Bobby Kennedy: America's first assassination conspiracy theorist

[Octafish]

From Salon.com founder David Talbot comes a new book that examines the Kennedy Administration.

Talbot also reveals a most important part of our nation's history that Corporate McPravda seems to have missed: Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy didn't believe the Warren Commission whitewash.

Bobby Kennedy: America's first assassination conspiracy theorist

May 13, 2007
BY DAVID TALBOT

One of the most intriguing mysteries about the assassination of John F. Kennedy, that darkest of American labyrinths, is why his brother Robert F. Kennedy apparently did nothing to investigate the crime. Bobby Kennedy was, after all, not just the attorney general of the United States at the time of the assassination -- he was his brother's devoted partner, the man who took on the administration's most grueling assignments, from civil rights to organized crime to Cuba, the hottest Cold War flash point of its day. But after the burst of gunfire in downtown Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963, ended this unique partnership, Bobby Kennedy seemed lost in a fog of grief, refusing to discuss the assassination with the Warren Commission and telling friends he had no heart for an aggressive investigation. "What difference does it make?" he would say. "It won't bring him back."

But Bobby Kennedy was a complex man, and his years in Washington had taught him to keep his own counsel and proceed in a subterranean fashion. What he said in public about Dallas was not the full story. Privately, RFK -- who had made his name in the 1950s as a relentless investigator of the underside of American power -- was consumed by the need to know the real story about his brother's assassination. This fire seized him on the afternoon of Nov. 22, as soon as FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover, a bitter political enemy, phoned to say -- almost with pleasure, thought Bobby -- that the president had been shot. And the question of who killed his brother continued to haunt Kennedy until the day he too was gunned down, on June 5, 1968.

Because of his proclivity for operating in secret, RFK did not leave behind a documentary record of his inquiries into his brother's assassination. But it is possible to retrace his investigative trail, beginning with the afternoon of Nov. 22, when he frantically worked the phones at Hickory Hill -- his Civil War-era mansion in McLean, Va. -- and summoned aides and government officials to his home. Lit up with the clarity of shock, the electricity of adrenaline, Bobby Kennedy constructed the outlines of the crime that day -- a crime, he immediately concluded, that went far beyond Lee Harvey Oswald, the 24-year-old ex-Marine arrested shortly after the assassination. Robert Kennedy was America's first assassination conspiracy theorist.

SNIP...

A stunning outburst

Meanwhile, as Lyndon Johnson -- a man with whom he had a storied antagonistic relationship -- flew east from Dallas to assume the powers of the presidency, Bobby Kennedy used his fleeting authority to ferret out the truth. After hearing his brother had died at Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, Kennedy phoned CIA headquarters, just down the road in Langley, where he often began his day, stopping there to work on Cuba-related business. Bobby's phone call to Langley on the afternoon of Nov. 22 was a stunning outburst. Getting a ranking official on the phone -- whose identity is still unknown -- Kennedy confronted him in a voice vibrating with fury and pain. "Did your outfit have anything to do with this horror?" Kennedy erupted.

SNIP...

Kennedy had another revealing phone conversation on the afternoon of Nov. 22. Speaking with Enrique "Harry" Ruiz-Williams, a Bay of Pigs veteran who was his most trusted ally among exiled political leaders, Bobby shocked his friend by telling him point-blank, "One of your guys did it." Who did Kennedy mean? By then Oswald had been arrested in Dallas. The CIA and its anti-Castro client groups were already trying to connect the alleged assassin to the Havana regime. But as Kennedy's blunt remark to Williams makes clear, the attorney general wasn't buying it. Recent evidence suggests that Bobby Kennedy had heard the name Lee Harvey Oswald long before it exploded in news bulletins around the world, and he connected it with the government's underground war on Castro. With Oswald's arrest in Dallas, Kennedy apparently realized that the government's clandestine campaign against Castro had boomeranged at his brother.

CONTINUED...

http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/383811,CST-CONT-kennedy13.article

No matter what those who peddle the Big Lie think, the Truth will set us free.

[Swamp Rat]

1. The beginning of the End of America began with the assassination of JFK.

Even though my perspective is affected by what was done to us in New Orleans, I nevertheless doubt we will ever fully recover from the Kennedy assassination, primarily because he was murdered by our own government.

[roamer65]

11. You are so right on your assessment.

November 22, 1963 is where it all started to go wrong. The eyes of many were opened that horrible day.

[Morgana LaFey]

37. No, it started to go wrong well before that --

Actively importing Nazis into the CIA and various Republican strongholds at the end of WW2 was when I mark the active shift of "going wrong."

This is how I think of it: when we let them get away with the assassination of Kennedy is when we started losing our country.

And I may be wrong about that: it may be that the country was lost well before that. We had ardent fascists among our industrialists in the 20s and 30s -- people who supported Hitler, some of them well after we were at war with Hitler, George W. Bush's grandfather Prescott among them. Mabye it was all over but the shouting when we gave the Bushes and the Harrimans their money and company back (which the govt had confiscated because of Trading with the Enemy).

It's very difficult to pinpoint the exact moment, but every single time we let them get away with it, they came back stronger, bolder, more well-organized.

[bobbolink]

60. I seem to set the time of "going wrong" at the plot to overthrow FDR.

It's clearly a sign that something very bad was afoot!

Of course you're right..."but every single time we let them get away with it, they came back stronger, bolder, more well-organized. "

THat's why impeachment is so important.

BUT.. we have all those moaning about impeachment, and how it'll ruin the party, etc. The time comes when country trumps party.

But... I've come to the conclusion that many people don't want to look at that big picture.

We may very well have to lose it all before we understand the importance of country trumping party.

[Art_from_Ark]

73. I set it at the Lincoln assassination

Lincoln was set up by the hard-line repubs. His main purpose was to defeat the South, and immediately after he accomplished that, his usefulness to the Powers That Be (Edwin Stanton and his bunch)was over. Then, with Lincoln out of the way, the hard-core repubs made life miserable for Lincoln's successor, and at the same time began to set themselves up for nearly two decades of uninterrupted power.

[bobbolink]

114. I'm not that familiar with the history at that time.

You've raised my curiousity, and I'll look into that more.

Thank you.

[bobbie]

119. Lincoln's main purpose was to preserve the Union

He was very blunt about that.

But he printed greenbacks to fund the Civil War, bypassing the private central banks, so they killed him.

[lefador]

137. Indeed....

The bankers wanted to charge around 40% interest for war loans of money they made up, such is the beauty of the "debt-based" economic system. Lincoln pretty much said "screw that I'll print my own money" since a government is as good -or better- at backing their own debt with actual assets and taxes, rather than the debt that bankers can generate, which is usually based on other people's debts and assets.

Jackson, I believe, listed as his main accomplishment his opposition to the creation of a Federal Bank, ala central Bank in England. I think he had 2 attempts on his life. Kennedy was also trying to "nationalize" the Federal Reserve. Previous populist leaders who also opposed the Federal Reserve, like Huey Long and his "share the wealth" approach were also assassinated.

I don't care for conspiracy theories much, however it is easy to see a pattern of opposition to the Federal Reserve and the shortened life expectancy of a political leader uttering that view. I have always felt uneasy about the fact that money is printed by a private entity w/o any direct accountability/oversight from the nation's citizens.

Ironically, for such a Capitalist society, I have found that most US citizens have no clue how money works. Other than food/water, air, sleep, and sex, there are few things that we use/produce/exchange more than money... yet very few people stop and even wonder who the darn thing works. Every kid is taught in school about all the elements I just described, except monetary theory/practice.

[Art_from_Ark]

166. Preserve the Union from his point of view

Defeat the South from the hard-core Republican point of view.

Without a defeat of the South, the Union could not be preserved.

[Art_from_Ark]

169. Lincoln had no choice but to print greenbacks

Coin of the realm did not circulate-- even pennies were hard to find in circulation. And no one wanted private banknotes because of what had happened in the 1830s and 1840s.

But the leads mostly point to Secretary of War Stanton-- It was Stanton who covered up the Booth affair ("Booth" was burned by soldiers beyond recognition in a barn), it was Stanton who ordered the military tribunal of the assassination "conspirators" (who had to wear hoods during their kangaroo trial and sham execution), and it was Stanton who was in de facto control of the government after Lincoln died (which is why Johnson wanted to get rid of him, and why Congress passed a law to make it illegal for Johnson to fire him). Stanton was also very instrumental in the subjugation of the South after the war.

[Greyhound]

89. I think you may well be right. The fact that the perpetrators of the business plot

just walked away without even the formality of a slap on the wrist, turned the tide, again.

