Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Bolo Boffin

(23,796 posts)
Mon Nov 25, 2013, 08:06 PM Nov 2013

Whose idea was it to put Allen Dulles on the Warren Commission? Robert Kennedy's.

I did not know that until today. Before now on DU, all I hear is how Dulles' presence on the Commission guarantees that the fix was in, but I never hear about Bobby being the one to put Dulles on the Commission. That sheds a whole different light on the situation, doesn't it?

Source? This fantastic article from Skeptic Magazine (pdf):

http://www.skeptic.com/downloads/JFK-Conspiracy-Theories-at-50.pdf

The footnote for this information is as follows:

Holland, (Max,) 2004. The Kennedy Assassination Tapes: The White House Conversations of Lyndon B. Johnson regarding the Assassination, the Warren Commission, and the Aftermath. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 120. See also Russo, Gus. 1998. Live by the Sword: The Secret War against Castro and the Death of JFK. Baltimore: Bancroft, 362.


So Robert Kennedy is on tape suggesting to Johnson that Dulles be a part of the Warren Commission.

For the record, I do not believe that Robert Kennedy was an accessory before or after the fact to his brother's murder. Indeed, I find any suggestion that he was to be a clear mark that someone has wandered too far into Crazytown. And yet, for those who cannot seem to post here at DU about Kennedy's assassination without trumpeting Dulles as a boogyman, I do not see how these posters can escape the conclusion that Robert Kennedy, at the very least, conspired with Dulles to do what JFK conspiracy advocates claim Dulles did - hide a CIA plot to kill Kennedy from the Commission.

Indeed, I learned that JFK conspiracy advocates will go so far as to accuse Robert Kennedy in so many words from an article posted several times here at DU:

http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/27th_Issue/schotz.html

THE ROLE OF ROBERT F. KENNEDY

It is at this point that we can begin to look at the role of the "critical community" in this process, but before I do this I want to examine the role of Robert F. Kennedy.

When I have tried to point out to people that Robert F. Kennedy, in cooperating with the cover-up, became in every sense of the word an accessory after the fact in his own brother's murder, there has generally been an instant recoil. But I want to tell you., that this is not an opinion; this is just a fact. There is no way we can deny this, if we think about it. I'm not talking about why he became an accessory, but the fact that he did is absolutely undeniable. Robert F. Kennedy had a legal sworn obligation to seek out the assassins, and in failing to do so he joined the criminal act of conspiracy with the criminal act of cover-up and sealed the deal. And don't let anyone tell you that it was because he couldn't put two words together after his brother was murdered. I have seen his correspondence with Ray Marcus. And if it were some kind of personal emotional reaction, how is it that none of the people surrounding Robert Kennedy could utter the obvious truth of the assassination? No, Robert Kennedy's cooperation, agonizing and humiliating as it must have been for him, was dictated by political considerations, which led him away from his legal and moral obligation to tell the American people what he knew.

When I start talking to people about this, I hear Robert Kennedy's actions defended with the idea that if he had spoken out he would have been marginalized. And this is important, because maybe that was part of Robert Kennedy's motivation. But I think the person who responds to me in this way is telling me something about his or her own motivation. The person is telling me that in their opinion, the desire not to be marginalized can somehow justify Iying to the public about what you do and don't know about the assassination of the President. I want to say in no uncertain terms this Iying is not only profoundly lacking in morality but is in addition profoundly foolish and is totally indefensible. It was indefensible for Robert Kennedy and it is indefensible for any one of us.

There is no justification whatsoever for lying to anyone about what you do and don't know about this murder. Quite to the contrary, if telling the truth marginalizes you, then that is the place to be. After all, if enough people are willing to be marginalized, then before you know it, society has developed a different center. This is the politics of truth. But Robert Kennedy wasn't really used to the politics of truth. Instead, he was captivated by the illusory politics of power, influence and access. And I am afraid that many of us are also caught up with such ideas.


Much more at that link excoriating the memory of Robert Kennedy. At long last, my fellow DU members, is there no decency?
115 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Whose idea was it to put Allen Dulles on the Warren Commission? Robert Kennedy's. (Original Post) Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 OP
Whose idea was it to let Creative Speculation posts back into GD? longship Nov 2013 #1
It's bad enough to believe in silly conspiracies, but it is worse for somebody to completely duffyduff Nov 2013 #3
patterson, is that you? RobertEarl Nov 2013 #4
No. I despise made up shit being presented as fact, especially when the facts are well known. longship Nov 2013 #8
Aww, patterson RobertEarl Nov 2013 #12
You're off-topic, RobertEarl. Stop discussing posters and discuss the post. Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #13
Your OP is very transparent. Did you know that DUers are, on the whole, extremely smart people? sabrina 1 Nov 2013 #36
"Octofish's OPS otoh, are excellent sources of real information and belong in GD." zappaman Nov 2013 #38
!! dionysus Nov 2013 #80
Your post is nothing but meta. Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #43
What topic? What you posted is ridiculous nonsense, which I know you know. Octafish's OPs sabrina 1 Nov 2013 #50
More meta. n/t Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #51
Who's Patterson? And whatever are you posting about? longship Nov 2013 #14
You are off topic RobertEarl Nov 2013 #18
I'm glad to see your concern that we stick to the OP topic Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #19
Be Free to discuss the post! zappaman Nov 2013 #21
Given the political atmosphere of these mother earth Nov 2013 #6
A taped conversation between Robert Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson is "total bunk"? Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #11
I am referring to the chraracterization of RFK as not being a man of truth, character mother earth Nov 2013 #22
Well, I agree in principle with your post. longship Nov 2013 #32
No, there are more than crickets, if you listen. When Cyril Wecht uses forensics to dispel the mother earth Nov 2013 #39
Okay. State your hypothesis of what really happened. longship Nov 2013 #54
My hypothesis is the Warren Commission was a neatly packaged facade of a full investigation, meant mother earth Nov 2013 #68
Longship, once again, we agree to disagree, wishing you well as always, my friend. mother earth Nov 2013 #70
No problem, Mother Earth. longship Nov 2013 #74
That last person known to have possession of JFK's brain was RFK. stopbush Nov 2013 #63
I think this qualifies as CT and rumor, aka disinfo, not surprisingly, he's no longer around mother earth Nov 2013 #69
Oh, really? Read and learn - from the HSCA report: stopbush Nov 2013 #71
Read what you posted yourself, it is undetermined & remains so, like it or not, mother earth Nov 2013 #79
Ooooooh. There's conspiracies all around us. They're out to GET us! Run away! Run away! stopbush Nov 2013 #83
Last I looked, every single murder investigation held in this country stopbush Nov 2013 #62
Good question, they are completely to be trusted! LOL, where have you been? With a nic like mother earth Nov 2013 #85
This Boston Globe article from earlier this week exposes the childinh thinking of Warren apologists BlueStreak Nov 2013 #101
TY, BlueStreak. They would have us denying history and the relevant facts that were never mother earth Nov 2013 #102
It is the same people and the same reasons for their authoritarian views about the NSA BlueStreak Nov 2013 #104
Well said. mother earth Nov 2013 #105
Equating the people you are debating with as holocaust deniers the epitome of incivility. The Midway Rebel Nov 2013 #112
Hard to confirm without a quoted transcript. ucrdem Nov 2013 #2
JFK conspiracy theories are enjoying a dispensation because of the anniversary. Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #5
Bobby gave him Dulles name in a private conversation? Hard to confirm, and given the position of mother earth Nov 2013 #7
Perhaps you missed the name of the book: Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #10
You can't judge a book by its cover Bolo. ucrdem Nov 2013 #20
What? RobertEarl Nov 2013 #30
Still no transcript? RobertEarl Nov 2013 #111
TY, BB, I did not realize this private conversation was on tape. Do you have the excerpt mother earth Nov 2013 #23
Didn't Dr Cyril Wecht also participate in the "Alien Autopsy" TV show? stopbush Nov 2013 #64
Here are his credentials if you are interested, what were his findings? mother earth Nov 2013 #67
No one is doubting his credentials. He's highly credentialed. stopbush Nov 2013 #72
Forensics is not congruent with woo, it is science based. Woo is in the eye of the beholder, one mother earth Nov 2013 #75
Then there's the Katzenbach memo. nyquil_man Nov 2013 #9
Al Gore, too RobertEarl Nov 2013 #15
That's not the reason Katzenbach gave to the HSCA. nyquil_man Nov 2013 #17
Here's what the HSCA said about it: nyquil_man Nov 2013 #16
Based it appears on the 1978 testimony of the same Nicholas Katzenbach: ucrdem Nov 2013 #26
Yes, he was explaining why the Justice Department abdicated its role in the investigation nyquil_man Nov 2013 #29
It sounds like he's blaming RFK who as AG ran the Justice Dept ucrdem Nov 2013 #33
Ten years and three months, actually, nyquil_man Nov 2013 #37
"the Department largely abdicated ... important responsibilities" etc. ucrdem Nov 2013 #41
That's from the House Select Committee on Assassinations report. nyquil_man Nov 2013 #42
Sec. D2 claims "The DoJ Failed" and cites Katzenbach's 1978 testimony: ucrdem Nov 2013 #45
Oy vey. nyquil_man Nov 2013 #47
Better the victim's brother than the accused murderer ucrdem Nov 2013 #49
So you do think RFK should have been in charge of the investigation? nyquil_man Nov 2013 #52
RFK wasn't President, LBJ was. ucrdem Nov 2013 #53
You didn't really answer the question there. nyquil_man Nov 2013 #55
What authority? The Warren Commission was LBJ and Hoover. ucrdem Nov 2013 #56
He was the Attorney General of the United States. nyquil_man Nov 2013 #57
And LBJ was president. nt ucrdem Nov 2013 #58
Are you suggesting LBJ would have fired him? nt nyquil_man Nov 2013 #59
"exceedingly sleazy if not suspicious tactic" Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #60
RFK said Warren Commission was 'shoddy workmanship.' Octafish Nov 2013 #24
RFK suggested Dulles for the Commission to Johnson, Octafish. Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #25
That's really disrespectful. nt ucrdem Nov 2013 #28
What are you talking about? Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #34
Thanks, Octa. ucrdem Nov 2013 #27
Hey Octafish RobertEarl Nov 2013 #31
You have yet to get on topic, RobertEarl. n/t Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #35
Be Free to take your own advice. zappaman Nov 2013 #40
Did Johnson consult with Robert Kennedy about who to put on the Commission, Octafish? n/t Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #44
Let's not forget E. Howard Hunt's deathbed confession. Doesn't seem RFK liked Dulles, he fired him. mother earth Nov 2013 #46
More...excerpt from same Hunt article, above link. mother earth Nov 2013 #48
Good post. Major Hogwash Nov 2013 #61
The "I will splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces" quote was first attributed to JFK. stopbush Nov 2013 #65
More like they BOTH said it, they were a force to be reckoned with when it came to actually mother earth Nov 2013 #66
If only JFK had made a public statement about the CIA, the country would have known stopbush Nov 2013 #73
And oh how they hated him despite that little olive branch, while BOTH brothers planned to mother earth Nov 2013 #76
I voted D in my first presidential election in 1972, Elmer, and have voted D ever since. stopbush Nov 2013 #95
No, you act pathetically when you shit on others who do not share your same opinions. mother earth Nov 2013 #98
Hard to take the heat when you haven't a leg to stand on, isn't it? stopbush Nov 2013 #99
I guess his family is disgracing his memory too, because they aren't buying it either, never have. mother earth Nov 2013 #100
I'll take your non-response as an answer of "no" that you've ever read the WCR or the HSCA. stopbush Nov 2013 #103
You know nothing of me, nor of the Kennedys. Who are you to say any of these things? You are mother earth Nov 2013 #106
More blowing of smoke. Why not just admit you've never read the WCR? stopbush Nov 2013 #108
You aren't convincing anyone of anything, why so bent on stalking those who simply do not agree mother earth Nov 2013 #114
You've proved you haven't read the WCR but you'll still criticize it. stopbush Nov 2013 #115
Question for you: RobertEarl Nov 2013 #107
Aww, wittle baby got his diapers in a bunch. stopbush Nov 2013 #109
You're not even funny RobertEarl Nov 2013 #110
What does one learn from Octafish? That fantasy trumps evidence? stopbush Nov 2013 #113
Kennedy wanted to go back to the gold standard? KamaAina Nov 2013 #77
So says the CIA guy's son...jury's out on that one, but he knew the fed reserve's power, mother earth Nov 2013 #81
Is it? KamaAina Nov 2013 #84
Maybe you should direct this to Saint John Hunt. Clearly, the widow should take legal action if true mother earth Nov 2013 #86
Impressive resume, this. KamaAina Nov 2013 #87
He's making money off of this revelation, no doubt. I don't hear much new on JFK on MSM, mother earth Nov 2013 #88
The WCR is a whitewash and a lie regardless. KurtNYC Nov 2013 #78
Good point. mother earth Nov 2013 #82
I forget offhand how the police recording of Milteer came out. Was it RFK? KurtNYC Nov 2013 #89
"Whitewash and lie"...confirmed in its essential conclusions by every subsequent investigation? Spider Jerusalem Nov 2013 #90
"subsequent investigation" should include the HSCA KurtNYC Nov 2013 #91
"Subsequent investigation" does in fact include the HSCA. Spider Jerusalem Nov 2013 #92
RK was not afraid of being marginalized, no that was the reality LBJ lived in before the arthritisR_US Nov 2013 #93
All I get from the 'skeptic' link is 'the page does not exist'. Mc Mike Nov 2013 #94
Looks like they took down the link. It worked yesterday. stopbush Nov 2013 #96
Let's see if this link works. Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #97

