true but feel that Walker, himself, is a window into a world of mirrors.
...

I have reproduced Epstein's collection of the known information about the supporting evidence surrounding the Walker incident. Add to the list that George De Mohrenschildt "commited suicide" after an interview with Epstein that was to be followed by an additional interview the next day. There topic was the Walker assassination attempt.

...

4) J. Walter Moore, a CIA officer working in the CIA's Domestic Contact Division in Dallas, according to De Mohrenschildt. De Mohrenschildt told me that he had reported the Walker assassination attempt and the telltale "Hunter of Fascists" photograph to Moore.

5)Eusebio Azque, the Cuban counsel in Mexico City. Marina testified that Oswald brought photos of the Walker shooting to Mexico to support his request for a visa to go to Cuba. According to witnesses at the consulate, Oswald showed these photographs to Azque, and became involved in a heated argument with him about his bona fides as a Pro-Castro revolutionary." Epstein

I believe the Warren Report is a masterful cover-up of a great deal of information. The beginning of Walker’s testimony becomes a striking example when you open the book on Walkers military "background." Development of Special Forces, Special Operations, Covert War (Greece), etc., etc., etc. and close association with Maxwell Taylor.

[AntiFascist]

415. Ruby may have wanted to silence Oswald for other reasons...

he seemed to be concerned that LBJ might twist the JFK assassination into some sort of conspiracy involving a Jewish plot, possibly turning attention away from the real perpetrators?

Notice how history repeats itself. There were those spreading theories after 9-11 postulating a Jewish plot...possibly turning attention away from those who hold a stake in the oil industry.

[NoMoreWarNow]

63. oh puhleeez

there is literally a mountain of evidence that you need to ignore to think Oswald did it. Please look at ALL the evidence.

[avebury]

77. Read "Plausable Denial" by Mark Lane. There is an interesting segway on

the topic of the CIA, Oswald and Mexico City.

I would also recommend watching On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald, a docu-trial that was a mock trial with Vincent Bugiliosi as the prosecutor and Gerry Spence as the defense attorney. There was a real judge, a jury, and the people who testified would have been in a position to testify in a real trial if Oswald had not been killed. I watched it a long time ago and thought that there was plenty of reasonable doubt on Oswald's guilt. I was shocked when the jury found him guilty. It seems easier for people to put the blame on a man who never had a chance to defend himself in court then to think that there could be others involved.

[stopbush]

87. That would be the same Mark Lane that the HSCA called a liar, correct?

Hard to believe anyone still cites Mark Lane after he's been proven to be a liar.

[avebury]

93. The basis of the book Plausible Denial

was a magazine approaching Mark Lane to handle the appeal of a defamation lawsuit initiated by Howard Hunt and won by Hunt in the initial suit. Lane included information on the original case which, upon reading makes you wonder why on earth Hunt won because he didn't have a valid case. I am not a lawyer but even as I read the background of the first trial I knew that Hunt had no case, unfortunately for the magazine, their lawyer was worse then Hunt's lawyer. Land initially turned down the request and then decided to take it on because he would be able to depose retired and current CIA employees, something that was too good to pass up. He won the appeal on the exact grounds that I figured out when I read the case synopsis. Hunt's own testimony tanked his case.

I have not read much about Mark Lane beyond hearing that he is interested in investigating the Kennedy assassination so I cannot comment on his truthfulness. However, if he was in a public forum where a retired CIA employee made a public statement regarding the fact that the CIA never had any proof that Oswald went to the Russian Embassy in Mexico City (Lane asked for a copy of the tape of the debate) then one would hope that this comment would be verifiable by someone with time and energy to research it as there would have been a roomful of witnesses to said statement.

[HiPointDem]

173. because congressment are unimpeachable, right? they never lie. not taking a

position one way or the other, but congressmen lie regularly, so why are they the last word on truth?

[Jack Sprat]

112. Oswald's rifle.

Oswald brought the rifle to the Book Depository. What evidence is there that he was the one firing it? Even if Oswald knew it might be used for the purposes it was, how do we know that he and not someone else was practiced in making those shots?

Why did a nightclub owner named Ruby sacrifice the rest of his life in prison to end the life of an already captured and in custody suspect?

Sorry...none of that works for me. It's never going to wash for most of us. The Warren Commission Report didn't do anything but convince the public that a cover-up took place.

[stopbush]

124. You wrote:

"Even if Oswald knew it might be used for the purposes it was, how do we know that he and not someone else was practiced in making those shots?"

But Oswald WAS practiced in making those shots.

He achieved the rank of Sharpshooter in the USMC, achieving a score of 49 out of 50 shots taken at a target located 200 yards away.

The kill shot to JFK's head was taken at 86 yards from Oswald's position in the TSBD.

The USMC testified at the the WC that the kill shot was "not a difficult shot" for a shooter with Oswald's abilities.

Why suspect someone else when Oswald had the time, the tool and (sadly) the talent to take the shot himself?

[Jack Sprat]

127. And Oswald was the only sharpshooter in the world?

Nobody else had any experience with that weapon?

And why did a nightclub owner with no particular reason suddenly decide to go down to the Dallas Police station and ascertain Oswald didn't have a trial and answer the questions the entire world was wanting to hear?

Be careful. You may be implicating yourself as one of the conspirators. Why else would someone so vociferously inject themself into a conversation they consider silly? How do we know you weren't capable of making those shots?

[stopbush]

196. But Ruby had a very particular reason for killing Oswald.

And that reason was because Ruby loved JFK.

[sabrina 1]

224. Doesn't seem he was much of a marksman:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Harvey_Oswald#House_Select_Committee

Like all Marines, Oswald was trained and tested in shooting, scoring 212 in December 1956[14] (slightly above the minimum for qualification as a sharpshooter) but in May 1959 scoring only 191[14] (barely earning the lower designation of marksman)...

Oswald was court-martialed after accidentally shooting himself in the elbow with an unauthorized .22 handgun, then court-martialed again for fighting with a sergeant, named Miguel Rodriguez, who he thought was responsible for his punishment in the shooting matter. He was demoted from private first class to private and briefly imprisoned in the brig. He was later punished for a third incident: while on night-time sentry duty in the Philippines, he inexplicably fired his rifle into the jungle.[28]

Sounds like a very bad shot actually. How many great marksman shoot themselves in the elbow?

[stopbush]

263. I'm disappointed in this post from you, as most of your posts have some logic to them.

This one is a sorry attempt to find an excuse for the person who killed JFK.

First off - as far as Oswald making the grade of Sharpshooter in the USMC, the only important fact is that, well, HE MADE THE GRADE. Does it matter whether he made it slightly over the minimum qualifications? Do people who typically earn 94% on their school tests go through life thinking "I was a bare minimum A student?"

The rank of Sharpshooter was a rank bestowed by the USMC for *successfully* scoring above a certain score. Oswald made that score, with a little room to spare. Ergo, the USMC awarded him the rank he earned, based on his shooting ability, not on his haircut or his linguistic skills, but on his shooting ability. Period.

Having read the WCR, you also know that the USMC was questioned as to why Oswald's exit score as a shooter dropped from Sharpshooter to Marksman, and that the speculation offered by the USMC on why that could be was nothing out of the ordinary and entirely logical.

Having read the WCR, you also know that Marina Oswald testified that Lee was taking target practice on occasion with his rifle before he killed JFK. Does it matter what his USMC score was in 1959, when he was practicing his shooting skills in 1963? Do you believe that it would be impossible for a person who had achieved the grade of Sharpshooter to get their skill as a shooter up to snuff through practice shooting four years down the road? I don't. Seems entirely plausible to me.

As far as Oswald accidentally shooting himself in the elbow - that's why they're called accidents. By your standard, any skilled shooter who accidentally shoots themselves is "a very bad shot." By your standard, any race car driver who gets in a fender bender while driving their family car is "a very bad driver." Any football halfback whose job it is to carry a football is "a very bad runner" if they fumble the ball.

Your rhetorical question is really kinda stupid. The answer to "how many great marksmen shoot themselves in the elbow" is, "a lot more than the number of people who are never around weapons who accidentally shoot themselves," because if you're around guns a lot, you have a higher chance of shooting yourself than you do if you're never around guns, no matter how great a marksman you are.

BTW - Oswald wasn't court martialed for shooting himself in the elbow. He was court martialed for having "an unauthorized .22 handgun" in his possession. The shooting in the elbow was simply the accident that revealed he had the unauthorized weapon in his possession. As you point out, Oswald was court martialed twice and punished once while in the USMC, and NONE of those incidents had anything at all to do with his abilities as a Sharpshooter or a Marksman.

I don't understand people like you who seek to downplay the evidence that compelling shows that Oswald had the capability to kill JFK, and had it in spades. Why shield this fucking murderer from the scorn that should rightfully be heaped upon him by implying that he was a bad shot when he was obviously - in the words of the USMC - "an exceptional shot?" You're so busy trying to poo-poo the evidence that proves Oswald was a very good shot that you don't even stop to consider that even an amateur shooter could have possibly made the kill shot that killed JFK. After all, the gun was outfitted with a telescopic site and the target was only 86 yards away. That's not exactly the kind of shot that takes an expert shooter to make in the first place.

Yet you continue to attempt every possible excuse for the guy who murdered JFK. Why?

[sabrina 1]

339. First of all I have not said that I do not believe Oswald

was the assassin. I pointed out information that is available on his skills as a marksman. The fact is it is not impressive. I now people who are skilled marksmen and one thing most of them acknowledge, that shooting at a moving target is far more difficult than shooting at a stationary target.

Hunters, eg, do not hit every deer they aim at no matter how skilled they are. But they have an opportunity to try again. In Oswald's case he had one chance, there would be no do overs. So looking at his history as a marksman, there are a few possibilities as to why he was so accurate that day.

1) He practiced extensively over the years since he was in the military and he practiced with that kind of scenario in mind.

2) He was just plain lucky that day.

3) He was not the lone shooter as has been alleged.

4) He was there but he was not the shooter.

Too bad he was murdered as so much was lost regarding the information he could have provided. Suspects often deny crimes when they are first interrogated, but over time after spending time in jail, a good interrogator can persuade them to give more info, especially as they are approaching a trial that will determine their future. That opportunity was destroyed by Ruby.

As for expert marksmen shooting themselves by accident, I can't say I know a single person who is even relatively good with firearms who has done that. Safety in the use of firearms is something they also practice very diligently. Not to say an accident can't happen, but it is extremely rare for anyone who is even semi skilled in the use of firearms.

[FogerRox]

364. Maple trees in front of the Book Depository BUilding

IT was nearly impossible for Oswald to clearly see the Presidents car

[stopbush]

380. Another stupid lie posing as a "fact"

All one need do is look at the pictures of Dealey Plaza taken at the time. The trees provided no obstruction to the shots taken. In fact, if you read the article at the link I've provided below, you'll find two pictures taken in 2010 from the Xs on Elm Street that mark where the bullets hit JFK. Even today - after 49 years of growing taller - the trees don't obstruct the line of fire from the 6th floor window from whence Oswald took his shots.

Yours is one of the stupider and more-easily dismissed lies in this thread.

"The most striking thing about being in Dealey Plaza for me was how small it is. Perhaps because the assassination itself was bigger than life we expect the geography to match the eventuality, but that is certainly not the case here. Two X's on the street mark where JFK was hit: first in the throat causing his arms to move up and splay out, and second where the bullet found its cranial mark and literally blew his brains out (and, according to one conspiricist there, sent the skull cap flying across the street and onto the adjacent lawn). What is astounding is how close both X's are to the sniper's next in the Book Depository building. Both from the street level looking up and from the window looking down (there is a museum on the sixth floor from which you can gain the perspective of the assassin), it seems clear that Oswald could hardly have missed. Given the fact that he was designated a sharpshooter by the Marines during his time in the service, and the fact that Kennedy's car was traveling less than 10 miles per hour after making the sharp left turn onto Elm street, one is left whispering under one's breath, "Kennedy was a sitting duck." - MIchael Shermer, writting in HuffPo, My Day in Dealey Plaza: Why JFK Was Killed by a Lone Assassin, 12/4/10 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-shermer/my-day-in-dealey-plaza-wh_b_796812.html

[Octafish]

446. Trees. Leaves. Traffic Sign. Holes.

What's it all mean?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8874&st=30

Another mystery: What's with all the love for the Warren Commission, stopbush?

[stopbush]

374. One of the tragic facts of the JFK shooting is that for all intents and purposes

Oswald was shooting at a stationary target.

The two shots that hit JFK were fired after the limo had turned onto Elm, which positioned JFK's back towards Oswald. JFK remained in that position throughout the period it took for the final two shots to be fired. The limo was traveling at a mere 11mph as it made it's way up Elm. Worse of all, there was IIRC a 3% upgrade on Elm Street itself as it moved towards the Stemmons freeway. This upgrade coupled with the slow speed of the limo combined to give Oswald a target that stayed on the same level for both shots. In other words, JFK appeared thru Oswald's site as an almost stationary target.

As far as Ruby destroying an opportunity to get more info out of Oswald at a later date - that didn't work for Ruby either, who lived 3.5 years past the date that he killed Oswald. Though Ruby intimated others were involved in his killing Oswald, the AP reported that on his death bed, Ruby said he did the killing entirely on his own. Ruby had plenty of time to name names, but he never did.

At this point, you'd do well to give up disparaging Oswald's skills as a Sharpshooter. All you're doing is offering contrived speculation that you hope will somehow cast suspicion on Oswald's skills as a shooter. You have to deal with the fact that the USMC gave Oswald the rating of Sharpshooter YEARS before Oswald killed JFK. It's not like somebody went back and falsified records, though that appears to be what you're trying to do. I'm sorry that the fact that Oswald was rated as a Sharpshooter by the USMC at a time when Oswald was just another new recruit of no notoriety out of thousands of other recruits of no notoriety doesn't fit with your idea that he was a bad shot, but the fact is that he was an exceptional shot. Nobody in the USMC rated Oswald based on what would be his future infamy, so why are you trying to poo-poo the rating that was given him based on your disbelief that he did the shooting? You are, in effect, disparaging every other Marine who was rated as a Sharpshooter during the period that Oswald earned that rating.

Oswald's skill as a shooter is just one of the pieces of evidence that supports the fact that he killed JFK, just as evidence that he was a poor shot would mitigate against it, were there any evidence to that effect. There isn't. Too bad for the CTists that the evidence leans heavily toward damning Oswald, not exonerating him.

As far as Oswald's accidental self-inflicted wound, just because you don't know any skilled shooter who has ever accidentally shot themselves means nothing. Not because people accidentally shoot themselves all the time (they do), but because humans beings are prone to making mistakes all the time in every endeavor in which we engage. Yet you're trying to single out the handling of a gun as some magical endeavor where self-inflicted accidental wounds are rare. Really? Ever heard of Plaxico Burress?

[sabrina 1]

381. The speculation on his sharp-shooter abilities is all on your side.

I presented the known facts, his military record, also included in the WCR. That's quite a CT you are presenting here that someone who was less than skilled with firearms his ratings almost the lowest he could get, according to his military record, even shooting HIMSELF by accident, to being an incredibly accurate marksman just a few years later. Just how did this miracle occur?

Not because people accidentally shoot themselves all the time (they do), but because humans beings are prone to making mistakes all the time in every endeavor in which we engage.

You sound like you're making excuses for him. He was no good as a marksman while in the military, period. So how did he go from being that bad to being so good he pulled off the crime of the century?


It would serve you better if you could present evidence of how he overcome his less than impressive firearms skills.

As for the limo being almost stationary? How convenient. Or how lucky for the not so great marksman? How could he have possibly known that fate would be so kind to him that day?

You are jumping back and forth from claiming he had improved his skills as a sharpshooter which would explain his ability to hit his target so skillfully, to trying to explain how someone who was not a skilled marksman was able to do it because the target conveniently became almost stationary.

So which is it?

1) An expert marksman who was confident he could accomplish his goal no matter what .... or

2) A not so skilled marksman who got lucky when the limo became almost stationary.

I am not the one who is speculating. I am pointing out known facts. However you appear to be trying to explain away the known facts.

So, was he just lucky or did he become an expert marksman and if so where is the evidence of the training he took to do so?

CTs, speculation, this is what makes people so angry. Those who insist they know all the facts, then launch into all kinds of speculation and excuses to try to avoid looking at the very real problems with their belief that it was a lone gunman and no other scenario is possible.

A lone gunman who couldn't shoot straight according to his military record.

[stopbush]

383. Why do you continue to dispute the FACT that attaining the rank of Sharpshooter means something?

Do the Marines typically hand out the title of Sharpshooter to people who, in your words, "couldn't shoot straight according to his military record?" Does the USMC ranking of Sharpshooter denote that you are a shooter with "less than impressive firearms skills," in your words?

This is pathetic. Your latest premise is that Oswald couldn't possibly have been a great shot because he accidentally shot himself. What does one have to do with the other? Absolutely nothing.

As far as your assertion that I am "jumping back and forth from claiming he had improved his skills as a sharpshooter which would explain his ability to hit his target so skillfully, to trying to explain how someone who was not a skilled marksman was able to do it because the target conveniently became almost stationary." There's no jumping back and forth there. Do you have poor comprehension skills?

The fact is that the shots taken at JFK from the TSBD were EASY shots by any measure. You've read the WCR, so you know that the USMC testified that those shots were easy shots. The fact that Oswald was an excellent shot made them even easier. The fact that the limo was crawling along and that the grade of the street kept JFK on an even line of fire made already easy shots hopelessly easier. How easy? Easy enough that he made them even with a possibly misaligned scope. That's how easy. It probably helped Oswald that he had been taking practice fire. Practicing a skill keeps one in better shape, does it not? How else to explain that professional athletes regularly practice skills for which they already have an innate ability?

As far straying to explain away known facts, it is a known fact that Oswald attained the rank of USMC Sharpshooter, It's a fact. In fact, Oswald's USMC score books still exist, proving he was a Sharpshooter. Yet you keep circling back to add more verbiage to you erroneous conceit of a belief that Oswald was a poor shot. At this point, you're not really questioning Oswald's shooting abilities. You're calling into question the ability of the USMC to rate shooters to begin with. What purpose would it have served for the USMC to rate any bad shot as a Marine Sharpshooter? Oh, but in this case, we're talking about Oswald, the guy who you CTists can't bring yourself to believe killed JFK, so you've now moved from bashing Oswald to bashing the Marines. Nice.

You started out with some decent observations. Now, you're off in Republican-think, designing a new reality for yourself that is in direct contradiction to the facts in this case. A place where facts not only don't matter, but where you're allowed to have your own set of facts. Brilliant!

You're digging the hole deeper. Stop digging before you embarrass yourself even more.

[sabrina 1]

410. CT/Rightwinger = 'Anyone who refuses to accept my THEORIES

100% of a historical event which I can be no more certain of than anyone else since like everyone else, I wasn't there. But if someone even wonders if the official account from the WCR might be wrong, and believes that the House Select Committee's report is more logical, then they are a CT and/or A Republican'!

You have no more factual knowledge of what happened that day than anyone else. What you have are theories, CTs, which you base on your reading of what has been made available in the public record.

Why it is so important to you to attack, with smears such as those contained in your comment, to try to stop any discussion of this event, is a mystery to me. You seem way too invested in your THEORIES which is all they are, just like everyone else's, to have a rational conversation with.

I am not particularly invested in whether it was Oswald alone, or whether two or more people decided to kill Kennedy. I also fail to understand the enormous resistance to the THEORY, because it is all THEORY, yours and everyone else's, that it might have been more than one person.

If, as the House Select Committee concluded there is a possibility that more than one person was involved, (HSC = CTs/Rightwingers, no?) what difference would it make? Kennedy is still dead.

Juries engage in speculative theories every day in this country when they are asked to decide the guilt or innocence of suspects based only on whatever evidence the prosecution can present to them over the denials of the suspect. We have thousands of CTs sitting on Juries, making decisions, coming to conclusions, in our judicial system every day.

There was no court trial in this case, that opportunity was killed when Oswald was murdered. Had there been, there would have been 12 CTs trying to figure out if Oswald was lying or not when he said he did not do it.

Yes, Oswald was a sharpshooter by military standards, but on the lowest end of the scale. When the killing was recreated an expert sniper was used, NOT someone of Oswald's skills. Which to a reasonable person doesn't mean Oswald didn't fire from the BD, but it also doesn't prove that there was not a second shooter to ensure success.

Unlike you I claim no actual knowledge of what happened, since I am not privy to the facts and neither are you. We weren't there.

But it does not stretch the imagination by any means to believe that there were people who hated Kennedy and who may have conspired to kill him or to question the chances of a lone gunman with average shooting skills being as successful as he was that day.

I have zero doubt that throughout history every President has had enemies who may have considered killing them, but thankfully most such people never get around to doing it, for one reason or another, although some have.

I have zero doubt that Kennedy had many enemies who it is not hard to imagine, may have conspired to kill him and succeeded.

You otoh seem convinced that only one man had the incentive to commit this crime. The chances of that being true considering the hatred for Kennedy at the time on the right, are beyond unbelievable.

And fyi, before you throw around your 'rightwing' smear again, most rightwingers I have ever encountered believe the WCR, they always believe the Government's official stories, mainly because to believe otherwise means someone on their side might be guilty.

Kennedy was a Democrat. Right Wingers have no incentive to put forth any theory other than 'it was 'commie, lefty, pinko who killed him'. You need to get your smears adjusted to reality before tossing them out there.

[stopbush]

418. You talk as if there are no facts in this case. As if there is no evidence, only speculation.

I find that extremely strange coming from a person who says they have read the WCR, especially when you term my relating evidence that was scientifically tested and is well documented and that more than fulfills what qualifies as evidence in law enforcement and court trials as my "smearing" people.

Your statement that no one who wasn't there can ever know the facts in the case is mind boggling. One doesn't need to have been there to know that fact: a Manicher Carcano rifle was found at the TSBD. No one needs to have been there to know that fact: ownership of the rifle was immediately traced to Oswald. No one needs to have been there to fact: know the specific lot of Western Cartridge Company bullets that were found in the rifle, in the spent shells on the floor of the TSBD, or the stretcher bullet were all purchased by Oswald. One need not have been there to fact: know that Oswald's palm print was found on that MC rifle on the part of the barrel that was covered by the stock when the rifle was assembled. One didn't need to be there to know any of that because it was all discovered through great police work. It was all documented in the WCR. And the WCR still exists for anyone to read, any time they so desire.

Many people weren't "there" when JFK was elected president. Should they doubt he was elected? Or are there enough facts in the case to take JFK's election out of the realm of theory and speculation?

The only thing I am smearing is the abject and willing ignorance of people in this case, the kind of ignorance that one sees on display throughout this thread, ie: like stating that the bubble top was bullet proof, or that Ruby died shortly after killing Oswald, and on and on the merry-go-round of willing ignorance goes.

If one was to read only your posts, one would think that the WCR was utterly devoid of facts and evidence in this case, when the thing is absolutely loaded with evidence. Overwhelming, mind-boggling reams of evidence. The kind of evidence that would have convicted Oswald in a court of law had 90% of it gone missing. The case is just that broadly proven...and air tight.

Yes, Oswald killing JFK is a theory, the same well that gravity or evolution is a theory, which is to say that said theory is a scientifically based and tested theory. Or, as Wiki puts it, "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

The WCR laid out the facts as facts. The WCR laid out speculation as speculation.

As far as HSCA, yes, they reached a different conclusion than the WC. But they based that conclusion on evidence that has since been falsified to the very standards that the lead investigator of the HSCA said it would need to falsified to to discredit the evidence. To continue to say that the HSCA believed that there was a 4th bullet fired makes about as much sense today as believing in limbo because the Catholic Church said it existed for centuries. Well, the Catholic Church finally came out and said limbo didn't exist. They could do that because the RCC is still in existence. The HSCA isn't in existence and hasn't been for decades. What really needs to be done is to reconvene the HSCA and correct their findings based on new evidence and falsification of the evidence they erroneously believed.

As far as anyone else having the incentive to kill JFK, you're right - of course others had the incentive. Many had a helluva lot more incentive than did Oswald. But having an incentive or a desire proves nothing. As Jackie Kennedy herself bemoaned when she heard of Oswald's arrest, "He (JFK) didn't even have the satisfaction of being killed for civil rights. It had to be some silly little Communist."

Yes, it would have given JFK's death some kind of meaning were he done in by the mob or Castro or the Russians or SPECTRE. That would have provided some balance to offset the gravitas of a sitting president being murdered. That's what drives so many people to not accept what the facts in the case show - that JFK was killed by an insignificant nobody named Lee Harvey Oswald. It just doesn't balance out in our minds.

But life is full of unbalance, like when the shuttle exploded on lift off because it literally blew a gasket (that is what an O Ring is, after all). You know, for want of a nail, etc.

There's evidence in this case. Tons of evidence. I choose to believe the science behind the evidence, if for no other reason that somebody actually had to do some real work gathering and testing that evidence, as opposed to pulling some CT out of one's ass, and believing that said ass-sourced theory resides on the same level as real evidence.

If that's "smearing" people, have at it.

[sabrina 1]

422. I did not talk as if there were no facts.

I have acknowledged those facts for which there is absolute proof.

After that, everything is circumstantial. Including many of the findings of the WC.

People have gone to death row based on what looked like incontrovertible facts put before a jury. Only to have those 'facts' proven to have been wrong decades later.

What's interesting is your incredible anger at me for something I never said. I never said 'Oswald had nothing to do with it' did I? What I said was that there is good reason, based on the known facts which I acknowledge, to believe that he did not do it alone.

You haven't answered the question I asked, which was, 'why does it matter so much to you that this might be a possibility'?

All you have done for me, mainly because of your inability to have a rational discussion and simply lay out your reasons for why you came to the conclusions you did, lashing out at anyone who even expresses any doubts at all, is to convince me I need to read an awful more about this crime.

I need to go much further than I have into looking at all that is available such as LBJ's mistress's comments which I never read before, and other witnesses whose testimony was not included in the WCR etc.

I was satisfied to consider that Oswald was there but that he did not act alone, that a whole lot of other people believed that also but like many crimes, investigators may know something, but cannot prove it..

Now I'm thinking that I might have been wrong. Because I see the fierce effort to silence anyone who even hints that the WCR did not answer many of the questions people have and I am wondering why.

I am beginning to like the term CT. From this thread I realize what it means. It means people who think for themselves, who do not blindly accept everything their Government tells them without question. They are the people who have historically facilitated progress away from blind loyalty to any entity and have led the way towards the road to democracy, where the people are equal participants in their government, a long journey which we are still travelling.

But to keep going in the right direction, not to turn back, it is necessary as every great leader who has no fear of the people has said, to never be silent when there are unanswered questions. That is the duty of a citizen.

So go on believing you have all the answers. This thread has made it clear to me that that is far from the truth.

Just a little advice. You catch more flies with honey. You COULD have influenced me and others who have not formed a definite opinion on this case. But you chose to name-call, to be angry, to try to bully people. Maybe you are just passionate about your beliefs, but you will never win any converts until you learn to have respect for other people's right to question and to come to conclusions. You are not the only who has that right.

[stopbush]

427. So, your deciding what is true can be influenced by whether the messenger plays nice with you.

Which means it's not the veracity of the information that matters to you, but whether or not you found the way the info was delivered to be acceptable.

Yet, others might be suspect of information that is delivered coated in honey. You know, things like "I won't raise your taxes but I'll still hand out money while balancing the budget." For someone other than you, a down-n-dirty view may be their preference.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that you're saying that it's on the messenger to adapt their way of delivering the message to their audience. How does one do that in a forum like DU?

My experience at DU has been that most people can handle the truth. Most people would prefer to learn that Barkey the Dog is indeed dead, rather than being told he was shipped off to the dog farm where he can run free with the other dogs.

Do I really need to start from the position of, "you're right, your Grandma is in heaven, and she's looking down on you with love," if we're heading into a discussion about why I'm an atheist?

As far as bullying people and winning converts, I have no desire to win converts. All I'm doing is providing an evidential counter to the flights of fancy that typically occur in these JFK threads. It's enough work providing the correctives to worry about winning converts. If I come off as being bullying, well, that can happen when you find yourself outnumbered by a factor of 20 as happens whenever this topic comes up. I write one post and it garners 5 or 6 responses. Not because I'm some great writer, but because the views I'm expressing upset the apple cart of received opinion. I make an attempt to respond to as many of the serious posts that come up (like yours), but it's yoeman's work. If I get brash on occasion it's because I'm not taking the time to polish each response like a precious jewel. I'm pumping out counters as quickly and as accurately as I can, because I believe that a fellow DUer deserves a response if they take the time to engage in a conversation via a cogent rejoinder to one of my posts. Drive-by posts? Not so much. I tend to ignore them.

I am passionate about this subject because I am a great admirer of JFK, and it pisses me off to see people with no demonstrated knowledge of the assassination making excuses for that little shit Oswald, aka the pissant who killed him.

It's very difficult to fight the received opinion of the vast majority of people who don't believe the facts in this case, or who more typically have not a clue as to the facts in this case. That difficulty is exacerbated by the fact that 75% of Americans who believe the JFK CTs think that they're in a minority(!), and a minority that is fighting against some evil force in their efforts to get the "truth" out about the assassination. They firmly believe that they're in possession of some hidden truth, when the fact is that they're just going along with the crowd that got their info on the JFK killing from Oliver Stone's fiction. How else to explain the almost verbatim regurgitation of examples of Stone's admitted use of creative license as a film director being stated as fact? Most people are surprised to learn that within a few months after the assassination, the vast majority of Americans believed that a conspiracy lay behind the assassination. They are surprised to learn that most Americans have never believed the WCR (not that they've read it). Even LBJ went to his grave believing the Russians were involved in the killing.

The fact is that the CTists have won! Most Americans believe the CT crapola and always have. They believe it without question and without having done a scintilla of work on their own to determine what's true and what's false. They even believe Stone's film is history, a film that takes myriad contradictory CT theories and weaves them into ONE unholy mess.

I'm not posting to win fans or get applause or to join in the mutual and self-congratulatory CT masturbation that always accompanies threads on this subject. I'm posting because JFK's memory deserves having the CTs challenged, while the coddling of that shit Oswald needs to be shot down tout suite.

You're welcome to your version of the truth. As we used to say in NYC, that and a subway token will get you downtown. If you don't care for my posts, don't read them. It's simple.

[sabrina 1]

456. You have a right to your version of the truth.

You don't have a right to insist others accept your version of the truth.

Your distortions of what people have said in this thread alone is all I need to convince me that someone who can so completely misinterpret what people are saying to them in plain words here, do not have the ability to interpret something as complex as the material available on the JFK assassination.

Eg, you acknowledge that a majority of grown up, intelligent people now believe, after reviewing the material that continues to be released over time about this crime, 'that there was more than one shooter'.

Great. But then you slam millions of people as being stupid or ignorant rather than what is much more likely: The theory offered by the WC of the 'lone gunman' and the 'magic bullet' simply hasn't held up over time as more information has come to light.

No, it cannot be that. Those millions of people must be just plain stupid, or CTs or Right Wingers (that made me laugh as I have never met a RWinger who didn't totally support the delicious notion that a 'loony, wacko, lefty, commie, traitor' was responsible all by himself)'

Iow, whether you care or not about sharing what you consider to be facts, the FACT is that you are more likely to cause people to completely doubt your interpretations due to how you choose to communicate with people here.

I guess I had given you credit for being sincere in your attempt to share what you view as the facts. Instead you confess, that is not your goal at all, you simply want to slap down people you don't like because they dared to question the official version of the facts which you chose to accept. How sad!

Yours Respectfully from a newly, self-confessed and proud Conspiracy Theorist now that she understands what it means. Intelligent, thoughtful, independent thinker, seeker of truth, questioning rather than blindly accepting, challenging rather than apathetic, a participant in Democracy rather than a blind follower of authoritarian rule.

I definitely learned a lot in this thread.

[cpwm17]

406. Kennedy was moving almost straight away

at slow speed. It wasn't that difficult of a shot. Oswald also completely missed on his first shot.

[zappaman]

348. A point that isn't mentioned a lot, even by you is...

technically, he was a double-murderer since he killed a police officer that day.

[Festivito]

131. Why do YOU continue to excuse the person who actually killed JFK?

All of the REAL evidence points to others rather than Oswald. Yet anti-CTists like yourself are hell bent on exonerating the fucking coward who did the killing.

Shameful.

[Michigan Alum]

378. Most people believe there was more than just one gunman. Oswald may have been part of it.

[Phx_Dem]

113. +1

[RomneyLies]

61. So many people cannot accept reality and must see a comspiracy.

I think it goes back to the first presidential assassination which was the only presidential assassination to involve a wide conspiracy.

Oswald was a mentally disturbed piece of shit. All it takes is one idiot to alter the course of history.

[frogmarch]

86. I agree totally.

Oswald was a loose cannon. Before he shot JFK, Oswald shot Major Gen. Ted Walker in a failed assassination attempt.

Oswald killed JFK. Oswald acted alone. No one wanting the president dead would have hired, or been in cahoots with, a nut like Lee Harvey Oswald.

[stopbush]

92. Bingo. But let's face it, conspiracy theories are very compelling to many.

"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

[coalition_unwilling]

140. The philosopher of science Karl Popper argued that for a hypothesis to be valid, there

must exist the possibility of 'falsifiability,' some set of acrtual or potential data whose existence would prove the hypothesis wrong.

Someone who is adamantly convinced that JFK was shot by more than a single lone gunman will be hard-pressed to craft a theory with falsifiability built in. IOW, what evidence were it to exist would prove that LHO acted alone? The conspiracy theorists will be hard pressed to explain their theory in those terms. (One of several major issues that troubles me about the many conspiracy theories.)

Put bluntly, what would it take to convince a conspiracy theorist that LHO acted alone? Is there any set of potential or actual data that will so convince them that their conspiracy theory is wrong? Barring honest answers to those questions, the conspiracy theories must fail the test of logic.

[Democracyinkind]

167. Luckily, Popper didn't speak the last word as far as the Philosophy of Science is concerned.

And falsifiability is not the benchmark of truth. It is just one of many concurring concepts in philosophy of science, and it only applies to predicitve statements. Non-predictive statemens cannot be falsified, if I remember those college years correctly.

Anyway, from a scientific standpoint, arguing a case where the full documentary basis has not yet been established is simply moot.

[coalition_unwilling]

175. I can see I still need some self-education and I definitely appreciate your

annotations.

I referenced Popper merely to point out the relative difficulty of convincing someone who believes in a conspiracy theory that their belief is in error (because there is no data to falsify their belief system).

Just out of curiosity, I take it you do not subscribe to the lone gunman theory? I count myself agnostic on the question, so you'll get no snark from me either way.