After the reforms adopted in response to the excess of the gilded age, a measure of power was returned to the people, who promptly walked away from it. Once General Butler exposed the business plot, the ruling classes were terrified and I'm sure many believed all was lost, but then...

...nothing...

How could they not be assured from that point on that no matter what they did or how blatant their schemes, that they would never suffer any consequences. The only limits on their corruption has been their own timidity.

Just look at how many of the sheep are willing to let the coup and the cabal slide, "because it will hurt our chances in 2008", as if somehow a Democratic President will magically make everything all better.:eyes:

Sometimes, I consider just giving in and joining the ranks of the predators, after all how can you have anything but contempt for creatures so incredibly stupid that they knowingly assist in their own destruction.

[bobbolink]

115. I'm afraid that I see things much the same way you do.

I"ve expressed it as we may have to lose it all in order to once again value true democracy.

Of course, people like me won't survive it, as always, but.... maybe if the muddle class actually gets pinched hard enough, and experiences the loss of democracy that they supposedly value, *maybe* they will get smart and get a spine.

I don't know. I really don't. The fear on DU of impeachment is so sad to me. It says to me that we are no where near rock bottom yet, so it's going to be a very ugly ride.

I fully expect that all these "party first" people are going to have to learn the hard way just what happens when you put party above country.

It'll be very ugly.

I give up, also, but.... "joining the ranks of the predators" just wouldn't work for me. Can't make a kitten be a roaring lion. :)

[Greyhound]

133. People like you and I are better prepared to deal with it, don't give up.

My greatest fear is to be to old that I am no longer able to help myself when it comes.

[bobbolink]

155. I'm hardly "better able to deal with it". Being at the bottom of the totem pole,

I have no resources to fall back on, no family, etc.

People like me are the first to be wiped out.

[bobbie]

122. Nicely said greyhound1966

Congress, McCormack-Dickstein Committee, confirms what General Butler tells them then refuses to bring the plotters to justice. That absolutely sends the message that there is no downside to treason if you're rich. Whereas there is a downside for the plotters: JP Morgan, Mellon, DuPont if they just let the democratic system work. They won't be as rich.

Gee, no surprise they kept trying to overthrow the few good presidents until they got the job done in 1963.

[Greyhound]

132. Thank you.

It's nice to know that at least a few people see these things and know they are wrong.

[bobbolink]

154. Lots of times, I wish I *didn't* see them. It's a very heavy burden to carry.

Especially alone.

[FogerRox]

156. IIRC McCormack-Dickstein Committee reported only testimoney from

4 witnesses, but they took testimony from many more. And the day after the NYT buried the story on page 17.

[bobbie]

167. They buried the story when they weren't ridiculing General Butler

Those two bastions of propaganda NY Times and Time Magazine did everything they could to discredit Butler. NT Times quoted a string of denials from people Butler named. Time magazine mocked Butler and compared him to General Custer. It was a concerted and orchestrated propaganda effort. And this was 1933/34.

So what we're seeing with the media is not new.

[Greyhound]

183. No, not new at all. Whether the names are Ochs-Sulzberger or Hearst,

or Murdoch, or a faceless corporation controlled by their contemporaries, it has been the same for centuries. Ruling elites controlling and manipulating information to cause, and dictate the outcome of, events.

[tom_paine]

79. every single time we let them get away with it, they came back stronger, bolder, more well-organized

Yes...exactly so.

And for all the noise (and at least there have been some investigations, some pushback...I though it would be THIS generation to kneel fully before the Imperials, but it looks like that dishonor will be reserved for a future generation.

[wordpix]

139. Agreed, we have to STOP these gangsters. No more "let bygones be bygones."

That is NOT the way to rebuild the country. This cabal must be JAILED and FINED for their crimes.

Hitler's Reich started out with small jabs at Jews and Communists and ended with a World War and millions dead, with millions more wounded and disposessed. We really need to come down hard on criminals in government.

[bobbolink]

157. but, but, but..... "For the good of the country" "the country must heal"

:puke:

[blm]

185. That's why we need to care WHO the Dem party nominates - it MATTERS

which of them will PURSUE crimes of office and which of them will CONTINUE to support secrecy and privilege over open government.

[bobbolink]

187. YES! Then, of course, we get vilified for being "purity" addicts.

:crazy:

I don't even think it's worth it anymore.

Let all these "you're so pure" criticisers finally lose the country over their willingness to go along to get along, and then maybe, MAYBE, they'll learn a thing or two about what democracy is.

:shrug:

[Prophet 451]

81. There was no single moment

History is about the interaction of forces and most events are caused by dozens of factors. It's very rare that one set of actions or one person can genuinely claim to change history. JFK's assassination, while tragic (and probably the result of a conspiracy) didn't change the world in the way that the assassination of Caesar Julius did or the way the Bier Hall Putsch did.

Where fascism was soundly beaten back in the rest of the west, the USA entered WWII late and didn't suffer to the same extent that, say, Europe did. The result of that was that while the fascist methodology fell out of fashion, there wasn't the same overpowering revulsion for it. That's probably what led to Operation Paperclip and when the US got involved in a conflict of ideaologies with the USSR, that fascist mentality (always corporate friendly) intertwined with extremist capitalism.

For the rest though, you're spot-on.

[bobbie]

118. Totally agree Morgana

We were lucky in 1933; we had General Smedley Butler.
The fascists failed to seize power.
We were unlucky in 1963.
The fascists seized power.

As long as we let them lie to us they'll continue to have absolute power.

[Octafish]

45. Perhaps now is the beginning of the new America...

...or the return of the Old One -- the one the Constitution detailed.

Like going to the moon -- it IS possible.

What's needed: We the People know the Truth.



PS: From a guy who strongly resembles Robbie Coltrane, I just love Sneer's outfit. It's totally, um, royal!

[bobbolink]

61. I wish I had your optimism. As I said above, there is so much fear

about impeachment, I think we may very well have to lose it all before we fully understand what is required of us as citizens.

And what's required certainly isn't worrying about party above all!!

[tom_paine]

78. I believe you are correct.

Now that the REAL Ceasaers, the REAL Pinochets have showed themselves (well, actually, these now are laying the groundwork for those, who will soon be coming), in 20/20 hindisght, it's quite clear.

No one wil ever know what truly happened on 11/23 and 9/11, except for one thing which is 99.9% certain.

The "official" stories are in part or wholly untrue.

[MotorCityMan]

94. I will never forget when Nixon resigned how upset my Mom was

I was eight years old at the time, and had never seen my mother so worked up about politics (unlike my dad).

She was near tears and said "This country really started going to hell after they shot Kennedy".

A few years later, after reading a book about the assasination, I started to agree. Neither of my parents believed the Warren Commisssion.

[bobbie]

117. And he was murdered by our own government because he was

Seeking peace. Ending the Cold War, pulling ALL US personnel out of Vietnam per NSAM #263/McNamara-Taylor Report, opening secret channels of communication with Castro. This infuriated the pentagon & the war profiteers, like LBJ's backers Brown & Root (now called Halliburton...) and the enforcement branch of the war profiteers--the CIA. But it was the right thing for ordinary people.

Because he wanted to bypass the World Bank and help third world countries with direct loans instead of IMF usury. Which infuriated David Rockefeller and other bankers. But it was the right thing for ordinary people.

Because he was investigating LBJ's many crimes and knew he had to get him out of government and LBJ would not have lasted one more week--literally--as VP because of the Bobby Baker scandal that congress was in session investigating on November 22, 1963, which infuriated LBJ. But it was the right thing for ordinary people.

President Kennedy was the last president ordinary people had.
If we fail to understand that, and why, we can't possibly understand what's going on today.
And if we don't insist on the truth about 1963, and 1965, and 1968... then we can't possibly expect to get the truth today.

[maveric]

2. The killers knew that if Bobby was elected prez he'd open wide investigations.

Thus sealing his death warrant.
Another dem/lib assassinated by a "lone nut"? I dont think so!

[sce56]

76. BBC New video and photographic evidence that puts three senior CIA operatives at the scene of RFK's

assassination has been brought to light.
There is no doubt that the CIA did it the proof is there in this BBC broadcast
Robert Kennedy Assassination BBC News Night report by Shane O'Sullivan. Nov 20 2006. Google video ~13 Min

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=911541252554369338


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/6169006.stm

The report is the result of a three-year investigation by filmmaker Shane O'Sullivan. He reveals new video and photographs showing three senior CIA operatives at the hotel.


What were they doing there? It's our obligation as friends of Bob Kennedy to investigate this
Paul Schrade
Three of these men have been positively identified as senior officers who worked together in 1963 at JMWAVE, the CIA's Miami base for its Secret War on Castro.

David Morales was Chief of Operations and once told friends:

"I was in Dallas when we got the son of a bitch and I was in Los Angeles when we got the little bastard."