longship

(40,416 posts)
1. Whose idea was it to let Creative Speculation posts back into GD?
Mon Nov 25, 2013, 09:00 PM
Nov 2013

Their poison was relegated to a forum under the title "offbeat" for a reason. They foment nothing but trouble when they're allowed to rise above the swamp water.

But there are many here who take this country, and history, seriously enough to understand that those who see the JFK assassination as some grand conspiracy are likely the same people who see 9/11 as a grand conspiracy. (And no doubt, the Apollo moon landings). It's not just the facts they ignore, or their special pleadings, or their just making shit up. It's that when their so-called facts have been thoroughly debunked that they continue to state them as if they were still credible.

I was 14 years old when JFK was assassinated. A few years later, after I had read Mark Lane's "Rush to Judgement" I entertained (the only way one can do such things) that it might have been a conspiracy. I eventually set that all aside. In the end, none of it made any sense and there was never any cogent single theory that agreed with the known, well documented, facts.

But here's the thing. When one is after the truth and has no dog in the hunt for a conspiracy (or not) the only thing left are the facts. The conspiracy theorists love to talk about how the facts have been manipulated. It's all part of the conspiracy, so the lack of evidence becomes just another part of the conspiracy. Those insidious omnipotent bastard conspirators! Anything someone can dream up is likely to be true.

The problem is that the conspiracy theory ends up swallowing itself. It grows to such proportions that it's no longer about the facts, it's about the conspiracy. And after all, all we are looking for is the truth. So anything about which we speculate becomes equal to the known documented facts. All of our speculations trump any and all facts. Why? Because some dude on the Internet said so! That's why. He weaves a very convincing narrative. That's why the official narrative is wrong. Because some dude wove a more convincing one, the facts be damned! That's why the facts have to be wrong. Or made up. And certainly the conspiracy, which must swallow all facts and all logic and all rationale, must then be the yardstick to measure all other narratives.And if the facts contradict the conspiracy that's just another part of the conspiracy (convenient that -- it's called "special pleading", look it up yourself).

It is time to put the JFK assassination conspiracy posts back where they belong, into the Creative Speculation forum where people can ruminate about how LBJ/CIA/FBI/KGB/Cuba/Mafia/Allen Dulles/George HW Bush/Cuban exiles/Etc/Etc/Etc assassinated JFK that Friday. I've seen posts here in GD this past week suggesting all of the above perpetrators. Many are mutually exclusive. And there is never any single theory in Conspiracy Theory beyond the ideological belief that the conspiracy exists. Therefore the facts must agree. If they don't? So sad for mere facts. We've got ideology to uphold here! I say JFK was killed by a conspiracy and that's that. The facts be damned!

Please, please, please let the rest of us in peace. Enough is enough. The DU admins should not have let the mummy out of the casket. Or the zombie out of the grave. Or whatever cheesy SciFi movie metaphor one would choose. Whichever, meanwhile the DU GD forum becomes Godzilla lunch, just like 1950's Tokyo.

There was a reason for this stuff to be relegated to the basement. However, I am willing to acknowledge that such monsters might need to resurrect once in a while so that DU would see that they do not belong in the main forums. Or one would hope so.

Please admins!

 

duffyduff

(3,251 posts)
3. It's bad enough to believe in silly conspiracies, but it is worse for somebody to completely
Mon Nov 25, 2013, 09:28 PM
Nov 2013

rewrite history, as Oliver Stone did in his fictional account of the assassination. The idea a nutjob named Jim Garrison would be considered a hero in the Clay Shaw case is nothing short of a damnable lie.

Anybody who believes that swill complete discredits himself or herself.

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
4. patterson, is that you?
Mon Nov 25, 2013, 09:32 PM
Nov 2013

So, you hate people talking about something that bothers you?

Hide thread is your friend, and if you use it, our friend, too.

longship

(40,416 posts)
8. No. I despise made up shit being presented as fact, especially when the facts are well known.
Mon Nov 25, 2013, 10:09 PM
Nov 2013

And there's a reason why JFK/9-11/Apollo/UFO/Velikovski/etc/etc/etc is not normally tolerated as topics in DU GD threads. We've seen why this past week or two when the admins, for whatever reason allowed that monster to resurrect.

The conspiracy theorists have no facts beyond their fervent belief that the conspiracy exists. Therefore any evidence that supports Oswald as the sole shooter becomes part of the ever self-swallowing conspiracy. This is nothing more than a brazen attempt, for ideological reasons whose goals lie outside politics and likely within some psychological need, to dismiss evidence in the face of the utter horror of what happened that day. Such horror cannot have happened because of some loser. It had to be some supergenius conspiracy.

Alas, history is messy. And alas, many assassination attempts (successful or not) were done by loner, wacky individuals. Look at history for other exemplars. Garfield, McKinley, MLK, RFK, Ford, and Reagan. All committed without conspiracy, by loonie toons. Just like JFK. History is messy. Shit happens. The world was profoundly affected by the JFK assassination. But making shit up just because you don't like what all the evidence says, is wrong. History is what history is.

Let JFK lie in peace. It's not how he died. It's what t he lived for, and the image he projected well beyond his short 1,000 days.

All the rest is rubbish. And the conspiracy theories about his death belong at the bottom of the sewage heap.

Skinner! Return these posts to the Creative Speculation forum. Where they belong.

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
12. Aww, patterson
Mon Nov 25, 2013, 10:21 PM
Nov 2013

He needs his own website so that he can control the conversations.

I thank the overlords of the Underground for letting freedom ring!

Bolo Boffin

(23,796 posts)
13. You're off-topic, RobertEarl. Stop discussing posters and discuss the post.
Mon Nov 25, 2013, 10:23 PM
Nov 2013

Do you consider Robert Kennedy an accessory to his brother's murder? I trust the answer is no.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
36. Your OP is very transparent. Did you know that DUers are, on the whole, extremely smart people?
Mon Nov 25, 2013, 11:38 PM
Nov 2013

THIS OP belongs in Creative Speculation, which I'm sure you know. So the question is, why did you drag it into GD?

I believe I know the answer, but I'm curious as to whether or not you care to explain.

Octofish's OPS otoh, are excellent sources of real information and belong in GD.

zappaman

(20,606 posts)
38. "Octofish's OPS otoh, are excellent sources of real information and belong in GD."
Mon Nov 25, 2013, 11:46 PM
Nov 2013


Thank you sincerely for the laugh.

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

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
50. What topic? What you posted is ridiculous nonsense, which I know you know. Octafish's OPs
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 12:21 AM
Nov 2013

are based on history, on facts. The question is, why are you posting such garbage in GD?

I know why, just wondered if you would be willing to state it openly.

longship

(40,416 posts)
14. Who's Patterson? And whatever are you posting about?
Mon Nov 25, 2013, 10:23 PM
Nov 2013

Do you have a cogent argument? Or do you want to merely fling chairs into the discussion? Pray tell it's not the latter.

Bolo Boffin

(23,796 posts)
19. I'm glad to see your concern that we stick to the OP topic
Mon Nov 25, 2013, 10:40 PM
Nov 2013

I'll be twice as glad as soon as you start actually discussing it.

mother earth

(6,002 posts)
6. Given the political atmosphere of these
Mon Nov 25, 2013, 09:55 PM
Nov 2013

Last edited Mon Nov 25, 2013, 11:14 PM - Edit history (1)

times, and the penchant for screwing people over anonymously on the internet, one never knows the agenda
behind websites or posters. NSA has time on its hands and a huge amount of money to spend, seemingly. Paid political hacks must be doing great "behind the scenes" work. Obama is a sensational boogieman all over the internet. It's crazy.

However, I would not lump those who doubt the Warren Commission and the 911 Commission in with Apollo landings garbage.

There are good reasons to doubt that gov't appointed commissions do nothing but try to soothe rattled citizens who have been and continue to be perfectly capable of stating valid reasons for unanswered questions that remain. Many of those citizens are professionals clearly stating the reasons to doubt.

As for assassinations, there continues to be skepticism about motives and lack of transparency, not just about our own CIA, NSA, but
any organization, at home or internationally, where lack of transparency rules the day.

Longship, do you forget Iran Contra? If this hadn't been exposed, it could be another "CT", just one example.
But then, who knew the likes of Wm. Binney would corroborate what Snowden revealed, or that "CT" isn't just for the unknown posters, apparently whistleblowers get run through the garbage mill exposing the truth, apparently some are too entrenched in the system, too well respected and have first hand knowledge for TPTB to get away with ruining reputation.

I don't think everything questioned should be relegated to the basement, but I do not dictate DU policy. We would be fools to believe there are not untold skeletons in the closets of all countries that have not seen the light of day. The great cover of national security is abused, a blanket, a wonderful tool.