[Democracyinkind]

184. Your comment was apt and to the point.

You have pointed out a problem of (shall I say some) conspiracy theories that is very legit and that should be considered in such discussions. It is true that most (if not all, I still have to think about this further) conspirational accounts of historic events are not falsifiable, and granted, that is a problem. But the the fact that they are not falsifiable is because they are not predictive, and not because there is something inherently wrong with conspiratorial accounts. There is only one conspiracy theory that can be defeated with pure logic - the conspiracy theory of society, and that is what Popper set out to achieve and did achieve in "Die offene Gesellschaft und Ihre Feinde" (again, sorry that I don't know these things in English.... especially since the book was originally written in english)

Anyway, as to your question - I am just as agnostic as you, I guess. There's some parts of the "official story" that I find quite unconvincing, that could be because Oswald didn't act alone or simply because historical reconstructions sometimes just remain unconvincing, no matter how good a job historians do.

My main point about the JFK case is this one: We know that the CIA is sitting on at least 1000+ documents that relate to the case but haven't been made public yet. This is despite the 1992 act. The current guess is that the next batch will come out 2017, but it wouldn't be the first time if it takes allot more time. Scientifically speaking, the casting of definitive judgments in this case is moot until all of those documents are released, since we have no clue what those files are about - they could prove one side, the could be inconclusive, they could be boring, they could contain proof that Oswald acted alone or they could contain proof that Oswald was actually CIA since at least the mid-50's. This is all just speculation, and it will remain so until those documents are made public.

If my post seemed snarky to you, I apologize. I wasn't trying to rebut your post, I just wanted to contribute something in the narrow field on which I feel competent to speak about - and replying to your post seemed a good place to do so. Thank you for your answer and further questions.

[coalition_unwilling]

194. To me, it all comes back to one sentence Oswald uttered while in custody. "I'm a

patsy," he said. That statement has always bugged the shit out of me because it suggests (or alleges) a false flag operation of some sort. LHO could have said, "I did it." Or he could have said, "I didn't do it." Instead, he says, "I'm a patsy."

3 possibilities:

A) Oswald acted alone but says he's a "patsy" because he's trying to weasel out of it and lying to cover his ass.

B) Oswald suspects he was 'used' by agents of some other entity but does not know for sure who those agents are nor exactly how he was used.

C) Oswald knows he was 'used' by agents of some other entity (but may not know for sure how he was used).

I'd definitely appreciate your analysis of those 3 possibilities.

[stopbush]

198. Answer A is the Occam's Razor answer.

[coalition_unwilling]

206. On the surface, I agree with that (I think), but it still bugs the shit

out of me and I can't put my finger on exactly why.

Maybe it's that Occam''s Razor doesn't apply here?? If Oswald honestly suspected he had been set up (without knowing who or how), then answer B would be Occam's Razor, yes?

[Democracyinkind]

207. Probability (Occam's Razor) points to A

Which is not to say that, on discovering evidence for either B) or C), Occam's Razor would prevail.
Sometimes the most complex accounts are the truthful ones ( since we are not dealing with exact sciences here, but with social sciences). In this case, of course, there is (as of yet) no case for B) and C) that would trump the stringency of Occam's Razor. Therefore, I agree that A is the most likely given the factual basis that we are operating on. But I do insist that this is speaking of mere probabilities.

[HiPointDem]

191. +100.

[Hermes Daughter]

219. stopbush, you are the most interesting part of this thread

Your knowledge of the JFK assassination is astounnding yet your defense of an indefensible position is curious. If the incident in Dallas were a film, it would be laughable. Both Oswald and Ruby were two totally unmotivated characters, mere deus ex-machinas that moved across the face of history to you. I don't know why their innocence and the lone gunman theory is so important to you but, to me, you make no more sense than Oswald or Ruby. What do you stand to gain? And who stood to gain from the assassination?

For others here, I'll list these interviews (one short, one long) with Madeleine Duncan Brown. Is she a wingnut? And how do you dismiss E. Howard Hunt's deathbed confession?

The people who killed JFK -- they -- will never be brought to justice. That doesn't trouble me. What I find more troubling is why, here on this thread, is there someone who cares so passionately NOW that the killers get away with what they did.

[rbrnmw]

409. Madeleine Duncan Brown

was nuts plain and simple there is well documented proof of LBJ's whereabouts the night of 11/21/1963

http://dperry1943.com/browns.html

[Hermes Daughter]

459. Thanks

Good research. Between Madeleine Murry O'hair and Madeleine Duncan Brown... you Texans have hit the jackpot I always wondered how she got away with her story all those years. I guess the Byrds never took her seriously.

[Cetacea]

284. Isn't it against the rules to diss an extremely large percentage of DU'ers

And all told, the "Oswald acted alone" types appear a bit delusional to most people familiar with the case.

[billh58]

330. An "extremely large

percentage of DU'ers?" Are you talking about the 20 - 30 believers who are participating in this thread, or possibly the few hundred additional DU members who believe there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK which involved the FBI, the CIA, the Dallas Police Department, the Parkland Hospital and the doctors on duty, the Mafia, the Secret Service, Lyndon Johnson, the Warren Commission, and the unknown shadowy figures on the grassy knoll?

Yes, there is widespread interest in the JFK assassination, and several people have made money by perpetuating the controversy. There is NOT, however, a single shred of hard evidence which implicates anyone but Oswald in the murder. There is endless speculation (what about...?) and conjecture (I am convinced that...?) but absolutely no tangible evidence whatsoever that there was a widespread conspiracy involving the agencies and people directly involved.

Believing in the JFK assassination conspiracy does not make those who believe bad people. Those of us who hold different views are mainly relying on the few facts that ARE provable and evident. Until we are presented with proof or evidence to the contrary, we choose to focus on those things that we CAN change or influence.

Peace...

[sabrina 1]

246. Tell that to the House Select Committee

The Warren Commission published their findings in 1964, which btw, stated that they could not 'rule out a conspiracy' but absent evidence of a conspiracy at that time, they concluded it was a lone gunman.

But that is not the last official word on the Kennedy Assassination. In 1979, the House Select Committee met to consider more evidence and their findings contradicted the Lone Gunman theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Harvey_Oswald#House_Select_Committee

In 1979, after a review of the evidence and of prior investigations, the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations was preparing to issue[citation needed] a finding that Oswald had acted alone in killing Kennedy. However, late in the Committee's proceedings a Dictabelt was introduced, purportedly recording sounds heard in Dealey Plaza before, during and after the shots were fired. After submitting the Dictabelt to acoustic analysis, the Committee revised its findings to assert a "high probability that two gunmen fired" at Kennedy and that Kennedy "was probably assassinated as the result of a conspiracy."

Although the Committee was "unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy," it made a number of further findings regarding the likelihood or unlikelihood that particular groups, named in the findings, were involved.

It's just as much a CT to insist that there was only one gunman as to insist that there was not. Clearing the WCR and the HSC's reports differ on that point.

People swore by the WCR's Lone Gunman and Magic Bullet theories until the House Select Committee's findings were released making the WRC's findings the CT. And there are moves to hold more hearings with new evidence so it's possible people will have to revise their opinions once again.

I don't see how anyone can say with certainty what happened that day. I prefer to keep an open mind.

[frogmarch]

282. Steve Barber

Regarding Steve Barber and his analysis of the dictabelt tape:

He was a researcher intrigued by the "acoustic findings" who wanted to study them further. Unable to get a copy of the Dictabelt tape from the National Archives, he eventually managed to listen to it when Gallery Magazine included, in an issue full of conspiracy articles, a recording of the tape....

Playing the flimsy record over and over, Barber noticed something that the House Committee experts had not: the voice of Sheriff Bill Decker saying "hold everything secure" in the exact place where the shots supposedly occured. Yet Decker was known to have said "hold everything secure" about a minute after the real shots in Dealey Plaza. Thus the "shots" discovered by the House Select Committee could not actually be shots.

More: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/acoustic.htm

[AnotherMcIntosh]

311. In addition to the 1979 House Committee, the 1972 House Majority Leader expressed an interest

in re-opening an investigation but, by coincidence, he died in a plane crash.

Among other stories that were posted before Hale Boggs' death, there was this one covered by DU:

"Boggs, a conservative Democratic Senator from Louisiana, told his aide that he suspected there was more to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy than the story J Edgar Hoover's FBI had reported."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x283096

[Democracyinkind]

170. Because the logical connection between someone being disturbed

and acting as a longe gunman is sooooooo stringent, right?

Because we all know that undisturbed people always act as parts of a larger group, right?

( A simple deduction from the statement I started with )

[lonestarnot]

274. And have you been to Dealey Plaza to examine the evidence for your own evaluation?

[rhett o rick]

359. "So many people cannot accept [your version of] reality."

I guess we were all not gifted in being able to understand reality like yourself. But I am willing to bet that reality rarely coincides with what the government tells us.

[gstxdem4445ex]

236. +1

A true tragedy. If only Kennedy had survived...

[hrmjustin]

343. Welcome to DU!

[Cirque du So-What]

2. Have my doubts that any info will ever be released from official sources

I believe the best chance is a deathbed confession, but time is running out for that possibility.

[zappaman]

3. Chances of a deathbed confession died

When Oswald died.

[stopbush]

9. True that.

[edbermac]

21. Deathbed confession? He was interviewed by the press and denied any involvement.

That's what I never understood, why he wasn't bragging about it if he did it.

[stopbush]

27. Yes. Because murderers ALWAYS confess to their crimes as soon as they're apprehended.

BTW - Oswald more than confessed to the crimes through the obvious lies he told to his interrogators. Like saying he never owned a rifle. Like saying the backyard pictures of him holding the rifle he owned were faked. Like saying he had been denied legal counsel while in custody. Like saying "I didn't shoot anybody" when 10 eyewitnesses saw him kill Officer Tippett.

[Berlum]

33. ...and Jack Ruby was out for justice, not to shut Oswald up for eternity

ummmm hmmmmmm, StopFoma.

[Iggy]

132. Correct, the whole Jack Ruby

thing is wayyyyyyy too convenient.

DEAD MEN tell no tales.

[Berlum]

160. Was Jack Ruby a mobster, a spook, a mole, or a general right-wing Evil Doer

?id=9584181

[Iggy]

270. Again, Dead Men Tell No Tales

Jack Ruby dying shortly after killing Oswald is also wayyy too convenient.

[stopbush]

382. Wrong. Jack Ruby died on January 3, 1967, 3 years and 3 months after killing Oswald.

If dead men tell no tales, then live men have plenty of time to tell tales. In Ruby's case, over 3 years that he could have been singing like a canary. Yet he didn't tell any tales. Why?

BTW - do you really consider 3 years and 3 months to be a "short" period of time? If so, how much more time did Ruby need to "tell his tales?" 5 years? 10? 50?

[Iggy]

384. Three Years is a Long Period of Time?

gimme a break, please.

Last I checked, it's not easy to communicate with someone in prison.

and BTW, mobsters, and people working for them are known for NOT singing:

A day before Kennedy was assassinated, Ruby went to Joe Campisi's restaurant.[7] At the time of the Kennedy assassination, Ruby was close enough to the Campisis to ask them to come see him after he was arrested for shooting Lee Oswald.[8]

In his memoir Bound by Honor: A Mafioso's Story, Bill Bonanno, son of New York Mafia boss Joseph Bonanno, explains that several Mafia families had longstanding ties with the anti-Castro Cubans through the Havana casinos operated by the Mafia before the Cuban Revolution. Many Cuban exiles and Mafia bosses disliked Kennedy, blaming him for the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion.[9] They also disliked his brother, the young and idealistic Attorney General Robert Kennedy, who had conducted an unprecedented legal assault on organized crime.[10]

The Mafia were experts in assassination, and Bonanno reported that he recognized the high degree of involvement of other Mafia families when Ruby killed Oswald, since Bonanno was aware that Ruby was an associate of Chicago mobster Sam Giancana.[11]

Howard P. Willens, third highest official in the Department of Justice[12] and assistant counsel to J. Lee Rankin designed the organizational structure of the Warren Commission, outlined its investigative priorities,[13] and terminated the investigation of Ruby's Cuban related activities.[14] An FBI report states that Willens's father was Tony Accardo's next door neighbor since 1958.[15] Some sources report that in 1946, Tony Accardo allegedly asked Jack Ruby to go with Pat Manno, Romie Nappi and several other Mafia associates down to Texas in order to make sure local sheriff Steve Gutherie was copasetic with the Mafia’s expansion into Dallas.[16]

Four years prior to the assassination of President Kennedy, Ruby went to see a man named Lewis McWillie in Cuba. Ruby considered McWillie, who had previously run illegal gambling establishments in Texas, to be one of his closest friends.[17] At the time Ruby visited him, in August 1959, McWillie was supervising gambling activities at Havana's Tropicana Club. Ruby told the Warren Commission that his August trip to Cuba was merely a social visit at the invitation of McWillie.[17] The House Select Committee on Assassinations would later conclude that Ruby "…most likely was serving as a courier for gambling interests."[18][19] The committee also found "circumstantial," but not conclusive, evidence that "…Ruby met with [Mafia boss] Santo Trafficante in Cuba sometime in 1959."

Unfortunately few here are asking the basic question: WHY did Ruby kill Oswald? just for fun?

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

[stopbush]

389. Right. If Ruby had made it known that he was ready to name names

it would have been very difficult for the FBI or any other law enforcement agency to speak with him. Why, just locating what prison cell he was being kept in would have been a major undertaking. It wasn't like he was walking around freely in the public square where it would be easy to find him.

The problem with you CTists is that you have to go from one absurdity to another in your attempts to add a shred of credulity to your fantasies. On the other hand, you have mountains of evidence that you just choose to ignore because it's an inconvenient truth to the fantasies you spin.

Childish behavior, actually.

You make a claim that Ruby died shortly after killing Oswald. Obviously, you had no idea of the day he died on. You were just repeating some CT claptrap you heard at some point in your life. When the actual date of Ruby's death is pointed out to you, you haul out some other CT nonsense that has nothing at all to do with Ruby's date of death, as if screaming the claptrap louder covers for your ignorance on the date of death.

Think about it. On the one hand, you assert that Ruby killed Oswald ASAP because it's well known that "dead men tell no tales," so it's imperative to shut up an Oswald with all speed. But on the other hand, there's no rush to knock off Ruby after he kills Oswald. Well, then why did Oswald have to be killed off so quickly? If three years isn't a long time, why would the nefarious conspirators not leave Oswald alive for three years as well? After all, as you point out, it's difficult to speak to people in prison. If that's true for Ruby, why wouldn't it have been true for Oswald?

The convoluted thinking is stunning in its ineptitude.

[edbermac]

145. Lincoln's assassin did. As did Garfield's and McKinley's.

John Wilkes Booth: Sic semper tyrannis
Charles J. Guiteau: I am a Stalwart of the Stalwarts! I did it and I want to be arrested! Arthur is President now!
Leon Czolgosz: I done my duty.

Even John Lennon's killer admitted guilt when arrested. And there is difference between murder and assassination.

[stopbush]

204. And all of those assassins walked up to their victim and killed him in front of

witnesses.

Oswald shot from a concealed position then fled the scene.

Comparing Oswald to those others is laughable.

[HiPointDem]

205. well, that last point is a crock.

Allegations regarding witness testimony and physical evidence

Only two Commission witnesses were identified as actually having seen the shooting, Helen Markham and Domingo Benavides. Joseph Ball, senior counsel to the Commission, has referred to Markham's testimony as "full of mistakes," and characterized her as an "utter screwball."[43]

Domingo Benavides initially said that he did not think he could identify the assailant and was never asked to view a police lineup,[44] even though he was the person closest to the killing.[45] Benavides later testified that that the killer resembled pictures he had seen of Oswald.[46] Other witnesses were taken to police lineups. However, these lineups have been criticized as flawed in that they consisted of people who looked very different from Oswald. In one case, the lineup was composed of five "young teenagers" and Oswald.[45][47]

Additionally, certain witnesses who did not appear before the Commission identified an assailant who was not Oswald. Both Acquilla Clemons and Frank Wright witnessed the scene from their respective homes, within one block of the murder. Clemons saw two men near Tippit’s car just before the shooting.[48] After the shooting, she ran outside and saw a man with a gun whom she described as "kind of heavy." He waved to the second man, urging him to "go on".[49] Frank Wright also emerged from his home and observed the scene seconds after the shooting. He described a man standing by Tippit’s body who had on a long coat, and who quickly ran to a car parked nearby and drove away.[5

Two of the cases were recovered by witness Domingo Benavides and turned over to police officer J.M. Poe. Poe told the FBI that he marked the shells with his own initials, "J.M.P." to identify them.[53] Sergeant Gerald Hill later testified to the Warren Commission that it was he who had ordered police officer Poe to mark the shells.[54] However, Poe's initials were not found on the shells produced by the FBI six months later.[53][55][56] Testifying before the Warren Commission, Poe said that although he recalled marking the cases, he "couldn’t swear to it."[55][57] Poe later told researchers that he was absolutely certain that he had marked the shells.[58] The identification of the cartridge cases at the crime scene raises more questions. Sergeant Gerald Hill examined one of the shells and radioed the police dispatcher, saying: "The shell at the scene indicates that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38 rather than a pistol."[59] However, Oswald was reportedly arrested carrying a non-automatic .38 Special revolver.[51][60] The number of cartridge shells found at the crime scene raises further questions for some. Sergeant Gerald Hill, who took possession of Oswald's revolver upon his arrest, reported that the gun's six chambers were fully loaded with unspent cartridges and that Oswald had no ammunition on his person.[61]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._D._Tippit#Allegations_regarding_witness_testimony_and_physical_evidence

[hedgehog]

369. That has always been my question -

John Wilkes Booth thought of himself as a hero, Charles Guiteau was proud of himself, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_James_A._Garfield) as was Czolgosz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_William_McKinley), yet Oswald denied his part.

[DJ13]

53. Not yet

G.H.W. Bush is still alive.

He likely knows the truth.

[cpwm17]

233. It's pretty low of you to accuse someone of such a serious crime

when they didn't do it.

That is a bad habit of CT'ers.

[DJ13]

237. I appologize for saying he's still living

Happy?

[Octafish]

259. The poster didn't accuse anyone. I'd like to ask Poppy Bush what he was doing in Dallas on Nov. 22?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5456280

[sabrina 1]

268. It's a bad habit to use labels you are told to use by other people

to try to discredit people who absolutely have legitimate questions about this assassination.

It makes you look bad and since there is a small group here all doing the same thing, it looks like they are either all the same person, or they are part of a group who all speak the same way and have the same mission.

So if you want to be taken seriously, and not viewed as part of that discredited group, make your arguments in your own words without using the same old talking points and tactics that have had zero success and never will.

[cpwm17]

307. I'm using my own words

and I'm certainly not part of any group. Not everybody you disagree with is part of a conspiracy.

I believe in the 'Golden Rule." It's what drives my ethics. I wouldn't want anyone to falsely accuse me of committing a crime I didn't do. All nations and all people should follow this rule; plus we all should care about the truth.

[sabrina 1]

319. I believe that too. That is why I do not fling labels such as

CT around at people who are simply asking questions they have a right to ask in order to try to discredit them. That is not honest, it is attaching motives to people that for the most part are not true.

[cpwm17]

368. CT is the appropriate term

Words and phrases (terms) mean what have been established over time. This is how the term 'CT' is used. No other term is appropriate.

CT'ers have a certain mindset. They often believe that there are powerful forces that control everything, and these forces have sinister motives.

The world isn't black and white, and some things are just not true or even impossible – no matter how much some folks want to believe them.

Your accusing me of being part of this conspiracy proves my point.

[sabrina 1]

373. You are wrong. You do not know the meaning of the phrase.

A Theory is just that, unless someone tries to pass it off as fact. If the theory is about more than one person, it can be called a conspiracy theory. A theory that more than one person might be planning something, or has planned something.

Your mindset appears to be fixed on a wrong usage of the term. You need another word to describe what you are trying to use this phrase to describe. The words you are looking for are: 'Delusional And Paranoid And Fixated'.

But you can't use them on Political Forums without risking having posts hidden. So the CT phrase was adapted to cleverly hide the real words with the intention of insulting people who can actually THINK for themselves and QUESTION.

Apparently you've used it as an insult for so long you thought it actually meant what you thought it meant. 'Insulting' is against the rules here btw.

I believe that each time CT is used to attack someone with now that we are clear on what the intention is, it should be read as an insult and subject to alerting like all other insults.

So, now that we are clear on all this please point out what people on DU are 'delusional'? I prefer to use the correct wording if you don't mind. It's more honest.

I am interested in some examples of these 'delusional' people here on DU. I do not know any and I've been here a while.

CT generally means when it is used in threads like this: 'Someone Who Will Not Accept My View Of The Word Without Question And Therefore I Want Them To Be Silenced!'

And rather than use weasel words or try to hide what I mean with the WRONG words, I call that kind of mindset, 'Authoritarian'.

[cpwm17]

465. I'm not trying to silence anybody

But any bold claim, such as Kennedy being killed by someone other than Oswald, requires actual evidence. In this incredibly long thread I have seen none presented. A number of CT'ers have played the victim card when pressed for actual evidence. That's classic behavior when pushing bullshit.

Delusional is a strong word, and I'm not going to use it. Ct'ers are just not good at following evidence, and they make poor scientists.

The evidence must be proportional to the claim. Lacking evidence on your side, CT'ers have fabricated many different claims concerning Kennedy's assassination. If there was actual evidence, this would not be the case.

[sabrina 1]

479. Your use of the term 'CT' removes any credibility you probably hope to

establish. Not because there is anything wrong with the phrase but because those flinging it around think there is. It also demonstrates an inability to think and use one's own words rather the words distributed by those with an agenda in an attempt to silence any questioning at all among the population.

Anyone who uses talking points rather than their own words cannot expect, not among Democrats anyhow, to be taken seriously.

But to use the actual meaning of the word, I am a proud CT. I am proud to be an independent, engaged, non-apathetic, zombie who accepts every story, such as WMDs in Iraq and Mushroom Clouds, and Lone Gunmen, and Magic Bullets told to them by their leaders.

The Right of course believes everything their leaders tell them without question. They are still convinced there were WMDs in Iraq.

Btw, do you think the House Select Committee which concluded in 1979 that there was most likely a second shooter, were CTs also?

[cpwm17]

490. The world isn't black or white

I think I wrote that earlier. One needs to know when to be skeptical about what, and not follow a particular dogma. Governments don't always lie, or always tell the truth. Evidence needs to stand on its own merits.

Knowing who was pushing the WMD bullshit; and having some knowledge about our media, our history, and the evidence; I knew the Bush administration and the Neocons were full of shit. Pushing bullshit to promote unprovoked wars is business as usual in the US.

I don't know what Kennedy assassination scheme you buy into. There are many. A second shooter, in itself, isn't at all far-fetched. It needs actual evidence to support – none exists. Having a second shooter that was involved in some US Government conspiracy is rather far-fetched, and requires strong evidence. A US Government conspiracy to assassinate a US President, requiring many US Government conspirators, is virtually impossible.

Conducting serious crimes against US citizens, such as assassinating US presidents, is frowned upon by most Americans, and such crimes are difficult or impossible to pull off.

As I wrote above, the House Select Committee results in 1979 were invalid. They used bogus information to support the idea of a second shooter.

CT'ers have a mindset that leaves them vulnerable to believing impossible conspiracy schemes that contradict evidence. CT is a useful term. I don't consider this term a "talking point." That sounds conspiratorial. I have no agenda to silence anybody. That sounds conspiratorial also.

[sabrina 1]

493. No, it's a well known talking point. And the intention is to smear those

who are skeptical of the Government's accounts of major events such as the JFK assassination. It is not a very useful weapon because despite all the attempts to silence people, a majority of people here and around the world do not believe the WC's findings. Most believe there was a second gunman and many credible people have provided enough questions about the official account, which has no more or less credibility than any other theory, that require answers. The WC's findings ARE theories using available evidence to back them up. People who question their conclusions, using the same evidence, are as believable as the WC's, since neither group has any concrete evidence to back up their theories.

What is most remarkable about these discussions is the sheer anger of those who support the WCR. The total intolerance of anyone even suggesting that they have doubts. And then, the use of smears. While the other side simply engages in discussions until the inevitable happens and threads are derailed with personal attacks etc.

But it wasn't always that way. In the early days of Progressive forums, around 2000, I saw some incredibly interesting discussions on this and other such events. Minus the attackers, people were able to discuss and discard opinions in an intelligent way since no person I know who questions the WCR wants false information or conclusions to prevail.

It is a story that will be discussed one hundred years from now. Why this bothers anyone to the point where they engage in personal attacks and angry responses is beyond me. But it only happens on online forums, now on the Left also. It was confined to the Right initially. In RL, people discuss these matters with no problem.

This began on the Left when gate keeper forums like DK, as you said in another post, a very right leaning forum, appeared to get the message from somewhere that certain interests did not want these matters discussed at all. So they banned any discussion of JFK's murder and of Election Fraud.

Ironically all they accomplished by doing so was to raise many questions about their own motives. Some of those questions were answered and what were once just theories about them were verified in some instances. And that is where the phrase 'we are the reality based community' implying that anyone who dared to disagree with them was not, came into use. If one is reality based, they do not have to keep telling people about it. It should be apparent.

Censorship will always create resistance, so in a way their tactics only aroused further interest in these issues. You can't control people's minds, but a few people engaging in the fantasy that they were of some importance, certainly tried. And failed.

I do agree with you about DK. Considering the background of the owner, Military, 'former' Republican, CIA by his own account, it is not surprising that it would be.

[AntiFascist]

420. The term "CT" became widespread after 9-11...

when most CTers, as you call them, were drawing connections between 9-11 and the Bush administration. Many CTer's on DU implicate the Bush Dynasty in certain historical tragic events involving the government, in fact, that is likely the reason this thread was started by Octafish. Conspiracy theories often associate Prescott Bush with both the "Business Plot" as well as funding and support for the Nazis, George H. W. Bush with the JFK Assassination and culmination of the Shadow Government, George W. Bush with 9-11 and stealing elections, and I'm sure Octafish and others can provide a long list of other crimes. You are simply following in a long line of DUers who consistently argue that there can be no connections between these events and, ultimately, the Bush family, and that each of these events involved a relatively small isolated group or single individual. Therefore, you are on the side of those consistently defending the Bush family, whether you are conscious of this or not.

[Octafish]

22. If there's no nothing to hide, why?

OP author Jefferson Morley, along with a good number of writers and researchers, are working to free the JFK files.

As for deathbed confessions, remember E Howard Hunt?

[AnotherDreamWeaver]

95. Hunt was one of the "bums" taken off the train

The crowd followed him and two others off the "grassy knoll" past police saying this is a restricted zone. The crowd made the Dallas Police arrest them, but they were freed and never named, COVERUP....
See Jim Garrison's book "On the Trail of the Assassins"

[zappaman]

105. Ah...no he wasn't.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/3tramps.htm

[stopbush]

125. Don't you love how the CTists toss out these "facts" like they're actually, er, facts?

Amazing.

Sheep to the intellectual slaughter.

[HiPointDem]

202. i believe there's been a couple of deathbed confessions but they have the same

problems as the rest of the evidence. is it true? craziness? disinformation?

[bobthedrummer]

5. I'm still in the fight, I've got your back Sir. Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours. I'm in GB

with my family and turn 63 tomorrow.
I'm still in the "big" fight brother.

[Octafish]

24. Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours, Good Sir!

Seeing how many people still care gives me hope, bobthedrummer, that, perhaps the warmongers and the money-trumps-peace crowd will be brought to justice.

PS: An early Happy Birthday to you, Good Brother!

[MrMickeysMom]

80. Happy Birthday BtheD!

I got your back AND Octafish!

Happy Thanksgiving to you both!

[bobthedrummer]

89. Thank you MrMickeysMom-we're waiting for the pies to finish and then we're off, this thread is an

informational warzone 49 years old today. Glad to have that Starship Command platform you display in my friendly skies! Happy Thanksgiving.
Bob

[CanSocDem]

6. My condolences...

...not only for the man and his family, but for the era of civil society that began to disappear on that day.

.

[YoungDemCA]

12. "the era of civil society that began to disappear on that day"...what?

Can you please elaborate on this?

[Octafish]

48. JFK worked for peace, even with unfriendly governments. Take Cuba...

Kennedy Sought Dialogue with Cuba

INITIATIVE WITH CASTRO ABORTED BY ASSASSINATION,
DECLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS SHOW

Oval Office Tape Reveals Strategy to hold clandestine Meeting in Havana; Documents record role of ABC News correspondent Lisa Howard as secret intermediary in Rapprochement effort

Washington D.C. - On the 40th anniversary of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, and the eve of the broadcast of a new documentary film on Kennedy and Castro, the National Security Archive today posted an audio tape of the President and his national security advisor, McGeorge Bundy, discussing the possibility of a secret meeting in Havana with Castro. The tape, dated only seventeen days before Kennedy was shot in Dallas, records a briefing from Bundy on Castro's invitation to a U.S. official at the United Nations, William Attwood, to come to Havana for secret talks on improving relations with Washington. The tape captures President Kennedy's approval if official U.S. involvement could be plausibly denied.

The possibility of a meeting in Havana evolved from a shift in the President's thinking on the possibility of what declassified White House records called "an accommodation with Castro" in the aftermath of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Proposals from Bundy's office in the spring of 1963 called for pursuing "the sweet approach…enticing Castro over to us," as a potentially more successful policy than CIA covert efforts to overthrow his regime. Top Secret White House memos record Kennedy's position that "we should start thinking along more flexible lines" and that "the president, himself, is very interested in (the prospect for negotiations)." Castro, too, appeared interested. In a May 1963 ABC News special on Cuba, Castro told correspondent Lisa Howard that he considered a rapprochement with Washington "possible if the United States government wishes it. In that case," he said, "we would be agreed to seek and find a basis" for improved relations.

The untold story of the Kennedy-Castro effort to seek an accommodation is the subject of a new documentary film, KENNEDY AND CASTRO: THE SECRET HISTORY, broadcast on the Discovery/Times cable channel on November 25 at 8pm. The documentary film, which focuses on Ms. Howard's role as a secret intermediary in the effort toward dialogue, was based on an article -- "JFK and Castro: The Secret Quest for Accommodation" -- written by Archive Senior Analyst Peter Kornbluh in the magazine, Cigar Aficionado. Kornbluh served as consulting producer and provided key declassified documents that are highlighted in the film. "The documents show that JFK clearly wanted to change the framework of hostile U.S. relations with Cuba," according to Kornbluh. "His assassination, at the very moment this initiative was coming to fruition, leaves a major 'what if' in the ensuing history of the U.S. conflict with Cuba."

CONTINUED with links, resources...

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB103/index.htm

Contrast with his more, eh, conservative successors, one who uttered "Money trumps peace":

Q: A lot of our allies in Europe do a lot of business with Iran. So I wonder what your thoughts are about how you further tighten the financial pressure on Iran, in particular, if it also means economic pain for a lot of our allies.

BUSH: It's an interesting question. One of the problems, not specifically on this issue, just in general, that - let's put it this way: Money trumps peace, sometimes.

In other words, commercial interests are very powerful interests throughout the world. And part of the issue in convincing people to put sanctions on a specific country is to convince them that it's in the world's interest that they forego their own financial interest.

And that's why sometimes it's tough to get tough economic sanctions on countries, and I'm not making any comment about any particular country, but you touched on a very interesting point.

You know - so, therefore, we're constantly working with nations to convince them that what really matters in the long run is to have the environment so peace can flourish.

In the Iranian case, I firmly believe that, if they were to have a weapon, it would make it difficult for peace to flourish, and therefore I am working with people to make sure that that concern trumps whatever commercial interests may be preventing governments from acting.

I make no specific accusation with that statement. It's a broad statement. But it's an accurate assessment of what sometimes can halt multilateral diplomacy from working.

SOURCE:

George W Bush, press conference, Feb. 14, 2007

Look all around for more examples.

[YoungDemCA]

57. Yeah, I don't think so...

"JFK presidential assassination conspiracy" had a whole new meaning back when he was still in office. Kennedy and his administration loved devising and launching shady plots to assassinate the presidents of other countries. The Cuban Project -- the CIA's many attempts to kill Castro in the most Wile. E. Coyote manner possible -- was launched by Kennedy. Of course, the Kennedy administration only resorted to outright murder after their secret invasion of Cuba failed miserably. So while he deserves a lot of credit for keeping Americans alive through the Cuban Missile Crisis, the fact that Kennedy was openly and regularly trying to straight up murder their president probably helped cause the problem in the first place.

As for Vietnam, on September 2, 1963, John F. Kennedy told Walter Cronkite:

"These people who say we ought to withdraw from Vietnam are wholly wrong, because if we withdrew from Vietnam, the communists would control Vietnam, pretty soon ... all of Southeast Asia would be under control of the communists and ... then India, Burma would be the next target."

Politicians would spend the next decade reciting that exact justification for the war. Kennedy wasn't just pro-Vietnam War -- his administration basically wrote the pro-Vietnam War playbook.

Read more: http://www.cracked.com/article_19676_5-ridiculous-cold-war-myths-you-learned-in-history-class_p2.html#ixzz2CySNNXZq

JFK and his advisers were concerned with the “crisis of confidence among Vietnamese people which is eroding popular support for GVN that is vital for victory,” and the “crisis of confidence on the part of the American public and Government,” who also do not see how “our actions are related to our fundamental objective of victory”—JFK’s invariant condition. JFK (and his advisers) recognized that the war was unpopular at home, but regarded such lack of support—as well as GVN initiatives toward political settlement—not as an opportunity for withdrawal, but rather as a problem to be overcome, because it posed a threat to the military victory to which they were committed. The significance of these facts for the thesis under discussion is obvious.

http://www.chomsky.info/letters/200312--.htm

Kennedy's commitment to stay the course was clear to those closest to him. As noted, Arthur Schlesinger shared JFK's perception of the enormous stakes and his optimism that the military escalation had reversed the "aggression" of the indigenous guerrillas in 1962. There is not a word in Schlesinger's chronicle of the Kennedy years (1965, reprinted 1967) that hints of any intention to withdraw without victory. In fact, Schlesinger gives no indication that JFK thought about withdrawal at all. The withdrawal plans receive one sentence in his voluminous text, attributed to McNamara in the context of the debate over pressuring the Diem regime. There is nothing else in this 940-page virtual day-by-day record of the Kennedy Administration by its quasi-official historian. Far more detail had appeared in the press in October-December 1963.

These facts leave only three possible conclusions: (1) the historian was keeping the President's intentions secret; (2) this close JFK confidant had no inkling of his intentions; (3) there were no such intentions.

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199209--.htm

I guess the myth is easier to buy than the facts.