Gordon Campbell was Chief of Maritime Operations and George Joannides was Chief of Psychological Warfare Operations.

Joannides was called out of retirement in 1978 to act as the CIA liaison to the Congressional investigation into the JFK assassination. Now, we see him at the Ambassador Hotel the night a second Kennedy is assassinated.

[fooj]

3. Poppy KNEW that this book was coming out, didn't he?

That's why he delivered that bizarre rambling at Ford's funeral about "not believing the conspiracy theorists"...

Yes. The TRUTH will set u.s. free!

[dogday]

12. I thought that was a badly timed statement indeed

:wtf: trying to justify the Warren Report, even at a funeral....

[Prophet 451]

82. The Warren Report

I'm amazed anyone still touts that thing. The House Select Committee On Assassinations concluded that JFK was probably done in by a conspiracy; the "magic bullet" theory has been throughly debunked by virtually everyone and at least one member of teh Warren Commission has said that he would not have made the same ruling if the information now available had been available to him then.

[blm]

21. That's how it usually works with the Bush thugs, fooj. And their mediawhores will help them.

Now they use the corpmedia they control to assassinate characters of those they want neutralized. And the press willingly complies and delivers.

[David Zephyr]

47. Thanks for the reminder. Poppy did revealingly touch the subject of his crime.

It blew me away when he did it. Thanks for the reminder.

[bleever]

65. Poppy's statement stood out for me too.

Why deny something that's ridiculous?

Is there some deeper enmity between the Walker/Bush clan, and the Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys?

Remember what Nixon said about Barbara Bush: "There's someone that knows how to hate."

[Cooley Hurd]

4. Reading this puts such a pit in my stomach...

I pray in my lifetime the entire truth comes out.

As always, thank you Octafish.:thumbsup:

[Traveling_Home]

5. Neither did LBJ but I think they both were wrong.

I believe that a thorough review of the scientific evidence clearly shows the lone gunman theory to be most likely. Don't get caught and forget that the movie "JFK" was just a movie, not a documentary and few of it's 'revelation' can stand the light of day.

[Wednesdays]

18. Yes, magic bullets take several angled turns...

Strange how the Lord works in mysterious ways.

[TheWraith]

72. Actually, no magic bullet is required.

The "magic bullet" theory stipulated that both men be sitting straight up and facing forward at the moment of impact, with their hands at their sides, like crash test dummies. In actuality, when you analyze the film of the event, their bodies and limbs were in places which would make them consistent with a single bullet track.

[dailykoff]

75. That's right, Connelly and Kennedy ENCOURAGED the magic bullet

with their outrageous contortions. Shame on them! :spank:

[bobbie]

124. Wrong

The magic bullet had to change angle in mid air.
It had to hover in mid air.
It had to cause 7 wounds in 2 people and come out pristine and intact, lying on a stretcher at Parkland hospital all shiny and clean and waiting to be discovered.

Thus the "magic."

Don't try to BS people when they know the facts.

[TheWraith]

144. Obviously, you don't know the facts.

It's a simple matter of forensic science. The "magic" was when people argued that the bullet had to make an S-curve to have struck Kennedy on his left side, and the governor on his right. That's not the case, as has been proven by detailed analysis of the Zapruder film.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_bullet_theory#ABC.27s_The_Kennedy_Assassination:_Beyond_Conspiracy

What I find sad about this is that conspiracy myths take hold in the public imagination, and eventually obliterate any chance of finding out the truth.

[bobbie]

146. Be more specific, describe the exact path of the magic bullet

Without quoting Wiki, which is pure right wing propaganda.

Your posts lack specifics.
Edify us...

[jobycom]

102. That zigzagging bullet nonsense has been absolutely debunked.

Anyone who starts a conspiracy theory by talking about the "Magic Bullet" proves they don't know the evidence. One bullet traveling in a straight line from the SBD window struck JFK in the back of the neck and passed in a perfectly straight line through Connally, who was sitting lower and to the left of JFK, and was turning in his seat. Photo evidence, Zapruder film analysis, computer mockups, and trial runs all prove this beyond even the slimmest of doubt.

If you believe in a conspiracy, at least build it on evidence that hasn't been disproved. People talking about the Magic Bullet sound like people taking about a 6,000 year old Earth.

[Beausoleil]

106. Nobody listened to the Parkland doctors

when they described the throat wound as an entry wound. The shot came from the front. Over the years, people have focused on the "Magic Bullet", which required ballistic gymnastics to prove that Kennedy and Connelly were wounded by the same bullet. First responders disagreed.

At the 2000 November In Dallas Research Conference, Ronald Jones, M.D., an attending physician at Parkland in 1963 had to reiterate:

"During his presentation, Dr. Jones reported that his personal observations of the wounds the President sustained included a small round wound to the throat and a massive defect to the back of his head. It was his conclusion at that time that the wound to the throat was a wound of entry, an opinion which was shared by other Parkland physicans. At a press conference held that afternoon, for example, Malcolm Perry, M.D., asserted three times that the wound to the throat was a wound of entry."
http://www.jfklancer.com/Dallas00.html

Any other evidence about the throat wound comes from the autopsy, which had its own massive problems, at least, for anyone who has looked at the real evidence, not just the lone-nutter appeasing bogus autopsy. What the autopsy showed was that the original entry wound had been opened up for a tracheostomy, but was assumed to be a wound of exit. You really need to listen to the first medical professionals to see the wound, who agreed that it was an entry wound in the front of the throat.

Connelly was hit by another bullet altogether. But the lone-nutters can't have that because that would mean too many shots for LHO to have taken.

This doesn't even touch upon the "massive defect to the back of his head" which supports another front shot.

[jobycom]

127. Everyone listened to them, and that's the problem

They were speculating from a cursory visual examination. Further investigation proved it was an exit wound, as has numerous testing and recreation evidence since.

Ronald Jones, whom you cite, said that his first thought was that a bullet entered the neck, bounced off a vertabrae, and exited the back of his head. Here's his quote: "With no history as to the number of times that the President had been shot or knowing the direction from which he had been shot, and seeing the wound in the midline of the neck, and what appeared to be an exit wound in the posterior portion of the skull, the only speculation that I could have as far as to how this could occur with a single wound would be that it would enter the anterior neck and possibly strike a vertebral body and then change its course and exit in the region of the posterior portion of the head."

So if you think Jones was right about his guess on the front neck wound, why do you reject his initial observation of a rear head exit wound--which would kill your theory of a Grassy Knoll shot.

I've listened to the first medical professionals, the last medical professionals, ballistic experts, etc. I went from a half-hearted conspiracy theorist bent on proving it to the full realization that not one bit of evidence supports anything other than Oswald firing all three shots. The rest is flat-Earth science or Fundie-esque evidence denial.

[Beausoleil]

135. Then they assumed that the autopsy was a real autopsy

and not a medical coverup.

I dont' reject what Dr. Jones said about the wound in the rear of the skull. It fits a frontal kill shot. All that proves is that Dr. Jones was incorrect in thinking that the throat entry wound and the exit wound in the back of the skull were related. They were not. The fact that all the Parkland doctors described a large gaping exit wound in the back of the skull in no way disproves a frontal shot. Granted, the Parkland doctors were trying to save the President's life, not conduct a forensic examination, but they weren't stupid, either.

Dr. GROSSMAN: There was a hole in the front of the neck, which everyone thought was an entry wound. But as you know, we did not undress him. When it was clear that he was dead, I think out of respect for a dead person and respect for the president, we did not undress him.

Dr. JONES: But I think most of us thought this was an entrance wound, and in the back of the head was an exit wound.

Dr. BAXTER: Then we saw the bullet hole in his neck, or rather, the little wound, very small wound, in his neck, and we proceeded with a tracheostomy, and there was very little tissue damage there, not anything that would cause any problems with breathing.


These quotes come from a Larry King interview, and there are many indications that the Parkland doctors came to different conclusions from what their initial observations would lead to, but they are deferring to the autopsy.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0312/23/lkl.00.html

The trajectory of the bullet was not determined at autopsy, as Dr. Hume said they, "weren’t going to spend the rest of the night there". All they saw was the tracheostomy and only learned of the throat wound after calling the Parkland doctors. So who determined that the throat wound was an exit wound? It seems that the bullet trajectory was determined by deduction. It HAD to be an exit wound because the Single-Bullet theory required it. Everyone fell in line then. Science went out the window.

http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/TrajectoryOfaLie/TrajectoryOfaLie.htm

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sce56]

77. Bush's name and photo is all over it

[tom_paine]

80. CLASSIC guilty behavior by Poppy: screams INVESTIGATE ME.

Any regular schlub who tried this, to contact the cops the day of the crime and implicate someone who had nothing to do with the crime, would be INSTANTLY put under the microscope by the police.