Personally, I think people should never stop asking questions, a return to accountability is long overdue.





Bolo Boffin

(23,796 posts)
11. A taped conversation between Robert Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson is "total bunk"?
Mon Nov 25, 2013, 10:18 PM
Nov 2013

OK, but there's quite a bit of room to disagree with you.

mother earth

(6,002 posts)
22. I am referring to the chraracterization of RFK as not being a man of truth, character
Mon Nov 25, 2013, 11:04 PM
Nov 2013

assassination. I am of the opinion that the Kennedy brothers were a force to be reckoned with, a force of change to better this nation.
That was squelched with their deaths, no Kennedy would ever be allowed to reach high office again.

Frankly, we are still dealing with the legacy of the Dulles brothers, a nation under corporate rule and CIA/NSA covert control.

I also believe that same control is everywhere on the internet from paid disinfo and hacks, to for profit types like Alex Jones,
we have to use incredible scrutiny to sift through it all.

Honestly, I had not read all of your links after reading the excerpts, and having a problem with the RFK portrayal.

longship

(40,416 posts)
32. Well, I agree in principle with your post.
Mon Nov 25, 2013, 11:32 PM
Nov 2013

But the JFK assassination has gone way past principle in its 50 years. It's gone into la-la land, where any and all conjectures are equally fair game. After all, I'm only asking questions! And there are plenty of questions unanswered.

Nope. Not true. There are always plenty of questions, so the JFK assassination is not alone in this. What is important is not the questions -- because one can create many unanswerable ones as one desires -- it's the facts. Therein lies the truth beneath the JFK assassination, whatever that might be.

But here's the one observable fact beneath JFK conspiracy advocates. The facts make no difference in their theories, whatever they are, never revealed.

Okay! Oswald didn't shoot JFK. Who did?
Crickets.

Okay! You agree that Oswald shot JFK, but he had help/coercion/etc. Who did that?
Crickets.

The crickets are often filled by CIA/Mafia/Cuba/CCCP/KGB/Allen Dulles/George HW Bush/LBJ/etc, or maybe Tiny Tim "Tiptoeing through the fucking tulips" no doubt. He'd need a time machine to accomplish it if he wanted to get er done before his wedding on Johnnie Carson, but I think that's at least a plausible hypothesis as the others I've seen here. Maybe it's too bad that there was no cable news to cover it. Certainly they would have been all over the Tiny Tim hypothesis. Or maybe Elvis, no doubt. Portrayed for all future generations on velvet.

That's what I think of JFK assassination conspiracy theories. They are all like Elvis paintings on velvet. Or Tiny Tim. Lots of presentation with no substance.

mother earth

(6,002 posts)
39. No, there are more than crickets, if you listen. When Cyril Wecht uses forensics to dispel the
Mon Nov 25, 2013, 11:47 PM
Nov 2013

truth was presented by the magic bullet theory, and he does, I believe those facts, and the now missing brain preventing further scrutiny complicates any effort to end speculation.

I think there is great reluctance to believe our own could perpetrate such crimes, but our history is rife with such events. It's only CT until it's fact, ridicule works to silence, when it doesn't more serious methods can be and are used.

Hell, all we have to do is look at present day war and the lies that brought us to it. Those who opposed it were belittled, until we learned the war supporters should have used more scrutiny and less emotion.

Remember all the shredding Cheney did, just like Oliver North before Iran-Contra being exposed. What was all that about?
How about stolen elections, unsecured voting machines, vote flipping, things are far from right. Cynicism is the result.

The majority believe there is more to the JFK assassination, it's a MAJORITY now. How about E. Howard Hunt's deathbed confession, if nothing else convinces you?

http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2013/11/e_howard_hunt_cia_jfk_killing.php

longship

(40,416 posts)
54. Okay. State your hypothesis of what really happened.
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 12:59 AM
Nov 2013

Please provide details of your evidence, with citations wherever possible.

One thing I would ask is that you provide a single theory, not an amorphous, malleable conjecture. Who was responsible? No, I will not accept CIA/FBI/CCCP/KGB/Cuba/Castro/Marilyn Monroe/etc.

If you are going to play this game, you've got to put your nickel down. It is not sufficient that you merely shoot holes (so to speak) in the evidence that Oswald was the only shooter in Dealey Plaza that day. If you want to play the game, you have to provide a hypothesis which not only accounts for all the forensic evidence at hand, but provides a solution which accounts for it without any unaccounted anomalies. And I am not talking about the made-up anomalies like the so-called "magic bullet" which has been debunked for fucking decades in a multitude of repeatable and very well documented science. If I were you, I would not make my case on that particular flawed argument. It's as old as Dino shit and as been cast off for years and years. And "back and to the left" is Hollywood, not reality. Neurologists and physicists have long ago explained why JFK jerks back when his head explodes from being shot from behind.

Of course, the JFK conspiracy kooks keep repeating the same debunked arguments as if they were not answered with cold hard facts.

That's why many of us here do not take anything conspiracy theorists say seriously. That's also why these discussions do not belong in GD. They belong in Creative Speculation. There people can flap their gums all they want about space alien abductations, big foot, 9/11, JFK, the Illuminati, and whatever else they might want to speculate about. Myself, I'd post about the upcoming ascendency of Cthulhu, but that's my particular bias, one which I choose not to share in GD except as an examplar as to what not to post in GD.

mother earth

(6,002 posts)
68. My hypothesis is the Warren Commission was a neatly packaged facade of a full investigation, meant
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 12:33 PM
Nov 2013

to close out this embarrassing and horrific event. Beyond that I humbly decline, I leave study and speculation to those more qualified, to which there is a seemingly abundant crowd to draw from, but unfortunately key evidence has gone missing. Strange, but true. We had a president assassinated under Secret Security watch and then his brain disappears. We have perpetrator claiming patsy status, then he gets shot by a "grieving" pub owner. WTF? Set off any red flags for you?

This is a CT of majority status, hmm...but nothing to see here, folks, case closed, records sealed.

(For an evidence point by point study perhaps you should review Dr. Wecht's findings. They are based on science and what evidence is available. I certainly cannot provide this beyond his findings and would not possibly assume I would just to satisfy you on a BB. Are you kidding? Put your nickel down and give it a read. Disinfo abounds, it's intentional, you claim it's CT, you are in the minority on this one.)

If this discussion doesn't belong in GD, apparently the admins feel otherwise...I don't know. Again, I don't make policy and I didn't start the OP.

longship

(40,416 posts)
74. No problem, Mother Earth.
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 03:22 PM
Nov 2013

I do not lose respect for people just because I disagree with them. That would not be in accord with my nature.


mother earth

(6,002 posts)
69. I think this qualifies as CT and rumor, aka disinfo, not surprisingly, he's no longer around
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 12:37 PM
Nov 2013

to confirm or deny.

stopbush

(24,396 posts)
71. Oh, really? Read and learn - from the HSCA report:
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 02:24 PM
Nov 2013

WHAT HAPPENED TO KENNEDY'S BRAIN?

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.

(120) The next documented transaction involving the
materials transferred to Mrs. Lincoln occurred on October 29,
1966, when Mr. Burke Marshall, on behalf of the executors of the
John F. Kennedy estate, sent a letter to Lawson B. Knott, the
Administrator of the General Services Administration, outlining
an agreement for formal transfer of materials related to the
autopsy to the U.S. Government.

(121) Pursuant to this agreement, which constituted a deed
of gift, Burke Marshall met with various representatives of the
Government on October 31, 1966, in room 6-W-3 of the National
Archives to transfer formally the materials related to the
autopsy. These materials were contained in a locked footlocker
for which Ms. Angela Novello, the personal secretary to Robert F.
Kennedy, produced a key.
Others in attendance for the transfer
were William H. Brewster, special assistant to the general counsel
GSA, who unlocked and opened the footlocker; Harold F. Reis,
executive assistant to the Attorney General Robert H. Bahruer
Archivist of the United States; Herman Kahn, Assistant Archivist
for Presidential libraries and James Rhoads, the Deputy Archivist
of the United States. After Brewster opened the footlocker,
Marshall and Novello departed.

(122) Bahmer, Reis, Rhoads, Kahn, and Brewster then removed
all the material from the footlocker and inspected it. The
footlocker contained a carbon copy of the letter from Robert F.
Kennedy to Burkley on April 22, 1965, and the original letter from
Burkley to Lincoln on April 26, 1965, which also listed on the
itemized inventory list the materials present at that transfer.

(123) Upon inspection, the officials realized that the
footlocker did not contain any of the material listed under item
No. 9 of the inventory. This material included:


1 plastic box, 9 by 6 1/2 by 1 inches, paraffin blocks of
tissue sections.
1 plastic box containing paraffin blocks of tissue sections
plus 35 slides.
A third box containing 84 slides.
1 stainless steel container, 7 by 8 inches in diameter,
containing gross material.

3 wooden boxes, each 7 by 3 1/2 by 1 1/4 inches, containing
58 slides of blood smears taken at various times
during President Kennedy's lifetime.

(124) The last date these items were accounted for was the
April 26, 1965 transfer of the autopsy materials to Lincoln.

(125) The committee contacted Lincoln to determine what
happened to the materials in item No. 9, the missing materials,
following their documented transfer to her in April 1965. She
informed the committee of an interview and subsequent affidavit
that Burkley and Bouck brought her some materials in the spring
of 1965 that Dr. Burkley identified as being related to the
autopsy of the President. She recalled that these materials
arrived in a box or boxes, and that within 1 day she obtained a
flat trunk or footlocker from the Archives personnel to which she
transferred the materials. She added that these materials were
kept in a security room in her office in the National Archives.

(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.

(128) Because of Lincoln's statement and other reports that
Novello produced the key to the footlocker in December 1966, the
committee interviewed Novello and also obtained an affidavit. She
informed the committee that she had no recollection of handling
a footlocker, of possessing a key or keys to such a footlocker,
or of handling any of the autopsy materials.

(129) The committee also contacted Burke Marshall and
Senator Edward Kennedy to determine their knowledge of the missing
materials. Senator Kennedy indicated that he did not know what
happened to the materials, or who last had custody of them.

(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.

(131) Since Marshall offered the opinion without any
verification, the committee continued to search for the missing
materials and to examine any issue related to the autopsy
materials in general. The committee interviewed Harold F. Reis,
Executive Assistant to the Attorney General who attended the 1966
transfer of the autopsy materials to the National Archives, as
well as Ramsey Clark, the Attorney General in 1966, to determine
their knowledge of the missing materials. Clark stated that he
initiated the action to acquire the materials transferred in the
October 1966 deed of gift pursuant to Public Law 89-318, enacted
on November 2, 1965. This law provided that the acquisition by
the United States of certain items of evidence pertaining to the
assassination of President Kennedy had to be completed within the
year. When Clark learned the time limit for obtaining the
evidence was approaching, he contacted Robert Kennedy, who was not
sympathetic to the Government's need to acquire the autopsy
material. Rather heated negotiations ensued between Clark and
Burke Marshall, the Kennedy family representative, which resulted
in the October 29, 1966 agreement constituting the deed of gift.
Clark stated that he had only requested transfer of the autopsy
photographs and X-rays and did not recall any discussions with
Robert Kennedy about any other autopsy materials. Consequently,
the brain and the tissue segments were not an issue in the
procedures and negotiations during the October 1966 transfer. The
committee could not ascertain if the physical specimens were ever
discussed in the negotiations, what type of approval Robert
Kennedy gave for transforming the materials, or what procedure was
employed to separate the photographs and X-rays from the material
now missing.