[CanSocDem]

99. Civil society...???

That's when political opponents went to the electorate to settle their ideological differences, not to the local hitman or "ratfucker".

After JFK, all of the best progressive voices were silenced either by assassination or the threat of such. It's getting easier.

.

[stopbush]

7. Demand accountability from the officials who failed to protect JFK?

Er, the murder happened 49 years ago today. Just how many of those officials are alive today to hold accountable? Or, is the point to smear the reputations of dead people who can no longer defend themselves?

The Warren Commission Report spared no one in its evaluation of the failure to protect the President, as in this passage from Chapter 8 of its report:

The Commission believes that the facilities and procedures of the Protective Research Section of the Secret Service prior to November 22, 1963, were inadequate. Its efforts appear to have been too largely directed at the "crank" threat. Although the Service recognized that its advance preventive measures must encompass more than these most obvious dangers, it made little effort to identify factors in the activities of an individual or an organized group, other than specific threats, which suggested a source of danger against which timely precautions could be taken

.

And this:

The Commission believes, however, that the FBI took an unduly restrictive view of its responsibilities in preventive intelligence work, prior to the assassination. The Commission appreciates the large volume of cases handled by the FBI (636,371 investigative matters during fiscal year 1963).147 There were no Secret Service criteria which specifically required the referral of Oswald's case to the Secret Service; nor was there any requirement to report the names of defectors. However, there was much material in the hands of the FBI about Oswald: the knowledge of his defection, his arrogance and hostility to the United States, his pro-Castro tendencies, his lies when interrogated by the FBI, his trip to Mexico where he was in contact with Soviet authorities, his presence in the School Book Depository job and its location along the route of the motorcade. All this does seem to amount to enough to have induced an alert agency, such as the FBI, possessed of this information to list Oswald as a potential threat to the safety of the President. This conclusion may be tinged with hindsight, but it stated primarily to direct the thought of those responsible for the future safety of our Presidents to the need for a more imaginative and less narrow interpretation of their responsibilities.

It is the conclusion of the Commission that, even in the absence of Secret Service criteria which specifically required the referral of such a case as Oswald's to the Secret Service, a more alert and carefully considered treatment of the Oswald case by the Bureau might have brought about such a referral. Had such a review been undertaken by the FBI, there might conceivably have been additional investigation of the Oswald case between November 5 and November 22.

[bobthedrummer]

10. There are many people still unaccountable, and the blowback between the FBI and CIA continues.

Then there were the "show" deaths of so many people that critically questioned the "findings" of the Warren Commission-yet there remain many people that could and should speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth regarding the assassination of President Kennedy.

[stopbush]

14. "Show deaths?" Somebody drank the CT kool-ade.

[bobthedrummer]

16. Play at your own risk then stopbush. "It can't happen here", right?

[stopbush]

17. Who said it can't happen here? It happened with Lincoln, whose assassination WAS the

outcome of a conspiracy. That's what the facts tell us.

In the case of JFK's assassination, the facts tell us otherwise.

You can be a science denier all you want, but it doesn't change the science and evidence in the case.

[bobthedrummer]

18. A Sinclair Lewis reference, by the way I hang out with molecular epidemiologists and other PhDs-have

a nice day posting...

[stopbush]

23. Enjoy your day believing you're fighting the good fight against evil.

I see you include a cross icon in your posts. Looks like you're predisposed to believe in make believe. You know, gods, Jesus, conspiracy to kill JFK.

Have fun with that. Don't let reality intrude.

BTW - do those brainiacs you hang out with also believe the JFK CTs?

[Octafish]

25. I remember welcoming you to DU, stopbush.

45 Years On, We Must Bring JFK s Killers to Justice

Time flies.

[stopbush]

30. I appreciated the welcome.

Someone has to speak up for reason and sanity around here, especially every year around Thanksgiving, when the JFK CTists come out from under the rocks.

[sabrina 1]

83. If you keep repeating those letters 'CTists' it might actually stick to people

who are doing their duty as citizens, asking for answers to questions that were never answered?

I doubt it though. People WILL ask questions, and will keep asking them until they are answered and if they are not, people will wonder why?

The real CTs are the ones we are told to accept without question.

Slapping labels on questioners only raises more questions. If the truth is so obvious, why the anger at those who still question, the need to try to discredit them? The truth should be obvious enough that anyone doubting it should not require these visceral reactions from those who just want to 'beleeeeve'.

Every time I see that now very old label being pulled out and slapped on people who question, it causes me to look more deeply at what prompted that particular reaction. It raises suspicions sometimes that were not already there.

[stopbush]

97. I would be willing to bet that neither you nor 90% of the people

on DU who believe "the questions have never been answered" have never read the Warren Commission Report, which did a damn fine job answering the questions. Not every question, but the major questions.

So, have you read the WCR, Sabrina1? Personally, I find the WCR to be a lot more detailed, interesting and compelling than any of the CT books I've ever read on the subject. The CT books are only interesting if we're willing to stipulate that outrageous fantasies are fact. Sort of like the way stipulating that vampires exist makes the Twilight movies seem plausible.

If you've never read the WCR, what's keeping you? It's online for free these days. And it's actually pretty well written as reports go. Fascinating stuff. Not at all dry.

[zappaman]

106. And if it is too much to read for some

I recommend Bugliosi's book Reclaiming History.

[sabrina 1]

118. You would be wrong.

And like so many others who read the report, several years ago at this point, it raised even more questions.

You should not make assumptions about people you do not know, or make bets so cavalierly. It calls into question how you approach the gathering of facts. Eg, you jumped to a conclusion over something that is fairly trivial and not really all that important. My impression is that if someone is willing to jump to conclusions so quickly about something so relatively innocuous, because it would back their preconceived theories, then it is reasonable to assume they make a habit of doing so.

The correct way to approach the gathering of information, to ensure more accuracy, would be to start by asking a question 'have you ever the read the WCR'?

[zappaman]

119. You read it?

Specifically, what parts do you take issue with?
Please point out where they got it wrong.

[stopbush]

121. Like when I wrote "So, have you read the WCR, Sabrina1?" in post #97 above?

You still haven't bothered answering my question, even though it was phrased in *exactly* the way that you consider to be "the correct way to approach the gathering of information, to ensure more accuracy." You sort of indicate you've read it, but I'm not clear that you have.

You're welcome to take this opportunity to answer my initial question, which was asked in what you yourself have since defined as "the correct way"

[sabrina 1]

126. You forgot that you answered your own question.

You were 'willing to bet' on your own conclusion. Lucky for you I didn't take you up on that bet.

[rhett o rick]

357. "Someone has to speak up for reason and sanity". Are you series? So you self-appointed yourself

to be the savior of "reason and sanity". And then to ridicule those that dont agree with your version of "reason and sanity" by saying that they "come out from under the rocks", is incredible. That certainly isnt open minded. And surprising language from a "politically liberal person" that posts on DU.

I doubt that anyone would take you serious when you claim to be the all knowing speaker for "reason and sanity". And of course ridicule will kill any discussion.

[MrMickeysMom]

171. Octafish....

Many years.... still they are out there spending a good deal of time trying to stomp it into the ground.

People have a right to know what happened to our democracy and why. It's a matter of pressing on, a task I'm willing to do.

[HangOnKids]

232. You Should Not Have Been So Kind

Just saying. Happy Thanksgiving Octafish.

[bobthedrummer]

32. I have the gift of Faith in Jesus Christ as do many others-you don't "own" my perception space about

that nor any of your other imaginings. You seem like a knee jerk reactionary when it comes to your re visioned history, which has no solid conceptual framework, does it?

Btw, here's more about your "pissant"

Lee Harvey Oswald: an Updated Modern Biography with References (Scribd)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/39479479/The-Kennedy-Assassination-Lee-Harvey-Oswald-an-Updated-Biography-with-References

[MadHound]

26. You're talking supporting the Warren commission and talking about science?

The same report that came up with the magic bullet theory, a theory that defines science in so many ways they've yet to be counted

I suppose that you also disparage the House Select Committee on Assassinations that came to the conclusion that yes, it was indeed a conspiracy that was behind the JFK assassination.

Speaking of drinking Kool Aid

[stopbush]

41. Really? Please tell me how the single bullet theory (ie: magic bullet) defies science.

I'm waiting.

And, yes, I disparage the findings of the HSCA for the simple fact that their conclusion that a 4th shot was fired was based entirely, ENTIRELY on their belief that the dictabelt tape captured the sound of a 4th shot. That evidence was vigorously challenged at the time by the FBI and the National Science Institute, among others.

That "evidence" has since been falsified conclusively, by proving that motorcycle officer HB MCClain was NOT in a position to record the sound of any 4th gunshot, a position that one of the scientists (Weiss) presenting the "4th shot evidence" insisted McClain had to be in to record the shot. When the HSCA asked Weiss about the location of the motorcycle with the open microphone—"Would you consider that to be an essential ingredient in the ultimate conclusion of your analysis?"—Weiss answered, "It is an essential component of it, because, if you do not put the motorcycle in the place that it is [at]—the initial point of where it was receiving the [sound of the gunfire]—, and if you do not move it at the velocity at which it is being moved on paper in this re-creation, you do not get a good, tight pattern that compares very well with the observed impulses on the police tape recording."

That evidence that falsifies the 4th shot theory exists in the form of video tapes shot from many angles and by many different people who were in Dealey Plaza that day. In fact, McClain testified to the HSCA that he was not in the position that the "4th shot scientists" said he was in to be able to record the sound of a 4th shot, which had to have been 120 to 130 feet behind JFK's limo. The HSCA chose to not believe his sworn testimony.

But the video evidence proves that McClain was exactly where he said he was when the sound of that 4th shot was supposedly captured on the dictabelt tape, and that was 250 feet behind JFK's limo, just as he testified to the HSCA. Ergo, it was impossible for the open mic on McClain's motorcycle to record the sound of a 4th shot being fired.

Theory falsified, conclusively. Based on the very parameters set up by the scientists making the claim for a 4th shot.

BTW - the HSCA did agree with the Warren Commission that Oswald fired three shots and that two of the shots fired were the shots that killed JFK.

You've got to get with it, MadHound. You're dealing with outdated and laughable CT "information."

[Eyes of the World]

103. You are far more passionate about the Magic Bullet

then most JFK truther's are about the subject.

It would be against DU rules of me to even suggest that you are a troll trying to stop the search for truth by disrupting any other avenue of discussion.

[stopbush]

109. You can't answer the question, so why bother posting?

It's really a simple request. If the single bullet theory isn't scientifically sound, then the evidence against it must be readily available and easily understandable.

I'm simply asking for the evidence. I thought we were all after the truth here. Suggesting I'm some kind of troll when I've been a DU member since its inception is a cheap shot, especially when that shot is taken by a nube with a whopping 52 DU posts to their credit.

[Eyes of the World]

110. Do you really want to have a serious conversation?

The single bullet theory is nonsense.

What part of it makes sense? How do I disprove nonsense?

What evidence would you accept that proves that someone is trying to sell you something?

You tell me what you will accept and I will get it.

[stopbush]

123. Sure. I'm up for a serious conversation.

Let's start with the seated positions of JFK and Connelly in the limo at the time the shots were fired.

Would you agree that their bodies were aligned in a way that a bullet fired from the TSBD window would have a trajectory that makes a straight line from the window, through JFK and into Connelly?

Or, do you believe that the single bullet theory requires the bullet to stop and turn sharply to the right in mid air, then back to the left to enter Gov Connelly after exiting JFK (which I would agree is a totally ludicrous and unscientific proposition)?

Awaiting your answer.

[Eyes of the World]

111. Or are you just shouting 'Nothing To See Here" for the fun of it?

Suspicious...

[FogerRox]

366. I see a copy and paste from WIki here.....

Which is fine, bet lets not view it as you being conversant on the topic, so as to be able to write something from memory.

At least link to what you pasted in the comment box.

[tonybgood]

46. Science and the evidence of the case?

The one thing for certain in this case is that some of the best evidence of this crime was almost immediately destroyed at Parkland Hospital. Scientific criminal investigation was in it's childhood and most certainly was not followed in this case. The real tragedy is that we may never be able to uncover the definitive truth about what happened and who was responsible. It's pretty obvious to me there is plenty of blame to go around.

[stopbush]

75. Absolute delusion.

Not true or "certain" by even the most lax standards.

[Caretha]

208. Oh Now

You've said some pretty stupid things previously, but that one takes the cake. I just have to use this smiley ->

Just an interested observer of this rehashed story.

[tonybgood]

291. So cleaning the limo doesn't constitute "certainty" that evidence was destroyed?

How is it delusional that there was physical evidence in the limo when it arrived at Parkland Hospital? How is it delusional to say that cleaning the limo did not destroy physical evidence? It is not evidence of conspiracy, to be sure, but it is evidence that incompetence was demonstrated. To say that loss of physical evidence is not important is "delusion" no matter whether you believe the Warren Commission or not.

[stopbush]

419. Was any evidence recovered from the limo before it was cleaned?

Do you know?

[tonybgood]

439. Yes, the answer is "no"!!! No evidence of any kind was taken from the limo before it was cleaned.

Is there any listing in the Warren Commission report of evidence being taken from the limo at Parkland Hospital? No. The limo was cleaned by the Secret Service before any evidence was collected.

[stopbush]

448. Then how to explain WC exhibits CE 567, CE 569 and CE 840?

All fragments of the bullet that hit JFK in the head, taken from the front seat of the limo and from under the left jump seat. How about that?

Oh, and far as there being no mention in the WCR of evidence being taken from the limo:

"In addition to the three cartridge cases found in the Texas School Book Depository Building, a nearly whole bullet was found on Governor Connally's stretcher and two bullet fragments were found in the front of the President's car. 2 The two bullet fragments weighed 44.6 and 21.0 grains, respectively. 43 The heavier fragment was a portion of a bullet's nose area, as shown by its rounded contour and the character of the markings it bore. 44 The lighter fragment consisted of bullet's base portion, as shown by its shape and by the presence of a cannelure. 45 The two fragments were both mutilated, and it was not possible to determine from the fragments themselves whether they comprised the base and nose of one bullet or of two separate bullets. 46 However, each had sufficient unmutilated area to provide the basis of an identification. 47 Based on a comparison with test bullets fired from the C2766 rifle, the stretcher bullet and both bullet fragments were identified as having been fired from the C2766 rifle. 48 " - WCR, Appendix 10

In addition, a large fragment of JFK's skull was recovered from the limo. An x-ray of this fragment exists.

The HSCA provided a report on how this fragment was recovered from the limo.

Arguing with the JFK CTists - like shooting fish in a barrel.

[Octafish]

461. How do you explain the immediate destruction of evidence - the limousine?

Read something the Warren Commission didn't bring up:

Destruction of Records

Cmdr. James Humes, JFK's lead autopsy doctor. Humes signed an affidavit that he had burned "certain preliminary draft notes" from the autopsy, and later admitted that this included the first draft of the autopsy report.

It is impossible to know how much evidence related to the assassination of President Kennedy has been destroyed. Some instances are well-documented; others only inferred or alleged. In other cases, such as the Orleans Parish Grand Jury transcripts, records ordered destroyed were secretly preserved.

It is known that a note from Oswald to the FBI was destroyed, that the first draft of the autopsy report and "certain preliminary draft notes" were burned, and that the Presidential limousine was rebuilt shortly after the assassination. The President's brain itself, along with tissue slides and other medical evidence including autopsy photos, has gone missing. A Presidential recording from the day after the assassination was erased.

How many files were destroyed is unknown. The Department of Defense admitted to a "routine" destruction in 1971 of an Army Intelligence file on Oswald which was never seen by any investigative body. Even during the 1990s, the Secret Service destroyed Protective Service records, among them files on JFK's aborted Chicago trip in early November 1963, rather than let them fall into the hands of the Assassination Records Review Board. There are also some indications that the U.S. Marine Corps launched its own investigation in the aftermath of JFK's assassination, reports from which have never been located.

What file destruction may have been undertaken by the FBI and CIA is not known, though many believe the records of these agencies have been sanitized, particularly regarding the Oswald trip to Mexico City in the fall of 1963. A CIA officer named James Wilcott based in Japan told the HSCA he had disbursed funds for the "Oswald project." No records directly identifying Oswald an an intelligence agent have ever surfaced.

SOURCE:

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

The destruction of evidence demonstrates the investigation was compromised.

[stopbush]

462. Blah, blah, blah. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

What happened to the Presidential Limousine that carried President Kennedy on the day he was assassinated?

The limousine that carried the President was searched for evidence after the assassination. It was then cleaned and continued to be used for certain functions. The windshield of the limousine was removed as evidence by the FBI and the Secret Service since it had been hit by the third bullet. The windshield was designated Commission Exhibit (CE) 350 of the Warren Commission and as a Warren Commission Exhibit will remain in the custody of the National Archives and Records Administration. The limousine is currently at the Henry Ford museum in Dearborn Michigan. - from the National Archive FAQ page, "JFK Assassination Record"

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/faqs.html

Robert Frazier (a firearms identification expert working for the FBI who examined much of the ballistics and firearms evidence connected with the assassination of President Kennedy and the murder of Dallas policeman J.D. Tippit.) examined the limo after the shooting and testified before the Warren Commission. He described his search of the limousine for bullet fragments late on the night of the shooting. Two bullet fragments had already been retrieved from the front seat by the Secret Service. Per Frazier:

"There were blood and particles of flesh scattered all over the hood, the windshield, in the front seat and all over the rear floor rugs, the jump seats, and over the rear seat, and down both sides of the side rails or tops of the doors of the car. I examined the car to determine whether or not there were any bullet fragments present in it, embedded in the upholstery of the back of the front seat, or whether there were any impact areas which indicated that bullets or bullet fragments struck the inside of the car.

"

When asked if he felt his search was indeed a thorough examination of all aspects of the interior of the automobile, Frazier said:

"Yes, sir; for our purpose. However, we did not tear out all of the rugs on the floor, for instance. We examined the rugs carefully for holes, for bullet furrows, for fragments. We examined the nap of the rug, in the actual nap of the rug, for fragments and bullet holes. We pulled the rug back as far as we could turn it back and even tore the glue or adhesive material loose around the cracks at the edges of the rug so we could observe the cracks to see whether they had been enlarged, and we examined all of the upholstery covering, on the back of the front seat, on the doors, and in the rear seat compartment, the jump seats, the actual rear seat, the back of the rear seat, and we examined the front seat in a similar manner, and we found no bullet holes or other bullet impact areas, other than the one on the inside of the windshield and the dent inside the windshield chrome."

Frazier's extensive testimony as given before the WC may be found here:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_0038b.htm

In David Fisher's book Hard Evidence, Frazier expanded on the WC testimony, providing this rather gross account:

"The President's limousine arrived back in Washington about six o'clock. Around one o'clock the next morning, Cort (Cortland Cunningham) and I started sifting through the blood looking for lead fragments. It was tough; it was very tough...We'd just reach down into the clots of blood and scoop it up in our hands and let it dribble through. Whenever we felt something gritty, we'd clean it up and if it was lead, we'd save it in a pillbox. We didn't really recover a lot of lead."

How about that...and all easily discovered in the WCR.


You wrote: Cmdr. James Humes, JFK's lead autopsy doctor. Humes signed an affidavit that he had burned "certain preliminary draft notes" from the autopsy, and later admitted that this included the first draft of the autopsy report.

But as Humes explained to Jeremy Gunn of the Assassination Records Review Board:

.

In Greenfield Village, there is an old Illinois courthouse where Lincoln used to preside when he was circuit-riding judge. And in that courthouse was a chair that was alleged to be the chair in which Lincoln sat when he was assassinated in Ford's Theater. And the docent, in describing this chair, proudly spoke that here on the back of the chair is the stain of the President's blood. The bullet went through his head. I thought this was the most macabre thing I ever saw in my life. It just made a terrible impression on me.

And when I noticed that these bloodstains were on this document that I had prepared, I said nobody's going to ever get these documents. I'm not going to keep them, and nobody else is ever going to get them.

So I copied them -- and you probably have a copy in my longhand of what I wrote. It's made from the original. And I then burned the original notes in the fireplace of my family room to prevent them from ever falling into the hands of what I consider inappropriate people. And there's been a lot of flak about this, that they're all part of a big conspiracy that I did this because I was involved in I don't know what I was involved [sic]. Ludicrous. That is what I did.

Them's the FACTS, and they don't seem to comport with the fantasies you're peddling.

[Octafish]

471. No, stopbush. What you won't explain is your allegiance to the Big Lie.

"This will open the whole, the whole Bay of Pigs thing."

Who said that, stopbush? Do you know?

[hootinholler]

472. He won't be answering in this thread. n/t

[tonybgood]

483. Let's get something straight;

I did not advance any Conspiracy Theory. I'm not even trying to argue with you. Kennedy wasn't sitting in the front of the limo nor was he sitting in a jump seat. None of the bullet fragments were identified as having hit the president nor could they be confirmed as to whether they were from the first bullet or the third. The back of the limo was cleaned inconsistent with a forensic search for evidence. The only thing that I advaned was that there was plenty of blame to go around before the assassination and with the investigation that followed. Whether individuals conspired to ignore the threat that Oswald might pose or what the nature of his contact with the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City might have been is strictly conjecture.

Your smug attitude about this subject and how your analysis is superior to any other could stand some scrutiny. Your willing to tell me that the Warren Commission got everything right? Really?

[sabrina 1]

177. And you think that all those acknowledgements prove that this was all just

incompetence? Lol!

I don't think it proves what you think it does. At the very least it is an admission that for whatever reason, the information that was in the hands of the FBI re a threat to JFK was ignored. What it doesn't answer is 'why'. It concludes, without any real evidence, that all these 'mistakes' were merely tragic incompetence.

And apparently they learned nothing from their conclusions since two more assassinations took place just five years later.

Looks like our public officials would have been as safe without our glorified security agencies (and they were glorified back then) as they were with them. That's pretty frightening. That alone raises many questions.

At least that is the CT people who believe there is no need to question, have latched on to.

[Octafish]

297. Do you have anything to add about the Atlantic article, stopbush?

You've made clear that you endorse the Warren Commission. Great!

Jefferson Morley makes clear that US government agencies and officials charged with protecting and serving JFK exhibited criminal negligence, at the least, for which they were never held to account. Doing so would be important for moving the nation forward, as well as for justice, which is the point of the article and thread.

[stopbush]

11. "It would not be a very difficult job to shoot the president of the United States."

"All you'd have to do is get up in a high building with a high-powered rifle with a telescopic sight, and there's nothing anybody could do."

Those words were spoken by a person in Texas on the morning of the assassination, and were even overheard by a government official. Yet the person who spoke those words was never even interviewed by the police, the CIA or even the Warren Commission.

Makes you wonder why they'd ignore such a thing, doesn't it?

[Octafish]

31. What Joseph Adams Milteer said...

Outlined the official version of Dallas before it happened.

[stopbush]

43. That has nothing to do with the quote I provided.

Do you know who spoke those words, and spoke them on the morning of the assassination or not?

[Octafish]

52. Milteer has everything to do with it. FBI recorded him outline the plot with a high-powered rifle...

...from a high rise building in Miami.

Again, the FBI and Secret Service were warned about a nearly identical plot in Chicago.

BTW: Why don't you contribute something to this thread besides demands and insults, stopbush?

[stopbush]

65. I'm asking if you know who the person was who spoke those words in Texas

the morning of the assassination.

Apparently, you have no idea who spoke those words.

And yet you consider yourself to be an expert in JFK's murder.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Let me know when you give up and I'll be happy to tell you who spoke those words on the morning of.

[rbrnmw]

489. President Kennedy said those words sadly

[sabrina 1]

217. JFK spoke those words. Why do you think they support your

theories? They show he was thinking about the fact that he had enemies and that killing him would not be that difficult. Sadly he was correct.

[stopbush]

254. Bingo! You are correct.

The reason I tossed JFK's own words into the conversation was 1. to see if any of the CT "experts" babbling on here were aware of the quote, 2. to see what kind of responses I'd get that totally missed the boat, and most important, 3. to hoist the CTists on their own idiotic claims of what counts as evidence in this case.

I'm quite certain that most of the CT believers here took the bait and have been wondering how a person who said such a thing the day of the assassination would have never been interviewed by law enforcement. In fact, when one considers the ct theories that have the SS killing JFK - ie: the guy driving his limo killed him!!! - well, I wouldn't be surprised to hear a CTist claim that JFK's words PROVE that he himself was in on the plot to kill...himself.

As it was, it took 15 hours for anybody to come up with the right answer. You win the prize for that. But not what I expected from so expert a group in the matter of JFK's murder.

[sabrina 1]

269. Oh please stop with your games. I posted that information at least

twice already in this thread hours ago. This comment of yours proves that you are not here to have an honest discussion at all but are so angry that anyone might have an opinion different to yours, you want to 'hoist them on their petard'??? How disgusting to view your fellow DUers here that way.

I have not alerted on your posts falsely accusing people of being CTs here so far or of lying, as you did with me. You have already had several of your false accusations shot down already.

Your credibility here is diminishing fast as no one takes a person who admits that their only purpose in participating on DU is to 'get' their fellow DUers seriously. That is what is called 'making DU Suck'!

You clearly have studied this historical event and it would be interesting to have an honest discussion free of the anger you appear to harbor towards anyone who views the evidence and the history differently than you. There is no absolute correct conclusion to this tragedy. YOU do not hold the absolute truth in your hands.

In 1979 even the House Select Committee came to different conclusions than the WCR. Are they ALL CTs too simply because they disagree with you?

[sabrina 1]

266. Your quote was attributed to JFK on the morning of the assassination

If true, it means he had fears that he had enemies and that it would be possible for them to arrange for someone to shoot him from a tall building. Seems like a logical conclusion if you knew you had enemies who would like to see you dead. And he had been warned about going to Texas.

[sabrina 1]

172. No actually it doesn't. Why do you find it suspicious?

[stopbush]

200. Do you know who spoke those words?

Just curious.

[sabrina 1]

212. Yes, I do know who said it. JFK said it. Makes you wonder why he was

thinking along those lines, what put that thought in his head? On that day? He must have had some fears that his enemies, and he had plenty of them, if they were so inclined, could put such a plan into action. But we'll never know why he was thinking that way, will we?

[ananda]

13. If memory serves..

.. even before he came to Dallas, we all knew that the conversation about protection and a bullet-proof glass dome had taken place in the White House, and that Kennedy had said that he just couldn't separate himself from the people that way and refused to ride under a glass dome.

[stopbush]

15. Wrong. The bubble top WAS NOT BULLETPROOF.

It's "facts" like these that ill serve history, and that tarnish the the memory of JFK.

[The Doctor.]

51. It wouldn't have had to be to save him.

The more I see these threads, the more I see the devil in the details being dismissed by the 'nothing to see here' crowd.

So, what bearing does the dome conversation have that you have to attack it directly?

[stopbush]

59. Amanda was asserting the bubble top was bullet proof. It wasn't. That much is a fact.

That's not to say that the bubble top couldn't have saved the president's life had it been on the limo.

The bubble top was assembled out of six separate plexiglass pieces, attaching into metal strips. A bullet fired could have deflected off one of those metal strips. However, a bullet shot from a high powered rifle would not deflect off the plexiglass itself. The trajectory may have been changed a bit, but it would still pierce the plexiglass and keep on going right into JFK.

Another way the bubble top may have helped was that it could have reflected glare from sunlight, making the easy shot that Oswald took that killed JFK a lot harder if not impossible.

Most of all, many people at the time believed that the bubble top was bullet proof, even though it wasn't. It's possible that Oswald could have been one of those people who believed that, and it might have dissuaded him from shooting at all if he thought that the bubble top would deflect any shots he fired.

Again, I'm just disabusing Amanda of the mistaken idea that the bubble top was bullet proof, which is different than asserting it may have been assassin deterring.

BTW - even some of JFK's Secret Service personnel were under the mistaken impression that the bubble top was bullet proof.

[The Doctor.]

67. If everyone thinks your bubble is bullet-proof....

Doesn't that save them the effort of shooting through it?

Welcome to Game Theory 101.

Fact is, it could have saved him either way.

[stopbush]

73. Maybe yes, maybe no.

It could have saved him, or it may not have saved him. Asserting that it actually WAS bulletproof tilts the scale into believing it would have saved him, when the fact is that it only MAY have saved him as it wasn't bulletproof. The saving of JFK's life by using the bubble top would have had nothing to do with it actually being bulletproof, but with other factors.

That's a pretty big distinction, no? You seem to be asserting that if people THOUGHT the bubble top was bullet proof that somehow MADE it bulletproof.

Welcome to the world of JFK CT "facts."

And why assume that its use would have deterred Oswald from shooting? If Oswald was the one person in Dallas who didn't think the bubble top was bullet proof, it wouldn't have deterred him in the least. And that's all it would have taken for him to ignore the bubble top being on the limo.

[Octafish]

481. A Dallas tee vee station recorded JFK leaving Love Field on Nov. 22, 1963...

Last edited Mon Nov 26, 2012, 12:37 PM - Edit history (2)

...it was never shown on national broadcast, for some reason. In the tape, Secret Service Agent Donald Lawton holds up his arms thrice in the classic "What the heck?" gesture. The video indicates SS agent Emory P. Roberts stood up in his car to order Lawton* off the presidential limousine's back bumper, leaving the president unprotected from behind. President Kennedy was murdered a few minutes later.

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



From Vince Palamara:

An important discovery was made by this correspondent during review of video of the Dallas trip shot by the ABC television affiliate in that city. During the start of the fatal motorcade at Love Field, Secret Service agent Don Lawton begins to jog alongside the presidential limousine. He is immediately called back by his shift leader and commander of the follow-up car detail, Emory P. Roberts.

Lawton's dismay and confusion is made manifest by his unambiguous body language: He throws up his arms several times before, during and after the follow-up car passes him. He was not being allowed to do his job -- and it was not JFK who was ordering the stand-down.

Despite the discovery by this correspondent of three reports to the contrary (two by Roberts) written on November 22, 1963, this newly discovered photographic evidence confirms that frustrated and vocal-in-his-objections Rybka did not enter the follow-up car and was left behind at the airport.

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.

SOURCE:

Agents Go On Record

* Previously, the agent in the photo was incorrectly identified as Henry J. Rybka. According to records, he also was ordered to stay off the car and remain at Love Field. Much "chatter" arose over the misidentification.

[Overseas]

20. K&R. It would be helpful if they were held accountable.

[Octafish]

398. With justice re-established, we could move forward...

Until then, all we do is build up something big and ugly on a foundation of bloody sand.

[patrice]

28. KICK

[Octafish]

400. Thanks, patrice! Have you seen this analysis of the Warren Commission?

The Warren Commission's Failed Investigation

http://michaelgriffith1.tripod.com/failed.htm

[patrice]

401. Thank you for this! I have always heard that the WC was window-dressing, but have not seen an

explanation of that fact.

What happened to John Kennedy is really much more important to Americans than has been recognized.

I will read this, excerpt, and share.

[Old and In the Way]

35. Happy Thanksgiving, Octafish!

I'll never believe that LHO was anything but a patsy for the people who wanted JFK dead.

[Octafish]

156. Happy Thanksgiving, Never Old and Never in the Way!

You are one of the people who make this a better world by your very presence.

[TheMightyFavog]

36. Ever Science fiction fan knows who the gunman on the grassy knoll...

JFK From an alternate universe where a three smegheads messed with Oswald's shot, and caused the world to go to shit

[Mc Mike]

405. Kryten's amphibious tank assault on the V.R. Jane Austen novel lake-side garden party

is burned into my memory.

[TheMightyFavog]

416. One of the few good things about Series VII

[Tumbulu]

37. Thanks for posting, I want this cleared during my lifetime

I am only beginning to realize now the impact of watching Oswald being shot on live TV as a little kid. It scarred me. What did it do to everyone else? LET ALONE the killing of JFK and RFK and MLK? My goodness, of course they were conspiracies! Who doesn't get that?

[stopbush]

100. Read Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" or the Warren Commission Report.

Either one should clear up the whole thing for you.

Worked for me as far as disabusing me of a couple of decades of my believing there was any truth to all the JFK CTs.

[billh58]

42. Doesn't this belong in

the Creative Speculation group?

[stopbush]

44. Yes it does, not that it's all that creative.

[The Doctor.]

56. No, it really isn't.

The facts and anomalies surrounding his assasination are pretty well-documented.

One doesn't have to get 'creative' in order to 'speculate' that Kennedy was assasinated for more 'material' reasons than a supposed froot-loop didn't like him.

Must be nice to believe that powerful interests can't ever get their way through extra-legal means. Must be nice to believe the powerful would never act so directly in their interests.

It must feel pretty 'safe' to believe that they're all so well-behaved.

And since there are enough people to believe they would 'never get away with it' because there would be 'so much evidence', then it's obviously foolish to review the evidence because it isn't possible for there to be any evidence because they would never do it because there would be too much evidence so why bother to look at the evidence?

Lemme guess.... 'there is no evidence'.

Of course not, because if there were, it would be settled, so there is no reason to look because there must not be any evidence.

And on and on it goes.

[sabrina 1]

91. And that's why it doesn't belong in

creative speculation. Thanks for pointing that out.

I have seen some very creative speculations about the murder of JFK though. And you are correct, this definitely doesn't fall into that category.

Try as you might, most people around the globe, when polled, just do not believe the Warren Commission's Report. So something is missing and that is why people will continue to question the 'official' story on the death of JFK.

[stopbush]

102. Most people polled have never even read the WCR. 90% of Americans believed Saddam had WMDs.

They don't believe the WCR because they get their JFK "facts" from Oliver Stone's movie, a movie that Stone himself characterized as "an alternate fiction to counter the Warren Commission fiction."

The something that is "missing" is the fact that people are choosing to not believe a report that they have never even read for themselves. I wouldn't call that an informed belief, would you?

[sabrina 1]

187. And you know this how? I know you appear to believe you are in possession

of extraordinary powers of mind reading, and more, knowing what people you never met or even talked to, read. You were proven wrong about that already. So this latest comment of yours is as meaningless as the one in which you were willing put money down on your theory that I, a grown woman could not possible read text of about 800 pages. Why would that be so unbelievable to you? Gone With the Wind has more text than the WCR.

I got my 'facts' from many sources, one of the main sources being the WCR. And fyi, I do not know anyone who has an interest in history or politics who has NOT read the WCR, many several times, more have studied it in depth.

You seem to have a very low opinion of other people. Why is that?

You haven't exactly shone in this thread regarding the abilities you claim others lack frankly. Lashing out at people, making false assumptions, that is not very impressive coming from someone who so freely uses that old, worn out label 'CT' against others.

[billh58]

104. "Most people around the globe"

do not believe the Warren Commission's report? This is assuming that "most people around the globe" even know what the Warren Commission was about.

Many people around the globe don't believe that the earth was created by natural forces. Does that make it a credible belief? Is any belief credible proof?