"Why did you call us out of the blue? What made you think this gentleman had something to do with the crime?"

"Where were you the day of November 22nd. 1963?"

[Prophet 451]

84. Minor point

But I always get pissed when people insinuate that the entire reason for objecting to the Warren Commissions report was the movie JFK. From the moment the commission issued it's report, theorists were tearing it apart.

Disagree with our theories or reasoning, fine but kindly don't insinuate that we're all movie obsessives.

[Usrename]

88. Here's another interesting thought about reviewing the evidence.

I imagine it must be a difficult task to keep a car so perfectly steady while being under fire for eight seconds.

It must take a lot of training to be able to do that, especially if one is in the line of fire.

Oh yeah, the guy driving was well trained, now wasn't he?

[bobbie]

125. Special Agent Greer...

VERY well trained.
Special Agent Kellerman, sitting perfectly still next to Greer in the front seat for the entire eight seconds as the president was shot to death multiple times from every angle.
VERY well trained.
Special agent Emory Roberts, pulling agents off the back of the president's limo at Love field so there could be unobstructed shots from behind.
VERY well trained.

The other SS agents, including Clint Hill...
VERY hung over.

Yet not one SS agent was disciplined for staying up all night drinking alcohol and letting their president get killed.

Suspicious much?

[jobycom]

105. There was absolutely one gunman. The question of his possible connections

hasn't been thoroughly enough explored.

I'd have to see a fully documented version of the above story to have any idea whether to trust its conclusions on what RFK believed. They cite his angry, grief-filled accusations on the day of the assassination (if those are even accurate), but that hardly means he knew anything that day, in the fog of the chaos of the event. He may have been convinced someone else did it, he may have had occasional suspicions, or he may have believed Oswald did it and only pursued alternative theories to put them to rest. I can't tell without documentation how reliable the article is.

As for LBJ, who knows what he believed? He told one group one thing, another something else. I doubt LBJ gave a flying flip what happened, he just told whomever he was talking to whatever he thought they wanted to hear. He was one manipulative bastard.

I worked for Ralph Yarborough for a couple of years before his death in the 90s. He and LBJ were close friends and bitter rivals, at the same time. Once, Yarborough had an important dinner party hosting some diplomat important to something he was working on. At the time LBJ was upset about something they were fighting over. So, half an hour before the dinner party, LBJ called Senator Yarborough to an "important meeting" at the White House. Yarborough showed up, and for close to an hour, LBJ just shot the breeze with him. About half an hour after the dinner party had started, LBJ said something like "Well, look at the time. I won't keep you any longer. I know you have a dinner party to attend." It was all just a power play on his part, to show the Senator who was boss.

LBJ is well known for telling some people he believed Warren, and telling others he didn't. Yarborough always wanted the Warren Report thrown out, and a new investigation done. He believed that Oswald was the Lone Gunman (I heard him say it), but he would never answer the question of whether he thought anyone else was involved (at least not that I heard, though of course I wasn't very close to him, so he may have told others). I once found his paperback copy of the Warren Report, in his office. He had pages dog-eared and paper clipped, and had scribbled all in the margins. His biggest objections were over minor points, although some may have had grander implications. For instance, the WC says that LBJ was leaning over to retrieve a cufflink he had dropped just as the shots rang out, and that the SS agent jumped on him to protect him, so he never saw what happened. Yarborough was sitting next to LBJ when it happened. He said LBJ was upright, and jumped when the shots rang out. Yarborough was not called to testify before the WC, probably because LBJ convinced them not to call him because he would contradict LBJ's story, and also just because LBJ was a bastard and wanted to avoid giving Yarborough the limelight even for that short a time. Yarborough claimed he didn't think LBJ was involved--and keep in mind that he and JFK were very close, so Yarborough would not have protected LBJ over JFK. He told some people (I heard this from one of them, not from him) that he thought LBJ was lying to protect the SS agents, who he felt were getting a raw deal. That sounds naive, but that's what he said.

Anyway, those are just anecdotes, and I have no way to prove any of them. :) Yarborough's official biography does include some of that, mostly about him believing Oswald was the lone gunman.

I agree, the scientific evidence is conclusive that Oswald fired three shots, that the first shot missed, and that the second shot wounded JFK and Connally (the misnamed Magic Bullet). The third shot struck JFK in the head (Those who doubt that, watch Zapruder and tell me how a shot from in front of him or to the side could have gotten through the intact windshield and side window gaurds). The bullets came from the retrieved rifle (despite conspiracy claims that this was never tested--it was). The evidence is nearly conclusive that only three shots were fired--there is a stuck microphone tape that has four apparent shots, although the best evidence places that recording minutes too early to have recorded the shots, and in the wrong place).

To me, the question that hasn't been investigated enough is whether Oswald did this on his own. The evidence I've seen suggests he did, but if he was trying to keep any connections secret, there might be something no one has discovered. I keep thinking that if I were a group strong and clever enough to pull off a conspiracy to kill the president, I would hide all contacts, and I would also try to create a series of conspiracies after the killing making everyone believe that the evidence was faked, and that someone else shot the president. That way, all the suspicious minds are busy looking at whoever else could have done it, and no one is following the trials linked to the real killer. If such a group exists.

[Ghost Dog]

120. You ARE referring to THIS ZAPRUDER FILM, right?

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/zapruder.htm

http://imgred.com/

(See above link).

[jobycom]

128. There is only one, and it completely obliterates all conspiracy theories

despite Oliver North's pretensions otherwise.

Look, there's not doubt that Oswald fired the three shots. Any argument against that has to make up evidence or misinterpret science.

[Ghost Dog]

150. That fatal shot strongly appears to come from ahead and from the side. n/t

[touchstone]

151. And the bullet hole in the jacket is what???

>>Look, there's not doubt that Oswald fired the three shots. Any argument against that has to make up evidence or misinterpret science<<.

Nothing is more annoying than this kind of certainty from someone who doesn't seem to have a clue about what is going on or what he's talking about ...or are you just here doing some lone nut troll work?

So let me spell it out simply:

1) For Oswald to be the lone assassin the single bullet theory MUST be true.

2) The bullet hole in the jacket (and shirt) at approx. 4" down from the collar make the single bullet theory IMPOSSIBLE.

3) Therefore, the chances of the single bullet theory being true are ---and always have been--- zero. It has NOT been proved, and never will be. Leave out the confusing talk about the bullet changing direction, how pristine it was or wasn't, etc. The bullet hole in the jacket and shirt mean no single bullet, therefore there must have been multiple shooters, therefore the CASE is A CONSPIRACY. And as others have noted already in this thread, a conspiracy with "George Bush" of the CIA right smack in the middle.

4) Gerald Posner's failure to deal forthrightly with this fact about the jacket and shirt tells any reasonable person all that one needs to know about Posner's agenda. His *Case Closed* was a weapon of mass distraction. It was published for the 30th anniversary of 11/22/63, and less than 2 years after the MSM sliced and diced Oliver Stone over *JFK*. It's mission was to be the SLAM DUNK of its day, and finish off Stone and *JFK*. I have been amazed over the past decade at how well it has worked with some people. But now the spectacle of W, Iraq and cooked intelligence (not to mention world record corruption that seems to be based in ...what state? Oh, that's right, Texas) is bringing much to light, and the big ugly picture is becoming all too clear.

Bill

PS. And please, please come back with how the jacket "rode up" (As was evident in that new pix that turned up a couple of months ago). Would love to see you cite Posner by page number and illustration on how he "handled" this part of the argument.

PPS. And don't forget to throw in the ABC special from 2003 (narrated by Peter Jennings) in which the graphic of the shooting gave Kennedy a neck about a 1-2 feet long (I'm citing from my memory of seeing it a few months ago ...don't have image right in front of me at the moment ...but it was very distorted). IMO, this distorted graphic of JFK in the limo "kinda" dealt with the jacket/bullet hole problem without mentioning it or ---god forbid--- actually confronting it. Imagine all the work that went into animation that MISREPRESENTS the case while proclaiming case closed.

[Roland99]

184. What about that newer documentary showing Gov. Connelly (sp?) offset from JFK.

His seat was lower and shifted inward toward the center of the car and based on that info (according to this documentary), the graphical recreation showed the "magic bullet" to work.

I can't remember what channel it was on or who narrated it. It was within the last year or so.

[Ghost Dog]

186. Hey, welcome to DU, touchstone.

You'll like it here. :hi:

[bobbie]

123. Traveling_Home, name ONE inaccuracy in the movie "JFK"

I don't think you can.