(132) The next reference to the missing materials and the
other autopsy materials in the custody of the National Archives
occurred in 1968. Ramsey Clark, the Attorney. General, arranged
for an independent review of the autopsy evidence by a group of
pathologists-commonly referred to as the Clark panel--as a result
of growing skepticism concerning the assassination and Warren
Commission investigation. In a memorandum to the files on
February 13,1969, Thomas J. Kelley, the Assistant Director of the
Secret Service, reflected on the report of the Clark panel, in
which the physicians had commented that the materials they
reviewed were included on the inventory list that accompanied the
letter from Burkley to Lincoln on April 26, 1965. Kelley asserted
that this reference to the autopsy materials by the Clark panel
physicians was phrased in this manner because the doctors did not
have access to the materials listed as comprising item No. 9 on
the inventory list. The memorandum also noted that after
discovering in October 1966 that these items were missing,
Archives personnel conducted a careful search but could not
determine their location.

(133) After discussing the "missing" materials with Harry
R. Van Cleve, Jr., General Counsel to the General Services
Administration, and agreeing that they should attempt to ascertain
their disposition, Kelley said he would contact Dr. Burkley.
Kelley's memorandum related the following:

[T]hat after turning all of this material over
to Mrs. Lincoln [on April 26] [Burkley] never saw nor
heard anything about its disposition, and that he was
surprised to hear that it was not with the remainder
of the material he turned over to Mrs. Lincoln. After
discussing the problem, Dr. Burkley offered to call
Mrs. Lincoln. He did this in my presence and Mrs.
Lincoln told him that all of the material he turned
over to her was placed in a trunk or footlocker; that
it was locked, and that to her knowledge it was never
opened nor the contents disturbed by her. She said,
however, that sometime after its receipt all of the
material concerning the assassination, with which she
was working, was turned over to Angie Novello, Robert
Kennedy's secretary.

(134) The memorandum further related that Dr. Burkley told
Kelley that Henry Giordano, a former White House driver, was
working with Lincoln at the time of the transfer and was then
employed in Senator Kennedy's office.

(135) After contacting Van Cleve again and advising him of
the contact with Burkley, Kelley related the following:

I * * * further advised him that, in my opinion, we
should not contact Giordano. He agreed with this and
stated he felt that the inquiry would have to remain
as it now stands; that perhaps we were borrowing
trouble in exploring it any further, and assured me
that the Archivist had made a thorough search of all
of the material on hand to make sure that the
material in question had not been received by the
Archivist at another time or under other
circumstances.

(136) Thus, the General Services Administration, which
oversees the National Archives, decided not to pursue the search
for the missing materials any further. The officials involved were
apparently satisfied with knowing that the National Archives did
not have any responsibility in their disappearance and did not
wish to instigate trouble by pursuing any investigation.

(137) In 1971, a controversy, not directly involving the
missing materials, arose over the chain of custody of the autopsy
materials being stored in the National Archives and who should
have access to them. John Nichols, a pathologist, began court
proceedings in the Federal courts, challenging the agreement of
October 29, 1966, which contains several restrictions limiting
public access to the autopsy materials. An issue raised by the
suit was whether the Kennedy family ever had any legal right to
control the autopsy materials at any time and, consequently,
whether any deed of gift from the family which contained
restrictions limiting public access could be valid.

(138) Both the Federal District Court and the Tenth Circuit
Court of Appeals upheld the agreement. The Court of appeals
stated that the "letter of agreement of October 29, 1966 is a
valid, binding agreement and that the restrictions imposed thereby
are reasonable."

(139) The legal department of the Congressional Research
Service analyzed the Nichols case for the committee. The CRS noted
that while the "Nichols decision represents only the determination
of one circuit until the question is addressed elsewhere it would
seem to represent 'the state of the law?'" The CRS stated that
until the April 1965 transfer, the autopsy materials were "in
Government hands with no intervening transfer of like having
occurred." It then observed:

At this point, however, as suggested in the
November 4, 1966, Treasury Department memorandum * *
* the transfer to the Kennedy family may have been
interpreted by some as indication of U.S. recognition
of Kennedy family rights in the items so transferred.
At some point thereafter, either upon delivery to the
Archives in 1965 or upon acceptance of the letter of
gift of October 1966, the materials may be regarded
as having been either (1) returned to their rightful
owner, the United States Government, or (2) donated
by properly executed deed of gift to the United
States, thereby resulting in relinquishment of
Kennedy family rights in them.

(140) The CRS ended by saying that two conclusions are
irrefutable. First, the autopsy photographs and X-rays are now the
property of the United States; and second, the letter of agreement
between the Government and the Kennedy family remains enforceable.

(141) The committee also interviewed Archives personnel to
ascertain their present position regarding the missing materials.
In response to committee requests, Trudy H. Peterson, Assistant
to the Deputy Archivist of the United States, prepared a written
statement. In this document, Peterson noted that just prior to
the October 1966 transfer of the materials to the Archives, the
locked footlocker was brought to the National Archives building,
although she does not specify from where. This suggests that
after Novello allegedly took the material from the office of Mrs.
Lincoln, it may have been moved from the Archives building as
opposed to only being moved to another part of the building as
Mrs. Lincoln speculated.) Peterson also says that Robert Bahmer,
the Archivist of the United States in 1966, believed that sometime
before the transfer of the materials as a gift, Herman Kahn, the
Assistant Archivist for Presidential Libraries supervised the
acceptance of the footlocker, along with several other boxes of
Robert Kennedy's materials, for courtesy storage in vault 6-W-3.
Peterson further stated that Herman Kahn, now dead, may have been
the only Archives employee present for the transfer and that no
record of delivery is available.

(142) In response to a subsequent committee inquiry
concerning Herman Kahn, Peterson stated that Kahn dealt with
members and representatives of the Kennedy family during 1964-68
on numerous issues, including the courtesy storage of Robert
Kennedy materials. He was present for the October 1966 transfer
and, according to Marion Johnson of the National Archives, was one
of the original holders of the combination to the safe cabinet in
which the autopsy material was stored. Kahn also allegedly
accompanied Novello when Novello apparently removed the autopsy
materials from the office of Lincoln.

(143) In response to another committee request, the Office
of Presidential Libraries conducted a thorough but unsuccessful
search of the office files for 1965-66 for documentation regarding
the transfer of the autopsy materials to the physical custody of
the Archives. Additionally, two members of the Presidential
Libraries staff who worked under Herman Kahn at that time stated
in interviews and affidavits that they could not recall any
pertinent details concerning the autopsy materials. The staff of
the John F. Kennedy Library also reviewed their files, with
negative results. Further, one Archives employee, Marion Johnson,
Archivist, Office of the National Archives, National Archives and
Records Service, remembered that he became aware of the footlocker
containing the autopsy materials shortly before the October 31,
1966 transfer, but was not aware of its contents until after the
transfer. Additionally, at the request of the committee, on July
18, 1978, Clarence Lyons and Trudy Peterson conducted a thorough
but unsuccessful search of the security storage vault for the
tissue sections and the container of gross material.

(144) Given these efforts and findings, it appears that
Kahn and Novello removed the autopsy material from the office of
Mrs. Lincoln shortly after April 1965. The material was then
either kept in another part of the Archives, probably a Robert
Kennedy courtesy storage area, or removed from the building to a
location designated by Robert Kennedy. The circumstantial evidence
would seem to indicate that Robert Kennedy then decided to retain
possession of all physical specimen evidence and transferred only
the autopsy photographs and X-rays to the Government. The
committee has not been able to verify how or when the item No. 9
materials were removed from the other autopsy materials or what
subsequently happened to them.

PART IV. ADDITIONAL EFFORTS TO ACQUIRE THE MISSING MATERIALS

(145) After failing to determine the fate of the missing
materials by tracing that chain of custody, the committee
investigated the possibility that someone had placed the missing
autopsy items all of which were physical specimens taken from the
body of President Kennedy, in the final grave on reinterment, on
March 14, 1967. The persons contacted who were present for the
ceremony could not recall any additional package or material being
placed in the grave. The Superintendent of Arlington National
Cemetery from 1951 to 1972 John Metzler, informed the committee
that he attended the burial of the President and the reinterment.
At the time of burial, the coffin was placed in a "Wilbur" vault,
which has a lid and vault that operate on a tongue and groove
system. Tar is placed on the points of contact of the grooves to
insure a tight fit and permanent seal. Metzler witnessed the
lowering of the lid and the sealing of the vault, and believed
that the only method to open the vault subsequently would be to
break the lid on the main portion of the vault.

(146) Metzler supervised the reinterment in 1967 and was
present at all phases of the transfer: from the opening of the old
site through the transfer by crane of the vault to the closing of
the new site Metzler said there was no way anyone could have
placed anything in the coffin or vault during the transfer without
his seeing it. Metzler also said that nothing could have been
placed in the vault since 1963 because there was no indication of
damage to the vault indicating any disturbance. Metzler stated
further that no one placed anything in the new or old gravesite
besides the vault.

(147) In the course of its investigation the committee
contacted numerous other people in an unsuccessful attempt to
locate the missing materials. They included:

1. Dr. James J. Humes, autopsy pathologist;
2. George Dalton, former White House aide and assistant to
Mrs. Lincoln at the National Archives;
3. Edith Duncan, administrative assistant to Robert Bouck,
Protective Research Section, Secret Service;
4. Joseph D. Giordano, former White House aide and
assistant to Mrs. Lincoln at the National Archives;
5. Frank Mankiewicz, former assistant to Robert F. Kennedy;
6. Harry Van Cleve, former General Counsel of the General
Services Administration;
7. Lawrence O'Brien, former aide to President Kennedy;
8. David Powers, former aide to President Kennedy;
9. Ken Fienberg, aide to Senator Edward Kennedy;
10. P.J. Costanzo, Superintendent of Arlington National
Cemetery;
11. Dr. James Boswell, autopsy pathologist;
12. Dr. Pierre Finck, autopsy pathologist;
13. Adm. George Galloway, commanding officer of the
National Naval Medical Center in 1963;
14. Capt. John H. Stover, commanding officer of the U.S.
Naval Medical School in 1963;
15. Bruce Bromley, former Justice Department attorney who
was called briefly from private practice to serve as
counsel to the Clark panel;
16. Carl Eardley, former Justice Department official;
17. Harold Reis, former Justice Department official;
18. Sol Lindenbaum, former Justice Department official;
19. National Archives personnel; and
20. Thomas J. Kelley, Assistant Director of the U.S. Secret
Service.

PART V. CONCLUSIONS

(148) Despite these efforts, the committee was not able to
determine precisely what happened to the missing materials. The
evidence indicates that the materials were not buried with the
body at reinterment. It seems apparent that Angela Novello did
remove the footlocker containing to the materials from the office
of Mrs. Lincoln at the direction of Robert Kennedy, and that
Herman Kahn had knowledge of this transaction. After the removal
from Lincoln's office, Robert Kennedy most likely acquired
possession of or at least personal control over these materials.
Burke Marshall's opinion that Robert Kennedy obtained and disposed
of these items himself to prevent any future public display
supports this theory.