When you can state that most people around the globe have proof that the Warren Commission's report is incorrect, untruthful, and that there was indeed a conspiracy to assassinate JFK, then we will agree. Until then speculation remains pure speculation and conjecture.

[sabrina 1]

122. People know the main 'findings' of the WCR.

Eg, it stretches the imagination to think that the chief interrogator of Oswald after his capture, kept no notes nor taped the questioning of the man who had just made history by allegedly having killed the POTUS. His memory of Oswald's responses covered a period of 12 hours! Amazing that anyone could accurately recall all that was said over such a long period of time. Not to mention we have not way of knowing if he was creative in his interpretations or not. There is no way to know.

What kind of investigation was that? Every good investigator knows how important the early statements of suspects are. And how important that they be recorded in some way. Yet here, in one of the most historical cases of murder ever, the chief interrogator asks us to depend on HIS memory of what was said by him and/or Oswald.

At the very least this was incompetence of mammoth proportions and left open all kinds of possibilities regarding his testimony to the Commission.

People do not have to read all 888 pages of the WCR to know what many of its findings were based on.

[zappaman]

129. Really?

Where did you read that there were no notes?
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/police-notes-oswald-interrogation?page=0

[sabrina 1]

142. Where did I get it? Right in the WCR:

Oswald was questioned intermittently for approximately 12 hours between 2:30 p.m., on November 22, and 11 a.m., on November 24. Throughout this interrogation he denied that- he had anything to do either with the assassination of President Kennedy or the murder of Patrolman Tippit. Captain Fritz of the homicide and robbery bureau did most of the questioning, but he kept no notes and there were no stenographic or tape recordings.

[zappaman]

147. So the notes I linked to are faked?

Did you look at them?

[sabrina 1]

152. Did you read the report or not? You asked where I got it. Since I actually did

read the report it was not difficult to respond to that question. You asked, I answered. He took no notes according to the WCR.

Edited to add for those who may not click your link. There is NOTHING there that contradicts what I said. No notes from the main interrogator. A few scribbled notes that are barely legible, presumably from other law enforcement who were there. How pathetic that is, so little professioinalism, so little interest in recording one of the most important interviews of THEIR careers and maybe in history.

Although it does prove that they DID have paper and pencils in 1963 after all contrary to what your friend was trying to claim. Too bad they didn't use them.

So what was the point of that link? In fact, had you been able to produce notes from him, which you didn't, that would have meant the WCR had lied, wouldn't it?

Or maybe you never read the report?

[zappaman]

355. Sorry I am late responding to this, but you are wrong.

You are RIGHT when you say there were no notes taken during the interrogation. But you are wrong that there were no notes taken at all.
The link I posted is to the notes of Captain Fritz who put these down after interrogating LHO. And they may be scribbled, but there is a transcription if you click to the next photo. You really didn't bother to read thru that link at all, did you?
And I never claimed to have read the WC report. You and STOPBUSH have.

[sabrina 1]

362. There you go again, accusing me of not reading something I

have said I read. I read your link, I have commented already on the ridiculousness and unprofessionalism of those practically illegible notes, and yes I read the transcriptions. That was all that was recorded from over 12 hours of interrogation.

I did not say that no one else took notes or arranged to have the interview recorded. I said the Chief Investigator took no notes. His testimony before the WRC was from his memory. We have to trust him not to have distorted Oswald's hours long responses. Sorry but I wouldn't trust my best friend to have good a memory. Let alone someone who might have had an agenda to only remember what was convenient.

And the door was left open by the lack of professionalism, for people to speculate on what motives there might have been for handling it this way, and on the testimony itself. We have zero proof iow, that what was recorded as testimony by the WC were the true facts as they happened. We should never have had any doubt left about that.

They could have had it recorded by a secretary in shorthand, which was available at the time. They could have taped recorded it. There were so many ways to get that historical interview recorded for posterity.

Your link showed 5 pieces of paper that looked like it took all of ten minutes to write. From 12 hours of questioning.

The lack of professionalism is simply stunning. At every level, according even to the WC itself. At the CIA and FBI levels and at the Dallas Police level. It is no wonder Kennedy was so easily assassinated.

The sheer neglect and stupidity of what was supposed to be the duty of all these agencies to protect the US President from harm was beyond belief. He was iow, an open target due to the unbelievable incompetence as recorded by the WC.

And that is why people have questions. Because most Americans believed their security systems were the best in the world. That the US President was safe in the hands of our security agencies. And that when a crime of this magnitude was committed, we could depend on the best law enforcement agencies in the world, to ensure that the investigation would be state of the art. A model for law enforcement.

Instead we learned, and this is not disputable, it is not a CT, it is recorded as fact in the WCR, there was massive failure at all levels. Both before and after. And then to add insult to injury, they exposed the most important suspect/witness to danger instead of protecting him, and he too, like Kennedy, was murdered.

With just this much information alone, people have wondered for decades: 'could such total incompetence actually have existed throughout all these agencies, OR, was it something else? I do not blame anyone for asking that question. That does not make someone a CT, it makes them rightfully curious.

[zappaman]

367. 'The lack of professionalism is simply stunning."

Very true.
Hard to imagine now, but that was 1963 and things were very different then. And this is the first time it had happened in the post-war era, where I think America never imagined something like this could occur.
Not using that as an excuse, but just as a point of fact.
If it happened today, not only would everything you mentioned above been done, but we would have much more than just the Zapruder film.

I asked you upthread, as someone who has read all 26 volumes of the WCR, what are your specific gripes with it? What did they get wrong?

[sabrina 1]

372. It's been a while since I read it, and it's the kind of thing you need

to go back and read again. I'm not sure it's so much what they got wrong, for me it was more that it seemed very incomplete. But committees like that are notoriously unsatisfying in terms of investigating major crimes like this, so I didn't expect that much from them from the pov of really learning much that wasn't known already.

I actually had accepted their findings until someone gave me a book to read about it, and I could not ignore the questions raised in that book. It was after that that I read the report.

I don't have enough knowledge eg, to know whether their conclusions regarding the forensic evidence were accurate. But I had a big problem with the 'magic bullet' theory, not from actual knowledge but from common sense. It just didn't seem possible to me. It still doesn't.

Also, while they were accurate as far as we know about Oswald's experience with firearms, (they included his military record which showed he was not by any means a good marksman) I think that should have been developed further.

It's hard to believe that someone with that kind of record could have been so accurate in hitting his target that day without intensive training for months at least before the assassination. It's very hard to hit a target from that angle especially a moving target unless you are very, very good. They did say he had trained since he left the military, according to his wife.

I would have preferred that this case had gone to court . But once Oswald was killed, there was no chance of that which is why his death was such a horrible loss historically.

The House Select Committee in 1979 revised some of the findings of the WC because of new evidence. THEY concluded, and this made way more sense to me, that there probably were two shooters and there probably was a conspiracy, but they could not name the other shooter or anyone who might have been part of the conspiracy.

So while it's possible that there was only one lone gunman, even the WC like the House Select Committee acknowledged they could not rule out another gunman or a conspiracy but had no evidence to prove it.

As for the sloppiness of the security agencies and the Dallas Police, and the aftermath, I don't think even back then, things were that bad. I have met retired law enforcement people who were maybe in their twenties in the sixties and I do not believe they would have handled any case, let alone one as important as this one, the way it was handled.

You can allow some leeway for that, but things were not all that different in terms of professionalism for law enforcement or any other profession, then and now. The technical tools they have now are better, DNA etc. but I don't see where the training and attitude towards their jobs would be any different. Teachers, nurses, doctors etc are no more professional now than they were then, so why would law enforcement be any different?

After reading the WCR and the House Select Committee's findings I felt that while Oswald probably was guilty, that was probably not all of the story as there were so many unanswered questions. Which I don't think even they denied.

[stopbush]

137. Sounds ominous.

Until one realizes that almost NO police departments taped or kept notes on interrogations back in 1963.

The LAPD began recording and keeping notes on interrogations only in 1981. In fact, no police department in TX was recording interrogations until 1992.

This is a case of your using a fact to suggest some nefarious reason behind the fact, when all that was behind the fact was bad SOP.

But perhaps you can point us to other investigations anywhere in the USA that took place in 1963 where statements by subjects were typically recorded for later use. That would show us just how egregious the non-actions in the Dallas PD were.

As far as Oswald's chief interrogator - Capt Fritz - between the DPD, the FBI, the SS and the US Marshall's office, over 25 people were involved in the various interrogations of Oswald. Capt Fritz was, in fact, called out of the room on many occasions to deal with Dallas police business that was chaotic after the shooting. He was actually the last person one would have expected to be able to keep copious, continuous notes on the interrogations as he was constantly being called away.

Still, Capt Fritz along with all of the other interrogators involved did file reports on their interrogations of Oswald, as was SOP in 1963. Those reports are included in Appendix XI of the WCR and include:

Pages 599 through 611 reproduce the report of Capt. J. W. Fritz, Dallas Police Department.

Pages 612 through 625 reproduce reports of Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Pages 626 through 632 reproduce reports of Inspector Thomas J. Kelley, U.S. Secret Service.

Pages 632 through 636 reproduce a report of U.S. Postal Inspector H. D. Holmes.

As these reports all agree in the main with the recollections of Capt Fritz, one might assume that the good captain had a pretty reliable memory, a memory honed by the fact that police investigators at the time typically conducted interrogations without the aid of stenographers etc, and were somewhat practiced in the ability to recall what was said in even the lengthiest interrogations.

OR, you can believe that all of these law enforcement types were part of the conspiracy and got together to align the reports of their Oswald interrogations.

[sabrina 1]

141. BS, good investigators ALWAYS kept notes. We are not talking about cave

days when such utensils as pens and paper did not exist.

It is not his memory that is in question. It is his incompetence in not recognizing the fact that this was a historical case and that his role in it would go down in history. Even someone with the most extraordinary memory in history, would not expect that people should just 'believe' him. He knew he would have to give testimony.

Teachers kept notes on their students in 1963.
Lawyers kept notes on their clients in 1963.
Doctors kept notes on their patients in 1963

And yes, investigators kept notes on their suspects in 1963.

[stopbush]

209. History doesn't support your surmise.

And notes on a suspect are not the same thing as recorded or written transcripts of an interrogation, which is what I thought we were discussing. The FBI and other law enforcement agencies had files and files on Oswald before the assassination. In fact, the WCR took the FBI to task for not having shared that info with local law enforcement.

[sabrina 1]

214. Well, one of your supporters here just proved you wrong. He WAS trying to

prove me, and ironically by accident, the WCR wrong. But he did produce some notes taken by other law enforcement personnel who were there at the time. So I guess some investigators were accustomed to taking notes during interrogations.

So the question remains, why did the Chief Interrogator during 12 hours of an interrogation that had such huge implications, take not a single note? Make no record at all of his unique access to the man suspected of killing a POTUS?

So much explained away by incompetence because even the WC themselves couldn't explain much of what happened that day.

So they took the easy way out. It was all, every fateful decision that was made that day that facilitated the assassination, including the anomalies were all chalked up to 'incompetence'.

Makes you wonder why they bothered with any security at all.

With that level of incompetence from every aspect of the case from the FBI to the SS to the Dallas Police, what on earth were they thinking? The conclusion, if we are to believe it, is that JFK was an open target because of the coincidental incompetence of all these agencies on that fateful day.

[Caretha]

213. ROFL My fucking ass off

Until one realizes that almost NO police departments taped or kept notes on interrogations back in 1963.

Where do you get this shit.....nevermind, what it is so funny is that you said it with a straight face. You fool.

[sabrina 1]

218. Lol, I know, I was trying to be polite.

I worked for a lawyer during the summer around 2000 and one of my jobs was to go through his old files, files that were decades old and throw them out.

I know I was not imagining all the notes that were taken during cases that went back to the sixties. Lol! They even had tape recorders back then, and type-writers. They had secretaries who could take down short hand.

The sloppiness of the investigation of the murder of JFK itself has to be historical.

Imagine you are the chief investigator of the murder of a president and out of all the people in the world who would have given all they owned to be able to question the suspect, you get that historic job. You know that every word, every action taken will be recorded by history.

What would you do? Well, this guy made no effort to record that historic interview that lasted over 12 hours, according to the WCR. Not a single note even. He should have had a tape-recorder AND a secretary taking down every word.

But not to worry, we can be sure he made nothing up, misremembered anything, nor should we even question why he made such a stupid, irrational decision!

[Caretha]

221. OMG Sabrina

Some people need to really crack the books and read a bit of history. They act like what has happened in the 20th or 21st century just got invented. Law & testimony has been painstakingly kept for hundreds & hundreds of years, verbatim.

I swear I'm getting too old....I just want to whap em upside the head with a 2x4 ,and say educate yourself kid. And don't talk to me until you quit sounding like a petulant 4 year old. Now go eat your jello.

[sabrina 1]

225. Lol! I know! I thought it was just me!

And I doubt there are many people young or old, who think that there were no such things as pens and paper in the sixties or that Police Investigators never kept any records.

Lol, I watch those Cold Case files shows sometimes and they sure did keep records.

The fact that in the most famous murder case of the 20th century, the most famous suspect ever, was interviewed for hours with any written or auditory record, except for a few scribbled notes from one of the people there that are barely readable, is at the very least embarrassing, for the 'most advanced nation on earth' at the time.

I love your attitude!

[stopbush]

256. The information is contain in a 2004 study produced by

the Northwestern University School of Law Center on Wrongful Convictions. The report was authored by Thomas P. Sullivan, the former United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, and who was Co-Chair of Illinois Governor George H. Ryan’s Commission on Capital Punishment from 2000 until it completed its work in 2002. The study deals with recording interrogations on tape.

The report points out that one negative about taping interrogations is that suspects often clam up when they know their words are being taped and that they may later come back to incriminate them as they go through more interrogation. This had led some states to approve the covert recording of interrogations (I have a problem with that). Also, law enforcement agents fear that juries will disapprove of their interrogation techniques as captured on tape.

As far as keeping written notes from interrogations, what I meant was that there were no standardized rules for taking written notes in interrogations. Interrogators could take notes if they wanted, and some did in the case of interviewing Oswald, but even those notes were rudimentary, at best. But there was no directive that I have been able to find that would have mandated the taking of written notes or the presence of a stenographer during Oswald's interviews. Again, the reason for this is the fear that suspects will clam up if they know their words are being taken down, and who can blame them?

[sabrina 1]

85. No, actually, it doesn't. Why would you think so?

[billh58]

101. Because it's

creative speculation?

Speculation:

1.opinion based on incomplete information: a conclusion, theory, or opinion based on incomplete facts or information.

2.reasoning based on incomplete information: reasoning based on incomplete facts or information.

There is still speculation about Lincoln's assassination after 150 years, and after 50 years the speculation surrounding JFK's assassination is being carried on by those who will never be convinced that Occam's Razor applies in both cases. The sheer number of people who would need to lie about and cover up the "facts" in either case would have led to conspiratorial leaks. There is no honor among conspirators.

This obsession is much like the 9/11 "inside job" CT, along with many other urban legends. If there was any concrete proof of a CT about JFK or 9/11, it would have come out and been dealt with by now. The same goes for Lincoln's assassination, the Loch Ness monster, and Santa Claus.

But, it does make for entertaining reading, which prompted the suggestion that it be continued in the Creative Speculation group.

[sabrina 1]

128. Is see questions, some opinions in an attempt to answer those questions.

It's interesting how people are so scared of questions that they rush to slap the CT label on all questions citizens have a right, more than that, a duty to ask when those questions are about certain events.

Since when did asking questions become so threatening in this country?

Since when did asking questions become CTs?

We recognize the tactic of course. It has now become a known and expected and an extremely reprehensible tactic to try to silence people in a free society who have questions, many of them very legitimate.

If there are answers to those questions, then provide them. That's what happens in democracies. But apparently considering the huge effort to discredit people, the only conclusion to be reached is the answers are either not available, or it has been determined that the answers should be kept from the people.

The old CT label. Whenever I see it, even if I had no questions before, suddenly I do. Why are they so upset? Why if they are not interested in a topic, can they not do what I do, ignore it? The effort to silence itself raises so many questions on its own.

[zappaman]

130. Good Lord! That is some logic!

Here's a whole bunch of evidence that points to one conclusion.
But you have questions, so obviously the evidence isn't good enough for you.
When someone again points out the evidence, you now think there is now something to hide!
I'm sure it took a lot of time for you to read the Warren Commission report, so you must have missed a course in basic logic.

[sabrina 1]

146. No it didn't take a lot of time at all. I have read books

way longer than that report. It was very readable, so I don't get your insinuation.

Sounds like you may be projecting a little here. Haven't you ever read a book with more than 200 pages?

No need to repeat what I clearly stated, but I will just to be clear, no, the evidence is not sufficient for me.

I don't 'think' anything, nor have I said that. I have no idea if they 'were hiding something' or not. There are many reasons why so many people find that report to be lacking. It could be eg, that the conclusions were based on an incompetent investigation.

Why jump to a conclusion that was NOT in evidence from my posts. Speaking of CTs. A third person assuming they have mind-reading abilities. Shouldn't such speculation about what is in the minds of others be confined to the CS forum?

[zappaman]

149. It's okay, the birthers are just "asking questions" too.

Don't bother showing them evidence cuz it will just mean there MUST be something to their beliefs, eh?

[sabrina 1]

151. Are you calling me a 'birther' in a sneaky, roundabout way? Post some

evidence to back that up. Or take it back.

Your desperation to silence people is obvious. When people resort to this kind of vile insinuation because they can't get their way, it is not the targets of their fury whose behavior is in question.

So either state some facts to back up your vile insinuation or it is clear what your intentions are.

[zappaman]

154. No, not at all. I do not believe you are a birther.

You are, however, using the same logic I've encountered while debating birthers.
Deny all the evidence presented to you, then state you are only "asking questions", followed by "since you are arguing with me, there must be something to hide".
Is that not your argument?

[sabrina 1]

159. You are talking about logic. Let's review. You questioned if I had read the WCR.

You claimed everything in that report was accurate and should be taken at face value. That is a summary of your contentions.

I provided you with one reason why people question the report. The fact that the main interrogator did not take any notes during 12 hours of questioning Oswald.

You disputed that claim and asked where I 'got it'. I told you it was in the WCR and provided you with the WCR's own statement. Facts.

You, ironically, who claimed I should not question the WCR, set about trying to prove that the WCR was lying by providing a link to some scribbled notes taken by someone else.

I know you thought you were trying to expose ME as the liar. But in your haste to do that you were actually, especially since I provided you with the WCR's own words, questioning THEIR claims.

So what was your logic in trying to back up every word in that report, then when I provided you with information FROM the report, YOU, NOT I, questioned the WCR with a link hoping to prove them/me wrong!

Your link proved both the WCR and ME to be correct. So in trying to figure out your logic, I have to conclude that you too have questions about the report.

It does stretch credulity to think that the chief investigator in one of the most historical investigations in this country, actually took no notes. So I can't really blame you for doubting them I suppose. However it appears you were wrong and that the WCR was correct. There are no notes from the chief investigator, incredible as that is. I'm glad we agree on that at least. And that you too have questioned it.

[zappaman]

162. 'You claimed everything in that report was accurate and should be taken at face value. "

I did?
Please point out that post.

[sabrina 1]

183. Well you seem to be now agreeing with my post which started this

sub-thread? Again, to review. I responded to a post claiming that this thread should be in the CT forum by saying I saw no CTs what I saw were Questions and Opinions, with no one claiming their opinions were facts.

You, in post #119, asked what questions I could possibly have re the WCR. Seems to me you were disbelieving my statement that people do have legitimate questions about that Report.

After some false allegations and an attempt at some impressive mind-reading from Stopbush, and even a bet that I had not read the WCR, (haven't yet received an apology for that btw) I answered your question by providing you with one of the WCR claims in its report.

And you know what happened after that, you set about, ironically, proving the WRC wrong. And failed.

So it appears you now have some questions yourself (considering the trouble you went to prove them wrong) about the WCR raising the question, why you attacked others who do?

[Caretha]

216. Oh the old pull out the Birther bullshit to smear someone

It's getting so fucking old. So juvenile and so assine....surely you can do better than sounding like a rightwing asshole....can't you?

[rhett o rick]

431. When one has to resort to snark, they obviously have no decent argument.

And an ROFL emoticon? Really?

[billh58]

241. No one is trying to silence you

or your CT buddies. By all means keep spreading half-truths and speculation to your heart's content. That's what freedom of speech is all about.

See ya...

[sabrina 1]

250. And here is another example of a phenomenon I find fascinating, speaking

of CTs.

I don't know you from Adam, yet you have done something your anti-questioning buddies all seem to do also.

It really is strange when you see such uniformity of speaking and thinking.

You all have the same identical habit of pretending to know what is in the minds of complete strangers on the internet. You all get it spectacularly wrong every time, but it doesn't stop you. It's, well robotic frankly.

Is it an organization you all belong to or something, one that issues talking points and labels to use rather than critical thinking skills?

Because you all use the same labels, engage in the attempt at mind reading etc.

Do you all meet somewhere, online, in RL?

I have to say I have never given a shred of credibility to anyone who uses other people's labels and/or talking points. Eg: Running around screaming: CT! CT'!

Because what that indicates is a person who cannot think for themselves and is merely mindlessly repeating what they usually mistakenly believe are clever phrases they picked up from someone else.

Which were not close to being clever even when they were original.

And btw, you could not stop me from doing anything, let alone silence me if you tried. I have zero fear of that.

But I do find this all very fascinating in its, what to call it, robotic uniformity?

Note there is not an iota of substance in your comment. See what I mean?

Happy Thanksgiving even though it's almost over. Dinner was great I hope yours was too.

[billh58]

346. I just want to respond to this

without starting another argument. I am not really guilty of all those things that you accuse me of in this reply, and no I don't belong to an organization whose goal is to debunk conspiracy theories (or has a secret handshake). I have never told anyone on DU to shut up, or attempted to stifle a discussion. I admit that I can be overbearing at times during the heat of a discussion, and for that I ask for forgiveness.

My only goal when responding to threads such as this one is to engage people who believe in conspiracy theories with an alternate point-of-view. I don't believe that people who disagree with me are "ignorant," or I wouldn't even engage them. I'm not quite sure why there is such a negative reaction to the phrase "conspiracy theory, or CT" when that's exactly what it is. That does not imply that an actual conspiracy does not exist, only that it has not been proven by a competent authority, and is therefore a speculative "theory" (and yes, I know that the definition of a "competent authority" is subjective).

In any event, if I offended you (or anyone else on this thread) with my responses it was definitely not intentional and I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Peace...

[sabrina 1]

349. Thanks for your response.

And I apologize for the admittedly broad brush nature of my comment. It was a reaction to the very familiar tactics we have grown accustomed to when controversial topics are being discussed on Dem boards over the past few years.

But I should have been more clear. I do believe, and have actually seen it exposed, that there are, probably just a few, operatives on forums like this who start the ball rolling. Not everyone has to be part of the effort, they count on other 'innocent' people backing them up for various reasons.

And you are right of course, the phrase 'CT' in itself is not an insult. But it has been chosen to use as a weapon of dismissal of specific subjects and is intended to discredit anyone who questions no matter how innocently. It has had a chilling effect not present before say, 2004 when online discussions were much more free and obviously that was a threat to certain entities.

Put it this way, a broom is not a threat to anyone, it is simply a cleaning tool. Unless someone picks it up and beats someone over the head with it.

Sorry for sweeping up everyone who has used the CT reference in my comment. But there really is no doubt that it has been part of the effort to stop discussion of topics that have been deemed unfit for ordinary people to be involved in. We are a democracy, I do not believe that any topic is 'unfit' for people to discuss. But someone does.

However I could have explained the history to people who obviously just picked it up and used it because it was there already. So sorry for that.

[billh58]

352. Thank you very much

for your understanding and clarification. I am aware of the "hot buttons" which are used to provoke needless animosity and have fallen for them myself on more than one occasion, and undoubtedly will again.

Have a great holiday season, and take care...

[sabrina 1]

363. No problem, we are all guilty at times!

I know I am

[rhett o rick]

435. There are those here who denigrate speculation? Why?

Especially in politics. There are a lot of cases that exist where we do not know all the answers. Like Valerie Plame, Don Seigleman, James Hoffa, etc. We may never know and therefore continue to speculate. Nothing wrong with that.

Not sure where you got “there is no honor among conspirators”. I bet there is a lot of honor. We know that some secrets are kept for long periods of time. For example. Many thought that Nixon conspired with the North Vietnamese to delay peace talks until after the election. If so, a number of co-conspirators would have known. Even non-conspirators like Everett Dirksen knew, at least after the fact. Only recently evidence was revealed indicating that LBJ knew, and had proof that Nixon was committing treason and Dirksen acknowledged such. That secret was kept for many years. Even today the corporate media is willing to continue the secret.

I don’t think it appropriate to call those that don’t buy the government line as “obsessive” (This obsession).

I view suggestions to close threads and reopen them in Creative Speculation as dismissive not helpful.

[coalition_unwilling]

442. Technical note\correcton: many thought that Nixon conspired with the South Veitnamese to

delay peace talks until after the election (via intermediiaries like Claire Chennault).

No historian whose work I've read has even suggested that Nixon conspired with the North Vietnamese.

I'm assuming this was a mere slip fo the tongue on your part. If you have anything suggesting Nixon might have conspired with the North Vietnamese, I would love to see it.

[rhett o rick]

447. My mistake. I stand corrected. Thank you. nm

[billh58]

452. Once again you attempt

to put words in my mouth. I did not call for, or even suggest, that this thread be closed or moved. What I actually said (with just a touch of sarcasm) is that the many speculative (and in some cases creative) JFK Assassination Conspiracy Theories might be better suited to the Creative Speculation page. I do not "denigrate" speculation, but I also do not accept it as proven fact.

I don't give a rat's patootie where conspiracy theories are posted, or any other topic for that matter. I'm certainly not going to run to the Meta page and cry about a supposed mis-posting. I will leave that to the more pedantic hall monitors among us.

As for your comments about "honor among conspirators," I will only say that if a group conspires to murder the President of the United States, and carries it out, their "honor" would at least be subject to question. No? Would you trust them to keep secrets? And you may very well be correct in that several people conspired to assassinate JFK, and that several more have continued to cover it up all these years, but this is not my point.

My point is that no one has been able to present any tangible evidence, or provide one iota of concrete proof to present to any law enforcement agency or Congress that a conspiracy exists, or that Oswald was not the lone shooter on that day.The Warren Commission came to the same conclusion about the possibility of a conspiracy, but could find no proof. All that exists is the speculation and conjecture (mainly Internet driven) that appears at this time of the year like clockwork.

So no, I don't want this, or any other thread, shut down, moved, or locked. I welcome differences of opinion, and DU would be a very dull place without them.

Peace...

[rhett o rick]

328. Are you asking that this thread be locked? I dont think threads are moved in DU3.

If you dont like the discussion, why lock it? Let the rest of us have a discussion.

[billh58]

336. Wut?

I asked for no such thing. I merely suggested that speculation might be more appreciated in the Creative Speculation group.

Go ahead and discuss, Gus...

[YoungDemCA]

47. Obssessing over one man's murder...

...even if that man was the President of the United States, doesn't help us move forward-given that it happened 49 years ago, going on five decades... and that even if there was a conspiracy (unlikely, but...), the people involved are either dead or almost dead, plus the deaths of Oswald and Ruby in the 60s complicating things further....

He was one man. America was not perfect (or "innocent"...I can't stand that notion) before he was killed, and it was not "all gone to hell" afterwards. It strikes me as incredibly foolish to put all your faith in one person. It's equally foolish to construct a mythology around said person.

Yeah, I know what I just said will be unpopular here, but it needed to be said.

[coalition_unwilling]

60. I dig what you're saying. To me, the assassination of JFK functions

something like the psychologists' Rorschach test, a series of disparate and inchoate ink blots onto which people project their own inner personality traits and feelings. Those who respect authority will gravitate to the Warren lone gunman thesis, while anti-authoritarians will be more predisposed to alternate narratives, each group finding warrant in various and sundry ink blots of evidence and memoirs. (This thread nicely illustrates my point, I think.)

I am personally troubled, as i wrote upthread, that Oswald referred to himself as a 'patsy' and wish I could divine what he meant when he said that.

I spent about 15 mins celebrating Obama's win in 2008 (and about 15 seconds in 2012). Much work still remains, not least the depressing and disgusting fact that 1 in 5 American children still lives in poverty.

[MrMickeysMom]

70. I don't know who you are, Young, but before you go further...

... realize that there are many of us in this nation, who because we MUST move forward, need to see the Kennedy assassination (as well as other political coup d'etats) for what truth reveals. There has NEVER been a murder that has ever made as little sense in the way it was NEVER investigated with as much conflicting testimony (as the 26 volumes of the Warren Commission will demonstrate) as when President Kennedy was assassinated.

THIS is never more understood than by the generation that was coming of age during the 1960's. Now, I realize that this may not be YOUR generation, but to dismiss this it and to even say that by ceasing any quest for the real truth does not move us forward is wrong.

If can't figure it out, then by all means, put your brain into a useful activity by going to those across this almost 50 years who have been trying to systematically examine it in a forensic method.

Interviews with many of them and links to their books since the 1960's can be found here: http://blackopradio.com

On this day, I'm listening to 7 hours of interviews with one of the best JFK researchers by the name of John Armstrong.

* John is the author of Harvey and Lee: How the CIA Framed Oswald (1997)
* Records in the Warren volumes that contradicted themselves
* Alan Felde, with Oswald in boot camp and in school in Memphis, Tennessee
* No records of Oswald going to school in Memphis, he was supposed to be in Japan
* D. Power's orders list Squad 3383, WC lists 3381, Class AB27037, WC says AB27330
* School records, WC does not have Lee attending Stripling in Fort Worth
* Robert Oswald said he did, John spoke to the assistant principal from 1954, Lee had
* Frank Kudlaty said he had given Lee's school records to the FBI on the 23rd
* Somebody knew how important those records were to show up within 24 hours
* FBI and WC handling of events and witnesses, within 24 hours
* Teenage employment and school records, questioning employers
* FBI agents went to Klein's Sporting Goods, they took the microfilm
* John Ely, WC staffer, found discrepencies he couldn't understand
* The FBI misquoted teacher Myra DaRouse, did not investigate the school in Memphis
* Records of Oswald in Taiwan and Japan at the same time
* Most Marine interviews were of Marines in California at MACS-9
* Evidence gathered and people interviewed without any records to show it
* John read the WC Report and all 26 volumes, things in there just didn't make sense
* Marina said Oswald spoke perfect Russian with a Baltic accent
* How did he learn it so well? Where did he learn it? No record
* You find one discrepency, then another, and another, and another...
* John went to Argentina to interview Anita Ziger, who knew Oswald in Minsk
* John asked, "How was his Russian?", Anita told him, "He didn't speak any Russian"
* You write, you call, you interview the people who knew Oswald
* A missing tooth, John spoke with Marina, she gave him x-rays and photos
* No end to the discrepencies, Harvey at MACS-9, Lee on a ship in the Pacific
* Rambler/bus, back/front of the Texas Theater, lay the documents side by side
* Two columns, Harvey and Lee, "Call me Harvey", two different people
* Harvey on the first floor, short and thin, Lee on the third floor, big and husky
* Ed Vobel knew Harvey in school and Lee in the Civil Air Patrol
* Vobel called from the Ochsner Clinic the day before his death
* John has provided a foundation for someone to further this work
* All of this could end with a DNA test of Robert Oswald's and Marina's children

[stopbush]

107. And how much of the 26 volumes of the WCR have YOU read, MMM?

I'm gonna go for Door #1 "Little Or None."

BTW - you're saying that the 25,0000 interviews conducted by the Warren Commission amount to JFK's killing never being investigated. How so?

If you have read the WCR, what parts do you take issue with and why? What parts of the forensic evidence in the case as presented in the WCR do you not believe?

[MrMickeysMom]

164. You seem to be the one who supposes anything...

... and you are doing it as foolishly as you can.

Instead of logical fallacy, ask questions you intend to want to know the answer to... not the nonsense you present.

I answered your question upstream, so go piss up there.

[sabrina 1]

197. There you go again. You were already proven to be wrong when you placed a

bet on my not having read the WCR. I would think you would be more cautious with your obviously not very accurate attempts at mind reading having been so embarrassed right in this thread.

I already provided one part of the WCR that raises many questions. I believe you or was it someone else, claimed that Police Investigators didn't have the 'tools' which I took to mean pens and paper, to take notes back in 1963.

That was the answer I got which was pretty incredible in itself. Teachers, lawyers, doctors, engineers, carpenters, housewives all took notes back then. But the excuse for the WCR's revelation that the Chief Investigator who questioned Oswald for 12 hours, never took any notes, did not record that historic event, was unbelievably, that Police Investigators did not take notes back then.

And they call those questioning all of this 'cts'! Pens and paper, pencils, even crayons were invented before 1963 believe it or not. But the Chief Interrogator took no notes, made no effort to record that historical interrogation!

That was revealed in the WCR. Maybe you can explain it.

[billh58]

245. OMG!

The Dallas police didn't take notes of Oswald denying that he assassinated JFK, so there must have been other shooters. This is ironclad proof that there was a widespread conspiracy that involved the CIA, the KGB, the Mafia, the SPCA, the FBI, the Red Cross, the Warren Commission, and Dick Clark.

Now if we could only convince someone in the Justice Department to look at the damed evidence. Oh, that's right -- the JD was in on the conspiracy too. Can we go to the World Court? Can we get Judge Judy to review the matter?

Oh my, what to do...?

[sabrina 1]

252. Wow! Talk about CTs!

The Dallas police didn't take notes of Oswald denying that he assassinated JFK, so there must have been other shooters.

Is this your interpretation of the events of that day?

I hate to bring you down to earth as you run around making stuff up out of thin air, I know it's fun and everything, but what do you think of the House Select Committee's findings in 1979?

Don't strain yourself too much. And try to stay focused.

That latest comment of yours has me really worried about you.

[billh58]

273. Sarcasm impaired are we?

In all seriousness, I hope that you enjoyed your Thanksgiving as much as I enjoyed mine, and I sincerely hope that you find the answers you are looking for.

[sabrina 1]

334. Thank you, we did and glad you did also.

Human beings are naturally curious. I don't think there is anything nefarious about people asking questions. An historical event like this will be the topic of conversation a hundred years from now, as is the Lincoln Assassination.


I see no reason for people to be angry at each other over it. It was an event that changed the course of history and we will most likely never get all the answers we would like. But rational discussion never hurt anyone while censorship is an evil thing imho.