Traveling_Home, tell us specifically which scientific evidence "clearly shows the lone gunman theory to be most likely." You can't.

Because you're wrong.

Oliver Stone nailed it. He got it right.
It's not "just a movie."
It's a movie director doing the job that the Warren Commission failed to do, and telling us who killed our president.

The government killed our president.
Oliver Stone told us the truth.
The Warren Commission lied to us.

[RufusTFirefly]

6. Look for Talbot to be largely ignored, mercilessly ridiculed, or viciously smeared.

I wish him strength.

[leveymg]

7. The reason that Bobby didn't press it were the inner cover-stories.

There's the Warren Commission Report, which no one believed, that Oswald was "the lone gunman". That's the outer-cover story given to the public.

Peel back the skin, and there are a couple of inner-cover stories. The one told some of the Commissioners was that Castro had ordered JFK killed, Oswald was a Soviet agent, and this had to be covered up lest the public demand war that would destroy the world. The Commissioners believed they were fabricating for the sake of saving mankind.

The other inner cover story was the one told his Secret Service detail, some people in the FBI and CIA, and a few cognizenti Washington civilians - that story was that Jack had been engaged in pillow talk with an attractive blonde Roumanian intelligence agent, and under the influence of drugs had given up important national security secrets. He had betrayed his country, it was whispered, and could no longer be trusted. If this was revealed it would be bad for everyone, so keep it to yourself. This one was quite effective at shutting up the family -- Bobby included -- and close Kennedy intimates. He had to be terminated for the good of the country. That one was hinted at a few years ago by ABC News, and got some fairly wide-spread coverage.

Those who figured out that #1 was a lie were leaked #2. That has effectively shut almost everyone up.

The truth is something else. But, I'm not telling, because all the pieces aren't in place, yet. Let's just say this: in the months leading up to Dallas, there was a string of murders and suicides within the Georgetown Crowd, the liberal wing of the CIA that Kennedy socialized most closely with.

[Morgana LaFey]

43. Fascinating info

about the inner cover stories. And tantalizing tease about what else we don't know (but you apparently do).

[loudsue]

67. Who are you???

How come you always know stuff? Not that I'm complaining...just so long as you tell US at DU as soon as you get the rest of it! Or, at least you can pm me and let ME know! I hate knowing when there is truth out there, and I can't get to it.

:kick::kick::kick:

[RaleighNCDUer]

96. Re: cover # 2 --

It is obvious bullshit because if that was the truth it would have been handled by 1) FBI chief saying "Mr President, shut the fuck up", and 2) the immediate disappearance of the blonde agent. Occam's Razor would indicate that to be the simplest way of stopping a presidential leak, while assassinating the president would be the most complicated and most dangerous way.

Nobody who was told #2 would ever believe it.

[LongTomH]

129. That kind of structure is called a "Loop"

An outer lie covering a "truth" which turns out to be a lie is called a "Strange Loop." A system with three layers of lies, each covering the other is called a "Triple Loop." I understand disinformation became a science during WWII, with the Allies doing as much of it as the Axis, and of course, it was perfected during the Cold War.

Speculation: How many of the less-credible "conspiracy theories" were planted by the CIA and intelligence community to discredit anyone who talked about assassination conspiracies?

[blm]

188. Safest job was being CIA loyal to BushInc.

.

[BuyingThyme]

8. Off topic Howard Hunt:

The media have refused to touch the Howard Hunt audio tape which was recently made public (in redacted/edited form).

I think it's significant in that Hunt finally seems to admit that the government killed Kennedy. But the motives he attempts to attribute to the killers are silly.

We're asked to believe that all of those government people got involved in assassinating a president simply because the Vice President wanted to be president? And the Vice President just happened to know about a guy who was pissed at the President because the President supposedly messed around with the guy's wife? So pissed that he would readily sign on to the murder scheme?

No, no. Way too simple, Mr. Hunt.

This is such a huge opening that the media even see right through it. They won't touch it.

Come on, people. This is it.

[RufusTFirefly]

10. A rare lapse from the mainstream media

I mean, look how aggressively they covered the flaws in the rationale for invading Iraq. If they hadn't come through, we might be caught in a quagmire even now.

[roamer65]

14. Look what we did to JFK and what the Soviets did to Nikita in 1964.

There you will find the "why". Both leaders came away from the Cuban missile crisis with a larger, "global" perspective. That was too dangerous for some in the military industrial complex to tolerate.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. Appeal to authority.

Bobby Kennedy was a conspiracy theorist, therefore I'm not a kook.

:shrug:

[Wednesdays]

Earl Warren was an anti-conspiracy theorist

Therefore I'm not a kook.

[dflprincess]

49. Hale Boggs Warren Commission Member - Warren Commission critic

http://haleboggs.tripod.com/index.htm

" Hoover lied his eyes out to the Commission – on Oswald, on Ruby, on their friends, the bullets, the gun, you name it."
--Hale Boggs, speaking to an aide, quoted by Bernard Fensterwald, Coincidence or Conspiracy?


It is a myth that the Warren Commission was united in its conclusion that a lone assassin killed President John F. Kennedy. On the seven member Warren Commission, there were three dissenters: Senator Sherman Cooper, Senator Richard Russell, and Congressman Hale Boggs. As journalist Jim Marrs points out, "The most vocal critic among Commission members . Boggs became frustrated with the panel's total reliance on the FBI for information. Speaking of the 'single-bullet theory,' Boggs once commented, 'I had strong doubts about it.' On April 1, 1971, House Majority Leader Boggs delivered a blistering attack on J. Edgar Hoover, charging that under his directorship the FBI had adopted 'the tactics of the Soviet Union and Hitler's Gestapo.'

Boggs, who undoubtedly would have become Speaker of the House and a powerful ally in any reopening of the JFK assassination investigation, vanished on October 16, 1972, while on a military junket flight in Alaska. Despite a massive search, no trace of the airplane or of Boggs has ever been found."

[Wiley50]

58. Boggs must be rolling in his grave

because of how his daughter, Cokie Roberts, is spinning for the GOP

[loudsue]

69. She's his daughter?????? You've gotta be kidding!!

:nuke: Boy that burns me up. What a detestable piece of scum.

:kick:

[Carolina]

98. I know

you took the words out of my mouth. Remember he died in a small plane crash, body never found if I recall correctly. Hmmm. maybe "they" got to Cokie. Nahhh, she's another shillin' ass, so full of herself, too.

[loudsue]

68. I think YOU should get a second opinion. n/t

[file83]

121. Loaded statement. Appeal to Mockery.

If you are a consipracy theorist, you must then be a "kook". (This is also a variation of Ad Hominem attack).
Instead of supporting my argument, I'll mock consipracy theorists by calling them "kooks".

Touché.

[bobbolink]

13. I just finished reading an RFK biography. That was such a hard time

for RFK, I have a hard time knowing *what* to believe.

I just grieve for him. :cry:

[Wiley50]

15. It's Got to, Octabro It's just Got to

Somehow, someway, it's got to set us free

Humanity cannot afford to keep living this way

And, to be honest,

i'm not sure I'll live to see it

the strain is just getting to be too much

But, Oh how I love you for what you do

[bobbie]

126. YOU GUYS ARE THE BEST

People actually do know, and do care...

[H2O Man]

16. By the time

that RFK made the phone call ("one of your guys..."), he knew from David Powers and Kenny O'Donnell, who were in a limo behind JFK, that they recognized they were riding into an ambush. Both said they were certain that shots came from the "grassy knoll."

[Wiley50]

17. What I said to Octafish Goes for You Too, Waterman

You are the jewels of our DU family

[H2O Man]

20. I would recommend

that DUers buy a copy of William Turner & John Christian's book ("The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy: The Conspiracy and Coverup"). It's one of those books that, shortly after being published in 1978, "disappeared." The new edition has a foreword by Oliver Stone.

More, it isn't a work that can be easily dismissed as the wild imagination of those darned conspiracy theorists. In fact, it has a substantial amount of information from a case, tried in a courtroom, where respected attorney Vincent Bugliosi presented information about the conspiracy to kill Senator Kennedy. Funny how one rarely hears this type of information from corporate media sources. Thank goodness for DU, and dedicated seekers of truth like our friend Octafish.

[bobbolink]

24. just found it in the library catalog--reserved a copy.

Thank you for the suggestion!

As I said, I just finished a biography of RFK (very difficult to read... so painful), so this will be a good followup.

Thanks! :thumbsup:

[H2O Man]

25. Which biography?

Just curious. Some are better than others.

[bobbolink]

27. I was afraid you'd ask that. It was on the free rack at the library. ^_^

I"ll try to look it up.... I'm in the mountains, and I don't think I have it with me.

It was by a couple, I think....