(149) There are least two possible reasons why Robert
Kennedy would not have retained the autopsy photographs and
X-rays. First, the only materials retained were physical
specimens from the body of his brother: Tissue sections, blood
smear slides, and the container of gross material. He may have
understandably felt more strongly about preventing the misuse of
these physical materials than the photographs and X-rays. Second,
the Justice Department under Ramsey Clark pushed hard to acquire
the photographs and X-rays but did not request the physical
materials. Even if Robert Kennedy had wished to prevent the
release of all the autopsy materials, he was not in a position to
do so when confronted with Justice Department demands.

(150) Consequently, although the committee has not been
able to uncover any direct evidence of the fate of the missing
materials, circumstantial evidence tends to show that Robert
Kennedy either destroyed these materials or otherwise rendered
them inaccessible.

mother earth

(6,002 posts)
79. Read what you posted yourself, it is undetermined & remains so, like it or not,
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 05:53 PM
Nov 2013

which means the brain is MIA, which does not factually support your theory.

How convenient if there was indeed a coup d'état to have this key evidence go missing, along with countless other convenient coincidences.

Listen, I'm not going to get into any more of a pissing match with you. You simply cannot prove your one shooter theory, and EVERYTHING you accuse so called CT's - is true of your take on the "truth". Acknowledge you one-shooter people are withering away into oblivion, people are wising up, most anyway.

Here's only couple of items taken from above, TY for providing it BTW:

Peterson also says that Robert Bahmer,
the Archivist of the United States in 1966, believed that sometime
before the transfer of the materials as a gift, Herman Kahn, the
Assistant Archivist for Presidential Libraries supervised the
acceptance of the footlocker, along with several other boxes of
Robert Kennedy's materials, Herman Kahn, now dead, may have been
the only Archives employee present for the transfer and that no
record of delivery is available.


(148) Despite these efforts, the committee was not able to
determine precisely what happened to the missing materials
. The
evidence indicates that the materials were not buried with the
body at reinterment. It seems apparent that Angela Novello did
remove the footlocker containing to the materials from the office
of Mrs. Lincoln at the direction of Robert Kennedy, and that
Herman Kahn had knowledge of this transaction. After the removal
from Lincoln's office, Robert Kennedy most likely acquired
possession of or at least personal control over these materials.
Burke Marshall's opinion that Robert Kennedy obtained and disposed
of these items himself to prevent any future public display
supports this theory.


Inevitably, someone ends up dying before real answers are available....funny how that works.
You'd think the Kennedy family would be aware of it, had RFK actually taken possession of the brain, and even if he had, where would it be now, and why wouldn't this mystery be put to rest by any number of surviving, close-knit Kennedy family members.

You come up with link where ANY Kennedy member validates this disinfo theory, and I'll tip my hat to you. That would be a real feat.

stopbush

(24,396 posts)
83. Ooooooh. There's conspiracies all around us. They're out to GET us! Run away! Run away!
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 06:18 PM
Nov 2013

The HSCA provides an entirely logical explanation of what happened to JFK's brain, a totally believable explanation. It's certainly more credible than believing some nefarious cabal of conspirators did away with it because it contained evidence that would have exposed them to the world. How - one wonders - did they manage to take possession of all that evidence from the National Archives when RFK himself had the say so about what happened to it when? In fact, the evidence WAS still in the NA when RFK ordered it delivered into his possession.

I certain wouldn't hold it against RFK if he wanted JFK's brain destroyed for no other reason than to avoid it becoming part of some conspiratorial freak show. The family should have been allowed to make such decisions, and good on them if they did.

But go on, believe your CT fantasies. They make for great sport. AND, they're never ending, because just as there's been no evidence in that last 50 years to support them, there won't be any evidence coming forward in the next 50 or 100 years, either. And by that time, we'll all be dead, and the FACTS in the case will remain.

BTW - could you at least admit that this theory as put forward by the HSCA is not "CT and rumor, aka disinfo," as you claimed in your first response?

stopbush

(24,396 posts)
62. Last I looked, every single murder investigation held in this country
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 03:00 AM
Nov 2013

is performed by a government agency.

Are none of them to be trusted? Are none of them a search for truth? In your mind, how can they be, when they are all run by the GOVERNMENT.

mother earth

(6,002 posts)
85. Good question, they are completely to be trusted! LOL, where have you been? With a nic like
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 06:26 PM
Nov 2013

stopbush? For real? Were we lied to into war(s)? Two stolen elections, and I have to educate a fellow Du'er?

The only time NOT to trust the gov't is when there is a coup d'état, or when covert activity is involved, perhaps you remember Ollie North? drug running for black op funding?

Sheesh....brush up on history. Hell, look around you, what's happening today? Are we struggling for representation? Are unions dying?

I believe that is precisely WHY JFK and RFK were assassinated, they knew the dangers that lie ahead. Our gov't worked back then, until one fateful day, when the fate of a nation, of our President Kennedy (RIP) meant nothing to assassins (plural).

Ok, game's over. It's been fun.

 

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)
101. This Boston Globe article from earlier this week exposes the childinh thinking of Warren apologists
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 12:09 PM
Nov 2013

This directly contradicts the assertion in the OP that RFK supported, believed in, or trusted the Warren Commission.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/11/24/his-brother-keeper-robert-kennedy-saw-conspiracy-jfk-assassination/TmZ0nfKsB34p69LWUBgsEJ/story.html

In fact, There was a huge rift between Johnson and the Kennedys -- the proverbial strange bedfellows. And JFK had fired Dulles.

The article shows several cases where RFK bit his tongue and said the right things in public while privately having the gravest of concerns about who actually murdered his brother. If he said a word of support to LBJ about Dulles, it was only another case of him choosing not to add fuel to an already fiery situation.

it really is getting to the point that I wonder about the motives of all these people who seem to want to shove the fantastic Warren theory down our throats. Either these people are unbelievably naive or else they have an agenda that I, for one, do not welcome here at DU.

Please stop. Two of the Kennedy family were murdered and it wasn't a lone gunman -- oh, sorry -- two lone gunmen. It is a free country. People are free to believe that nonsense if that gets them through the day. However, most Americans understand the world is not as simplistic as the OP and his cohort would have us believe. There are and always have been powerful interests inside and outside of government, and they sometimes do some very ugly things when people like JFK and RFK get in their way. This was obviously one of those times.

mother earth

(6,002 posts)
102. TY, BlueStreak. They would have us denying history and the relevant facts that were never
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 01:25 PM
Nov 2013

made public simply because WC put out an "official" gov't report.

They not only diminish themselves in doing so (whilst claiming they question everything), but they also diminish DU as a whole, when they abandon the ability to allow for another's views and to continue to spout the same old talking points. Everyone else is just so ignorant to believe what they term as CT.

I have always been proud that dems question authority, even when it's their own, because what matters are the core principles of our party, and that everyone's voice is important and certainly the totality and veracity of an investigation is what matters, not just a skimming of what works to manipulate public opinion.

The Kennedys were indeed murdered, Bobby knew it back then, which is why he's no longer around.

It seems like truth is the real boogieman to some, even here at DU, and they cannot allow for true discourse without resorting to what oddly resembles Rush Limbaugh tactics, talk shit and ridicule. We are either better than that or we stand for nothing.

 

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)
104. It is the same people and the same reasons for their authoritarian views about the NSA
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 03:49 PM
Nov 2013

Blind acceptance of the proclamations from authority is not wise, patriotic, or supportive of democracy. Quite the opposite. But it is a testament to the true belief in the democratic spirit that those voices of authoritarianism are allowed to speak and are treated with courtesy here at DU. I will try to uphold that value.

The Midway Rebel

(2,191 posts)
112. Equating the people you are debating with as holocaust deniers the epitome of incivility.
Thu Nov 28, 2013, 02:55 AM
Nov 2013

Last edited Thu Nov 28, 2013, 03:42 AM - Edit history (1)

So is labeling as them authoritarian because they have proven you are misinformed in a debate.

You can pretend to be courteous, but you have proved that you are not.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
2. Hard to confirm without a quoted transcript.
Mon Nov 25, 2013, 09:24 PM
Nov 2013

The claim is supported by a citation to someone else's work (footnote 71). That is what's known as an indirect source, and is generally considered shoddy research when the direct source is available.

Anyway, I notice that you, Bolo Boffin, are one of four current hosts of the Creative Speculation forum:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=about&forum=1135

I therefore surmise that by posting your own original "conspiracy" thread in GD, you are endorsing and inviting other such posts in GD, and I commend you for that.

Bolo Boffin

(23,796 posts)
5. JFK conspiracy theories are enjoying a dispensation because of the anniversary.
Mon Nov 25, 2013, 09:39 PM
Nov 2013

I'm happy to have the conversation whenever and wherever it's happening. Should it ever be returned back to Creative Speculation, I'm happy to welcome any and all who want to continue the discussion there.

Bobby Kennedy putting Dulles' name forward for the Warren Commission is a matter of record. You can accept it or not. But it still happened:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2510642/Bobby-Kennedy-immediately-suspected-CIA-brothers-death-majority-Americans-believe-conspiracy-theories.html

In the end those concerns (of rogue CIA agents killing JFK) were put to rest after the younger Kennedy had a private conversation with the sitting CIA director, John McClune who promised that no one from the agency had a part in the assassination- the fourth in United States history.

On top of that, the hard feelings between Kennedy and Dulles- who was appointed as the Director of the CIA under his predecessor, President Eisenhower- were purely professional and not personal.

'Apparently the Kennedy family had no particular hostility toward Dulles,' Mr Shenon told NBC News.

...Perhaps out of that respect or in an effort to lend credibility to the group of officials who were tasked with investigating the assassination, Bobby appointed Dulles to be a member of the Warren Commission.


"Bobby appointed Dulles" goes too far. It's Johnson who appointed him. But it was Bobby who gave him Dulles' name.

mother earth

(6,002 posts)
7. Bobby gave him Dulles name in a private conversation? Hard to confirm, and given the position of
Mon Nov 25, 2013, 10:05 PM
Nov 2013

the person making this claim, doubly so.

I do agree with you that we will continue on through every November, and still may never know the whole truth.

Personally, I respect Dr. Cyril Wecht. and if he says there's no way there was one shooter, I'm inclined to agree.
Bad enough JFK was assassinated, but then shortly after RFK? The one man who would have made it his mission
to find the truth? Very unsettling, to say the least.

Bolo Boffin

(23,796 posts)
10. Perhaps you missed the name of the book:
Mon Nov 25, 2013, 10:17 PM
Nov 2013

"The Kennedy Assassination Tapes: The White House Conversations of Lyndon B. Johnson regarding the Assassination, the Warren Commission, and the Aftermath"

Tapes, mother earth. This private conversation is on a tape.