Enjoy the rest of the holiday season with your loved ones

[billh58]

342. I agree, and at times

I'm afraid that the anonymity of the Internet causes some people to react in ways that they would never even consider if they were face-to-face with the person they are arguing with.

Ciao...

[stopbush]

260. As I pointed out in a post above,

many police departments don't want to overtly tape interrogations or be seen to be taking notes because they fear their suspects will clam up.

One doesn't necessarily need to take notes if there are a number of people in the interrogation room, as was the case with Oswald's interrogations. Law enforcement can make their case by having multiple interrogators attest that the information they are providing to a jury is correct and has been corroborated among them. It's up to them to make their case to the jury minus a tape or written notes.

And who is to say that a tape or written notes taken at an interrogation are any more accurate than that which sticks in one's memory? One factor you fail to take into consideration in the case of Capt Fritz is that he WAS very aware of what a big deal the Oswald case was. How could he not be? If Capt Fritz was the kind of interrogator who didn't take notes as a rule, why would you expect him to suddenly decide to take notes in an interrogation? Perhaps his way of dealing with the information he garnered was to make sure he was really paying attention in the interviews. Perhaps he was in a heightened state of comprehension due to the gravity of the case. Perhaps he made a point of sharing what he had just heard from Oswald with others. I don't know if that happened, but it could easily explain why he didn't bother taking notes with Oswald. Perhaps the simple answer is that he didn't take notes with Oswald because he never took notes with anyone. Just because YOU find it strange that he didn't take notes doesn't mean it was strange. Doing so may have actually worked against Fritz's methods for gaining useful information.

Remember that Will Fritz through his interrogations caught Oswald in any number of blatant lies. Oswald denied he ever owned a rifle, when Fritz already had in his possession all the info on the gun that was sold to Oswald from the company in Chicago that sold Oswald the rifle. He had Oswald denying the aliases he had used to order the rifle, as well as the alias he had used to register at his boarding house. He had Oswald denying the pictures of him posing with the rifle. Oswald denied he had shot anyone, when eyewitnesses had already fingered him for shooting Officer Tippet. In the police car after his arrest at the theater, Oswald said "policeman's been killed?", as if he didn't know that he was the person who had just killed a policeman, a fact that was attested to by eyewitnesses.

I would imagine that to a trained interrogator like Fritz, those lies coming out of Oswald's mouth while Fritz had the info sitting in his back pocket had the effect you might feel if you walked in on your parents having sex. Believe me, you don't need a tape recording or a set of written notes to remind you of what that scene looked like. It's rather seared into your memory.

Don't you think a trained interrogator like Fritz was silently saying "got ya" with every lie that came from Oswald's lips? Don't you think he could see a change in Oswald's demeanor as he hit Oswald with more dead-on information about Oswald's involvement with the JFK killing, point by point, over and over again? Don't you think a seasoned interrogator could see that he was getting the truth out of Oswald despite Oswald's best attempts to deny and lie?

And you are absolutely correct that the WCR reports that no notes were taken of the Oswald interrogations. The question to ask is: was that unusual for the time? Was and is that unusual for the way police interrogations normally run? Is taping/taking notes DURING interrogations de rigeur, OR do interrogators avoid taking notes in the presence of suspects for various, sound reasons?

You've decided that not taking notes was out of the norm and should be looked on with great suspicion. But you've provided no evidence to support such claims. I'd be more than willing to hear such evidence. But as it stands, you seem to be making a case based not on a normal procedure of police interrogation being ignored, but on your belief that it MUST have been normal, and its being ignored in this case can mean nothing else than gross incompetence at the least, evil afoot at the worst.

Your question is a logical question to ask. Are you wiling to entertain thoughts that the reasons behind it aren't as nefarious as you think, and may not even signify incompetence when viewed through the prism of history?

[FlaGranny]

79. Yeah, I guess

we shouldn't trouble ourselves over trivial stuff like presidential assassinations or wonder what things would be like if said assassinations never took place, especially since it only happens to one mere human at a time - usually.

Since you seem to be "young," YoungDem, you might be forgiven, not having witnessed any of this, for dismissing the event, except that things like this should never be forgotten.

Those of us who remember this will never be able to forget and we will always wonder "what if."

The JFK assassination mattered - a lot, and it still does. It is signification to our history and to us. You are "incredibly foolish" (to use your words) to dismiss its current importance.

[Rex]

308. Not that unpopular, many here think Oswald acted alone.

So no you are wrong in your statement.

[rhett o rick]

54. You certainly woke up the conspiracy deniers. You should be more sensitive.

They go way overboard to not only deny conspiracies but to claim they know the facts and often ridicule anyone that may dare to keep an open mind and challenge “the facts”. CT's seem to challenge their comfort bubbles. I would hope that “politically liberal people” here would be more open minded. If they have doubts, more power to them. We should always have doubts because things are rarely as they appear, especially related to power.

I believe that when power is involved there are lots of conspiracies. Some people, like Karl Rove, have the job of conspiring.

I also am convinced that our government often keeps information from the public. For example see this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/101781222

And I seriously doubt that Oswald acted alone.

[The Doctor.]

62. It's amazing that there are so many 'OH '04 Election Fraud' theorists...

Who can meticulously pick apart what happened under Kenneth Blackwell, but don't make even the slightest effort to pick apart the JFK assasination before denying it was more 'orchestrated'.

[NoMoreWarNow]

66. oh, I have seen people here that do both

particularly the CT debunkers who hung out in the old September 11th forum

[rhett o rick]

96. It is interesting how the deniers pick and choose which CT to believe.

Cheney's involvement in the Plame incident is a CT. But apparently ok. The CT about what happened to Gov Seigleman is ok to discuss. In '04 it was verboten to some to have discussion about the CT re. the stolen election in Ohio. But seem to be more acceptable now.

[The Doctor.]

230. Yep, as more of the facts came out about OH,

the more apparent it was that we were on solid ground.

For the deniers, it is about avoiding the CT 'stigma'. They need to 'appear' rational, yet out of that necessity, they reject compelling evidence and sound reason. They cannot for a moment admit that the skeptics are reasonable, because then they would have to acknowlege what might stigmatize them.

[Jack Sprat]

133. I think some are professional conspiracy deniers.

Everything is always on the up and up to them. Never even a chance that a shred of truth has been withheld. It's all out there in the history books recorded precisely as it was. Never need to question the ones who wrote it. Everybody's honest, just like Captain Kangaroo and Mr Greenjeans.

[zappaman]

135. LOL!

Yes, the shadowy government pays people to come to a website and defend their lies!
It must be very high paying!

[Jack Sprat]

139. That you, Captain?

Bunny Rabbit sent me to pick up a bushel of carrots for his Thanksgiving meal. I'll just get aboard the train and take them out to Bunny Rabbit's house. All aboard.

How are you today, sir?
Very fine, thank you
Such a pleasant day
here in Happydale.

[rhett o rick]

290. Really? Ridicule with 3 laughy emoticons. Really? nm

[zappaman]

292. yes

ridicule with 3 laughy emoticons.
you really believe people are PAID to come here anonymously and tell a bunch of other anonymous people that there is no conspiracy in regards to the JFK assassination?
is this emoticon better?

[rhett o rick]

295. No I dont. But I do believe that we shouldnt try to run DU members off with ridicule. nm

[zappaman]

296. yes when being accused of being paid to come to DU

to argue a position, we should just let it go.
who is paying you to say that, by the way?

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

494. In 2011, a Californian company, Ntrepid, was awarded a $2.76 million contract under the auspices of

US Central Command for "online persona management" operations[24] with the aim of creating "fake online personas to influence net conversations and spread US propaganda" in Arabic, Farsi, Urdu and Pashto.[24][25]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sock_puppet

You think this is an isolated case?

[rhett o rick]

138. I really dont mind them having doubts about any theories. Doubting isnt bad.

But when some go to such lengths, post after post, trying to get people to see their narrow view, sometimes resorting to ridicule. Trying to claim that lack of facts known by the public equates to nothing bad happened.

We all have our own reality bubbles. Some are more opened minded as to what might be outside the bubble.

[Octafish]

428. Tag Team approach makes it near impossible to get a word in edgewise...

...without the participation of people with an open mind, like yourself, rhett o rick.

Their reliance on official information and total exclusion of any evidence counter to their position is most telling.

There is hope, thanks to Morley snd other brave intellects who refuse to be cowed:

www.jfkfacts.org

Thanks for standing up to the Big Lie, my Friend.

[Spider Jerusalem]

64. Interesting article

especially considering that the author's evident belief is that a) Oswald did it, and b) he acted alone. This is consistent with the evidence, of course.

[Octafish]

340. Got a link?

Here's what I know Morley believes:

There is more evidence of CIA negligence in JFK's death than Cuban complicity: A lot more.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jefferson-morley/jfk-assassination_b_2175898.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

[Spider Jerusalem]

358. It's right there in the article

"why didn't the CIA watch Oswald more closely?" he asks. His contention seems to be that the CIA were negligent in not more closely watching Oswald. Not that there was any conspiracy. Nor that anyone other than Oswald killed Kennedy.

A senior official of the CI staff named Jane Roman retrieved the CIA's fat file on Oswald, which contained dozens of documents including intercepted correspondence and FBI reports. Roman and other senior staffers drafted a response which said, in effect, don't worry: Oswald's marriage and two year residence in the Soviet Union had helped him grow up. Oswald was "maturing."

This optimistic assessment was personally read and endorsed by no less than five senior CIA officers. They are identified by name on the last page of the cable. Their names--Roman, Tom Karamessines, Bill Hood, John Whitten (identified by his pseudonym "Scelso&quot , and Betty Egeter--were kept from the American public for thirty years. Why? Because all five reported to deputy director Richard Helms or to Counterintelligence Chief James Angleton in late 1963. Because of "national security."

Their inaccurate and complacent assessment of Oswald had real world consequences.

[AntiFascist]

460. +1 ... "What Jane Roman Said"...

Even if Oswald was only a lone gunman, there is still a lot to find out about his background. As a pro-Marxist who had defected to Russia, why wasn't he being watched more closely, unless he was actually being used for anti-Castro purposes, or perhaps to keep an eye on some of the more pro-fascist anti-Castro factions? Records that have been released show that Mafia assassins had been hired for anti-Castro operations, who knows what hidden records related to Oswald will reveal?

[OldDem2012]

68. Octafish, there's no reasoning with the crowd who continues to believe Oswald was....

....the only shooter that day in Dallas. They would rather believe:

* a computer graphics simulation that "proves" a single bullet passed through two grown men without any noticeable deformation and no traces of flesh or fabric.

* Oswald used a beat-up Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that the FBI refused to test fire until repairs were made to the scope (it was loose), trigger mechanism, and bolt action (it tended to stick).

* Oswald was a very good shot when his Marine Corps record proves otherwise.

* Oswald was a total malcontent when the evidence proves that while he was in the Marine Corps he held the highest security clearance at that time (Crypto) and was a radar operator for the U2 flights out of the Atsugi base in Japan.

* Oswald "defected" to the USSR for a year and returned with absolutely no negative repercussions.

* Oswald had no relationship with George DeMohrenschildt, a wealthy refugee from Russia who was later confirmed to be a CIA contract agent with a provable connection with George H. W. Bush, a long-term CIA operative based in Texas.

I could go on but I just don't have the time this morning. There are just too many questions that the "Oswald was a lone nut" crowd want to answer with the Warren Commission work of fiction. The late Harold Weisberg, with whom I had the opportunity to talk with personally, completely dismantled the Warren Commission....I wish he were still among us.

[Little Star]

81. I never bought the official story...

That day is burned into my brain. The shock of it left people in my little MA home town in a daze. People glued to their little black & white TVs trying to make some kind of sense out of the fact our president had been murdered. Sadness for Jackie and her small children.

And then there came a Bobby's murder just a few short years later. What a loss for this country. sigh.

We'll never know the whole story, at least in my life time, imho.

[sabrina 1]

94. And that Oswald was a 'loner'. I always pictured Oswald

living alone in a dark room with no friends or family. I was absolutely shocked to find out that he was far from being a loner. That upset my total acceptance of the historical record. Sometimes it's the little things. But it was easy to picture a loner with no friends going out and for no apparent reason murdering a POTUS with no one to suspect beforehand that he might be a little obsessed and unbalanced. Much harder to accept that a normal husband and father, with a job and friends might suddenly go completely insane without anyone seeing any signs beforehand.

When I found out he had a wife and kids and friends and lived a pretty normal life at the time, it kind of blew my whole image of him.

I wonder about those kids. If for no other reason they deserve to know if his denials were true or not. What must their lives have been like? It was easier to think the only one affected was Oswald himself.

[stopbush]

115. Pure delusion

* a computer graphics simulation that "proves" a single bullet passed through two grown men without any noticeable deformation and no traces of flesh or fabric.

The bullet was deformed at the bottom. Lead was extruding. The bullet was misshapen after passing through both men. No computer simulation is needed to prove that JFK & Connelly were aligned in the limo in such a way that a bullet fired from the TSBD window would have gone through JFk and hit Connelly. The Zapruder film and the still photos taken that day all show this to be true.

* Oswald used a beat-up Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that the FBI refused to test fire until repairs were made to the scope (it was loose), trigger mechanism, and bolt action (it tended to stick).

False. The WC tests with Oswald's rifle were all conducted with the scope still misaligned. The shooters in those tests were still able to duplicate Oswald's three shots with accuracy. In fact, all of them accomplished the feat in less time than Oswald had. One shooter got off 3 shots with Oswald's rifle with the misaligned scope in 4.6 seconds with accuracy.

Calling Oswald's rifle "beat-up" is horseshit. Also, there's no way of knowing whether Oswald used the scope on his rifle or the iron sites. But the fact that his first shot missed JFK entirely, striking the curb, that his second shot was low and into JFK's upper back, and the the third shot (the kill shot) finally hit JFK in the head, suggests that Oswald was using the loose scope as his site, and was making adjustments with each subsequent shot to account for the off-center aim the loose scope was giving him during the shooting.

See here: http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-10.html#rifle

* Oswald was a very good shot when his Marine Corps record proves otherwise.

False. His USMC record show that he achieved the rank of Sharpshooter upon his initial testing. He tested at the lower Marksman level right before he left the USMC. The USMC had 3 levels of expertise: Marksman-Sharpshooter-Expert. Oswald qualified as a Sharpshooter, ie: not the highest level, but the next-to-highest level. USMC representatives testified to the WC that in their estimation, Oswald was a "better than average shot" when compared to his fellow Marines, and that he was "an exceptional shot" when compared to a civilian shooter.

I could go on, but when you're wrong on the easily refutable stuff, why bother?

[zappaman]

116. the pristine bullet

[Octafish]

244. I think those are bad examples, none of which is the Magic Bullet, CE 399.

Here's a picture that does include the bullet thay is reputed to have caused seven wounds in two men, including breaking bones - on the left. The others have been deformed merely by cotton wadding, water, and a sheep rib.

[stopbush]

392. And here's a picture of the bottom of CE 399, showing the obvious deformity:

Note the now-misshapen bullet, which looks like a oval, not a circle. Notice the lead extruding from the bottom.

Pristine? Hardly.

[Octafish]

399. So what? CE 399 was fired. No blood or tissue traces were found on it.

What's more, it shows no signs of leaving the fragments found in Gov. Connally's wrist and leg.

For those interested in learning more:

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

[Octafish]

464. Harold Weisberg wrote 'Whitewash' and 'Case Open' - both must-reads...

Thank you, OldDem2012! Mr. Weisberg gave the Warren Report and Gerald Posner the what's for.

http://jfk.hood.edu/multimedia.shtml

SOURCE: http://jfk.hood.edu/

The reason the lone nut crowd raises their concerns so vociferously is to sidetrack discussion.

The people for whom they toil believe the day will soon come when no one remembers JFK or what being a real Democrat is all about. Those who remember President Kennedy and the time when we knew everything was possible are fortunate to continue the work to show future generations the truth.

[dwp6577]

71. agent provocateurs ruin threads

it smells

[Octafish]

258. Imagine what they can do to a broadcast network...

CIA Instructions to Media Assets re: Assassination of President Kennedy

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2082945&mesg_id=2090644

[AnotherMcIntosh]

314. And, of course, Operation Mockingbird

which I believe that you analyzed in some detail.

If you have a link for your analysis, it would be appreciated.

[Octafish]

332. Three things every American should know about Corporate McPravda

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9327337

Thank you for asking, AnotherMcIntosh. Very much appreciate you standing up to them.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

350. Thank you.

[x2 vancouverite]

72. back and to the left

If LHO was involved, he wasn't alone.

[newspeak]

90. i remember that day

all i know is JFK and RFK were murdered. and, we have a certain group that has been within government that have had no qualms instigating the killing of democratically elected leaders in other countries to pacify, satisfy a group of big business buddies. what makes one think they wouldn't do it, here? was there really a business plot against FDR? did a certain group within the government actually consider operation northwoods?

there are those who believe in "the ends justify the means"; no matter what the "means" entail. but the "ends" are not necessarily for the best of the country or its' people, just a few greedy, power hungry individuals.

[stopbush]

98. You realize that the backward motion of JFK's head was a RECOIL from his head

first being pushed FORWARD by the bullet impacting his head from behind, do you not?

Jeebus, it's right there on the Zapruder film, as clear as can be in frames 311-313.

[AntiFascist]

466. Many don't see it that way...

in fact, subsequent generations of the Zapruder film appear to have been altered, where a bright orange area appears over where the head otherwise appeared to split in two parts. This would have been further evidence of JFK being shot at close range.

[H2O Man]

74. Recommended.

It was a tragic day for this nation, and the world. Among the saddest parts, in my opinion, is that otherwise intelligent, good, and decent people -- like some in this thread -- believe that the Warren Commission attempted to reach an accurate analysis, much less did so.

[Octafish]

354. 'But, nobody reads,' is how Allan Dulles put the report's heft

Thus, the former DCI and his fellow commission members weren't counting on people to think about their conclusions and methodology, either.

http://www.jfklancer.com/LNE/report35.html

PS: Thanks for standing up for democratic inquiry and rational analysis, H2OMan.

[H2O Man]

360. Right.

A funny thing: the fellow here who is most invested in derailing this OP/thread, and who has habitually done so during his time here, once attempted to "expose" me by asking, "Have you even read Bugliosi's book?"

Indeed, I had. All of it. In fact, it took me less than 5 minutes to expose that he had not read it in its entirety.

Not surprising, I know. Odd how that type relies on mere bluffing and insults.

[Octafish]

371. Not everyone can have a big job.

What people may miss, were their attention not diverted:

The Abraham Bolden petition...

http://whowhatwhy.com/2012/10/13/the-right-thing-the-abe-bolden-petition/

Mr. Bolden was personally selected by President Kennedy to serve as the first African American Secret Service agent on the presidential detail. He reported wide spread racism in the unit, quit and returned to serve in Chicago. After Dallas, he reported concerns about negligence in Washington to the Warren Commission. He promptly was arrested on trumped up corruption charges and railroaded for his trouble.

[triplepoint]

82. JFK Assassination: The Mafia Theory & Others...

Last edited Fri Nov 23, 2012, 04:06 AM - Edit history (1)

Leonardo DiCaprio and his father have teamed up with Warner Bros to make the next JFK conspiracy theory film. DiCaprio will star in Legacy of Secrecy, due to hit theaters in time for the 50th anniversary of John F. Kennedy's assassination in 2013. John F. Kennedy's assassination has seen more conspiracy theories than you can shake a stick at and 50 years later, the conspiracy is still hot, or so thinks Leonardo DiCaprio DiCaprio's production company Appian Way has signed on to produce a JFK movie based on Lamar Waldron and Thom Hartmann's book, Legacy of Secrecy; and Warner Bros, the company behind the JFK film starring Kevin Costner, is ready to help see this version of the story hit theaters in time for the 50th anniversary of JFK's assassination in 2013. In 2009's Legacy of Secrecy, scribes Waldron and Hartmann published the declassified FBI files from the National Archives. The story that unfolds centers around organized crime boss Carlos Marcello, who reigned in Louisiana and most of Texas for decades. In the film adaptation, DiCaprio is set to play FBI informant Jack Van Laningham, who went deep undercover to get Marcello to confess to ordering the infamous assassination. "Marcello had the motive, means and opportunity to assassinate President Kennedy," concluded a 1979 Congressional Committee, and according to FBI and Secret Service files cited in Legacy of Secrecy, more than a dozen of Marcello's men and family members were questioned or arrested by authorities in connection to JFK's assassination. For some reason, however, Marcello did not make it into the 1964 Warren Report. The book also delves into Marcello's part in the assassination of Martin Luther King and Watergate, but those hot topics will not be the focus of the upcoming movie. DiCaprio is keeping this project in the family. In addition to teaming up with his father George DiCaprio as producer, he's planning to work with a familiar director. "An acclaimed director who has previously worked with Leonardo has expressed interest in directing the film," teased the press release. That's no small list! DiCaprio, last seen in Inception, has a serious history with Martin Scorsese. They've teamed up for five movies so far, and it's hard to imagine Scorsese would turn down the chance to do a mob movie with his young pal, but DiCaprio has also worked with the likes of Steven Spielberg, Clint Eastwood, James Cameron, Christopher Nolan, Baz Luhrmann, Woody Allen and Danny Boyle.

Reference Link:
http://www.sheknows.com/entertainment/articles/820652/Leonardo-DiCaprio-takes-on-JFK-s-assassination

[coalition_unwilling]

88. Best JFK Assassination conspiracy theory I've ever read (and it is in

a novel). Charles McCarry's "The Tears of Autumn":

https://www.google.com/search?q=The+Tears+of+Autumn&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US fficial&client=firefox-a

Don't want to spoil it, but it's like no other conspiracy thoery you'll ever read about in conjunction with JFK. Hint: who in Vietnam might have wished JFK dead?

[dflprincess]

238. The best movie on this was "Executive Action"

you can get it through Netflix.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Action_(film)

[hootinholler]

108. Always popular with a certain crowd, eh?

Some seem to overlook official criticisms of the Warren Commission report. They also seem to show up quickly with enthusiastic support of their view.

Personally I think that bullet was magic not so much over the trajectory, but more because of the condition after passing through so much tissue and bone.

[stopbush]

265. The bullet did not pass through bone. Tissue, yes. Bone, no.

[hootinholler]

280. Um...

* completely destroyed 127 millimeters (5 in) of Connally's fifth right rib bone as it smashed through his chest interior

* broke his right radius wrist bone at its widest point, depositing metal fragments,

But hey I guess it wouldn't have to pass through bone to do all that.

[stopbush]

376. No, it didn't have to pass through the bone to do the damage.

The bullet struck bone and was deflected away from the same. It didn't go through the bone. There's a big difference, especially when one is dealing with forensic evidence down to the millimeter. The two facts you present above don't say the bullet passed through bone. How is that not clear to you?

[Octafish]

391. Making stuff up doesn't support your contention, stopbush.

[stopbush]

430. Thanks for providing that x-ray of Connelly's wrist.

At the time of the shooting, Governor Connally was unaware that he had sustained any injuries other than his chest wounds.213 On the back of his arm, about 2 inches (5 centimeters) above the wrist joint on the thumb side, Dr. Charles F. Gregory observed a linear perforating wound approximately one-fifth of an inch (one-half centimeter) wide and 1 inch (2 1/2 centimeters) long.214 During his operation on this injury, the doctor concluded that this ragged wound was the point of entry because thread and cloth had been carried into the wound to the region of the bone.215 Dr. Gregory's conclusions were also based upon the location in the Governor's wrist, as revealed by X-ray, of small fragments of metal shed by the missile upon striking the firm surface of the bone.216 Evidence of different amounts of air in the tissues of the wrist gave further indication that the bullet passed from the back to the front of the wrist.217 An examination of the palm surface of the wrist showed a wound approximately one-fifth of an inch (one-half centimeter) long and approximately three-fourths of an inch (2 centimeters) above the crease of the right wrist.218 Dr. Shaw had initially believed that the missile entered on the palm side of the Governor's wrist and exited on the back side.219 After reviewing the factors considered by Dr. Gregory, however, Dr. Shaw withdrew his earlier opinion. He deferred to the judgment of Dr. Gregory, who had more closely examined that wound during the wrist operation.220

The ballistics experts learned the exact nature of the Governor's wrist wound by examining Parkland Hospital records and X-rays and conferring with Dr. Gregory. The C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found in the Depository was fired with bullets of the same type as the bullet found on the Governor's stretcher and the fragments found in the Presidential limousine. Shots were fired from a distance of 70 yards at comparable flesh and bone protected by material similar to the clothing worn by the Governor.243 One of the test shots wounded the comparable flesh and bone structure in virtually the same place and from the same angle as the wound inflicted on Governor Connally's wrist. An X-ray and photograph of the simulated wrist confirmed the similarity.244 The bullet which inflicted that injury during the tests had a nose which was substantially flattened from striking the material.245 The striking velocity at 70 yards of seven shots fired during the tests averaged 1,858 feet per second; the average exit velocity of five shots was 1,776 feet per second.246

The conclusion that the Governor's wrist was not struck by a pristine bullet was based upon the following: ( 1 ) greater damage was inflicted on the test material than on the Governor's wrist; 247 (2) the test material had a smaller entry wound and a larger exit wound, characteristic of a pristine bullet, while the Governor's wrist had a larger entry wound as compared with its exit wound, indicating a bullet which was tumbling;248 (3) cloth was carried into the wrist wound, which is characteristic of an irregular missile;249 (4) the partial cutting of a radial nerve and tendon leading to the Governor's thumb further suggested that the bullet which struck him was not pristine, since such a bullet would merely push aside a tendon and nerve rather than catch and tear them;250 (5) the bullet found on the Governor's stretcher probably did not pass through the wrist as a pristine bullet because its nose was not considerably flattened, as was the case with the pristine bullet which struck the simulated wrist;251 and (6) the bullet which caused the Governor's thigh injury and then fell out of the wound had a "very low velocity," whereas the pristine bullets fired during the tests possessed a very high exit velocity.252

All the evidence indicated that the bullet found on the Governor's stretcher could have caused all his wounds. The weight of the whole bullet prior to firing was approximately 160-161 grains and that of the recovered bullet was 158.6 grains.253 An X-ray of the Governor's wrist showed very minute metallic fragments, and two or three of these fragments were removed from his wrist.254 All these fragments were sufficiently small and light so that the nearly whole bullet found on the stretcher could have deposited those pieces of metal as it tumbled through his wrist.255 In their testimony, the three doctors who attended Governor Connally at Parkland Hospital expressed independently their opinion that a single bullet had passed through his chest; tumbled through his wrist with very little exit velocity, leaving small metallic fragments from the rear portion of the bullet; punctured his left thigh after the bullet had lost virtually all of its velocity; and had fallen out of the thigh wound.256

- Warren Commission Report, Chapter 3

[Octafish]

438. You wrote that the magic bullet didn't go through bone, yet now claim it did?

You can't have it both ways, unless you are not interested in adding to the discussion.

[stopbush]

443. I'm not making that claim.

I'm saying the bullet hit his wrist and glanced off. It didn't pass through the bone. It had enough velocity left to fracture the bone, but not enough to pass through the bone.

I provided an extensive reply elsewhere.

Thanks for providing the x-ray that proved my point. It shows both the bullet fragment in the wrist bone where the bullet hit as well as the fracture to the bone below the wrist. or do you contend that two bullets hit Connelly? One at the wrist, leaving the fragments, and one impacting the radius?

[Octafish]

445. Your own words, stopbush: ''The bullet did not pass through bone. Tissue, yes. Bone, no.''

Reply #265.

Stop wasting time.

[stopbush]

449. Are you dense? Honestly, you don't see the difference between a bullet passing through bone

or glancing off bone?

I am wasting my time. You're not intelligent enough to understand this simple distinction. No wonder you're DU's resident JFK CT crackpot.

[Octafish]

454. CE 399 shows no evidence of going through tissue, let alone bone.

More on the magic bullet mysteries for those interested in learning:

http://www.ctka.net/2010/journeyCE399.html

[hootinholler]

470. Oh dear

Apparently someone crossed a line.

[hootinholler]

395. That's awesome! That makes the bullet even more magic than I thought previously!

Ammunition that can impart all that energy with minor deformation would be a serious advantage in the coming zombie apocalypse.

Any idea where I can buy some? I don't think Federal or Hornady sell them.

[stopbush]

441. I don't see what's so difficult to understand here.

Nobody is saying that the bullet didn't break the bone in Connelly's lower arm. I am disputing your assertion that the bullet passed through the bone in his wrist. It didn't. The back end of the bullet - not the nose - impacted on the surface of his wrist. If you look at the x-ray provided by Octafish, you can see the metal fragments on the surface of the wrist bone that show where the bullet impacted and *glanced off* the wrist bone. The fracture to the bone happens below this impact area.

The bullet didn't have to pass through the bone to snap the bone below his wrist. If you extend your arm and I whack it with a baseball bat, you'll probably end up with a broken bone or two even though the baseball bat didn't pass through your arm/bone.

You asserted that CE399 could not have been in such "pristine" condition after passing through tissue and bone. Well, it didn't pass through any bones. It impacted bone without passing through it. By the time the bullet hit Connelly's wrist, it had lost the velocity to pass through bone, but it still had enough velocity to cause a fracture to the bone. How hard is that to understand?

The forensic evidence proves that the bullet was tumbling as it entered Connelly's wrist. In fact - and this is critical - it was the BACK END of the bullet that impacted the bone in his wrist, NOT the nose of the bullet. Tests performed with bullets shot directly into wrists showed that much greater damage is done when the nose of a pristine bullet (ie: a bullet that hasn't hit anything else before being shot into the wrist) encounters only the wrist, rather than what occurs when the bullet impacting the wrist has already been through several layers of tissue and fibers and is tumbling as a result of passing through tissues and fibers.

The facts are stunning in their obviousness and simplicity: the nose of CE399 never hit bone as it passed through JFK and Connelly. Only the back end of the bullet encountered bone, and that was only at the point of impact in Connelly's wrist. The back end of the bullet struck the wrist because the bullet was already yawing as it entered Connelly's back and continued to tumble as it exited his chest and struck his wrist. The bullet had enough velocity left to fracture the bone, but it didn't have the velocity nor the orientation to pass through the wrist bone.

There's nothing magical there. Tests performed by the WC got the identical results.

Funny how the CTists come up with these grand and all-encompassing theories while ignoring the highly detailed evidence in the case, as if it's a minor detail that a bullet is tumbling through tissue at a decreased velocity, rather than striking a wrist nose-first at full velocity. Yet forensic evidence is always about the details. You'd think that the kind of evidence that people find compelling when staged for shows like CSI would garner at least a cursory look when the subject is the shooting of a president.

Apparently, it isn't.

How convenient. How blasé.

[hootinholler]

451. Blase'? Oh, I see.

You ignore that I gave you the claim that it didn't pass through bone. Fine it didn't pass through bone for the purposes of my objections. Then you focus on the wrist and ignore single the shattered rib that it also didn't pass through.

My assertion is that a bullet that imparts enough energy to shatter inches of rib bone (Whilst tumbling) (notice my disregard for the assertion it passed through ant bone whatsoever) and subsequently expended more energy shattering a wrist bone, would show considerably more deformation. It's the physics I have an issue with.

The WC wasn't entirely convinced about the magic bullet either, saying that it wasn't essential to their conclusions:

Although it is not necessary to any essential findings of the Commission to determine just which shot hit Governor Connally, there is very persuasive evidence from the experts to indicate that the same bullet which pierced the President's throat also caused Governor Connally's wounds. However, Governor Connally's testimony and certain other factors have given rise to some difference of opinion as to this probability but there is no question in the mind of any member of the Commission that all the shots which caused the President's and Governor Connally's wounds were fired from the sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository.

One wonders about those certain other factors. One also wonders about your investment in this thread.

[Octafish]

414. Something for those with more refined tastes in information...

Agree, regarding the magic bullet. No way would it end up looking like it had been fired into cotton wadding.



The bullet hole in President Kennedy's back is below his throat, as evidenced in his jacket and the autopsy sketch.



Good information from Mr. William Kelly:

http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/

Important news from Mr. Jefferson Morley:

http://jfkfacts.org/

[Iggy]

114. It's More than a Bit Late Now...

the murders of JFK, MLK, and RFK certainly robbed us of a better, more just future. IMHO, it's been all downhill for our nation since these events.

[Octafish]

312. Asking many people over the years who remember those days...

...and they almost always say things today are very different from what they were before the assassination of JFK.

The nation not only has drifted rightward politically, but in spirit we have changed from believing we can accomplish anything to that we should be satisfied with - no, grateful for - the crumbs that fall off the rich man's table.

That loss of the unlimited possibility for a better future for all is most un-democratic and un-American.

[Iggy]

385. Agreed...

the democratic party has certainly changed for the worse-- that's obvious.

IF we would have had two terms from both JFK and RFK, I'm confident the democratic party would have stayed true to their base: Labor and the poor.

that's not the case now. in this past election, the recent massive increase in child poverty in our nation (a pathetic fact) was not even discussed... not in the "debates".. nowhere.

Weak, very weak.

[coalition_unwilling]

458. I was a little boy of 4 when JFK was assassinated, so my understanding such as it is comes from my

study of history and not from personal experience.

That said, I think that looking to the days before Nov. 22, 1963 as some sort of 'golden age' in the days of the republic does a major disservice to the reality that minorities, women and LGBT citizens faced in those days. These rose-colored nostalgia glasses also serve to marginalize and minimize the anti-war and various civil rights movements that came to maturity in the days following Nov. 22, 1963 and whose contributions in maturity exemplified what Abraham Lincoln meant when he summoned the 'better angels of our nature.'

Did JFK awaken a sense of possibility among the citizens of the world? Indisputably. Was that possibility realized before JFK's death? Highly doubtful.

Again, my compliments on a wonderful thread. Clearly one of DU's finer moments, imho.

[Deep13]

120. For gawd sake, let it go! nt

[upi402]

143. you are part of the problem

it would be best to change that, for the greater good

[Deep13]

153. What problem? nt

[Democracyinkind]

169. I'll take a guess.

The problem that if one narrative is established for a certain period of time, all counter-narratives should "let go"?

This is not a good rule to operate on, although it may habe its merits within very limited sets of narratives.

[Deep13]

182. We're not talking about all counter-narratives.

We're talking about one that has been conclusively settled.

[Democracyinkind]

185. If you believe that the JFK case is settled

despite the fact the we know that there are still 1000+ CIA docs on it that have not yet been made public, then we simply have different notions about the propositional content of the term "conclusively settled". I fancy that science agrees with me on this.

[Deep13]

227. The operative word being "fancy." nt

[Democracyinkind]

257. lol

so you know what is in those docs?

please, share with us, great mesmerino.

Just to point out how moronoic your post is: You're saying that it is scientific to make final judgents on cases where we know that a substantial part of the evidence is not yet on the table?