Probably the most lousy one :) It was free, after all.... :hi:

[H2O Man]

33. I'd bet it is

"Bobby Kennedy: The Making of a Folk Hero," by Lester and Irene David (PaperJacks; 1986). It's a 322-page book. Lester authored a series of books, on people such as Ted Kennedy, Joan Kennedy, Ethel Kennedy, Pat Nixon,and Shirley Temple, as well as a few on "couples" including Jackie and Ari, and Ike and Mamie.

[bobbolink]

59. That's the one. I located the book in my car. ^_^

I liked that they went into some detail about how devastated Bobby was after JFK's , and all the changes he went through. That's what I was most interested in.... his development of deep compassion for others.

I wish there was someway to duplicate that in others!!

We poor folk are VERY OVERDUE another RFK!


so.... should I ask your thoughts about "my" book....? :hi: Oh yeah, and mine is the hardback.

[Morgana LaFey]

41. That Oliver Stone sure gets around, doesn't he?

Another one of the nation's great truth tellers. (And while there's possibly a lot "wrong" with his JFK -- or so his critics have said, even his fellow "conspiracy theorist" critics, there's an awful lot right with it.)

Hah! That reminds me of a wonderful line from Vine DeLoria, something to the effect, "It might not be true, but it is real." I'll see if I can find the exact quote (and doublecheck the spelling of the name, too).

[EVDebs]

64. Investigate a guy named Joannides who figured in JFK's assassination too

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=printer_friendly&forum=364&topic_id=2777997

and a prior thread by Octafish re RFK, I mention this Joannides (also spelled Johannides sometimes)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2762695&mesg_id=2775812

Joannides was a CIA figure in BOTH the JFK and RFK assassinations. Nixon seems to have known as much also; a quote in Ehrlichman's book is quite chilling where Nixon kinda prophesies RFK getting whacked when he entered the '68 race.

[H2O Man]

90. Thanks.

I'll go to those links in a minute. I think you are speaking of George Joannides, the head of psychological warfare operations for JM-Wave. The Agency used him to deal with the HSCA in 1978, even though he was retired. He was associated with David Morales, a shadowy figure in that era, who was also involved in the events with Joannides.

[EVDebs]

109. Also investigate Manuel Pena, who headed Special Unit Senator

Manuel Pena was a Lt. in LAPD brought back out of retirement in order to run SUS. Pena had been trained at CIA's Camp in VA.

See post #76 for more info too by

[H2O Man]

116. LAPD

had more people who were in and of the Agency than any other, even NYC.

[Alexander]

19. Of course George "Poppy" Bush was involved, yet even many DUers refuse to believe...

...that one former president could be complicit in the assassination of another.

Bush worked for the CIA with Thomas J. Devine, a CIA spook and Bush's Zapata buddy. He was definitely in on the Bay of Pigs - called "Operation Zapata" and utilizing two boats named Barbara J and Houston - and knew a lot of people connected to the CIA, Bay of Pigs, and Lee Harvey Oswald, including Porter Goss, Felix Rodriguez, George de Mohrenshildt and Barry Seal. Prescott Bush was close personal friends with CIA Director Allen Dulles - fired for lying to JFK about the Bay of Pigs - and wrote in a letter that he blamed the Bay of Pigs on "the Kennedy brothers".

Certain DUers like to poo-pooh this well-documented and well-sourced connections as "conspiracy theories" by the "nutroots".

The reality is that they are the crazy theorists, refusing to believe facts, evidence and scientific data even as it stares them right in the face.

Accepting the Warren Commission's report, and believing Poppy Bush was completely innocent and not involved, is a "faith-based" initiative if there ever was one.

PS - of course RFK, the first person who suspected a conspiracy in his brother's assassination, would himself fall to an assassin's bullet under mysterious circumstances.

Given the CIA's history of assassinating foreign heads of state, and the Church Commission's investigation in the 70s as to whether these assassinations were targeting elected officials in the United States - who would be surprised?

[blm]

23. DUers know Poppy Bush is a murdering criminal, but don't want you to point out

that he has been helped in his recent rehabilitation tour by prominent Democrats who appear lovingly at his side.

Nope - we're all just conveniently attacked as 'conspiracy theorists' who have no business noting the preponderance of evidence.

[bobbolink]

26. going to any length to "protect" those who shouldn't need "protection"

"recent rehabilitation" :rofl:

There really needs to be an "on-target" emoticon, because you got this in one. :applause:

[Alexander]

32. Freepers should hate Poppy Bush - he tried to kill their hero, St. Ronnie.

The Hinckleys were very loyal Bushies, donating lots of money to them over the years (even to Poppy's 1980 presidential campaign) and either Neil or Marvin (can't remember which right now) was scheduled to have dinner with John Hinckley's brother on April 1st, 1981.

Needless to say, John Hinckley shooting Reagan on March 31st cancelled those plans.

The US Senate even investigated the Bush/Hinckley connections in 1982. Since it was controlled by Republicans at the time, the investigation went nowhere.

[Alexander]

71. That always makes me ask: What was Clinton thinking??

I seem to remember an article (The Nation?) stating Clinton appointed Woolsey Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) after the National Review or New Republic or some other right-wing magazine endorsed him over Bush, and how the Clinton team mistakenly thought the endorsement got them lots of votes.

Well, wouldn't you know, but Woolsey was an Iran-Contra buddy of Bush's, so good at covering things up that he even refused to allow Clinton (his boss!) to see the CIA's data on UFOs. I also remember reading that Clinton wasn't sold on the official Roswell explanation, and something similar happened with Jimmy Carter and outgoing DCI George "Poppy" Bush.

I would love to have been a fly on the wall at whichever meeting Clinton had where he decided he was going to appoint Woolsey as DCI.

[fooj]

134. Perhaps it was decided for him.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7850559484065398098&pl=true

[Alexander]

142. Are you suggesting Clinton was an MK-ULTRA guinea pig?

I'm afraid it will take a great deal of evidence to get me to believe that.

[fooj]

153. No. I'm not suggesting that at all.

I'm just simply stating that things are never as they seem.

[seemslikeadream]

22. County Wexford

Guess who's greatgrandmother, Bridget Harper came from County Wexford, Octafish



President John F Kennedy visits his ancestral home in Dunganstow, County Wexford

[Wiley50]

30. You're on my A List Too, Seemslikeadream

If we don't, symbolically, nuke their world
They will soon nuke ours, literally

Not much of a choice, huh?

[seemslikeadream]

34. Hey Wiley50

Tá grá agam duit :hug:

[Wiley50]

36. Gaelic is really cool! n/t

[ourbluenation]

38. I stood in exactly that same spot.

I went to Ire with my parents a few years ago...two irish immigrants who go back home often. The Da decides he wants to take a tour of the countryside and we ended up there. and it aint easy to find. it looks almost the same in person as it does in the pic. and the lad that gives you a tour is a cousin....the spit of the kennedy's. It was quite moving actually, to be there.

[slowry]

28. Thank you for posting this. Reading it for a third time here. n/t

[Kurovski]

29. K&R

No one truly believes the Warren Commission.

[formercia]

31. Bobby knew the boys did it. n/t

[deutsey]

35. I printed this out earlier today; amazing article

The groups that killed JFK knew that RFK would expose them if he won in '68.

[stevedeshazer]

39. Never forget, America

One only needs to observe Arlen Specter, Magic Bullet Guy, still obfuscating and lying to this day, to know the horrible truth that JFK and RFK were offed by the very gang of criminals that owns our government today.

That this will be the legacy of our generation, this continuing charade that somehow we are still a democracy, saddens me and I hope my children and grandchildren will forgive all of us, for we have not done enough to expose this heinous crime.

[shance]

44. It's up to us to determine that legacy Steve. Don't accept the unacceptable.

;-)

[stevedeshazer]

52. I will not, as long as I live.

My children and future grandchildren will learn this as long as I am alive.

Thanks.

[Ghost Dog]

40. CIA's anti-Castro client groups, indeed (nice description here)

From the OP-quoted article:

... The attorney general was supposed to be in charge of the clandestine war on Castro -- another daunting assignment JFK gave him, after the spy agency's disastrous performance at the Bay of Pigs in April 1961. But as he tried to establish control over CIA operations and to herd the rambunctious Cuban exile groups into a unified progressive front, Bobby learned what a swamp of intrigue the anti-Castro world was. Working out of a sprawling Miami station code-named JM/WAVE that was second in size only to the CIA's Langley, Va., headquarters, the agency had recruited an unruly army of Cuban militants to launch raids on the island and even contracted Mafia henchmen to kill Castro -- including mob bosses Johnny Rosselli, Santo Trafficante and Sam Giancana, whom Kennedy, as chief counsel for the Senate Rackets Committee in the late 1950s, had targeted. It was an overheated ecosystem that was united not just by its fevered opposition to the Castro regime, but by its hatred for the Kennedys, who were regarded as traitors for failing to use the full military might of the United States against the communist outpost in the Caribbean.