Dr. Wecht was a part of the HSCA, and he along with the other forensic pathologists agreed that Kennedy had two wounds, the back wound and head wound. Both entrance wounds were in the back and both exit wounds were in the front. I can't speak to what he's said before or since, but when he was looking at the official autopsy pictures and X-rays, that's what he said.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
20. You can't judge a book by its cover Bolo.
Mon Nov 25, 2013, 10:45 PM
Nov 2013


Okay not to be snarky here but if there's a tape, there's a transcript, and if so, it needs to be dug up and posted if you really want to talk about it. Sorry, that's just the way it is with this particular topic.
 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
111. Still no transcript?
Thu Nov 28, 2013, 01:35 AM
Nov 2013

How hard would it be to get a transcript IF THERE WAS ONE?

Without a transcript this whole idea about RFK is just BS.

mother earth

(6,002 posts)
23. TY, BB, I did not realize this private conversation was on tape. Do you have the excerpt
Mon Nov 25, 2013, 11:07 PM
Nov 2013

claiming that fact, esp. given Octafish's #57 reply, which is why I originally doubted RFK would rec. Dulles.

stopbush

(24,396 posts)
64. Didn't Dr Cyril Wecht also participate in the "Alien Autopsy" TV show?
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 03:07 AM
Nov 2013

You know, the one with the latex dummy and the grainy video, with the camera man who always seems to point his camera in the right direction, just as something "important" happens? Why, it's almost as if he's filming it on cue...

mother earth

(6,002 posts)
67. Here are his credentials if you are interested, what were his findings?
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 12:26 PM
Nov 2013

I guess a forensics pathologist has to do autopsies on bodies in various states.

About Cyril H. Wecht

Cyril H. WechtCyril H. Wecht, M.D., J.D., is a forensic pathologist, attorney and medical-legal consultant.

Education

Dr. Wecht received his medical degree from the University of Pittsburgh, and his law degree from the University of Maryland. Dr. Wecht is certified by the American Board of Pathology, in anatomic, clinical, and forensic Pathology, and is also a Fellow of the College of American Pathologists and the American Society of Clinical Pathologists.
http://www.cyrilwecht.com/about.php

stopbush

(24,396 posts)
72. No one is doubting his credentials. He's highly credentialed.
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 02:26 PM
Nov 2013

I'm questioning his penchant for getting involved with forensic woo from time to time.

mother earth

(6,002 posts)
75. Forensics is not congruent with woo, it is science based. Woo is in the eye of the beholder, one
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 05:17 PM
Nov 2013

day perhaps you may experience something inexplicable. I do hope if you look further into it to try to make sense of it, you are not hit with the same label you callously appoint.

There are some things in this world that defy our understanding. At your age, if you are not aware of this, I'd be inclined to believe you are lying.

nyquil_man

(1,443 posts)
9. Then there's the Katzenbach memo.
Mon Nov 25, 2013, 10:16 PM
Nov 2013

Nick Katzenbach was RFK's second-in-command at the Justice Department and, for all intents and purposes, was acting Attorney General while RFK mourned his brother's death.

Here's what he wrote, three days after the assassination:

1. The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial.
2. Speculation about Oswald’s motivation ought to be cut off, and we should have some basis for rebutting thought that this was a Communist conspiracy or (as the Iron Curtain press is saying) a right–wing conspiracy to blame it on the Communists. Unfortunately the facts on Oswald seem about too pat — too obvious (Marxist, Cuba, Russian wife, etc.). The Dallas police have put out statements on the Communist conspiracy theory, and it was they who were in charge when he was shot and thus silenced.
3. The matter has been handled thus far with neither dignity nor conviction. Facts have been mixed with rumour and speculation. We can scarcely let the world see us totally in the image of the Dallas police when our President is murdered.

Nicholas deB. Katzenbach
Deputy Attorney General


http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=756877

The above cited website refers to this as "the blueprint for the cover-up." JFKLancer says, "There may be no other document that makes it more clear that there was no interest in a true investigation by the highest federal authorities and it was issued just days after the assassination."

And it came right out of the Justice Department, written by a second-in-command who had been appointed and promoted by JFK and, presumably, approved of by RFK.
 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
15. Al Gore, too
Mon Nov 25, 2013, 10:26 PM
Nov 2013

Al allowed that sniveling little bastard of a Bush to steal the 2000 election

"For the good of the country." I think Kerry did, too.

nyquil_man

(1,443 posts)
17. That's not the reason Katzenbach gave to the HSCA.
Mon Nov 25, 2013, 10:32 PM
Nov 2013
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-1d.html#justice

In testimony at a public hearing of the committee, Katzenbach said he believed it would have been distasteful and of questionable propriety for Robert Kennedy to have presided over the investigation of his brother's death. He insisted there had been a need for a special investigative body that could make use of the resources of a number of Federal agencies. The committee agreed with Katzenbach's general points.

nyquil_man

(1,443 posts)
16. Here's what the HSCA said about it:
Mon Nov 25, 2013, 10:31 PM
Nov 2013
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-1d.html#justice

2. The Department of Justice Failed to Exercise Initiative in Supervising and Directing the Investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the Assassination

In the aftermath of the assassination of President Kennedy, the Justice Department participated in various discussions with White House and FBI officials, and it had a major part in the formation of the Warren Commission. The committee found, however, that the Department largely abdicated what should have been important responsibilities in the continuing investigation. <...>

In testimony at a public hearing of the committee, Katzenbach said he believed it would have been distasteful and of questionable propriety for Robert Kennedy to have presided over the investigation of his brother's death. He insisted there had been a need for a special investigative body that could make use of the resources of a number of Federal agencies. The committee agreed with Katzenbach's general points.

The committee observed, nevertheless, that it was regrettable that the Department of Justice was taken out of the investigation, for whatever reason. It was unfortunate that it played so small a role in insuring the most thorough investigation of President Kennedy's assassination. The promise of what the Department might have realized in fact was great, particularly in the use of such evidence-gathering tools such as a grand jury and grants of immunity.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
26. Based it appears on the 1978 testimony of the same Nicholas Katzenbach:
Mon Nov 25, 2013, 11:19 PM
Nov 2013
References: Section D 2

4. Testimony of Nicholas deB. Katzenbach, Sept. 21, 1978, hearings before the Select Committee on Assassinations, U.S. House of Representatives, 95th Congress, 2d session (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, (1979), vol., pp. 644-645.


http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/references1-jfk.html#sectiond2

Curious.

nyquil_man

(1,443 posts)
29. Yes, he was explaining why the Justice Department abdicated its role in the investigation
Mon Nov 25, 2013, 11:24 PM
Nov 2013

and why he was pushing for a commission. He explained that he felt it was inappropriate for a murder victim's brother to head the investigation into that murder.

So there's Nick Katzenbach, laying the "blueprint for a cover-up" out of concern for a conflict of interest.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
33. It sounds like he's blaming RFK who as AG ran the Justice Dept
Mon Nov 25, 2013, 11:36 PM
Nov 2013

and was freshly dead, having been assassinated three months prior to Mr Katznebach's testimony.

nyquil_man

(1,443 posts)
37. Ten years and three months, actually,
Mon Nov 25, 2013, 11:43 PM
Nov 2013

but that's beside the point.

Blaming RFK for what? For being the brother of a murder victim?

In examining the performance of the Department of Justice in the Kennedy assassination, the committee took into account the importance of the understandable personal situation of Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy during the period following his brother's death. (emphasis mine)

Even the HSCA acknowledged that it had an effect on the Justice Department's performance. And why wouldn't it?

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
41. "the Department largely abdicated ... important responsibilities" etc.
Mon Nov 25, 2013, 11:54 PM
Nov 2013

You quoted it yourself. Blaming Bobby for failures of the Warren Commission strikes me as an exceedingly odd thing to do, whatever the distance of years.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
45. Sec. D2 claims "The DoJ Failed" and cites Katzenbach's 1978 testimony:
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 12:05 AM
Nov 2013

2. The Department of Justice Failed to Exercise Initiative in Supervising and Directing the Investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the Assassination

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


References, Section D2:

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/references1-jfk.html#sectiond2

You brought it up, so why deny it?

nyquil_man

(1,443 posts)
47. Oy vey.
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 12:12 AM
Nov 2013

Fine, the HSCA blamed Robert Kennedy for the Warren Commission, lock, stock, and barrel. There is no room for nuance there at all.

I'm sure that, if you were accused of murder, you'd want the investigation to be headed by the victim's brother.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
49. Better the victim's brother than the accused murderer
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 12:20 AM
Nov 2013

particularly if the victim's brother is going to get blamed for "failure" when he's in his own grave.

nyquil_man

(1,443 posts)
52. So you do think RFK should have been in charge of the investigation?
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 12:35 AM
Nov 2013

Do you think the Justice Department should have played a more active role?

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
53. RFK wasn't President, LBJ was.
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 12:55 AM
Nov 2013

I don't know what his prerogatives were, and I don't know what he said to LBJ. If there's a tape of a conversation mentioning Dulles I'd like to see a transcript. The claim made in the OP strikes me as unlikely but frankly wouldn't change a damn thing either way. JMHO, YMMV.

nyquil_man

(1,443 posts)
55. You didn't really answer the question there.
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 01:11 AM
Nov 2013

Do you think RFK should have asserted his authority at the Justice Department to ensure a rigorous investigation?

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
56. What authority? The Warren Commission was LBJ and Hoover.
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 01:25 AM
Nov 2013

David Talbot, Brothers (2007), p. 282:

Working closely with J Edgar Hoover {snip} LBJ had moved aggressively to wrap up the case. "The thing I am most concerned about . . . is having something issued so that we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin," Hoover told Johnson in a phone conversation two days after the assassination, which echoed the new president's own sentiments.


And so on. So blaming Dulles or any other aspect of the Warren Commission on Bobby seems to me an exceedingly sleazy if not suspicious tactic.

nyquil_man

(1,443 posts)
57. He was the Attorney General of the United States.
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 01:31 AM
Nov 2013

The man left in charge of the Justice Department in his absence, a man of whom neither JFK nor RFK expressed disapproval, towed the lone gunman line and wrote the memo which encouraged the creation of the Warren Commission.

You've said that you'd rather have the victim's brother investigating the crime. I'm curious to know what you think he would have done differently, especially as you think he had no authority.

You recoil at the notion of blaming RFK, but you have no trouble portraying him as utterly powerless.

Bolo Boffin

(23,796 posts)
60. "exceedingly sleazy if not suspicious tactic"
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 01:51 AM
Nov 2013

The fact remains: Bobby suggested Allen Dulles to Lyndon Johnson as one of the three civilian members of the Warren Commission. Furthermore, Bobby also suggested John McCloy to the new President.

Lyndon obliged him in both choices:

As for the makeup of the rest of the Commission, I appointed the two men Bobby Kennedy asked me to put on it, Allen Dulles and John McCloy - immediately.


From Johnson's "The Vantage Point: Perspectives of the Presidency, 1963-1969, page 48.

In fact, JFK was due to have given John McCloy a Freedom Medal on December 6, 1963.

There is no sleazy or suspicious tactic here on my part. As I have said repeatedly, I do not think Robert Kennedy was an accessory before or after the fact in a cover-up of responsibility for his brother's murder. There is no smearing of Robert Kennedy on my part at all. The problem is for conspiracy advocates who decry both Dulles and McCloy as satans incarnate. How could that be when they were on the Commission by Bobby Kennedy's suggestion?