You must have rocked in school!

[Octafish]

390. And let go MLK and RFK...and their discredited Liberal ideas, too, right?l

No. I won't let go.

You, OTOH, can let go.

[Deep13]

411. Pretty clumsy effort to change the subject.

I's say "nice try," but it really wasn't.

The murders of MLK and RFK are also solved cases.

[Octafish]

413. No, Deep13, you have failed to address the subject - Justice for JFK.

BTW: Do you really think justice was served for Martin Luther King?

I do not.

Do you really think justice was served for Robert F. Kennedy?

I do not.

Thank you for contributing. Yeah, right?

[Odin2005]

144. This thread belongs in Creative Speculation

[zappaman]

148. It most certainly does! n/t

[rhett o rick]

298. I dont understand the danger in leaving it here in GENERAL DISCUSSION.

Why are some so adamant to shut off discussion on this issue? How about other conspiracies, like what was Cheney's involvement in the outing of Plame? Or did Nixon conspire with the North Vietnamese to help his election chances? In politics, things are rarely what they seem. Those at the top are careful what they let the public know. So why should we discourage discussion?

If it is a subject that you dont like, you dont have to participate, but why limit it for others?

[zappaman]

299. How does moving it to the proper forum...

"shut off discussion on this issue"?

[rhett o rick]

302. Who decides what the "proper room" is? You? Besides the thread will get locked. Is that your goal?

Doesnt seem very open minded for "politically liberal people". Looks like censorship to me. But I bet you get your way.

[zappaman]

310. it's a forum, not a "room"

And there is a reason forums are created for certain subjects by the people that run the site.
Tell me, does a post about evolution belong in the Economics forum?
This OP is creative speculation and belongs there.
There is nothing stopping anyone from discussing it there.
Now, explain how that is "censorship".

[rhett o rick]

320. I fully understand why "forums" are created. But I dont understand your fervor in making sure

that this thread gets in the proper forum. Is it because you dont agree? If you agreed would you be so anxious to lock it.

I think general discussion should be fairly loose with what is allowed. If there were six or eight threads about this subject or another specific subject, then maybe action should be taken.

By suggesting that this thread is in the wrong forum, you are essentially asking a host to lock the thread as that's all they can do.

IMO you want to lock this thread because you dont agree.

[zappaman]

321. IMO, you are wrong

I don't want it locked, but I think it is in the wrong place.
It should be moved.
There is nothing to stop anyone from following it to the proper foryum.
Nor am I anxious, but thank you for your concern.

[rhett o rick]

324. I dont believe in DU3, threads can be moved. If a host thinks it is off subject they can only lock.

As I see it.

[Octafish]

333. Your response does, obviously. I was hoping you would write about Justice for JFK.

What are your thoughts about the OP and the original article?

[orpupilofnature57]

155. Remember what he said about secret societies, and esoteric conversations

[Octafish]

338. JFK was addressing the newspaper publishers and owners.

EXCERPT...

Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.

SNIP...

And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/Ready-Reference/JFK-Speeches/The-President-and-the-Press-Address-before-the-American-Newspaper-Publishers-Association.aspx

A former journalist himself, President Kennedy understood the importance of the First Amendment and freedom of speech and the Press. It is a must-read for all who care about democracy and the republic.

PS: I bet JFK would have loved the World Wide Web.

[orpupilofnature57]

347. His best adress to the press was after the Bay of Pigs .

[Democracyinkind]

166. As a historian, I feel compelled to point out

that all of you people professing certainty in this thread are full of it.

50 years after the assassination, we still do not have the full documentary basis to judge this case. Never mind all the possible testimony and evidence that was deliberatly hidden or disposed of - there are still at least 1000+ plus files on the JFK assassination that the CIA deems to important to relaese - even after the landmark 1992 act. 2013, 2017 and even then we might learn that further docs won't be realeased until sometime later this century.

Democracy Inaction.

[zappaman]

174. "all of you people professing certainty in this thread are full of it."

Evolution is not a certainty either, is it?
However there is a great deal of evidence that would lead a reasonable person to conclude it is a likely reality.
Just like there is a great deal of evidence that points to one person, and one person only, in this case.

[MrMickeysMom]

178. There is more evidence that Oswald did not act alone than he did...

The House Select Committee admitted as much after the Warren Commission's shameful open and shut case was published.

Shame on anyone who isn't interested enough to want the release of records that have NO reason to be withheld.

[Democracyinkind]

186. Our common ground...

... is your last sentence. I wholeheartedly agree.

[stopbush]

210. The WCR was hardly open and shut. In fact, the WCR allowed that

evidence could someday materialize that proved a conspiracy was behind the JFK killing, but that their exhaustive investigation of the various conspiracy theories that were prevalent at the time of the WCR's writing all led to dead ends.

The HSCA, on the other hand, based their 4th shot conspiracy entirely on evidence that was later conclusively falsified.

[Democracyinkind]

180. I've mentioned this above

I do not believe that "convergence of evidence" arguments are logically sound.

From my limited readings in this case, I agree that there are good reasons to doubt that the "official story" will be the last word. But even if every shred of anecdotal evidence would point to Oswald acting as part of a larger plot was true, one should withold definitive judgments AT THE VERY LEAST until all existing evidence that we know of is on the table. Of course, the sole fact that we KNOW that not all evidence is yet on the table could point in the direction of Oswald not acting alone, but it needn't.

[zappaman]

176. Can we clear up some confusion?

There are a great many theories out there as to who killed JFK.
We should all pick on just to make things clear.
Here are a few...
1. "Badge Man".
2. "Black Dog Man".
3. "The Umbrella Man".
4. The Sewer Assassin.
5. The Dal-Tex Shooter(s).
6. The West-End TSBD Assassin.
7. Oswald Was A "Patsy".
8. The Single-Bullet Theory Is An LNer's Wet Dream.
9. Puffs Of Smoke On The Knoll Prove Conspiracy.
10. Oswald Didn't Kill Police Officer J.D. Tippit.
11. Ruby Killed Oswald As Part Of A Conspiracy.
12. Conspirators "Allowed" Ruby To Enter The DPD Basement In Order To
Kill Oswald On Live TV. (LOL!)
13. The Zapruder Film Is A Fake. (Additional LOL required here.)
14. Vast Numbers Of Dallas Police Officials Were "In" On The
Conspiracy.
15. Ruby Planted Bullet CE399 At Parkland.
16. Ruby Knew Oswald.
17. Tippit Knew Oswald.
18. James Files Killed JFK.
19. Secret Service Agent Hickey Killed JFK.
20. Limo Driver Greer Killed JFK.
21. Acoustics Evidence Proves A Conspiracy Existed In Dealey Plaza.
22. Oswald's Rifle Was Planted In The TSBD.
23. The Three Bullet Shells Were Planted In The TSBD.
24. The Empty Paper Bag Was Planted In The TSBD.
25. Tippit Was "Assigned" To "Rub Out" Oswald Before He Could Talk.
26. Marrion Baker Was "Assigned" To "Rub Out" Oswald Before He Could
Talk.
27. Michael Paine Was A Conspirator.
28. George DeMohrenschildt Was A Conspirator.
29. Santos Trafficante Was A Conspirator.
30. Carlos Marcello Was A Conspirator.
31. Clay Shaw Was A Conspirator.
32. David Ferrie Was A Conspirator.
33. Guy Bannister Was A Conspirator.
34. John Connally Conveniently "Arranged" For The Motorcade To Pass By
The TSBD.
35. All Three Autopsy Doctors Are Liars and "Faked" The Official
Autopsy Report.
36. Gerald Ford "Conveniently" Moved JFK's Back Wound.
37. The Warren Commission Was Comprised Of Only Evil People Who Wanted
Nothing Better Than To "Cover-Up" Any Signs Of Conspiracy At All Costs.
38. Ruth Paine Was An Evil Conspirator.
39. The Oswald "Imposters".
40. The Backyard Photos Are Fakes.
41. The Autopsy Photos Of JFK Are Fakes.
42. The Autopsy X-Rays Of JFK Are Fakes.
43. All Of The "Oswald Bullet Evidence" In The Limo Was Planted.
44. Oswald's Palmprint Was Lifted Off Him In The Morgue.
45. Howard Brennan Is A Liar.
46. Oswald Worked For The CIA.
47. Oswald Never Went To Mexico City.
48. All The Witnesses At The Tippit Murder Scene Are Wrong Or Liars.
49. The Tippit Bullet Shells Are Fakes/Planted.
50. LBJ Killed Kennedy.
51. The Mob Killed Kennedy.
52. The FBI Killed Kennedy.
53. The Military Industrial Complex Killed Kennedy.
54. The CIA Killed Kennedy.
55. Castro Killed Kennedy.
56. Khrushchev Killed Kennedy.
57. And A Biggie For The Finish ---> JOHN F. KENNEDY'S WOUNDS WERE
MYSTERIOUSLY ALTERED SOMEHOW BETWEEN PARKLAND AND BETHESDA.

Bonus points if you can give an estimate as to how many were involved.

[coalition_unwilling]

179. When you subtract out the occasional vitriol, this has to be one of the best

Last edited Thu Nov 22, 2012, 07:58 PM - Edit history (1)

threads I have read on DU in a long time.

My compliments to you for getting a stimulating and wide-ranging discussion going.

[AzDar]

201. K & R

[RagAss]

211. IMHO...I think the Soviets nailed it right after it happened.....

[AntiFascist]

424. "Fascist scum"...

one example would be the extreme right-wing militas in training around Lake Pontchartrain. French Intelligence solicited by Robert Kennedy also identified members of the Minutemen. Oswald may have had associations with both the extreme Right as well as the extreme Left.


http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3132

[sabrina 1]

476. Looks like he was aware that Kennedy was

trying to improve relations with the Soviet Union which angered the Cold Warriors. That would have cut off their funds. I have read that there was great anger that he had turned from a Cold Warrior himself to realizing that those policies may not have been the right policies at all and went behind the backs of the Cold Warriors to make a deal with the Soviets to end the missile crisis.

That statement from the Soviets seems to confirm that.

Thanks for posting that, very interesting.

[RagAss]

487. Yes...amazing that this still remains up on Youtube.....CIA slacking on this one.

[colsohlibgal]

215. Oswald?

Everyone who was along the road watching looked and pointed to the "Grassy Knoll". That included law officers, who would be more familiar with gunshots.

Plus - the three implicated mafia types are on tape pretty much owning up to it and kind of bragging about it. Howard Hunt is on a deathbed tape fessing up that he played a small role in it.

Oswald may or may not have shot at JFK but the head shot was from the side/front. One thing that makes me think he might be a total patsy is the way he behaved while in custody. Instead of the typical lone nut who seems proud of what they did, he seemed to maybe know he'd been set up, he looked like he was in a panic, had put 2 and 2 together.

One thing for certain, there happened to be an amazing number of known players in Dallas that day, Richard Nixon, Poppy Bush (in his "spook" days), Hoover, and a couple of Watergate figures.

[LongTomH]

228. Please remember JFK's life and words as well as his death:

JFK's Peace speech at American University only a few years before his death -- Part 1:

Part 2:

I'm also a supporter of a peaceful space program to explore and settle the solar system. I remember that JFK, in the last few months of his life, wanted to work with the Soviets in a moon program.

More recently, the Russian space agency has asked for a joint lunar base with the European Space Agency and NASA. Will we begin a new era of cooperation, or will we continue to try to militarize space?

[Initech]

229. I really wonder how much the BFEE had in JFK's murder.

[allrevvedup]

249. And JFK Jr's.

100% would be my guess.

[ailsagirl]

234. It can be boiled down to a two-word Latin phrase...

"Cui bono?"

Who benefited?

[cpwm17]

262. Many people like to think that things happen for a reason

Last edited Fri Nov 23, 2012, 02:56 PM - Edit history (1)

That's frequently not the case. Both religious and CT believers have this mindset.

Sometimes things just suck, and no good comes out of it. Sometimes a small low-life, such as Oswald, can screw it for everybody else.

[Peace Patriot]

239. Highly recommended: "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters,"

by James Douglass, 2008, Orbis/Maryknoll Books.

This is the best book on JFK's assassination. Douglass not only establishes that the CIA conspired to and committed the murder and names names up to the level of Richard Helms (operations chief) above which the trail of responsibility and command disappears, he also untangles all of the CIA misdirections--for instance, their misdirection to Soviet Russia--which have made various investigations so confusing, establishes who Oswald was and what he thought he was doing (protecting the president), and how the coverup happened, and why, and who was involved at that point. Most important of all, Douglass provides brilliant analysis and original research on the motives--on who JFK was and what he had done and was doing that prompted the assassination.

Douglass assesses the Warren Commission Report and all the research and analysis that has been done since then, and provides detailed discussions of the shooters, the witnesses, the secondary plot (Chicago), and all the other issues that have arisen from misdirection, destroyed evidence, missing or mishandled evidence, misinterpreted evidence (deliberate and not), the tragic lives of people who knew some part of the truth and suffered because of it (or were killed) and much more. He is totally convincing on CIA guilt for the assassination.

But, as I said, his most important contribution is the CONTEXT, and why it matters.

In summary, what he says is that JFK's refusal to nuke Russia during the Cuban Missile Crisis was the heart of the motive. He stood alone against the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the entire "MIC" on that issue, with only his brother Bobby as an ally. He opened backchannels to Krushchev and Castro, to evade CIA monitoring, and to negotiate a new era of world peace (peaceful competition of the two economic systems, end to the proxy wars such as Vietnam). The Joint Chiefs felt that they had missile superiority over Russia, would "win" a nuclear war with Russia and should strike while they had the edge. Kennedy thought they were insane. Kennedy proceeded with his plans for world peace--first of all, by a secret agreement to withdraw U.S. missiles from Turkey (on Russia's border) in exchange for Russia withdrawing its missiles from Cuba, by sending wheat to Russia after a Russian harvest failure, the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (first treaty limiting nukes), executive orders to de-escalate U.S. troops in Vietnam and other actions.

The Bay of Pigs fiasco, in the first months of JFK's presidency, was the CIA and the Miami mafia's doing. The CIA Director, Allen Dulles, lied to JFK that the invasion had local support in Cuba, and, when no local support materialized in Cuba, tried to blackmail JFK into involving the U.S. military in support of the ragtag band of CIA operatives who had "invaded" the island. As the result of that episode, JFK fired Dulles and vowed to "smash the CIA into a thousand pieces." (Douglass points to Allen Dulles as probable master-mind of the assassination, but doesn't nail him as well as he does Richard Helms. Dulles was no longer Director at the time of the assassination but could well have still been in control of various parts of it or all of it.)

The CIA was, in fact, doing this sort of thing to JFK all over the world--creating contrived, CIA-funded groups and factions, or outright false rebel groups (no group, as in Cuba) which were simply fronts for the CIA to control the country and to smash legitimate movements for social justice and sovereignty. Vietnam's communist party was, above all, a movement for social justice and sovereignty, led by Vietnamese hero Ho Chi Minh who had driven the French colonialists out of Vietnam and who was by no means hostile to the U.S. at the time that Vietnam declared its independence. The "South Vietnam" opposition was real but was far outnumbered by pro-Ho Chi Minh patriots and leftists, and was very, very corrupt. But it took JFK a long time to realize what the CIA was doing and to begin taking steps to the foil them. Communications were not instant in those days. JFK was often misinformed about what was going on in Vietnam, for instance, and would find out, after the fact, that his orders had not been obeyed.

Then came the Cuban Missile Crisis. Russia put nuke missiles in Cuba BECAUSE OF THE CIA'S ATTEMPTED INVASION OF CUBA (the "Bay of Pigs&quot . It was a provocative but, in these circumstances, an understandable action. (They weren't suicidal. They thought Cuba, an important ally, was going to be invaded again and that their missiles would deter it.) It was during this crisis that JFK's "learning curve" about the CIA and the MIC took a steep jump into enlightenment. He was dealing with people who thought nothing of hundreds of thousands of casualties on the east coast of the U.S., during a nuclear exchange, and the obliteration of an entire country, Russia, and the island of Cuba--with first strikes. They were arrayed against him with what was, to him, this insane notion.

In addition to meticulously laying JFK's growth as a man and a president, and his change from a "Cold Warrior" to a man saw beyond the "Cold War" to a peaceful world, Douglass provides CONTEXT that helps explain his opponents' thinking--which was, after he refused to strike Russia, that HE was the traitor! His peaceful resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis and his subsequent actions, as his belief in diplomacy and peace grew, only confirmed their view. That was the best of them--those with genuine but deluded and twisted patriotism. Some were just insane powermongers and/or war profiteers--such as those we have seen recently, in our government, with the Bush Junta.

This is Why. It. Still. Matters.

Similar forces of vast secrecy, powermongering and war profiteering--some with roots back to those assassins, and some a new breed of the same--are still operating within our national political establishment and certainly within our government and military. That is why it matters! Things did, indeed, go very, very wrong in November 1963, and they have never been righted. Our government is now more secretive and undemocratic than it has ever been; it can be easily--EASILY--turned to war, mass murder, torture and other heinous crimes, and there is nothing that we can do about it. It all gets swept under the rug.

Douglass also addresses some things that have always bothered me (besides the assassination itself and the coverup), for instance, was LBJ (JFK's VP and successor) involved in the assassination? Douglass doesn't think he was, but establishes that he was involved in the coverup and convincingly establishes his reasons for that. The CIA misdirection (of the assassination) to Russia (by sending low level operative Oswald to Russia and returning him here in a state of mystification as to what his mission was) was intended to force his successor, LBJ, to nuke Russia in retaliation for the murder of the President. The CIA wanted, in this way, to achieve what they couldn't achieve with JFK as President--the obliteration of Russia. Herbert Hoover (of all people) informed LBJ of this misdirection just days after the assassination, and LBJ, a) did not want to nuke Russia for something they didn't do; and b) did not want the American people to find any of this out, because LBJ was not at all hostile to militarism and war (as JFK had become) and did not want the American people to turn against the MIC.

Three days after JFK's assassination, LBJ said, "Now they can have their war." He was speaking of the CIA and Vietnam.

Douglass doesn't go into the 1964 election--a year after JFK's assassination, with LBJ as the Democratic candidate. But his book leads up to it. JFK had intended to run on a platform of world peace in 1964 (Douglass does document this). He believed that the American people would be with him on this and it is clear that he would have won that election, hands down. How do I know this? Because LBJ ran on a peace platform and won one of the biggest presidential victories in our history. That was my first vote for president and I remember it well. I voted for peace and so did over 60% of the American people. The trouble was that LBJ was lying. He was already undoing JFK's de-escalation and planning a major war--to satisfy the war profiteer interests and the "anti-communists" and their allies, the corporatists, the banksters and the millionaires who dreaded social justice and other "communist" ideas, and, of course, the CIA, who had worked so hard to turn the extremely corrupt, fascist South Vietnamese 1%-ers and their leaders into a government that the U.S. could pretend to be "defending."

Peace would have won. That. Is. Why. It. Still. Matters.

Not many people know this, but 56% of the American people opposed the war on Iraq (Feb. '03, all polls). How this mostly peace-loving country was turned, once again, into the looting base for war profiteers and mass murderers and torturers and international scofflaws, with its democratic traditions, rights and love of justice and fairness shredded almost beyond repair, is OUR story NOW. It is the story of those of us who remember November 22, 1963, and those too young to remember.

"JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters" is not just highly recommended. It is essential reading for anyone who wants to understand our world, now.

Douglass is writing two more books--on Martin Luther King's assassination and Robert Kennedy's assassination, which occurred in the same year, 1968, only five years after JFK's assassination, with protests against the Vietnam War raging, and both of these leaders opposing the war. I look forward to those books. If the official stories are also wrong on those murders--and, from what I've read, they probably are--I would guess that digging out the truth will be harder in those cases than with JFK's murder. The techniques of misdirection and disinformation in a domestic assassination would likely be better honed five years later, colluders and cover would be more secure, and the perps bolder.

My guess: The CIA did both murders and the motive was similar--keeping the country on a war footing for its advantages to secret powermongers and for the profit of the "welfare capitalists" living on the public dole and planning world dominion. I am especially suspicious about RFK's assassination. MLK's murder could have been ugly, hate-filled southern whites--they had murdered before--but given MLK's dramatic speech at Riverside Church eloquently condemning the Vietnam War--and the proximity of MLK's and RFK's murders (only three months apart), it is quite feasible that it had the same motive and the same perps (though different operatives): continued war and war profiteering, and smashing the hugely popular peace and justice movement that had arisen around these two leaders.

I await Douglass' research and analysis, in these next two books. I know less about these assassinations than about JFK's, for the simple reason that I couldn't bear to read about them; I became so disgusted that I just turned it all off, for a long, long time. This was a mistake. Our society has been gravely poisoned by these events and the remedy is not to close our eyes, but to figure out what the poison is and purge it. The remedy is openness and honesty--and also determination to restore our country's health and try to create a better world. Burying your head in the sand is not a remedy.

Douglass makes this very clear. The healing must start with the truth about JFK's murder, that elements within our own government and society killed the president because he wanted to create a more peaceful world.

He served in the U.S. Navy in WW II and suffered wounds in combat from which he had never fully recovered (chronic back pain). He was also a "Cold Warrior" until the Cuban Missile Crisis. That he could see beyond that paranoia is what makes him so special, and that and the coverup are what makes his murder such a terrible wound, from which many of us have never recovered. He had the ability to CHANGE--to abandon the politics of war and try to invent the politics of peace: helping the "evil communists" with their wheat failure, making treaties with them about nukes, talking to them, listening to them--hearing about Kruschev's problems with his own militarists from Krushchev himself, and trying to evaluate his evident desire for a peaceful world, without CIA filtering, lies, distortions, misdirection and arrogance. JFK took these steps though he had been schooled to do otherwise--to hate, fear and fight communists--because, when faced with nuclear armageddon, he found that he could not do that to the human race and determined to find humanity's way OUT of this conflict.

It's not that one leader is so important. No individual leader ever is. And it's not that JFK didn't make mistakes. He certainly did. It's all of us that matter and how we, collectively, govern ourselves, and what we believe in, and live for--and dream of. A world without war. A world without want. A government that truly reflects our own generous and peaceful spirit. A country and society that we can be truly proud of, in our deepest selves. Those shots in Dallas were aimed at all of us, as a nation, from within, by our own militarists and war profiteers. And until we face that awful reality, we cannot recover from it.

The OP asks for "accountability" for those who did it. That is basically impossible. But exposing the truth, and reforming or abolishing the institutions that still operate in this way--in obsessive secrecy, in violation of the rule of law, for war and other profit--these actions ARE possible. Holding the system accountable IS possible. Renewing our democratic spirit IS possible.

We've just gone through a fresh set of horrors from the militarists among us, who are very like the militarists of 1963. They have cleverer ways of controlling our government now and even less accountability. We need to address this cumulative militarism and secrecy. That IS possible. Difficult, but possible. But it has to begin with knowing what you are up against, facing the reality of it, understanding its origins, and forming your own view of what democracy is all about, and fighting for accountability NOW. We can't do 1963 over. All we have is now. Is it to be an oblivious now, in which huge crimes, treason, lawlessness and murder get swept away as if they never happened, and then get repeated in ugly cycles of mass murder and mass looting? Or is it to be a conscious now, fully informed about the past, awake, aware and determined to make a a better country and a better world?

That is why it still matters.

Peace

[allrevvedup]

247. Seconded. The perfect corrective to Chomsky.

I see a few links to Chomsky tossed out in this thread, and while Chomsky is right about many things, he's consistently wrong about JFK, whom he likes to characterize as a Nixon-like cold warrior and warmonger. This book makes it vividly clear that he was not.

[Peace Patriot]

272. I agree! Chomsky is right on most things and wrong on JFK.

I don't know if he's trying to be a gadfly or a crank, trying to annoy his friends, playing a game or just has a visceral dislike of the Kennedy's and can't help being nasty toward them. His writings/comments on JFK have a very false feel to them and he simply ignores the voluminous evidence that Douglass has researched and included in "JFK and the Unspeakable" that JFK really was in a deadly struggle with the militarists and they did him in.

It's Chomsky's Achilles heel, to me--the flaw in Chomsky that prevents me from being a reverent follower. He's human! Maybe that's good--to see that someone so brilliant can be dead wrong!

I wonder if it's the Catholic angle that puts Chomsky off (he's such a fervent secularist). Thomas Merton (the anti-nuke Trappist monk), and Ethel Kennedy (Bobby's wife, a devoted Catholic--and JFK's conduit to Merton), were very influential in JFK's changed view of "the Cold War" and the use and possession of nuclear weapons. JFK had to face that terrible demon alone, as president, with his finger on the button. But a lot of things went into his turn toward peace and his religion was certainly one of them. This would probably make Chomsky throw up his eyes and wail "Pa-leese!" and tell dirty jokes about the tunnel between the nunnery and the bishop's quarters. I do love Chomsky's irreverence! But I also see the defensiveness and prickliness and just plain wrongness on the subject of JFK and I wish he would think it through, get over whatever his blockages are on the subject and look at the evidence. Douglass has done a superb job on this evidence--JFK's turn toward peace and the price he paid for it--and to miss this, to ignore it and to maintain the false view that JFK was just another imperialist, is to miss quite a lot of truth about the 20th Century and about our world today.

[cpwm17]

318. I'm a fan of Chomsky

He's a strong anti-war liberal with a scientific mind. His strong scientific background keeps his anti-authoritarian philosophy from getting the better of him. He doesn't go off into unfortunate conspiratorial tangents that would lessen his credibility.

He's a brain scientist, which gives him a lot of insight into how the human mind works, including what human activities are realistically possible.

[coalition_unwilling]

394. "Links to Chomsky"? - I've been following this thread closely since its inception (and

have tremendously enjoyed and profited from it).

But I do not recall seeing any links to Chomsky. And I'm a bit unclear as to what the Chomsky reference alludes. From the tone of the comments, it sounds as though Chomsky takes a hard line towards JFK's supposed 'peacenik' tendencies. But I do not follow Chomsky religiously, so cannot swear that I am inferring correctly.

Could you (or anyone reading this who knows) point me in the right direction?

[Octafish]

397. Perhaps this: Chomsky on JFK and Vietnam

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/morrisseychomskyonjfkandvietnam1993.shtml

James DiEugenio adds more detail:

The Left and the Death of JFK

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/The_critics/DiEugenio/Left_and_death_of_JFK/Left_and_death_of_Kennedy.html

[coalition_unwilling]

403. Thanks. Much appreciated (as are also your efforts in

Last edited Sun Nov 25, 2012, 11:17 AM - Edit history (1)

initiating and sustaining this thread

Will read each and maybe comment later today or tomorrow. A quick perusal gave me the vertiginous feeling of starting to spin down the rabbit hole of left-wing insider baseball (apologies for the mixed metaphor).

I would point out that on November 4, 1963, JFK dictated a memo giving his reflections on the coup that had deposed the brothers Diem. In the account (detailed in David Kaiser's American Tragedy, pp. 276-8), JFK does not express any skepticism about the military situtation in Vietnam as conveyed to him by his advisors Taylor and McNamara. JFK, it seems, was willing to stay the course militarily in Vietnam (supporting the puppets), provided the brothers Diem and Nhu stepped down. Any decision about whether to pull the plug entirely was being left until after the elections in 1964. I suppose in this regard I side with Chomsky to the extent that no firm decision to withdraw in toto had been made. With no decision to withdraw from Vietnam having been made, the withdrawal from Vietnam can hardly suffice as a motive for any would-be assassins. (Fear of a future withdrawal might suffice, but that's another question entirely.)

Further to that point, on September 2, 1963, JFK had given an interview to Walter Cronkite where the following exchange took place:

Mr. Cronkite: Do you think this government (the South Vietnamese government) still has time to regain the support of the people?

The President: I do. With changes in policy and perhaps in personnel (emphasis author's) I think it can. If it doesn't make those changes, I would think that the chances of winning it would not be very good.

Cited in Kaiser, p. 246.

It seems to me that a fair reading of the historical record suggests that JFK hoped to kick the can down the road with regard to America's continued presence in Vietnam until after the 1964 election. He had made no clear decision to stay, to escalate or to withdraw. Thus, the central motive alleged at the heart of Stone's JFK simply is not supported by a fair reading of the historical record.

[allrevvedup]

421. The GOP has been blaming JFK for Vietnam since forever

and while Chomsky is not your average RW water carrier, he's still a RW water carrier. Chomsky's role in the disinformation economy is to attack from the left, or more accurately the "left," as his idea of dissent is as disingenuous and misleading as the rest his reality bubble. Yes he talks a good game, and he can fool all of the people some of the time, but if you want to know the truth, there's a lie in bite: he's always covering up, changing the subject, distorting by omission, shifting the blame or as with JFK just plain lying. I'm sorry I'm not as diplomatic as Octafish, or as informed, so do please read his links, especially the second one, which is short and lays out Chomsky's "gatekeeper" function succinctly.

Meanwhile if you want an accurate account of Kennedy's foreign policy I'd strongly recommend the Douglass book PeacePatriot describes above. With respect to Vietnam here's a short post that uses the same sources you cited (the Cronkite interview and the Kaiser book) along with several others to make a different and far more accurate representation of JFK's policy:

"The Vietnam War and the Assassination of JFK," by John Simkin, Posted 03 March 2006 (excerpt):

In an interview with Walter Cronkite on 2nd September, Kennedy clearly stated his policy on Vietnam: “I don’t think that unless a greater effort is made by the government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it.” Kennedy then went on to criticize Diem’s “repressions against the Buddhists”. (25)

{snip}

Kennedy met with Robert McNamara and General Maxwell Taylor on 2nd October, 1963. Kennedy told McNamara to announce to the press the immediate withdrawal of one thousand soldiers from Vietnam. Kennedy added that he would “probably withdraw all American forces from Vietnam by the end of 1965”. When McNamara was leaving the meeting to talk to the white house reporters, Kennedy called to him: “And tell them that means all of the helicopter pilots too.” In his statement to the press McNamara softened the President’s views by stating that in his judgment “the major part of the U.S. military task” in Vietnam could be “completed by the end of 1965.” (27)

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6274

p.s. the Chomsky links I was referring are in post #57 of this thread.

[coalition_unwilling]

432. Hey there. Welcome to DU. This thread has become something of a Hydra-headed

monster, has it not? I had seen those links in post #57 and my eye promptly proceeded to skip over them upon several re-readings. So I appreciate your annotations.

It may be heresy on this board and forum, but I found the Douglass book tiresome and repetitive, with multiple instances of sloppy reasoning (substituting premises for conclusions and vice versa), although I did find Douglass' accounts of JFK's attempts to open back-channel negotiations with Khrushchev on matters relating to war and peace noteworthy. As regards the central question of this thread, though, I found Douglass' book long on promises but short on delivery. As stopbush and zappaman have pointed out in other spots on this thread, there's not one shred of evidence to support any conspiracy theory, just a morass of suppositions that may or may not be true.

I'm also experiencing the disconcerting feeling of having read something many years earlier, knowing roughly where I read it, but being unable to lay my hands on the specific instance. (I've been driving my wife bonkers this morning as I searched Specifically, I've got roughly 2,000 pages of Vietnam War history arrayed in front of me right now (all 3 secondary sources) but I cannot find the specific passage where the historian (Kaiser, Robert Mann or Stanley Karnow) specifically mentions JFK's intention to kick the can down the road about whether to withdraw from Vietnam until after the 1964 elections. In short, JFK's public announcements that you point out were predicated upon the military victory over the NLF that Taylor and McNamara promised him would come no later than the end of 1964 or early 1965 (this despite the NLF's demonstrated ability to fight and win major battles like Ap Bac earlier in 1963).

Absent that military victory by the puppet forces over the NLF, though, who can say that JFK might not have engaged upon the very course of action which LBJ chose, i.e., to escalate, or at best to continue to try to muddle through with the collection of puppet Generals administering the puppet regime?

[allrevvedup]

474. Thank you!

And thanks for the courteous response. Not everybody agrees here but I guess that's why this thread is pushing 500 replies. Hope we don't break the software, lol. As to your points, they deserve more consideration that I'm about to give them, so I hope to return later to fill in the gaps, but to prime the pump:

1 - On Douglass: I just looked through my copy and I agree that the organization is overly complicated. I think he tried to organize it thematically instead of chronologically so yeah there's a certain amount of repetition. But look on the bright side: my copy lacks an index! And I agree, the Khrushchev back channel was astonishing and entirely new to me, and the Castro back-channel too, which flies in the face of Chomsky wisdom.

2 - I think it's pretty clear who did it, i.e. disgruntled mil-intel types aided and abetted by disgruntled oil types and of course Brown and Root, aka Halliburton, coincidentally headquartered in Dallas, long-time backers of a certain Lyndon Johnson, as explained in "The Candidate from Brown and Root," Austin Chronicle, Aug. 25, 2000, link: http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2000-08-25/78397/

3 - I think it's also pretty clear that JFK wanted to get out of the domino business and to be perceived as exiting Vietnam before the 1964 election, as supported by evidence in Douglass and in Simkin's EF article linked above, for example a 1988 interview with John McCone, and other sources including the well-known NSAM #263 of Oct. 11, 1963.

4 - One point I take issue with Douglass on is JFK's conversion, religious or otherwise, to a strategy of peace. Douglass dramatizes it with the Merton material but JFK was already pursuing that course while campaigning in 1960 and even before that. Yes he made Ike's reluctance to openly commit ground troops to SE Asia an issue, as Chomsky and others make manifestly clear, but he was running against Nixon. Douglass has a lot of material on the nuts and bolts but it seems JFK got burned a few times going along with the mil-intel guys, who were hot to nuke somebody, for example in the Bay of Pigs, and wised up fast. The problem was the mil-intel guys didn't want to be wised up, hence Nov. 22.

5 - There are many more reasons why I think JFK would not under any circumstances have escalated Vietnam, and it's clear he had no interest in getting bogged down there or anywhere else. His father for example was no interventionist, neither was Teddy, and intervention was incompatible with his signature policy of nuclear nonproliferation. Anyway I'll cut to the chase with a quotation from a 1960 campaign speech:

We can push a button to start the next war but there is no push-button magic to winning a lasting and enduring peace. To be peace loving is not enough, for the Sermon on the Mount saved its blessings for the peacemakers. The generation which I speak for has seen enough of warmongers. Let our great role in history be that of peacemakers. But in the two areas where peace can be won, in the field of disarmament and in our representations abroad, this country has been ill served.

-- San Francisco, Nov. 2, 1960, from a Sorenson collection of JFK's writings and speeches.

And so on. He pretty much campaigned on the issue and in his 1958 book (can't locate it at the moment) he goes on at great length praising the Bolivarian revolution sweeping Latin America and even has good words for comrade Fidel. Hard to believe, hard to find now, but true.