Suspected Miami netherworld

This Miami netherworld of spies, gangsters and Cuban militants is where Robert Kennedy immediately cast his suspicions on Nov. 22. In the years since RFK's own assassination, an impressive body of evidence has accumulated that suggests why Kennedy felt compelled to look in that direction. The evidence -- congressional testimony, declassified government documents, even veiled confessions -- continues to emerge at this late date, although largely unnoticed. The most recent revelation came from legendary spy E. Howard Hunt before his death in January. Hunt offered what might be the last will and testament on the JFK assassination by someone with direct knowledge about the crime. In his recent posthumously published memoir, American Spy, Hunt speculates that the CIA might have been involved in Kennedy's murder. And in handwritten notes and an audiotape he left behind, the spy went further, revealing that he was invited to a 1963 meeting at a CIA safe house in Miami where an assassination plot was discussed.

Bobby Kennedy knew that he and his brother had made more than their share of political enemies. But none were more virulent than the men who worked on the Bay of Pigs operation and believed the president had stabbed them in the back, refusing to rescue their doomed operation by sending in the U.S. Air Force and Marines. Later, when President Kennedy ended the Cuban missile crisis in October 1962 without invading Cuba, these men saw not statesmanship but another failure of nerve. In Cuban Miami, they spoke of la seconda derrota, the second defeat. These anti-Kennedy sentiments, at times voiced heatedly to Bobby's face, resonated among the CIA's partners in the secret war on Castro -- the Mafia bosses who longed to reclaim their lucrative gambling and prostitution franchises in Havana that had been shut down by the revolution, and who were deeply aggrieved by the Kennedy Justice Department's all-out war on organized crime. But Bobby, the hard-liner who covered his brother's right flank on the Cuba issue, thought that he had turned himself into the main lightning rod for all this anti-Kennedy static.

/...

[stevedeshazer]

42. Let me add, Octafish, that if it's true, it ain't a conspiracy. n/t

[Art_from_Ark]

74. A conspiracy is when two or more people plan to commit a crime

So if a crime is proven to have been planned by two or more people, then it IS a conspiracy. But it is no longer a conspiracy THEORY.

[robertpaulsen]

46. Conspiracy happens.

And the onset of the military-industrial complex through the aid of the BFEE has only made it more prevalent. Thank you, Octafish, for continuing to stay on top of this!

[greyghost]

50. K&R n/t

[David Zephyr]

48. K&R.

Allen Dulles, Prescott Bush, Lyndon Johnson, General Cabell and yes, Richard Nixon.

[greyghost]

51. K&R n/t

[Crabby Appleton]

53. Abraham Lincoln assassination ---conspiracy nt

[slowry]

54. what.n/t

[goclark]

55. Octafish ~ Speak!

Stay on it like white on rice!

Octafish is the TRUTH TELLER!

:applause:

[Lint Head]

56. End corporate rights!

Kennedy's murder was a cabal. JFK's ideas threatened the take over of the country by private corporations. Bobby was promoting the same ideology. Greg Palast is right. Robert Kennedy Jr is right. :dem:

[greyghost]

57. Exactly

the corporate/fascist state is here and it's going to take a miracle to rein it in.

Eisenhower afterall warned about this so ago, what's it going to take for America to FINALLY rise up?

[bobbolink]

62. Yes, RFK,Jr is right. And I'm concerned for him.

He's walking a tightrope.

[dweller]

63. bookmarked

:thumbsup: Octafish

dp

[dailykoff]

70. Anybody notice that David Halberstam and Arthur M. Schlesinger

two celebrated historians of the Kennedy White House, just happened to expire in the last couple of months?


Halberstam, who coined the term "quagmire" to describe the Vietnam War, was killed in a traffic accident in Menlo Park on April 23. He also wrote a book on the deaths of firefighters at the World Trade Center:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/24/arts/24halberstam.html


Schlesinger, author of "A Thousand Days: John F. Kennedy in the White House," died of a heart attack suffered while eating in a Manhattan restaurant on February 28:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/02/obituaries/02schlesinger.html?ex=1179374400&en=dcf5c2a6d36946e6&ei=5070

Hope Bobby has good life insurance.

[dailykoff]

162. 2 in 2 months.

February 28 and April 23.

Does anyone think this might be more than just coincidental?

[Forkboy]

83. Anyone who watches Red Dwarf knows it was Kennedy on the grassy knoll shooting himself.

And that Lister never did get his curry.

[Awsi Dooger]

85. What a laughable load of crap

Let me put it this way: I just wish you gullible guys made the daily betting odds. Work would be optional within minutes.

I was on a radio show once with a guy who wrote a book about the RFK assassination conspiracy and even appeared on Unsolved Mysteries. Name was Moldea, or something like that. A pure goof, and therefore very apropos for the conspiracy crew. On that radio show he tried to also claim the '58 NFL Championship Game between the Colts and Giants had been fixed. One problem; he was completely ignorant of the basic facts of that game, how it unfolded. I couldn't believe how simple it was to shoot down all his preposterous claims. The live audience at the Stardust sportsbook was literally laughing. All he was basing it on was the TD in overtime and that it covered the spread, while a FG would not have. That's pretty much all you need for a conspiracy, a minor oddity like that.

Great, so now this is the JFK version we are embracing. Next year it will be something different. In fact, a few months ago it was the E Howard Hunt story. Flavor of the moment.

It was a simple execution from an upper floor by a nut case with similar history. Once in a while the guy running from the scene is actually the guilty party. The angles line up. There is no physical evidence of a second shooter.

Just imagine what it would take to fool so many people in that small area, if someone else had been shooting from such a severely different angle. People love to completely ignore the most simple factor of all, coordinating two shooters firing at the same basic point in time. You should have many more shots if there were two shooters, and evidence of missed shots going in the direction of bullets fired from the grassy knoll. Meanwhile, the little girl running in the infield looks up smack toward the floor where Oswald was. I could go on and on. Thank god for brief samples of sanity, like Posner's book.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leveymg]

95. "No physical evidence of a second shooter"?

That's not what the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) concluded based upon analysis of the audio tapes of police radio that day and ballistics evidence.
See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Select_Committee_on_Assassinations

Conclusions regarding the JFK assassination
The HSCA concluded in its 1979 report that (emphasis added):

Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at President John F. Kennedy. The second and third shots he fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President.
Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations.
The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy.
The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Soviet Government was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.
The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Cuban Government was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.
The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that anti-Castro Cuban groups, as groups, were not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved.
The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the national syndicate of organized crime, as a group, was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved.
The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.
Agencies and departments of the U.S. Government performed with varying degrees of competency in the fulfilment of their duties. President John F. Kennedy did not receive adequate protection. A thorough and reliable investigation into the responsibility of Lee Harvey Oswald for the assassination was conducted. The investigation into the possibility of conspiracy in the assassination was inadequate. the conclusions of the investigations were arrived at in good faith, but presented in a fashion that was too definitive.
The Committee further concluded that it was probable that:

four shots were fired
the third shot came from a second assassin located on the grassy knoll, but missed.

You may be right about the '58 Superbowl.

[porque no]

99. Must be nice.

The bliss that is. Got any more cliches?

[EVDebs]

100. Gee, now even Gerald Posner seems to be coming around

Celebrated authors demand that the CIA come clean on JFK assassination
Gerald Posner, Norman Mailer and Don DeLillo back lawsuit to open secret files on CIA mystery man tied to Lee Harvey Oswald.
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/12/17/joannides/index.html

It seems the expose of this Joannides guy leads back to the CIA in both assassinations. Posner et al are now trying to CYA. Too late.

Joan Mellen's book A Farewell To Justice, re the Garrison investigation, spells much of this out,

A Farewell to Justice
Jim Garrison, JFK's Assassination, and the Case That Should Have Changed History
http://www.joanmellen.net/

[RaleighNCDUer]

107. Actually, with professional shooters you would have exactly as

many shots as they intended to shoot. And if the back of JFK's skull flying off behind him is not evidence of being shot from the front, I don't know what is. Bullets make small holes going in, and big holes going out - the big hole was in the back of his skull.

And when the 'death bullet' miraculously appears on the gurney and everyone is told it is the one, who is going to look for more?

BTW, the little girl looked up toward the floor where (one of) the shooter(s) was - nobody saw Oswald up there, though only moments before the shooting someone DID see him in the 3rd floor cafeteria, IIRC - meaning he RAN up three floors, then immediately placed three shots on target while breathing heavily from the exertion.