Bolo Boffin

(23,796 posts)
25. RFK suggested Dulles for the Commission to Johnson, Octafish.
Mon Nov 25, 2013, 11:18 PM
Nov 2013

Holland didn't invent the tape.

Do you consider Bobby Kennedy an accessory in any way to his brother's murder, Octafish? I trust the answer is no, but I wouldn't want to put words in your mouth.

Bolo Boffin

(23,796 posts)
34. What are you talking about?
Mon Nov 25, 2013, 11:36 PM
Nov 2013

The truth is the truth, disrespectful or not. Octafish has worn me out for trying to put words in his mouth before, so I'll let him speak for himself on this matter, even when I'm as sure of the answer as I am.

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
31. Hey Octafish
Mon Nov 25, 2013, 11:29 PM
Nov 2013

Now just you watch... there will be some who go off topic and even go so far as try to make the discussion about you.

On edit: Or post about me!

mother earth

(6,002 posts)
46. Let's not forget E. Howard Hunt's deathbed confession. Doesn't seem RFK liked Dulles, he fired him.
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 12:05 AM
Nov 2013
http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2013/11/e_howard_hunt_cia_jfk_killing.php


"Bobby said, 'I will splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces -- he fired Allen Dulles, my dad's boss, and my dad was demoted after the failed invasion of Cuba. [Kennedy did go along with the Bay of Pigs, but he didn't want the USA linked]... A lot of people had a lot of reasons to get rid of JFK. He was hated by everybody in the military-industrial complex -- warmongers, big business, oil guys."

Kennedy wanted to "end the war in Vietnam, go back to the gold standard, reduce military expenditures. He was a visionary and had to be gotten rid of."

mother earth

(6,002 posts)
48. More...excerpt from same Hunt article, above link.
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 12:13 AM
Nov 2013
Saint John says LBJ was linked with seven murders and was a "vile, underhanded backstabbing sociopath."

In the summer of 1963, St. John says, another CIA guy, Bill Harvey, called his father to a
"big safehouse here at the UM campus" with Frank Sturgis, David Morales, and Harvey, and "this is what he told me on his deathbed -- they were putting together an option -- an idea, a contingency plan for the big event -- for the elimination of a powerful American figure is what they told my dad -- who would be traveling on business. Everything was on a need-to-know basis -- my dad didn't want to know who it was.

"Bill Harvey was the boss. He loved being on dirty side. My dad was like an American James Bond -- smoking fine Cuban cigars, exotic mistresses, foreign dignitaries, a
ladies man, a letters man. My dad was brought in to look at what these guys were putting out there, to tighten up the plan. They respected my dad and knew he was a Kennedy hater."

St. John believes that the head shot to Kennedy was made by Lucien Sarti behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll and that an operative named Mack Wallace whose fingerprints were found could have shot also. It was all pinned on Lee Harvey Oswald, and "Bill Harvey got Jack Ruby to gun him down. My dad told me that Jack Ruby, on orders from the Mafia, shot Oswald and it had to be worked out with the Dallas PD. There's no reason Jack Ruby just snuck there and shot him out of mourning for JFK.

"My father's alibis changed over time... My mom told me [my dad] went to Dallas that day." He said there's a memo "from Richard Helms, the CIA head that says, 'One day we'll have to explain why Hunt was in Dallas on the 22nd.'"

stopbush

(24,396 posts)
65. The "I will splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces" quote was first attributed to JFK.
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 03:13 AM
Nov 2013

Now, it's RFK who said it.

Best bet? Neither of them ever said it.

mother earth

(6,002 posts)
66. More like they BOTH said it, they were a force to be reckoned with when it came to actually
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 12:18 PM
Nov 2013

doing something to better this nation, no BS, no compromise on that, something we're sorely missing no matter who is in office, GOP'er or Dem. The last time we had a gov't that instituted REAL uncompromising change and facilitated progress was when JFK was in office.

stopbush

(24,396 posts)
73. If only JFK had made a public statement about the CIA, the country would have known
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 03:11 PM
Nov 2013

how he really felt about them.

Oh wait, he did:

"I can find nothing, and I have looked through the record very carefully over the last nine months, and I could go back further, to indicate that the CIA has done anything but support policy. . . So I think that while the CIA may have made mistakes, as we all do, on different occasions, and has had many successes which may go unheralded, in my opinion in this case [South Vietnam] it is unfair to charge them as they have been charged. I think they have done a good job." - JFK news conference, October 9, 1963

Spoken 6 weeks before JFK was killed.

Oh, and under JFK, the CIA received one of its biggest budget increases in history.

mother earth

(6,002 posts)
76. And oh how they hated him despite that little olive branch, while BOTH brothers planned to
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 05:29 PM
Nov 2013

dissemble, no doubt many more quotes can be attributed to secretiveness....hmmm..
How foolish of you to spread BS when it is clear from anything of and/or about the Kennedys, they were hated by CIA factions because they were going to end covert activity, they knew the dangers. You must take fellow DU'ers as fools to take you at your word. Now we know for certain, you sir, are NO KENNEDY! (Remember that line? You would do well to honor the Kennedy memory and add truth to your repertoire here at DU, or we will be thinking you are no democrat to boot.)

Now stop digging a hole for yourself, it's deep enough.

President Kennedy soon after the failure spoke at a meeting of the American Association of Newspaper Editors and assumed all blame for the failed invasion. His staff then began leaking information to reporters, blaming the failure on anyone except the administration. (1)President Kennedy was quoted as saying, "How could I have been so stupid?" to trust the groups who were advising him, such as the CIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS). (2) Even more damning to the CIA was a reputed quote by President Kennedy that he wanted to "splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds."


Excerpt from: Did President Kennedy Plan on Splintering the CIA?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jfk_cia.htm

stopbush

(24,396 posts)
95. I voted D in my first presidential election in 1972, Elmer, and have voted D ever since.
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 10:58 PM
Nov 2013

I've donated to D causes, raised money, canvassed for Ds for the past 41 years. What have you done? I voted D and worked the campaign streets when other Ds were embracing Reagan.

So don't tell me I'm not a Democrat. You should be ashamed of yourself.

It just goes to prove what paranoia like yours coupled with a belief in CT fantasies will drive a person to say. I have never accused any of you CTists of not being Democrats. Your accusations disgust me.

I was alive when JFK was killed. Were you?

I honor his memory by accepting the facts of his death. You dishonor his death by clinging to unfounded theories that do nothing but erode people's faith in government, the same government that JFK used as an instrument to help people. What do you think JFK would think of your "government is evil" bullshit?

You dishonor his death by making apologies for that little shit that murdered him, Oswald - the ONLY person who pulled a trigger that day.

The intransigence President Obama faces from today's RWers is there in large part because there has been a systematic destruction of the confidence Americans have in their government, and a large art of that distrust comes directly from the CT fantasies you and others advertise.

My advice to you: go dig yourself a hole. That's where your pathetic opinions belong.

mother earth

(6,002 posts)
98. No, you act pathetically when you shit on others who do not share your same opinions.
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 11:31 AM
Nov 2013

You could have acted differently, perhaps you could prove you are a dem by acting more like one, than acting like a troll and offering nothing more than ridicule. We are past the point of the JFK/RFK assassinations being far more than CT, is the majority who understand that we were fed a charade of a commission wrong? Obviously, they must be because YOU say so.

Those who disagree would be better served to stop the ridicule at this point. When there's a steady stream of information still forthcoming and professionals and authors relentlessly document their reasons for doubting the WCR, it bears further scrutiny.

So I insulted you? Well, that's because with your nic, I KNOW you know better. Our gov't has not always been forthcoming with us, now has it? If anything else, at least admit that.

I just gave you a taste of your own medicine & you didn't like it, because you expected me to shut up and go away. Reminds me of Fox news. When you don't add to the discussion and it turns into a pissing match, it's called bullying NOT discussion. Frankly, I think DU has turned into a constant display of similar behavior and it's what is truly disgusting. There's a lack of discussion, anonymity is a tool for tools, which is why many people are realizing some DU'ers are more like GOP'ers - your actions are what counts, don't present half-truths to bolster your view.

stopbush

(24,396 posts)
99. Hard to take the heat when you haven't a leg to stand on, isn't it?
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 11:39 AM
Nov 2013

Yep, the majority are wrong in the JFK case. Yep, the government lies to us on occasion, just not on this occasion. Yep, professionals and authors are still wasting everyone's time making shot up about the assassination. Unfortunately for them, the investigative professionals already figured it out and authored their reports.

And, yep, the JFK CTs are worthy of ridicule, which is why I will ridicule them whether you like it or not.

I'll ask one question of you: have you read the Warren Report? How about the HSCA report?

And I'll make one statement: in my opinion, you disgrace the memory of JFK by not being able to accept plain facts, and by touting your CT crap, but I would never accuse you of not being a Democrat.

mother earth

(6,002 posts)
100. I guess his family is disgracing his memory too, because they aren't buying it either, never have.
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 11:54 AM
Nov 2013

I'm going to end this little game with you, because you aren't ready to put your big boy pants on just yet.

When you grow up, perhaps you will be better able to tolerate another's opposing point of view.

I really don't feel the need to prove myself to you by answering your questions, stopbush.
You can call my opinion CT all you want, I will wear my hat proudly, along side of the Kennedy family I'll add, and the countless professionals who are coming forward with information never presented by the WCR. What a surprise!

You see, it makes no difference to me to be right or wrong, I want the investigation to be COMPLETE, which it never was, when 75% of other Americans feel that way too, I guess I'm not alone.

I wonder why those who feel Oswald was the only shooter would be afraid of putting all the facts on the table? Sure some silly things get thrown into the mix. It just seems to me it's crazy to pooh-pooh further evidence and discussion and to kill the messenger in the process and throw that CT tinfoil hat at others, as though it's a badge of honor to do so. What's gained by that? Transparency is always the best disinfectant.

Goodbye, stopbush, I'd like to say it was nice chatting, maybe next time we'll get on better.



stopbush

(24,396 posts)
103. I'll take your non-response as an answer of "no" that you've ever read the WCR or the HSCA.
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 03:15 PM
Nov 2013

Won't answer the question means can't answer the question without proving that you have no problem criticizing a report you've never read. Hard to tell us exactly what the information is that "the WCR never presented" when you haven't a clue as to what evidence the WCR did present.

You're probably not even aware of the fact that the WCR concluded that they did not rule out the possibility that evidence could arise at a future date that proved there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, only that they could find no such evidence during their investigation. Gee, ME, why would they leave THAT door open if they were presenting a whitewash of the case?

I wonder why those who don't feel Oswald acted alone are so afraid to read the WCR. You'd think they'd be interested in the present evidence before looking for future evidence. Most CTists prove they haven't the foggiest idea about the evidence in the WCR because they misquote it and ignore it all the time, as most threads at DU on the assassination prove.

Typical CT BS.