[sabrina 1]

477. Excellent post and welcome to DU. I had never seen that

quote before and it does contradict people, even Sy Hersch, who questioned his commitment to peace later in his presidency.

There is a video above in this thread showing a news report right after the assassination with quotes from a Soviet Spokesperson. At the time it was slammed as propaganda, but now in retrospect and combined with other evidence of Kennedy's views on dealing with the Soviets and how that angered the Cold Warriors, looks like the guy may have been right:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1869686

[allrevvedup]

491. hey thanks sabrina!

Good link, yeah the Soviets have a tendency to see US criminality for what it is, or maybe we're the just the last to figure it out sometimes. Anyway the title of that obscure JFK book is surprise, Strategy of Peace, and it's a collection of speeches and essays published in 1960 as one of those thoughtful campaign books Dems sometimes write:



Available for the low price of US $7645.00, who could resist? http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=john+kennedy&sortby=1&tn=strategy+of+peace

I just ordered a copy on Amazon for considerably less and I'll report back on that Bolivar speech when I find it again in case anyone's interested. I can't find it on the web. It seems Kennedy spoke favorably of Castro and against US meddling in Latin America up until the 1960 campaign, when he started taking a more official hard line toward Cuba, at least publicly.

Anyway I was astonished that Obama actually won on Nov. 6, as I imagine you were too, even though I knew all along he had more popular support, and if any electronic trickery was attempted or prevented by any parties I sincerely hope it comes out. The BO admin has a tendency to play their cards close to the vest I've noticed, which works against them in some ways, but they clearly know what they're doing and managed to get to the second term stolen from JFK so I have to say that I'm very optimistic. That Petraeus went down three days later suggests to me that there's a lot we don't know.

[sabrina 1]

492. Very interesting book. Lol, but a little expensive. I wonder if they might

have it in libraries? JFK was a thinker, so it's not really surprising that he would have preferred to think along the lines of a more peaceful world. But he appears to have been a realist also, and would never have won an election if had anything good to about Castor. And nothing has changed

We are stuck in a 'violence is the solution' bubble despite the evidence to the contrary.

Logic should have told us by now that if violence was the answer, then how is it that not much has changed? Well according to what they tell us. We seem to always have a boogie man that keeps the war machine going. I'm sure JFK realized that.

Re Petraeus, yes, there is a whole lot we do not know. The 'affair' seems to me to be a cover to distract and to let him off the hook in what has apparently been decided, is the in the best interests of the country. Already the obedient MSM has dropped the story, without ever doing any real investigative journalism. I have some theories, but that is all they are at this point.

Image is everything, which is why we can never prosecute War Criminals. Well that is the theory anyhow. I disagree, and think that when a country holds its own criminals accountable it's image can only be enhanced. But then I am probably not thinking in the same box as those who decide these things.

I would be very interested in the Bolivar speech. Our policies in South America were criminal and a disaster for that region of the world. We always seem to back dictators for some reason.

We need a change of course. The old Cold War propaganda still has enormous effect on far too many Americans imo.

[allrevvedup]

506. JFK’s Strategy of Peace, 1960:

Well it came in yesterday's mail, not the nice hardback in the pic above, but a battered Popular Library "Special” with faded red edges and a cover price of 50 cents, LOL. But if it's any indication of the 1960 campaign I can see exactly how JFK punked Tricky Dick, because every paragraph still exudes Kennedy can-do optimism and intelligence, also a rational and charitable view of foreign peoples and humanity in general. A couple of highlights:

1) The centerpiece is a region-by-region consideration of “areas of trial,” which sadly haven't changed much since 1960, apart from the particular hotspots: Israel, the Middle East, Indochina, Algeria (North Africa), Latin America, India and China, Poland and Eastern Europe.

2) Regarding Indochina: It turns out JFK had been urging the US to avoid military involvement in Vietnam since at least 1951, and he includes a 1954 speech reiterating in the clearest terms his warning that “such intervention would be virtually impossible” to win (p. 89).

3) Nuclear disarmament and world peace are basically his foreign policy themes, no conversion necessary. For example, point 11 of the “Twelve-Point Agenda” that opens the book: “We must begin to develop new, workable programs for peace and the control of arms,” followed by specific initiatives to accomplish these goals (pp. xiv-xv). Mutual understanding and cooperation are also themes.

4) Domestic policy: There's another section laying out his commitment to policies including “civil liberties,” scientific research, all levels of education including “a new horizon for [African American] education,” and “equal opportunity and economic justice for all [people] of all ages, races, and creeds” (this was 52 years ago so I updated the terms "negro" and "men&quot .

5) Latin America: he says a lot of great stuff but I'll cut to the part about Bolivar and Castro:

Just as we must recall our own revolutionary past in order to understand the spirit and the significance of the anti-colonialist uprisings in Asia and Africa, we should now reread the life of Simon Bolivar, the great “Liberator” ... of South America, in order to comprehend the new contagion for liberty and reform now spreading south of our borders. On an earlier trip throughout Latin America, I became familiar with the hopes and burdens which characterize this tide of Latin nationalism.

Fidel Castro is part of the legacy of Bolívar, who led his men over the Andes Mountains, vowing “war to the death” against Spanish rule, saying, Where a goat can pass, so can an army.” Castro is also part of the frustration of that earlier revolution which won its war against Spain but left largely untouched the indigenous feudal order . . .

Whether Castro would have taken a more rational course after his victory had the United States Government not backed the dictator Bautista so long and so uncritically, and had it given the fiery young rebel a warmer welcome in his hour of triumph, especially on hi trip to this country, we cannot be sure.

But Cuba is not an isolated case. We can still show our concern for liberty and our opposition to the status quo in our relations with the other Latin American dictators who now, or in the future, try to suppress their people's aspirations. And we can take the long delayed positive measures that are required to enable the revolutionary wave sweeping Latin America to move through relatively peaceful channels and to be harness to the great constructive tasks at hand. (pp. 167-69)

And so on. As I say nearly every page is “wow!” and “hell yes,” even the cold warrior bits, which contra Chomsky are rather tame and very clearly subordinated to the larger peace effort. Anyway I'll keep browsing and maybe post a separate thread a little later.

[sabrina 1]

507. That is fascinating, seriously. Especially his views on Castro at that time. Very surprising.

I wonder how he ever got elected with those views, PEACE, isn't that a crime in the US?

His interest in Bolivar and appreciation for him is also surprising considering US policies in Latin America at the time. I wonder if would appreciate Chavez who reveres Bolivar? I have a feeling he would.

He sounds so intelligent, thoughtful, and so RIGHT!

A separate thread would great. I think this book should be republished.

What a tragedy for the country that he never got to finish his job. Makes you wonder even more about his death.

Let me know if you post a thread on this. PM if you like, I would love to hear more about it.

[LongTomH]

351. The drive for a 'First Strike Capability' has been a theme for the MIC throughout the Cold War

It was actually a driver for the Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars). SDI was supported by many of 'The Usual Suspects' of the Cold War, including Dr. Edward Teller: "Father of the H-bomb" and opponent of JFK's Test Ban Treaty.

There's a backstory to the Strategic Defense story that involves Gen. Daniel O. Graham and an attempt to co-opt the civilian, pro-space movement built up around the work of Dr. Gerard K. O'O'Neill. O'Neill's work on space manufacturing and space settlements inspired the founders of The L5 Society as well as the Space Studies Institute at Princeton. I was a member of the L5 Society from the late 1970s on; I even established a chapter in Tulsa, OK.

Back to the other actor in this drama: Daniel O. Graham. Rachel Maddow, in her book: Drift: the Unmooring of American Military Power, discussed Danny Graham's role in keeping the Cold War going as a member of the CIA's Team B, formed to analyze the 'Soviet threat.' Team B provided "the intellectual foundation for the idea of "the window of vulnerability" and of the massive arms buildup that began toward the end of the Carter administration and accelerated under President Ronald Reagan."

Gen. Graham's other major career achievement was creation of a framework for what became known as the Strategic Defense Initiative. His proposals included a 'layered defense,' including space-based weapons to shoot down Soviet ICBM's in the 'boost phase.'

Strategic Defense was sold to the public as an alternative to the Mutual Assured Destruction doctrine established by Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara during JFK's administration. McNamara's formula for MAD involved the US having 'second strike' capability, meaning a 'survivable' nuclear force that could punish a Soviet 'First Strike.'

That public had been living under the threat of all-out nuclear war for decades. The generation that came of age in the 1950s and 60s frequently questioned whether they would be allowed to grow up or would they perish in a nuclear exchange. So, it's perhaps understandable that many people found Danny Graham and Ronald Reagan's rhetoric on Strategic Defense attractive.

To others, in both the Soviet Union and the US, SDI looked more like an attempt to gain a 'First Strike' capability which would allow destruction of the Soviet Union, or at least its military capability, without suffering US destruction in turn. That was strengthened by the fact that his proposal included massive spending on civilian defense.

My claim that Graham wanted to "co-opt the civilian pro-space movement built up around Gerard K. O'Neill's work?" First, Graham's use of the title High Frontier for both his organization and his book. Gerry O'Neill's book had been titled: The High Frontier: Human Colonies in Space. To say Dr. O'Neill was displeased would be an understatement; he asked his supporters to write Gen. Graham in protest. Graham came back with the statement that: "A book title cannot be copyrighted."

The other part of this was the take-over of the L5 Society by supporters of Danny Graham and SDI. Chief among these was Dr. Jerry Pournelle. Pournelle is best known as a science fiction writer; but, he was also a conservative activist and supporter of Ronald Reagan. Pournelle himself has sometimes described his politics as "somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan."

Pournelle and Graham, along with other people associated with L5, helped write Ronald Reagan's 1983 speech establishing the Strategic Defense Initiative. Pournelle, despite his association with L5 and other pro-space organizations maintained that: "We were not trying to boost space, we were trying to win the Cold War."

SDI was, and still is, highly controversial. Pournelle and his crowd wanted to make the L5 Society primarily an advocacy organization for SDI; Danny Graham's vision of High Frontier would supplant Gerry O'Neill's peaceful vision. Not everyone went along, the leadership of the society finally decided not to take a stand. A fairly large number of people left the L5 Society because it wouldn't advocate for SDI, another group left because they wouldn't take a stand opposing it. The weakened organization was merged with Wernher Von Braun's National Space Institute in 1987 to form the National Space Society. Some people remain in NSS who are loyal to O'Neill's vision; but, it's largely a PR arm of the Aerospace Industries Association.

Back to JFK and James Douglass's book: JFK's lunar initiative, the Apollo project, was largely a Cold War response to the perceived lead in space by the Soviet Union; but, Douglass relates: In his last months, JFK wanted to work with the Soviet Union in space exploration. He had sent letters to chairman Nikita Khrushchev proposing US-Soviet cooperation in space. At first, Khrushchev refused; but, late in 1963, he apparently was ready to accept Kennedy's offer.

But, Kennedy was assassinated and Khrushchev was eased out of office in 1964. If JFK had lived, if we had joined with the Soviet Union in peaceful exploration of outer space, perhaps Gerard K. O'Neill's plans would have been the basis for a future international space program.

Where could we be now?

[coalition_unwilling]

240. Because StopBush kept asking us to read the Warren Commission Report, I decided

to start perusing it.

I've only read the Forward and Chapter 1 so far, but I can tell you (without much of an axe to grind in this) that the thing so far reads like a hatchet job on Oswald, filled with all sorts of purple-prose innuendos and insinuations. I'm reading an online version and the version I'm reading embeds the footnote superscripts right into the body text, making for an occasionally annoying and frustrating experience. That said, I am distinctly not impressed by the WCR thus far.

Consider this passage from Chapter 1:

When they reached the second-floor landing on their way up to the top of the building, Patrolman Baker thought he caught a glimpse of someone through the small glass window in the door separating the hall area near the stairs from the small vestibule leading into the lunchroom. Gun in hand, he rushed to the door and saw a man about 20 feet away walking toward the other end of the lunchroom. The man was empty handed. At Baker's command, the man turned and approached him. Truly, who had started up the stairs to the third floor ahead of Baker, returned to see what had delayed the patrolman. Baker asked Truly whether he knew the man in the lunchroom. Truly replied that the man worked in the building, whereupon Baker turned from the man and proceeded, with Truly, up the stairs. The man they encountered had started working in the Texas School Book Depository Building on October 16, 1963. His fellow workers described him as very quiet--a "loner." His name was Lee Harvey Oswald.

Look at the penultimate sentence ("His fellow workers described him as very quiet--a 'loner' "&quot . Scary, isn't it? Long before there were 'terrorists,' there were those scary 'loners.' Only problem is that the sentence has nothing to do with the substance of the paragraph it concludes and instead has the feel of pulp fiction and not good pulp at that. Its sole function here is as some sort of expository flashback to assassinate LHO's character and boy does it get the hairs on the back of my neck going up. Weird thing is that I've seen several instances of this rhetorical strategem in just the first two chapters.

So I feel this thread might equally be titled "Justice for Lee Harvey Oswald." I respect StopBush and Zappaman, but I feel like a serious miscarriage of justice just may have occurred.

For any who are so inclined, here's where I found the material: http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/

[stopbush]

267. I think the salient worss in you post are "I've only read the Forward and Chapter One."

The important thing to know about Chapter 1 of the WCR is that it is titled "Summary and Conclusions." It is meant as a thumbnail of what will follow in greater detail. There's nothing at all unusual about the wording in the passage you highlight. It's what one would expect from a SUMMARY.

Thank you for saying you respect me later in your post. I appreciate the kind words.

[coalition_unwilling]

277. Fair enough. Another thought that occurred to me after I posted is that the WCR was

a product of multiple authors\editors and so one might expect a profusion of 'voices' even within a single paragraph. The technical term for this type of multi-author piece is a 'Cento,' I believe. It's entirely possible that Author\Editor A (we'll call him or her) was tasked with documenting\summarizing Truly's and Patrolman Baker's steps, while Author/Editor B (perhaps a staff with some literary pretensions) was tasked with depicting the figure of LHO. The two tasks are then mashed together into a single paragraph and presided over by 'Editor C' (someone with a great sense of grammar but a less refined literary aesthetic.)

I have done no inquiry whatsoever into the writing\editing of the WCR -- textual criticism has always struck me as a surefire cure for insomnia -- so I am backing off my earlier 'miscarriage of justice' comment and am now back where I started with, I hope, an open mind. I have always fantasized myself in the role of an all-powerful defense attorney, a la Perry Mason, so that may explain my overly hasty reaction last night.

Even if one is a firm CT person (I am not), one should give you (and Zappaman) credit for the enormous amount of time and care you have invested in this thread. I am thinking how this thread would look and read were it in Yahoo or FaceBook and I shudder at the thought of it. This thread, and your contributions thereto, epitomize what I so dearly love about DU, that climate of free-spirited and wide-ranging inquiry and debate.

[zappaman]

287. Try and get a hold of Bugliosi's book.

The print edition seems to be out of print, but the audiobook and kindle are still around.
Probably better either of those ways, since the book was a real pain to read due to it's sheer size and bulk.
The amount of time and energy Bugliosi put into it is truly staggering.
I've read dozens of books about the the assassination, been to Dealey Plaza and attended the very first assassination symposium in Dallas for an article I wrote for a national magazine. I was convinced something other than the official story had happened. Bugliosi's book was an real eye-opener!
It is amazing how many things the other books leave out to strengthen whatever their case is. And in some books, the blatant lies they bring to the table.

[coalition_unwilling]

289. Count me logo-centric :) I just placed a hold on the print edition of the book

through LA Public Library. Should be available soon, acc. to the status.

Thanks for the tips and advice (and for your contributions to this thread).

[stopbush]

379. Thanks again for the kind words.

Perhaps I'm passionate about this subject because I ardently believed in the JFK CTs for decades. About ten years ago, I had a discussion with a person who supported the findings of the WCR. This former military person said that he couldn't believe in the conspiracy theories for the simple fact that human beings simply can't keep a secret, and to imagine that the number of people supposedly involved in the shooting had kept quiet for over 40 years defied all belief.

But the other thing he said was more disturbing, which was that he and his fellow Republicans drew great pleasure from the fact that so many Ds believed the conspiracy theories, because to believe so means that you believe that a Democratic president was killed by the huge cabal of fellow Democrats who worked in the agencies that were supposedly responsible for JFK's death, including the belief that JFK's own VP was involved in the killing. "The Ds truly eat their own" was his thought, "as if killing JFK was the only option open to anyone who wanted to remove a serial philanderer from office."

He asked if I had ever read the WCR. I said I hadn't. "Wow, you have a pretty strong opinion about something you've never read," he said. "Why don't you read it and make up your own mind, rather than taking the word of a bunch of authors looking to sell books and make a buck?"

He had a point. So I did go and read the thing. It changed my mind, though I resisted it strongly. I kept reading the conspiracy books, maintaining what I felt was a "healthy skepticism." Then, Bugliosi's book came out, and I thought that I needed to make the effort to read it. It helped to confirm my switch from an ardent CTist to a believer in the EVIDENCE. And why? Because as Bugliosi points out, at its heart, the JFK assassination is a SIMPLE crime with glaring consequences; that there is only one set of facts in the case, and those facts are overwhelming in their convicting Oswald of the crime(s). And, as Bugliosi points out, even the most-ardent CTist is dealing with evidence that was gathered by government agencies. The only difference is that none of the CTists have ever had a chance to examine the evidence first hand, or to conduct 25,000 interviews, or to have access to the documentation that the WC had...which makes even the most-ardent and compelling CTist little more than a footnote in the overall scheme of things.

Finally, when one looks at the JFK killing from the non-CT perspective, it's a bit appalling to realize how many good people get their names and reputations dragged through the mud with no evidence to support the dragging. For instance, the Dallas police and other law enforcement agencies involved in the case are regularly trashed for their incompetence and even complicity in the case. Yet if you were to stipulate that Oswald did kill JFK, the remarkable fact emerges that those "incompetent" law enforcement officials had the killer under arrest within hours of the shooting. You have the fact that the police not only recovered both murder weapons, but that within hours, the FBI had already traced ownership of the weapons to Oswald through the company that sold Oswald the guns through the mail, even though Oswald had used the alias of A Hidell to buy the guns. Were this any other case, people would marvel at the brilliance of the police work in capturing the criminal, though said capture doesn't exonerate allowing Oswald to be killed right in fucking police HQ, nor does it excuse the (obvious in retrospect) piss-poor job that was done to protect the president's life.

But does that justify coming up with wild theories than JFK was killed by the SS agent driving his limo? Or that LBJ was involved? Or that the FBI, CIA and the other law enforcement agencies involved be accused of taking part in the assassination? And to make such accusations so flippantly?

I don't think so.

[tex-wyo-dem]

242. k and r! (nt)

[Octafish]

387. A critic reviews Morley's book: 'Our Man in Mexico'

To be charitable, James DiEugenio, the author of the review, holds the view there was a conspiracy. He makes clear the points Morley has missed in his book and analyses.

http://www.ctka.net/reviews/morley.html

The writings and criticism make clear that Morley is a writer and researcher of the first rank.

[allrevvedup]

248. Rec. Thanks for remembering Octafish

and thanks for all the beautiful JFK threads posted by you and others today. It's so important to remember, especially today.

[Octafish]

386. You are most welcome, allrevvedup! Do you know Prof. Donald E. Wilkes?

He is a U-Georgia law professor emeritus who has written on the assassination:

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

PS: Thank you for caring about the subject. The nation has not been the same sonce Nov. 22, 1963.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

255. Jesse Ventura was on Piers Morgan's show.

Piers was pearl-clutching the whole time. Jesse said, "Our government lies to us all the time." Then Jesse said "You know how I know Oswald didn't kill Kennedy?"

How? Jesse says, "Because I was an expert marksman in the Navy, and Oswald supposedly got 3 shots off in 6 seconds, on a piece of crap bolt action Mannlicher-Carcano, and it took me 9 seconds to get off 3 shots on a piece of crap bolt action Mannlicher-Carcano."

Piers was turning purple and swooning the whole time. Then it got worse. Piers got mad and called Jesse a coward. Jesse said, "Young Man, I've done things that would make your hair stand on end." GLARE OF DEATH

Piers is a real douchebag.
Imported, no less.
Apparently they don't like him in Britain, either.

Jesse's point is that we should ask questions about assassinations and unexplained happenings. some people try to shut him up just for asking questions.

[cpwm17]

309. Apparently Jesse Ventura's not that good of a shot

I've seen it demonstrated with no problem on the same type of rifle.

I haven't seen the show so I can't really commit too much on what he said. It's an obvious fact that government officials lie. That fact in no way proves any conspiracies.

[Octafish]

388. Thank you for the heads-up, Manifestor_of_Light.

While I don't always agree or support his POV, Jesse Ventura calls 'em as he sees 'em.

Regarding the assassination of President Kennedy, we both agree that the guilty parties have not been brought to justice. The first step in thst process is to get past the fiction stating the criminal has been apprehended.

An excellent resource:

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

PS: Piers must have absolutely withered under the GLARE OF DEATH.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

404. What we used to call Staring Daggers.

Now called The Stink-Eye.

[davidn3600]

261. LBJ?

Lots of people thought he was involved. Even Jackie suspected him.

[img][/img]

[img][/img]

[zappaman]

294. Yeas and paul Krassner revealed what really happened that day on the plane!

"During that tense flight from Dallas to Washington after the assassination, Jackie
inadvertently walked in on Johnson as he was standing over the casket of his
predecessor and chuckling…

"Of course, President Johnson is often given to inappropriate response—witness the
puzzled timing of his smiles when he speaks of grave matters—but we must
also assume that Mrs. Kennedy had been traumatized that day and her perception
was likely to have been colored by the tragedy. This state of shock must have
underlain an incident on Air Force One which this writer conceives to be delirium,
but which Mrs. Kennedy insists she actually saw.

"‘I’m telling you this for the historical record,’ she said, ‘so that people
a hundred years from now will know what I had to go through… That man was
crouching over the corpse, no longer chuckling but breathing hard and moving
his body rhythmically. At first I thought he must be performing some mysterious
symbolic rite he’d learned from Mexicans or Indians as a boy. And then
I realized—there is only one way to say this—he was literally fucking
my husband in the throat. In the bullet wound in the front of his throat. He
reached a climax and dismounted. I froze. The next thing I remember, he was
being sworn in as the new president.’

http://nypress.com/how-the-realist-popped-americas-cherry/

[craigmatic]

304. Thanks for the comment at first I thought that was for real but after reading the article,

I wish they still published that magazine. Good stuff.

[laundry_queen]

316. Funny you should mention that

that was my grandfather's conclusion as soon as he heard the news. My dad and I were just talking about it the other day. My grandfather, who passed a couple years ago at age 97, was a political junkie (now we know where I get it from, LOL) and remarked to my father when they heard the news that, "That POS Johnson did this, I have NEVER trusted that guy." My dad confirms that my grandfather always hated LBJ, and predicted that he would 'do something' one day. I personally lean more towards GHWB being involved somehow.

One thing in this thread I find fascinating is how many people are reticent to question their government's narrative. I don't know of any one in my family, on both sides, some Liberals (big L) some conservatives (big and small C) and some NDP ('soshalist', lol) - all of us here in Canada - that doesn't believe that the whole thing is rotten to the core. It seems Americans are in a bit of denial about how corrupt their government looks to the rest of the world, and also seem to be worried about questioning their own government. I don't get that. Deep down I think Americans live in fear of their own government. mho.

[JustAnotherGen]

271. I wasn't born then

But I want to know -

"We do things in America that they want you to believe only other countries do to other countries and our own"

- Captain Thomas Ragland, US Army, First class of Green Berets

He used to play War Games in Cambodia, Central America, South America, spoke 12 languages . . . But everyone wants to believe he only did battle in tanks in Vietnam and Korea.

So I want to know. The case isn't closed to me. Che Guevara makes me question.

[KoKo]

278. Recommend....thanks!

[Mc Mike]

283. +1. Thanks, Oct, MMM, and s 1 (and some others.)

I miss D & P.

The post-er who keeps insisting that people stop posting, and go obtain and read the 8 zillion volume Warren Report, is a hoot. Typical tactic from people who want to push the boulder down-hill, discussion wise. Demand that people you oppose go perform some 'Hercules cleans out the Augean stables' task. 'Jump through these hoops for me, then come back and post.' Demand that people justify themselves to you, by doing what you tell them, because you're the authority they have to satisfy. Natter away endlessly, don't just post one rebuttal and leave, because you're sure you're 'right'. It's a crusade for 'truth' for you.

The composition of the Warren Commission was a joke. Warren had been threatened with impeachment by the right wing before the Commission, and was in tears when he was forced to helm the commission. The disgraced and forced-out Dulles, smiling for all the photo-ops of the Warren Commission. McCloy helping get the Malmedy Massacre S.S. war criminals' charges dismissed, after his stellar war-time efforts pushing back against Churchill's advice to bomb Auschwitz-Birkenau. The far-right Ford image-spun into a bumbling, affable guy. Hale Boggs' airplane accident. A study of Oswald's pubic hair, and his boy hood dental records.

I'll be back in a month to post, 'stop'bush, as soon as I get on that little task you ordered us to complete.

Exhibits a tenuous grasp of reality for somebody who prizes their clear headed, realistic judgement and thinking.

[billh58]

288. So please tell us --

who killed JFK? Until you can answer that question, all you have is speculation, conjecture, and stones to throw at the Secret Service, the Warren Commission, the CIA, the Dallas Police Force, the FBI, Lyndon Johnson, and other unnamed, grassy knoll "co-conspirators."

There very well may have been a plot to assassinate JFK, and I remember thinking so at the time. I remember exactly where I was, what I was doing, and the intense pain that I felt when I first heard the news of the assassination. Was the Warren Commission "a joke?" I don't think so, even if they didn't dot every "i" or cross every "t." They gave closure to a nation which sorely needed it, and helped heal some very deep wounds for many of us.

That a small percentage of people feel the need to continue to speculate about a shadowy group of conspirators who planned and carried out the assassinations of JFK, his brother, and MLK is understandable. For myself, I decided to accept the fact that my president had been assassinated by a lone gunman whose gun was found at the crime scene, and who had motive and opportunity. I believe that Occam's Razor applies in this matter in the absence of any concrete and sustainable proof to the contrary.

I also believe that a cottage industry has arisen built on the JFK assassination, and that the profit motive for prolonging most unproven (and unprovable) conspiracy theories is self-evident.

[OldDem2012]

325. So, you're yet another poster trying to tell everyone who has questions about the.....

....JFK assassination to shut up because you believe the official fiction and don't want to discuss anything else?

Does that just about cover it?

[billh58]

335. No, not at all.

All I ask for is something other than speculation and conjecture so that I may make an educated decision on whether, or not, JFK was assassinated as the result of a conspiracy.

I have never told anyone on DU to "shut up," and I never will. I WILL, however, express my opinions and attempt as much as possible to base them on known facts, logic, and common sense. I have not been combative in any of my posts on this thread, but I certainly see a lot of posts by a few aggressive, combative JFK CT believers in response to those who disagree with them.

Chill...

[OldDem2012]

353. LOL....what crap. nt.

[billh58]

356. Wow! That says

so much about both of us. Thanks for the reasoned and mature response...

[Mc Mike]

408. My first impression, too, OD, but I 'bit' anyhow. Thanks. nt.

[Mc Mike]

393. James Stewart Martin's book 'All Honorable Men'

lists the powerful families and groups that have owned and run this country, since the second half of the 19th century. All of them didn't have their employees do it, but consensus among them after the fact covered for the ones who did.

I'm pretty sure I'm not out of line in 'throwing stones' at the S.S. and Dallas P.D., in light of their performance of their duties. I don't begrudge you your feeling that the W.C. gave you closure and healed some pain for you, but your belief in it doesn't comfort others who don't believe in it.

I never said or believed Johnson had anything to do with the assassination, that's a red-herring.

History is written by the winners, so if a powerful group killed the president and covered it up, they were above the president in power structure terms, and they were in charge after '63. Therefore, continued speculation about the shadowy group is actually active opposition to the younger inheritors of the power those people gained from the crime, (or exhibited by the crime).

Given the absence of any proof of solicitation of funds from the several active engaged post-ers here who don't buy the official story, I think Occam's Razor applies that they aren't part of a cottage industry engaged in profit-motivated activities.

[coalition_unwilling]

293. I think it is dirty pool for you to attack stopbush's bona fides. He didn't order

anyone to read the WCR, as far as I know, but his passion and attention to detail have inspired me to start reading it now. It seems pretty common sense to ask that, if you are gong to attack or criticize the WCR, that you read it beforehand. But maybe I'm still feeling the effects of Thanksgiving Day imbibing and over-indulging.

Not sure I follow your point about McCloy, Malmedy and Auschwitz, as it pertains to the JFK assassination. Could you elaborate?

I share your misgivings about Dulles' role in the Commission. If you could have empaneled a Commission, whom would you have selected to staff and run it?

[Octafish]

306. Critical connections generally missed regarding Warren Commission...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5572427&mesg_id=5572427

[OldDem2012]

322. The WCR is a massive work of fiction. Try reading the documentation on which it is....

....supposedly based.

[sabrina 1]

323. I think the anger at Stopbush is because he has gone through this

thread attacking anyone who merely has an interest in questioning some of the evidence, some who never saw it before. His attitude towards anyone not accepting his view of the evidence has been to attack them, call them CTs and in my case claim I was lying about having read the WCR and being 'willing to bet on it'.

I have already stated to him that he has clearly studied this historical event and it is too bad that rather than being willing to share the info he has, he has taken the attitude of attacking and attempting to discredit anyone who even dares to ask a question. That is the reason he is getting the reaction he is getting.

I eg, am no CT. Nor have I spent a huge amount of time reading about the Assassination. But when the subject comes up, I see things that raise questions for me. I have been called a CT and even had an implication that I am a 'birther' in this thread, simply for being willing to discuss the topic.

It's too bad to have had this attitude in the thread as most people who have commented have been very rational and thoughtful only to be attacked and labeled as CTs with efforts to shut down the conversation.

Like you, the more I see this opposition to any honest questions, the more I think it's time for me too to start studying it more. It was after all, a tragedy that changed the course of this country's history.

Sorry to go on, but just wanted to explain the reaction you may be seeing to Stopbush. I hope he will calm down and share his info and be willing to acknowledge info from other people, rather than lash out at them as he has been doing.

[rhett o rick]

327. Once again Sabrina, you put it very well. One would expect that "politically liberal people" wouldnt

try to ridicule posters to shut down discussions.

[coalition_unwilling]

341. Maybe my skin is thicker than I give myself credit for, but I don't feel like he was attacking me

when I posed, for example, the question about Oswald calling himself a 'patsy'. He gave an alternate interpretation of it, for sure, but it was offered calmly and without vituperation. I don't think he has convinced me exactly, but he has given me more to consider.

What would be really cool, imo, would be to turn the enormous intellect and knowledge and skill of DU onto a point-by-point examination of all issues related to the assassination, sort of a Point-CounterPoint debate. Don't know how we'd go about arranging this or even if there is sufficient interest.

But I agree with your larger point that active citizens who take their lives in the republic seriously are honor-bound to ask questions. When citizens fail to ask questions (and demand answers), travesties like Vietnam and Iraq are the inevitable result. Rather than being made the object of scorn for asking questions, those who ask questions should be lauded from the rooftops.

Along those lines, I have been trying to think of some good questions to pose to stopbush to cause him to question or rethink some of his premises. One that comes to mind is, "What evidence would you need to see to conclude that JFK's assassination was the result of a conspiracy?" Alternatively, "What portion(s) of the WCR would need to be discredited before you lost faith in the WCR in its entirety?" I think stopbush's answers to those questions (and questions like those) would help move the conversation forward.

[sabrina 1]

345. Well I wasn't complaining, lol, I've certainly been attacked by

every form of Right Wing moron with every kind of description of what I am, for several years.

And you are correct, he did not attack you. I have posed a few questions to him above, eg, regarding Oswald's supposed marksmanship skills which while he was in the military, four years prior to the assassination, were pretty dismal.

I'm not sure why he attacked me frankly but I too am hoping that with all the knowledge he has, he can calm down and share that information and be willing to acknowledge that two people can look at a piece of evidence and see it differently. That doesn't mean they are 'birthers' or 'cts'.

I like your idea, DU used to do that kind of thing and it was so interesting and educational. Maybe now Stopbush would be willing to contribute to such a project.

The fact is people will be talking about this historical event long after all of us are gone. We still talk about the Lincoln assassination.

People need to understand they cannot shut down conversation on such an incredibly important historical event no matter how much they would like to. I'm all for rational discussion, but will not tolerate being labeled in an effort to discredit me rather than prove me wrong if you can. That is what Stopbush got in trouble for.

[Mc Mike]

402. I was reading through the rather longish thread again, c_u.

Last edited Sat Nov 24, 2012, 04:38 PM - Edit history (1)

Posts 84, 188, 263, 97, 121, 100, 102, 107 are the 8 (so far) where reading the W.C. is the price of the admission ticket to be able to treat with 'stop' on any matters related to this issue. A bonus of post 193, 375 by stop and 313 and 119 by zap are admonishments to read up on Ruby by perusing certain specified sources.

I can't apologize to you for what appears to be 'dirty pool' on my part, because I don't believe I was playing dirty to point out what I regard as dirty pool on their part.

I think before anyone has to read the Warren Commission report, they can adjudge who put it together and how it was put together, and who was in it, and how they proceeded. None of the people who I judged to be good post-ers are lacking in work ethic or due diligence, in the sources they've located and studied, whether they read the report or not.

My point about McCloy speaks to my opinion about the people behind the assassination, far-right elements in the U.S. power structure. There was tons of legit source speculation at the time that it was far-right elements who were behind the assassination. I'd quote Time magazine for 12/6/63 (Vol.82 - No. 23) and Newsweek magazine 12/9/63 on that point. See, there is no Warren report yet, and America wants to know what happened. Mainstream sources are 'explaining' it to us, so even if their trustworthiness is questionable, getting their first 'trial balloon' - floated 'take' on the subject is informative. The mags pointed out that India's Pro-American Swatantra Party leader officialy stated that it looked like a big money conspiracy behind the plot. France's Le Monde, and France- Observateur said that the police were involved in the plot, with editorial cartoon charges that the KKK was involved. Israeli press depicted Kennedy as engaged in a duel with Khrushchev, with a knife stuck into his back from his own side. The UK's Dennis Brogan, Nigeria's 'Zik', all kinds of international sources weighing in to say this isn't just one man's work. Time's concise description of the entire world-wide progressive left view was that it was 'a carefully conceived 'rightist' plot, tied up with the KKK and John Birch Society.' Oswald was 'a tool of the rightists, and Jack Ruby had shot Oswald, with police connivance, to silence him.' Time attributed this theory to 'Communists everywhere', but a ton of other nations and Democrats (like me) also see the prime suspect as the far-right, so that is Time's attempt to smear people with that view as communists, a tactic the repugs continue TO this DAY, on ANY given issue.