PS - your imagining that you're "proudly standing by the side of the Kennedy family" in believing the CTs is a simple case of self-importance and -aggrandizement that is also typical of JFK CTists. Why, it's like the Kennedys themselves have ASKED you to stand with them!! It's just another self-serving fantasy you've cooked up to make yourself feel good about your beliefs. It means nothing, not to the Kennedys, and certainly not to the actual evidence n the case.

mother earth

(6,002 posts)
106. You know nothing of me, nor of the Kennedys. Who are you to say any of these things? You are
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 04:00 PM
Nov 2013

blowing smoke in the wind. I imagine nothing, I read, I allow and realize that I do not have the last word on any subject, nor do you.
Who is to say who the real conspiracy theorist is? Cling to your closed mind, if it gives you peace.

mother earth

(6,002 posts)
114. You aren't convincing anyone of anything, why so bent on stalking those who simply do not agree
Thu Nov 28, 2013, 08:41 PM
Nov 2013

with the façade of an investigation aka WCR. YOU have proved nothing but the churning and regurgitation of the old storyline. Why don't YOU go read? The material and evidence available today is abundant and growing.

I really don't care if you choose to do so, however, you might actually learn something new if you still maintain that ability. Not so easy to fool people any more, back then it was easier, today not so much.

Stop stalking and engage in thought, you might find you like it.

stopbush

(24,396 posts)
115. You've proved you haven't read the WCR but you'll still criticize it.
Sat Nov 30, 2013, 01:35 AM
Nov 2013

At least I only criticize the CT books I've actually read. Unlike you, I'm not afraid to read an opposing opinion.

stopbush

(24,396 posts)
109. Aww, wittle baby got his diapers in a bunch.
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 11:02 PM
Nov 2013

When facts and evidence equal hate, you're off in Republican land.

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
110. You're not even funny
Thu Nov 28, 2013, 01:33 AM
Nov 2013

Your words are evidence of spewing hate. Hate towards a majority of DUers who do not see the history the same as you.

You really think you have convinced one person to see the history as you do? Someone like Ocatfish has taught many to see things different. You could learn a lot from Octafish.

stopbush

(24,396 posts)
113. What does one learn from Octafish? That fantasy trumps evidence?
Thu Nov 28, 2013, 01:34 PM
Nov 2013

What is this? Religion?

No thanks.

mother earth

(6,002 posts)
81. So says the CIA guy's son...jury's out on that one, but he knew the fed reserve's power,
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 06:00 PM
Nov 2013

don't we all today? My head hurts too. One thing is certain, Hunt's son isn't lying about his dad's confession.

 

KamaAina

(78,249 posts)
84. Is it?
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 06:22 PM
Nov 2013
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Howard_Hunt#Posthumous_allegations:_.22deathbed_confession.22_of_involvement_in_JFK_Assassination

According to Hunt's widow and other children, the two sons took advantage of Hunt's loss of lucidity by coaching and exploiting him for financial gain. The Los Angeles Times said they examined the materials offered by the sons to support the story and found them to be "inconclusive".
 

KamaAina

(78,249 posts)
87. Impressive resume, this.
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 06:34 PM
Nov 2013
He has appeared as a guest with both Ian Punnet and George Noory on "Coast-toCoast AM", with Alex Jones on "Prison Planet", with CNN's Glen Beck, and other broadcast, on-line and print media.


mother earth

(6,002 posts)
88. He's making money off of this revelation, no doubt. I don't hear much new on JFK on MSM,
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 07:08 PM
Nov 2013

it's all the same rehash. There's the occasional interview with the author who supports the WCR.

I can't say I blame you for seeing the humor in SJH, I don't vouch for his resume or his approach to the subject matter, but then he never asked. I am skeptical of Alex Jones and the others too, and likewise for anyone who believes the official report is complete.

It doesn't change the fact that he's not the only person who has offered up intriguing info. I'm sure it will take years before any consensus is reached, if there ever is one to come.

It doesn't change the fact that those in the majority believe there were two shooters.

I understand those who do believe the WCR, but when the Kennedy family has recently opened up about their own disbelief.
There is much to consider. Jackie married Onassis for protection for her children's sakes. Everything she did was about protecting them.

I have to laugh myself, you all sure keep fighting CT, why? It should be easy to sweep away, but instead those who doubt Oswald as the lone shooter is in majority.

Enjoy it, KA, it's going to be around for some time to come.

KurtNYC

(14,549 posts)
78. The WCR is a whitewash and a lie regardless.
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 05:46 PM
Nov 2013

While you seem to want to lump together all who disagree with you, those who do their own research are entitled to their own specific conclusions.

Let any one who is so inclined research the whole matter to their own satisfaction.

RFK looked at phone records after the murders -- meta data -- and guess who Oswald and Ruby called in the days leading up to the murders?

mother earth

(6,002 posts)
82. Good point.
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 06:03 PM
Nov 2013
http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2013/01/oswald-and-ruby-phone-records-rfk-jr.html

Oswald and Ruby Phone Records – RFK, Jr. Got It Right

By William E. Kelly, Jr.


Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. set off a firestorm of media and critical reaction after being interviewed in a public program at the Winspear Opera House in Dallas by saying that neither he nor his father believed that a “lone-gunman” killed President Kennedy

Interviewed by Charlie Rose, Kennedy was also quoted as saying, “…When they examined Jack Ruby and Lee Harvey Oswald’s phone records,…they saw…an inventory of the Mafia leaders that they had been investigating…”

A former aide to Robert F. Kennedy, Paul Schrade, who was wounded in the same barrage of bullets that killed RFK, asked if the tape will be aired or a transcript of it released and they said they are waiting for permission from Kennedy and Charlie Rose. In the meantime, we are left with the quotes attributed to those who were there in the audience. Rodger Jones, an editorial writer for the Dallas News, in an apparent attempt to put the complete interview in context, wrote:

“RFK Jr.’s assassination narrative began with an anecdote about his dad seeing New Orleans DA Jim Garrison’s photo on a newsstand and asking an aide if there was anything to Garrison’s theories about the CIA, Cuba and Mafia in his brother’s killing. RFK Jr. said his dad was told that Garrison was on to something, but ‘the specifics of Garrison’s investigation went on the wrong track, but he thought there was a link …’ Kennedy said his dad put investigators on it. When they examined Jack Ruby and Lee Harvey Oswald’s phone records,… they saw what was essentially ‘an inventory of the Mafia leaders that they had been investigating for the past two years at the Justice Department.”

KurtNYC

(14,549 posts)
89. I forget offhand how the police recording of Milteer came out. Was it RFK?
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 07:20 PM
Nov 2013

Milteer got at least 2 key elements of the murder correct 2 weeks or so before it happened. He says all kinds of operational stuff in there too. For example, he claims that JFK had 15 doubles and knew he was "a marked man" but what really fueled the fire was this from his conversation with a police informant who taped it in Miami:

November 9, 1963:

MILTEER: There ain't any count down to it, we have just got to be sitting on go. Count down they can move in on you, and on go they can't. Count down is alright for a slow prepared operation, but in an emergency operation, you have got to be sitting on go.

SOMERSETT: Boy, if that Kennedy gets shot, we have got to know where we are at. Because you know that will be a real shake, if they do that.

MILTEER: They wouldn't leave any stone unturned there no way. They will pick up somebody within hours afterwards, if anything like that would happen just to throw the public off.


http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Transcript_of_Milteer-Somersett_Tape
 

Spider Jerusalem

(21,786 posts)
90. "Whitewash and lie"...confirmed in its essential conclusions by every subsequent investigation?
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 07:23 PM
Nov 2013

Oswald called his uncle to come bail him out after he got arrested by the NOPD. His uncle was a smalltime bookie with some very peripheral connections to the mob in New Orleans. Ruby had relationships and friendships with people he'd known since childhood some of whom were involved in organised crime. And so, what? There's nothing especially sinister there and certainly nothing that indicates any kind of conspiracy on the part of either of them. It's just more unsubstantiated "oh hey look at these possible connections!" There are dots, but you can't make them line up into anything coherent because, guess what, there's not any evidence of anything there. And there aren't any records of any telephone conversations between Ruby and any of these "organised crime figures" between 18 November and 24 November. There are no records of any telephone conversations between Oswald and any "organised crime figures" between 18 and 21 November. Remember that Kennedy's motorcade route wasn't finalised until 18 November, and it was only finalised after Kennedy aide David Powers selected the Dallas Trade Mart as the location for the luncheon event on Kennedy's visit.

KurtNYC

(14,549 posts)
91. "subsequent investigation" should include the HSCA
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 07:33 PM
Nov 2013

Oswald worked on U2 operations. he got security clearance to do so and also radar over China. Then he was trained by the military to speak better Russian before his "defection." In New Orleans and Dallas his associates were RWers with militia and government connections but he played "commie lover" in the streets in August of 1963. I think we can safely skip all the creative ways to 'connect dots' and just go with the obvious conclusion.

If it walks like a duck...

 

Spider Jerusalem

(21,786 posts)
92. "Subsequent investigation" does in fact include the HSCA.
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 07:37 PM
Nov 2013

Which confirmed every major finding of the Warren Commission.

arthritisR_US

(7,288 posts)
93. RK was not afraid of being marginalized, no that was the reality LBJ lived in before the
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 07:48 PM
Nov 2013

assassination. RK knew it was only a matter of time before he would be edged out. People need to remember the geopolitical times of those years. If talk got loud and clear about LHO being pro Cuba or his ties to the USSR (giving up US citizenship and living there) well it would become a drum beat to attack Cuba and then Russia would have come into it….talk about a nuclear threat. So, if RK pushed for Dulles inclusion, I wouldn't be surprised or suspicious of his motivations. They loved their country and the Cuban Missile Crisis was only a year earlier so the fear wasn't forgotten.

Mc Mike

(9,114 posts)
94. All I get from the 'skeptic' link is 'the page does not exist'.
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 08:37 PM
Nov 2013

If you can point me to a working link, I'll read it (skeptically).

Your second link says some guy called RFK an accessory after the fact. I never heard of the 'author' who wrote this, and nobody on this site posted this opinion. I don't think you're a nazi coddling treasonous repug shit-head like Dulles, just because you both believe and advocate for the 'lone nut' explanation. Do you really think that WC detractors on this site can be blamed for the anti-RFK author you posted, because he also makes anti-WC statements? It doesn't seem fair, and is a pretty poor argument for the 'soundness' of the WC 'official story'.

You don't generally seem to be intellectually dishonest, to me, though I don't agree with you on this subject.

Bolo Boffin

(23,796 posts)
97. Let's see if this link works.
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 12:27 AM
Nov 2013
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B17POCe64mwvMXdhMFlJSHBVcDA/edit?usp=docslist_api

I'll check it after I post this reply. (Looks like you should be able to read it at least.)

Where do you think I got the second link from? From someone who has posted it here at least twice. I'm not interested in callouts, so I'll continue to withhold the name. But I am not holding people accountable for that link. I'm pointing out the implications of what they believe in an effort to see how they will respond. So far it's been outright denial. No one has has gone as far as the author of that second link yet and openly accused Bobby of a crime, though. For that, I'm glad.

I am fighting the genetic fallacy here. What I hope is that people will reconsider their condemnation of the Warren Commission based on Bobby's part in choosing two of the more objectionable commissioners. Time will tell, though.
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Whose idea was it to put ...