The ultra-right Bircher Hunt family from Dallas, the Klan and Minutemen, actual nazis who were in our intel and Nat'l security apparatus via Project Overdark (later Paperclip), ultra-right Cubans, ultra-right mobsters, ultra-right oil and banking interests. Those are violent, powerful, criminal, obvious subjects. They've been shown to overlap numerous times, in terms of interests and actions. So who is on the Warren Commission? Republican Chief Justice Earl Warren (Newsweek on 12/9/63, p. 34 reported that DC security was stepped up as 'threats to officials - especially Chief Justice Earl Warren - multiplied'. Warren, the guy whose failed efforts to oppose his appointment resulted in him weeping, who had been the subject of a far-right campaign to 'Impeach Earl Warren'), far-right repug congressman Gerald Ford, repug CIA man and nazi money launderer Allen Dulles (recently forced out by Kennedy, along with Dallas mayor Cabell's brother), southern repug Senator Cooper from KY, two reluctant southern Dems (GA Sen Russell, and LA Rep Hale Boggs - who had a little airplane trouble later, Cokie's dad), and John McCloy.

McCloy can easily be researched on-line with a few words in a search engine. I have an article from 'The New Republic', 5/11/92, pp. 40 - 45, by Georgetown U. Professor Jacob Heilbrunn. He was reviewing two books on McCloy, one by excellent writer / author Kai Bird. and one by Thomas A Schwartz. It is chock full of McCloy's far-right fascist and repug moves and connections, and his shady legal dealings and connections to big oil and banking. I can't transmit it to you, so if you can't get it yourself, here's a couple of on-line search links:

McCloy Malmedy:
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AiaFzJ2zFOiZjzrPd3zSmO6bvZx4?p=McCloy+Malmedy&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-701
McCloy Auschwitz:
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oG7mRC.7BQqh0AgcpXNyoA?p=McCloy%20Auschwitz&fr2=sb-top&fr=yfp-t-701

Do nothing to oppose the nazis, do everything to protect the nazis, that about sums up McCloy's WWII era efforts.

I'll throw this one in, too:

Impeach Earl Warren:
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oG7mRC.7BQqh0AgcpXNyoA;_ylc=X1MDMjc2NjY3OQRfcgMyBGFvA2FvBGNzcmNwdmlkA1gzbXMzVW9HN3Y0WG1PMVlPY3BoUXhIMGJDQU1KRkN3LjBzQUN3THkEZnIDeWZwLXQtNzAxBGZyMgNzYnRuBG5fZ3BzAzMEb3JpZ2luA3NycARwcXN0cgNJbXBlYWNoIEVhcmwgV2FycmVuBHF1ZXJ5A0ltcGVhY2ggRWFybCBXYXJyZW4Ec2FvAzE-?p=Impeach%20Earl%20Warren&fr2=sb-top&fr=yfp-t-701&pqstr=Impeach%20Earl%20Warren

So to sum up, the compostion of the Warren Commission is very interesting, but not interesting in a way that prompts me to study their umpteen volume zillion page report. I've sure read a ton of stuff about it, and stuff that refers to it. I just took a little short cut by finding out who produced it, before spending multitudinous hours studying it. If I studied other sources and my prime suspects are the top of the repug power structure, I don't see why I should perform the suggested task. The membership list is not a confidence builder. Especially when the repug presidents Reagan and l'il bush, the heroes of the repug party, and romney the also-ran, wouldn't even read 2 page or 4 page bullet pointed summaries on the most important national security issues. Proudly lazy, and the adherents of the party who is my prime suspect just love them.

Your request that I empanel a Commission is academic, but how about people who aren't right-wing, people who aren't repugs, people who aren't Southern conservatives, people who aren't nazis, people who aren't intel, oil, banking connected, people who haven't been threatened and coerced and leaned on. That would make the panel composed of Northerners, Easterners, Westerners, Democrats, progressives, anti-nazis, people who investigated criminal moves by intel oil and big banking, I'd even take Long, Rayburn, Albert from the Southern Dems. How about people who aren't coerced, threatened, and leaned on? That description sounds like the good DU ers to me, and also sounds like many of the journalistic sources used by those good DUers.

[coalition_unwilling]

412. Many thanks for the links on McCloy and Warren. I hope to review them shortly. I took a look

at the first stopbush post you reference (#84) and reproduce it below (lightly edited for formatting purposes):

84. And I know a CTist when I see one.

You throw out terms like "research" when you're actually talking about fantasy.

BTW - be honest: have you ever read the Warren Commission Report? And can you answer that simple question without going off on a rant about the WCR being a pack of lies, etc, etc, etc. I'm asking, have you actually read the thing? Yes or no?

Now I'll grant you that the tone of said post tends a bit toward the hostile (or perhaps exasperated). But I do not think it quite meets the threshold of ordering anyone to do anything, much less constituting a ticket to discuss matters with Stop.

I suppose you and I shall have to agree to disagree over whether one should read a text before criticizing it, pedigrees of its authors notwithstanding. From what I understand (and my understanding at this point is very provisional, allow me to be upfront), much of the grist of the WCR was accomplished by staff members and not the marquee names you so rightly indict. I have a hard time envisioning goombahs like Dulles or McCloy penning a single word of the report but that may be my journeyman English major prejudice speaking.

My point about the Commission you would like to see empaneled was indeed academic, save that I proposed upthread to Sabrina1 that DU empanel some sort of Point-Counterpoint affair to turn our prodigious intellects and knowledge to the affair. A pipe dream, I realize, and so this thread may be the closest we ever get to it.

[Mc Mike]

426. Octa's post 400, just past post 28, has

a link to analysis of (some of) the WC's 'inadvertent' failings. It's worth reading.

The last post of the 8 I listed is post 107, titled 'and how much of the Warren Commission report have YOU read?' You don't have to wade through the 8 I noted and re-read them, and it's a free country, so people can interpret things in any way they feel is right. But I know how I feel and interpret stop's constant refrain, and the tone of it.

I don't demand that you don't read the Report, but just on one of the points in Oct's post 400 link, you can see how there might be a problem. The Commission transposed two frames of the film of Kennedy getting shot in the head. The result was that the head appeared to snap forward. They were caught and called on it, so they said it was just a transcription 'error'. Yet 'stop' the report advocate is up thread explaining that the high velocity rear shot's effect causes the head to snap backward.

So the Commission tried to show that the head was back and snapped forward. The error was caught. Then Commission advocates say that a forward leaning head will snap backward when shot from the rear, due to 'physics'. So by accidentally transposing the two frames, they made it look like any reasonable lay person would suspect, that a head shot from the rear by a high velocity round will snap forward. Which contradicts the 'science' or 'physics' of Warren Commission advocates. It's lucky detractors caught the transcription error, so 'strict reality based' people like 'stop' wouldn't come away in a quandry, inadvertently believing that Kennedy was shot from the front, because the Warren Commission showed his back-leaning head snap to the front. Har Har.

The top members of the Commission each had staffers to do the leg work, but each staffer only had part of the picture and task. The members controlled who they hired -- people who were known and loyal to them. And only the top people had all the clearances and the overall picture. Who put the words together into coherent English doesn't matter, the key findings matter. In this case, in my opinion, the composition of personnel on the panel would be like hiring Carlo Gambino, Joe Bonanno, Vito Genovese, Lucchese, and Colombo-Profaci to investigate who is behind the sale of narcotics in the greater NY area. Even if they got a great word smith reporter or poet laureate to punch up their report stylistically, I'm pretty sure I could guess who wouldn't be to blame, in the report's conclusions.

Your point-counterpoint idea would be nice, but could find itself de-railed by one person saying the same thing, over and over again.

[Octafish]

440. Dan Rather also ''mistakenly'' reported the head snapping forward.

Dan Rather Blinked

by Penn Jones, Jr
Continuing Inquiry

The greatest criminal in this nation, we think, is a dishonest newsman. Newsmen have been given the highest gift a nation can give a group: a right. Newsmen have been given this right of freedom of the press and freedom of speech in the expectation they would report the truth as honestly as humanly possible. Ordinary criminals kill individuals, but dishonest newsmen are involved in killing a nation--in this case, this democracy. Which brings us to native Texan Dan Rather, a longtime Houstonian, and his new book, The Camera Never Blinks.

SNIP...

But the biggest distortion is what he said he saw when he was one of the few persons in the world privileged to see the Abraham Zapruder film that Saturday morning, November 23. In his narration of the film as part of CBS nationwide television coverage, Rather said the President's head "went forward with considerable violence." This narration confirmed the so-called "Oswald position" for the nation, but he said nothing about the violent backward motion of the President's head which would have strongly suggested a second gunman at that early date. Rather does take care to tell us again that he took no notes.

SNIP...

His book says this about the incident: "At the risk of sounding too defensive, I challenge anyone to watch for the first time a twenty-two second film of devastating impact, run several blocks, then describe what they had seen in its entirety, without notes. Perhaps someone can do it better than I did that day. I only know that I did it as well and as honestly as I could under the conditions.

"But here is where the case gets tricky. Years later, a group of assassination buffs took an audio tape of my description of what I saw in the office of Zapruder's lawyer and laid it over the film as a narration. So the impression was given that Dan Rather was part of a conspiracy. Either that or he was a Communist dupe, or something, how else could he have seen the film, etc. etc."

CONTINUED...

SOURCE: http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/05th_Issue/rather.html

[Mc Mike]

475. Thanks for the PJ link.

I was going to say that I had a fuzzy memory that Rather made his bones in 'covering' the JFK assassination, but the link is a lot better than my memory.

I remember the important work Bob Schieffer did that day, finding and giving Marg Oswald a ride to the police station. Such a wonderful humanitarian.

I never believed Johnson had involvement, and still don't. People above Johnson, maybe, like people above Nixon and Poppy bush. The difference is that Nixon and bush wanted it done, bush actively participated. (I've seen a lot of your BFEE stuff, so not like I'm trying to tell you anything.)

[AnotherMcIntosh]

315. Agreed. And, of course, there's no need to name the "post-er who keeps insisting that people stop

posting, and go obtain and read the 8 zillion volume Warren Report."

If he's "a hoot," it is because he makes himself so.

[Mc Mike]

407. To protect the 'innocent', I could type it in without vowels, but too fatigued. Nt.

[MrMickeysMom]

455. I agree about the demand of satisfying the only reference we should read...

In fact, I think the Warren Report is good in that HERE is a documented account in 26 volumes that leaves so many contradictions to the examiner, that to shoot holes through those contradictions is the easy part.

The HARD part is not to say "Oswald didn't shoot Kennedy", because that is not possible. The HARD part is to ask, "Why was Kennedy assassinated?"

This is where it's disheartening to hear people post, "Can't we move on?", or "Why can't you 'CTers' stop it?" To address the "why" is the task of all the many good researchers. I admire the work.

You don't need to address turkeys who are little more than distracters, but if you DO get through all 26 volumes, I have 50 questions for you!

[Mc Mike]

480. Hi, MMM.

As I said, I like your posts / angle on the issue, so I don't want to leave the mis-impression stand. I'm not obtaining and reading the WC report, even if 'stop' really really wants me to prove my worthiness on the issue by doing that. I never use the sarcasm icon, so sometimes the atonality of the typed word makes my statements come off wrong or unclear.

I think the country was always governed by consensus among power class ruling elite, who put together a coalition or team to get 'in charge' of the top democratically elected position. We're pretty much always two party, so high-level servant class members of the big financial / power groups angle to field a winning team for one of two parties.

Kennedy didn't make a mistake in assessing the power structure, he pushed to make it different. He pissed off enough members of the power structure to allow a consensus to be built that killed him. All the power groups weren't in on the consensus, but they had a hand in covering it up. That bumped president down a notch on the gov power structure chain of command, but I don't fault subsequent Dem prez's for taking office and doing what they can.

Kennedy died a couple of years before I was born, so all my thinking on him is based on after the fact study. He struck me as a very wealthy servant-class member who tried to back all the things that are good which the Dem party stands for. Reign in the war machine, big steel, big oil, reckless speculators (Hunt family attempt to corner the world silver market comes to mind). Hip and different from the old '50's militarism, not a beatnik but suave and international like Peter Sellers. Didn't understand the poor, but tried to figure them out and make things better for them (which is what his super wealthy brother Ted did in the Senate for decades, service to the nation.) Joe and Jack had to visit MLK's dad to get support from him for the '60 run, because Catholics were more 'beyond the pale' than old line black Protestants, but Kennedy didn't like the repug Catholic bishops. Not on the forefront of Civil rights, but did what he could federally to promote them. Backed labor. Actually liked women, not like the scurrilous scandals the repugs are always floating about his 'womanizing'. Fought geopolitically against the communists, but wanted a detente that would mean progress for humanity and the world. Looked for some way there could be a bigger aim for humanity, though you could construe the tax dollars for NASA as a pay-off to those corporations, the money wasn't going into bombs and armaments, and the aim wasn't war. Promoted Rachel Carson's environmentalism. Attacked the most virulent right wing parts of organized crime (Thus the hatred from Chicago, Marcello, some FL elements), though he didn't target the whole shebang; his dad had been a rum-runner. (I loved reading about how the brothers dropped Marcello off in Guatemala, ('Says he's not from there.'), funny as hell.) Peace Corp. Camelot.

Of course, those efforts attracted a great deal of negative attention from right-wing 1%ers. The right-wing, pro-nazi, anti-minority, anti-women, anti-labor, pro-war, anti-environment, pro-corporate, anti-regulation, pro-hate crowd's interests. The servants of those people are the repugs. Looking at today's repug party, it's so easy to see the exact same 'bent' and consensus that was able to get Kennedy murdered.

When the fascist French OAS generals tried to kill De Gaulle several times, he traced the money and co-ordination for the attempts back to the U.S. Kennedy asked De Gaulle after the last attempt if there was anything he could do. De Gaulle responded acidly 'No, there's nothing you can do.' He didn't blame Kennedy, was just stating the fact. After Kennedy got killed, De Gaulle commissioned a SDECE member named Herve Lamarr to investigate the murder, and Lamarr penned 'Farewell America', under the name James Hepburn. The book fingered the far-right Dallas oil bircher Hunt family for key involvement, and the fact that De Gaulle had the made showed that he bore no ill will toward Kennedy.

With the caveat that I'm not obtaining the WC, I'd like to see some of your questions. The thread is brick thick at this point, so you could always DU mail them to me, but I wouldn't mind offering my un-WC-'educated' opinion on them here.

[Cetacea]

286. Kicking

Thanks, Octafish.

[craigmatic]

300. We'll never know. The lone gunman theory is just as likely as any other when you look at other

presidential assasinations. McKinley was killed by a lone gunman, Lincoln (although that was a conspiracy), and Garfield too. Why does Kennedy have to have a conspiracy attached to his? The truth is that JFK pissed off alot of people- Cubans, exile Cubans, the mob, former CIA director Dullies, the military, Curtis LeMay, the FBI, and Hoover.

[FogerRox]

365. Maple trees in front of the Book Depository Building

means Oswald never clearly saw the car let alone JFK.

[rhett o rick]

303. I am surprised that someone hasnt whinned to have this thread censored.

Be a shame to lock this thread. Look at the great discussions. And isnt that what we are here for?

[1444tx]

326. Back, and to the LEFT

Ya know;

I'm not a scholar, I'm not 60 years old to have BEEN THERE to know what was felt on that day our country was hi-jacked by the military machine (as many, many "war profiteers" benefited from Johns Murder, but DUH) and I won't come back to reply when that person with their cute little "turkey" avatar tries to "shoot me down" (no pun intended). I do realize my reply might get "hidden by jury decision" and because I AM a "member" here and know how sensitive the so called "progressives" are I have chosen to use a different and anonymous acct for this topic.

All one has to do is watch the Zapruder film when the FINAL shot hits poor John and you can CLEARLY see what path the bullet came from. You can act as informed as you want, but VIDEO evidence DOES NOT LIE. If you take a watermelon, place it onto a STAND and shoot it from 89 yards away (or lets just say 100 yds) do you HONESTLY think the chunk of watermelon being pummeled by a bullet will come TOWARDS you? Or will that "chunk" go the path of the BULLET and create an explosion on point of entry?
I'm serious here. Just like WTC 7, the video evidence IS THERE (of a controlled demo) but instead of ACCEPTING that those who BENEFITED from the murder of JFK also benefited from the FOREKNOWLEDGE of 9/11 most try to explain away common sense.
Then you wonder why the politicos have your jobs outsourced, your society degrading and selling you lies as reality....


WAKE UP

[rhett o rick]

329. We all have our set levels of reality that we accept (our reality bubbles) .

Most of us dont believe in UFO's and are skeptical when someone presents evidence to the contrary. Some are more willing to listen than others. Some like to venture our of their reality bubble and look around. Others call them crazy and fight like hell when someone tries to tell them that something might exist outside their bubble.

We shouldnt try to force people outside their bubbles but it is certainly fair to chastise them for trying to interfere with those that do want to venture out.

[1444tx]

331. I agree, Rick

And my reply wasn't directed at you (per sey) just a reply in general. The fact that ANYONE would and DID get enough cajones AND resources together (whether a single rifle OR a "hit team&quot to assassinate a president by definition of itself IS a "conspiracy" so the "anti conspiracy" conspiracy supporters are inadvertently selling a conspiracy themselves.

A little confusing, yes. Watching a video and deciding what the truth is? Not so much.
God Bless all who have an open mind.

[rhett o rick]

361. I understood and agree. Anti-conspiracy people have no leg to stand on.

I am sure that everything isnt a conspiracy but most things in politics are. Conspiracies are not all bad. They are a fact of life.

When some so strongly deny that a conspiracy exists they expose themselves as being closed minded. When you dont know all the facts, you cannot decide one way or the other. But they claim that because they dont know any facts showing a conspiracy then it couldnt have happened. Their logic fails. I am not saying that one needs to embrace every conspiracy theory but one should try to keep an open mind.

[billh58]

370. I believe that you have

at least partially identified the disconnect on this thread. Your use of the term "anti conspiracy people" is not totally accurate, at least in my case, and I suspect for others who disagree as well. The use of this phrase also assumes that there are "pro conspiracy people."

I don't discard the idea that a conspiracy may exist, and recognize that those who interpret certain pieces of information as supporting the possibility of a conspiracy, may well be correct. These "pieces of information," however, are at best speculation and are widely varied according to the source one chooses.

The fact that I, and others, choose not to rely on supposition and speculation and base our opinions on the available and very reasonable "one shooter" evidence presents a difference of opinion only, and not "anti" anything.

For those from both sides who have escalated this discussion to a level of pure vitriol, please at least listen to those who disagree. The fact is, that neither position can be completely substantiated. At least we can agree that a good man was taken much too soon, and hatred was a key factor in the assassination.

This concludes my sermon, and someone will be coming down the aisles to pass the plate...

[hrmjustin]

344. Welcome to DU!

[MrMickeysMom]

453. Welcome (I know you're already "here") to DU... (Warning, graphic)

The fact that so many so called, "progressives" have not woken up by this time, when we are at the foothills of the 50th anniversary just shows the sincerity of who is posting here.

For those who refuse to look with warning... Back, and to the left...
<a href="http://s217.beta.photobucket.com/user/MrMickeysMom/library/" target="_blank"><img src="" border="0" alt="Back"/></a>
<a href="http://s217.beta.photobucket.com/user/MrMickeysMom/library/" target="_blank"><img src="" border="0" alt="And"/></a>
<a href="http://s217.beta.photobucket.com/user/MrMickeysMom/library/" target="_blank"><img src="" border="0" alt="To"/></a>
<a href="http://s217.beta.photobucket.com/user/MrMickeysMom/library/" target="_blank"><img src="" border="0" alt="The"/></a>
<a href="http://s217.beta.photobucket.com/user/MrMickeysMom/library/" target="_blank"><img src="" border="0" alt="Left"/></a>

[Judi Lynn]

423. Thank you for sharing results of your hard work on this. We all have benefited so greatly. n/t

[Octafish]

495. You are most welcome, Judi Lynn!

Thank you for your kind words. Coming from you, someone who has long contributed important information to what DUers know, it means the world to me.

It's hard to believe the assassination of President Kennedy happened almost half a century ago. Most of the people on the planet -- and most Americans -- weren't born then, so it's understandable if the life of one president could make that big a difference. Those of us who do remember what it was like, know the nation was a different place. More importantly, the nation was moving in a new and different direction, to become a better nation for ALL Americans. Looking back, it is easy to see what we have become instead.

PS: Two important names to GOOGLE for information about events from 1963:

Abraham Bolden, the first African America to serve on the Presidential Secret Service detail. After seeing the bigoted and lackadaisical nature of the White House detail's leadership, he returned to Chicago. After Dallas, he reported his concerns to the Warren Commission and was immediately framed and railroaded on false charges.

Don Adams, an FBI agent who interviewed Joseph Adams Milteer, the reactionary tape-recorded by an informant outlining an assassination attempt on JFK with high-powered rifles fired from high-rise buildings in Miami days before Dallas.

Both men are still alive. And they are still loyal to their country, as evinced by their work to tell the truth.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

437. The President of the United States had his head blown apart in public

Did you get that, stopbush and other "adults"? President assassinated in front of thousands. And yet you act as though anyone wondering who had Kennedy killed is nothing but a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist. For those who are not able to process this event as something carried out by conspiracy by someone who wanted the President dead, well, maybe you need to do some more growing up before addressing this thread. What you don't get to do is take the moral high ground and pretend the rest of us are crazed conspiracy theorists, not when your own thinking is so obviously flawed.

[billh58]

457. I'm having just a little trouble

connecting the fact that JFK was assassinated "in front of thousands," and "this event as something carried out by conspiracy by someone who wanted the President dead."

What does the size of the audience have to do with the assassination automatically being the result of a conspiracy? There may very well a conspiracy to assassinate JFK which succeeded, but to date the facts placed in evidence lead to the conclusion that Oswald was the only shooter, and acted on his own.

At age 72, and having lived through the assassination of JFK, I believe that I am "grown up" enough to address this thread. I am not looking for the moral high ground, but I will not be browbeaten into agreeing with pure speculation and conjecture by those who supposedly know beyond a shadow of a doubt that a conspiracy is the only answer to be considered.

Show me some hard proof of a conspiracy, and I will agree with you in a heartbeat.

[AntiFascist]

468. By the same token...

even if Oswald was a lone gunman, why does this automatically rule out a conspiracy? Once we know the full background of Oswald a lot of questions should and will get asked.

[billh58]

469. Uh, I believe that I said as much

in the post that you replied to. There very well may have been a conspiracy, there is just no evidence or proof that substantiates that speculation at present. If further evidence is discovered which supports a conspiracy, then it will no longer be speculation or a theory.

[AntiFascist]

473. In fact, there is evidence...

BTW, Oprah Winfrey, who conveyed this information in interviews in 1996, is also a conspiracy theorist:


http://www.jfkresearch.com/marina/marina.htm

LAF (Mary Lafontaine) The Dallas City Council released these files. In these files, was the arrest record for John Elrod who actually was charged with, uh, investigation into the assassination himself. Oswald was actually only charged at the time for the murder of Officer Tippit, so here was Elrod and Oswald and another prisoner placed together because they were all suspects at the time. While they were in the cell, another man was brought in and Oswald identified that man and said that he had seen him in a motel room meeting where money and guns changed hands. We were able from other records to identify who that man was -- he is a known person, now deceased, who was involved with a gun-running operation with Jack Ruby. This is all from court records and official documents, that this actually happened.

...

OW (Oprah Winfrey) Was Oswald a double agent or something?

...

LAF He was an FBI informant who was infiltrating Cuban exile groups -- right wing subversive groups.

...

LAF It's significant because the teletype that Mr. Walters made a copy of back 33 years ago has disappeared from the FBI files. It contains information about a group that we know that Lee Harvey Oswald was infiltrating for the FBI and we believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was the informant gave the information about the teletype Mr. Walters received. He didn't know that. At the time he only knew he got a teletype. He also saw an informant file on Lee Harvey Oswald in the New Orleans FBI office. He gave this as sworn testimony to the HSCA many years ago. His testimony was only released recently and these important details are finally connecting the many pieces that we've gotten over the years in this case. It was very significant.

Marina Oswald originally testified before the Warren Commission that her husband must be guilty, based on the evidence that was presented to her. Now, she claims that she was naive at the time and, after examining further research strongly believes that her husband is innocent, and that the American peoiple need to know the truth.

[billh58]

482. Thanks for posting that information,

but until a law enforcement agency, or the Congress, acts on this and/or any other information floating around the Internet, it is not "evidence" -- it remains speculation and conjecture.

Once again, there may well have been a conspiracy, but "evidence" from the Oprah Winfrey show, or the myriad Internet sources is not really admissible evidence. The validity of this conspiracy theory will not be adjudicated on the Internet, but only in a court of law following chain-of-evidence procedures.

It seems very strange to me that with all of the supposed "evidence" that has been presented just in this thread alone, that no credible law enforcement agency has chosen to act on it. If the conspiracy is wide enough to include every law enforcement agency and governmental agency in existence in the USA, then we have much bigger problems than the JFK assassination.

[AntiFascist]

484. Even to this day...

the CIA has blocked the release of relevant records. No less of a CTer than Vincent Bugliosi has even signed a letter calling for this release:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2005/aug/11/blocked/?pagination=false

We insist the CIA observe the spirit of the 1992 JFK Assassination Records Act by immediately releasing all relevant records on the activities of George Joannides and any records at all that include his name or relate in any way to the assassination story—as prescribed by the JFK Records Act. The law and common sense require it.

G. Robert Blakey, former general counsel, House Select Committee on Assassinations


Jefferson Morley, journalist


Scott Armstrong, founder National Security Archive


Vincent Bugliosi, author and former prosecutor


Elias Demetracopoulos, retired journalist


Stephen Dorril, University of Huddersfield


Don DeLillo, author of Libra


Paul Hoch, JFK researcher


David Kaiser, Naval War College


Michael Kurtz, Southeastern Louisiana University, author of Crime of the Century


George Lardner, Jr., journalist


Jim Lesar, Assassination Archives and Research Center


Norman Mailer, author of Oswald’s Tale


John McAdams, moderator, alt.assassination.jfk


John Newman, author of Oswald and the CIA


Gerald Posner, author of Case Closed


Oliver Stone, director JFK


Anthony Summers, author of Not in Your Lifetime


Robbyn Swan, author


David Talbot, founding editor, Salon.com


Cyril Wecht, coroner, Allegheny County, PA


Richard Whalen, author of Founding Father


Gordon Winslow, former archivist of Dade County, Florida.


David Wrone, University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point, author The Zapruder Film

[cpwm17]

467. Where in this long thread is there any evidence presented that contradicts Oswald as the assassin?

You certainly didn't present any. Aren't liberals supposed to be the 'reality based community?'

A couple of posters that support the evidence that Oswald did the killing did present actual evidence. They are much loved in this thread.

[sabrina 1]

478. Maybe you could do us a favor here and

refrain from dragging that old daily kos phrase devised to attack Progressives on that site, over here. It was lame when they introduced it and it's even lamer now. We know the right leaning enforcers over there thought it was so brilliant, but it wasn't. It made them look silly. I'm talking about 'reality based community'. Makes anyone on the left familiar with its origin, cringe and doesn't do much for the credibility of anyone still using it.

And btw, there is plenty of evidence in this thread of a second shooter.

Have you read the House Select Committee's report from 1979 eg? Even the WC itself left open the possibility of a conspiracy. Looks like you didn't read the thread.

[cpwm17]

488. The conclusions from the House Select Committee's report from 1979 appear to be invalid

Their determinations concerning a second shooter aren't correct:

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

I don't read the Daily Kos. I didn't like the site the few times I visited. It's too right-winged for me.

[Octafish]

496. Excellent point: CIA sent their man from when Oswald was in New Orleans to help steer things right.

This helps explain why Jefferson Morley sued the government for its records on the assassination of President Kennedy -- records that had been ordered released, but, for some reason, are still being withheld:

Withheld in Full

EXCERPT...

Who was Howard?

First dismissed by the CIA as possibly a mere “routing indicator,” and after the Agency denied any affiliation with the DRE in 1963, “Howard” was revealed to be George Joannides, an experienced career CIA officer known at the time only as a liaison between the CIA and the House Select Committee on Assassinations during their late 1970s investigation into the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King.

Joannides kept his 1963 activities secret from the HSCA, in strict violation of the CIA’s agreement with the HSCA that no operational officer from the time of Kennedy’s murder would work with the HSCA.

Morley’s discovery provided proof that the CIA knowingly and willingly compromised the Committee’s investigation into the murders. This, prompted the HSCA’s Chief Counsel, G. Robert Blakey in 2003 to denounce his own committee’s findings about any CIA relation to Oswald, and remark that "I now no longer believe anything the Agency told the committee any further than I can obtain substantial corroboration for it from outside the Agency for its veracity."

CONTINUED...

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Episode_1_-_Morley_V._CIA

There is a lot to learn before we should move on.

[ProudProgressiveNow]

450. K&R nt

[MinM]

498. Updates as we approach the 50th anniversary of the JFK case

Lisa Pease endorses the Morley piece and has some other updates here...

http://realhistoryarchives.blogspot.com/2012/11/updates-as-we-approach-50th-anniversary.html

K & R

[MinM]

499. @johnsimkin: Was this man responsible for the assassination of JFK?

John Simkin @ The Education Forum tweeted a link to the following this morning...

David Morales second from left in Vietnam in around 1969.

...In 1953 he returned to the United States and after a spell at the University of Maryland he assumed cover as a State Department employee. Morales became involved in CIA's Black Operations. This involved a policy that was later to become known as Executive Action (a plan to remove unfriendly foreign leaders from power). This including a coup d'état that overthrew the Guatemalan government of Jacobo Arbenz in 1954 after he introduced land reforms and nationalized the United Fruit Company. After the removal of Arbenz he joined the staff of the US embassy in Caracas (1955-58). During this time he became known as the CIA's top assassin in Latin America.

Morales moved to Cuba in 1958 and helped to support the government of Fulgencio Batista. In 1960 Wayne S. Smith was a State Department officer in the American Embassy in Havana. Smith tells the story of being in a bar in Havana with Morales. After a heavy drinking session Morales began talking about the CIA’s secret operations that involved frog men operating out of Guantanamo Bay. Smith told Gaeton Fonzi (The Last Investigation) that Morales was very indiscrete when drunk. According to fellow CIA agent, Robert N. Wall: "He (Morales) was a rough-neck. He was a bully, a hard-drinker and big enough to get away with a lot of stuff other people couldn't get away with.”

In November, 1961, William Harvey arranged for Morales to be posted to JM/WAVE , the CIA station in Miami. Morales was operations chief for the CIA's covert operation to train and infiltrate teams into Cuba to destabilize the Castro government. Morales reported directly to veteran Agency covert operator Ted Shackley, who was the Agency’s Miami bureau chief. In May, 1962, Morales was seconded to ZR/RIFLE, the plot to assassinate Fidel Castro. During this period he worked closely with David Atlee Phillips, Tracy Barnes, William Pawley, Johnny Roselli and John Martino.

Some researchers such as Gaeton Fonzi, Larry Hancock, Noel Twyman, James Richards and John Simkin believe that Morales was involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. It has been suggested that others involved included Carl E. Jenkins, Rafael Quintero, William Pawley, Roy Hargraves, Edwin Collins, Steve Wilson, Herminio Diaz Garcia, Tony Cuesta, Eugenio Martinez, Virgilio Gonzalez, Felipe Vidal Santiago, Theodore Shackley, Grayston Lynch, Felix Rodriguez, Thomas Clines, Gordon Campbell, Tony Sforza and William (Rip) Robertson...

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

[Octafish]

500. Shackley and Poppy close at the Organization and in later business life after government service.

It makes a small world for the friends and associates of David Morales.

"We took care of that SOB."

From a blog:

(Pete Brewton,) author of the book The Mafia, CIA and George Bush, which is based on his investigations of powerful Texas businessmen, politicians, and their connections to the savings and loans scandals of the 1980s. Brewton also explores the relationship that George H. W. Bush had with Ted Shackley, Carl E. Jenkins, Paul Helliwell, Rafael 'Chi Chi' Quintero and Thomas G. Clines.

SOURCE with video interview of Brewton: http://starkravingviking.blogspot.com/2009/11/mafia-cia-and-george-bush.html

[MinM]

501. @johnsimkin: What role did Bernardo De Torres play in the assassination?

John Simkin with a new one this Morning...

What role did Bernardo De Torres play in the assassination?


Bernardo De Torres infiltrated Garrison's investigation...

[Octafish]

502. Small world and very, very bad.

Thank you for the heads-up, MinM. These guys certainly knew who to call to get the wetwork done.

William Pawley, the Kennedy Assassination and Watergate

TILT and the "Phase III Cover Story of Clare Booth Luce

http://www.globalresearch.ca/william-pawley-the-kennedy-assassination-and-watergate-tilt-and-the-phase-three-story-of-clare-boothe-luce/5313486

[MinM]

503. Clare Boothe Luce...

was a piece of work.

Clare Boothe Luce

[Berlum]

505. A snippet of her highfalutin rhetoric

""The yawning agnostics," she warned, "the sneering finger-drumming atheists, the drooling, sentimental, misty-eyed humanitarians... will not save us from the fiery sons of Marx." Only men and women who burned with an intense faith could withstand the challenge of Communism.

[Octafish]

508. Mrs. Luce may've obstructed justice.

She sent Gaeton Fonzi on a wild goose chase or two during the HSCA investigation.

EXCERPT...

...One of the most memorable parts of the book is Salandria's warning to Fonzi before he goes to Washington. He tells him, "They'll keep you very, very busy and eventually they'll wear you down." (p. 29)

Fonzi ignored Salandria's prophetic words and decided to go anyway. Almost immediately he found out that, as Salandria had warned, there would be sand traps put in his path. Clare Booth Luce sent him on a wild goose chase for a man who did not exist. He later found out she was talking to CIA Director Bill Colby at this time, and further, she was a member of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers, newly organized by David Phillips. He went on another wild goose chase in Key West for a reported sighting of Oswald with Jack Ruby. Fonzi later found out that this man also worked for the CIA. (p. 65) Finally, Fonzi memorably describes his meeting up with both Marita Lorenz and Frank Sturgis. This episode, with Lorenz answering her apartment door with a rifle, calling her agent about a movie offer, and Sturgis eventually getting arrested, is vivid low comedy.

SOURCE: http://www.ctka.net/reviews/fonzi.html

Incredibly highfalutin of her.

[RomneyLies]

504. .