You try it.

[Go Eagles]

143. His head exploded from the top

The big hole was not an exit wound. The bullet entered from the back and exited in the front. When a bullet hits soft tissue quite a bit of energy is lost and this transfer caused the explosion of his head at the top and not the back. All the photographic evidence including the Zapruder film show the majority of brain matter went upward and forward.

[HamdenRice]

130. Some guy got '58 NFL football game wrong; therefore Oswald acted alone

OK. Now that's logical.

And you think the article is "crap."

[Ghost Dog]

87. Quoting from James Hepburn's Farewell America:

(non-copyright online edition here).

On Big Business, Castro, Latin America:

The President's policy towards Latin America alarmed the businessmen even more than it worried the Pentagon and the diplomatists. The business world foresaw the economic consequences of the President's foreign policies. In Strategy of Peace, he had written:

"Just as we must recall our own revolutionary past in order to understand the spirit and the significance of the anti-colonialist uprisings in Asia and Africa, we should now reread the life of Simon Bolivar, the great 'Liberator' of South America . . . in order to comprehend the new contagion for liberty and reform now spreading south of our borders . . .

"Fidel Castro is part of the legacy of Bolivar, who led his men over the Andes Mountains, vowing 'war to the death' against Spanish rule, saying, 'Where a goat can pass, so can an army.' Castro is also part of the frustration of that earlier revolution which won its war against Spain but left largely untouched the indigenous feudal order . . .

"But Cuba is not an isolated case. We can still show our concern for liberty and our opposition to the status quo in our relations with the other Latin American dictators who now, or in the future, try to suppress their people's aspirations."

Later he added, "Our differences with Cuba do not concern the impulse that drives the people of this country toward a better life. The economic and social reforms undertaken in Cuba must be encouraged.

One of his closest advisers, historian Arthur Schlesinger, wrote: "All across Latin America the ancient oligarchies -- landholders, Church and Army -- are losing their grip. There is a groundswell of inarticulate mass dissatisfaction on the part of peons, Indians, miners, plantation workers, factory hands, classes held down past all endurance and now approaching a state of revolt."

Near Recife, Schlesinger had seen poverty-stricken villages full of starving children covered with scabs. He recalled that before Castro came to power Havana had been nothing but a giant casino and brothel for American businessmen over for a big weekend. "My fellow countrymen reeled through the streets, picking up fourteen-year-old Cuban girls and tossing coins to make men scramble in the gutter,"(4) he wrote.

The policies of the President and his advisers were certain to have economic repercussions. In April 1962, a year after the inauguration of the Alliance for Progress, Latin America, in the eyes of the conservatives, appeared headed for chaos. In Argentina, President Frondizi had just been overthrown by a military coup, and rioting had broken out in Guatemala and Ecuador. There was no country to the South that could be considered politically and economically stable.(5) Capital flowed back into the United States, frightened by the specter of Castroist revolution.

But the effect on the American economy threatened to be even worse. The businessmen could not accept concepts like those of Schlesinger, who declared that the essential thing was not, as Nixon had suggested, to stimulate the cosmetics industry,(6) but to build hospitals and to invest in sectors that affected the strength of the nation and the welfare of the people.

On Economic Policy and Robber Barons:

The President was astounded to learn that of the 19 Americans whose income exceeded $5 million a year, 5 paid no income tax at all in 1959, and none of the 14 others had been taxed in the $5 million a year bracket, and that in 1954 one American with an income of $20 million a year had not paid a cent of taxes. Similar examples abounded. In most cases, these scandalous exemptions were the result of the multiple deductions and loopholes that the tax system offered to certain corporations, notably in the oil industry.(47)

Kennedy was determined to put an end to these abuses. Already, on April 20, 1961, the day he learned of the failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion, he declared before Congress:

"A strong and sound Federal tax system is essential to America's future . . . The elimination of certain defects and inequities as proposed below will provide revenue gains to offset the tax reductions offered to stimulate the economy . . . Special provisions have developed into an increasing source of preferential treatment to various groups. Whenever one taxpayer is permitted to pay less, someone else must be asked to pay more. The uniform distribution of the tax burden is thereby disturbed and higher rates are made necessary by the narrowing of the tax base. Of course: some departures from uniformity are needed to promote desirable social or economic objectives. But many of the preferences which have developed do not meet such a test and need to be reevaluated in our tax reform program."

And he added, "The war on poverty is not over. It has just begun."

The 1963 tax reform was aimed at: 1) relieving the hardships of low-income taxpayers and older people, and encouraging economic growth; 2) revising the tax treatment of capital gains to provide a freer and fuller flow of capital funds; and 3) broadening the base of individual and corporate income taxes so as to remove special privileges, correct defects in the tax law, and provide more equal treatment of taxpayers.

But the most important aspect of this reform focused on the tax provisions which "artificially distort the use of resources." The President declared that "no one industry should be permitted to obtain an undue tax advantage over all others" and called for the correction of defects in the tax privileges granted the mineral industries, the oil industry first of all.

As they read through the 24 pages of Document No. 43, the President's Tax Message to Congress, certain businessmen had good reason to be against it.(48) They were far less interested in the health of the American economy(49) than in the rate of their profits.

On November 18, 1963, three days before his death, President Kennedy presented his economic report to the Florida Chamber of Commerce:

"For the first time in many years, in the last 18 months, our growth rate exceeds that of France and Germany. It is because, as Fortune magazine recently pointed out, corporate profits in America are now rising much faster than corporate profits overseas . . .

"By next April, with the indispensable help of the pending tax cut bill, the United States will be sailing with the winds of the longest and strongest peacetime economic expansion in our Nation's entire history."

And he concluded:

"I realize that there are some businessmen who feel they only want to be left alone, that government and politics are none of their affairs, that the balance sheet and profit rate of their own Corporation are of more importance than the worldwide balance of power or the nationwide rate of unemployment. But I hope it is not rushing the season to recall to you the passage from Dickens' 'Christmas Carol' in which Ebenezer Scrooge is terrified by the ghost of his former partner, Jacob Marley, and Scrooge, appalled by Marley's story of ceaseless wandering, cries out, 'But you were always a good man of business, Jacob.' And the ghost of Marley, his legs bound by a chain of ledger books and cash boxes, replies, 'Business? Mankind was my business. The common welfare was my business. Charity, mercy, forbearance and benevolence were all my business. The dealings of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business.'

"Members and guests of the Florida Chamber of Commerce, whether we work in the White House or the State House or in a house of industry or commerce, mankind is our business. And if we work in harmony, if we understand the problems of each other, and the responsibilities that each of us bears, then surely the business of mankind will prosper. And your children and mine will move ahead in a securer world, and one in which there is opportunity for them all . . ."

But many businessmen were indifferent to harmony, the problems of mankind, the future of their children, and Charles Dickens. Four days later, President Kennedy landed at Dallas. There is no stronger hate than that of the robber barons.

[dailykoff]

161. "There is no stronger hate

than that of the robber barons."

Especially Houston/Dallas oil barons!

JFK: "Castro is part of the legacy of Bolivar."

And we're supposed to believe Castro operatives did JFK in? Bwahahaha!

Great stuff, thank you!

[BlueIris]

91. Got to loooooove the Bobby Kennedy.

I hate Salon with the passion of a thousand blazing suns, but--LOOOOOVE the RFK. Any mention of him or his good works is always a pleasure to read.

[Blackbird_Highway]

92. And Guess Who Is At The Center Of All This???

None other than W's daddy, George Herbert Walker Bush. He was the one at the CIA who was leading the clandestine effort against Castro, and who felt betrayed by JFK when he wouldn't send in troops and planes to back up the Bay Of Pigs fiasco.

So Bobby's first reaction was to call the CIA and demand to know if they were behind the assasination.

There you have it, all tied up with a neat little bow.

[Blackbird_Highway]

93. Used To Think This Stuff Was Crazy...

Then I read the declassified Northwoods document. Now, all this crap is totally believable. By all means, if you think this is just tinfoil hat conspiracy talk, READ OPERATION NORTHWOODS!!!

[blm]

104. You should make that thought into its own thread. Operation Northwoods opened

my eyes, too.

[tex-wyo-dem]

97. Again, thank you Octafish, for shining a spot light into the...

deep, dark recesses of history where truth lies.

[wicket]

101. K & R

:kick:

[DearAbby]

103. And maybe one day

TRUTH SHALL SET US FREE - God speed truth.

[Imagevision]

108. In the 60's they took out, JFK - MLK - RFK, I think they got they're point across while Johnson

in January of 1964 approves sending an additional 50,000 troops into Viet Nam where as JFK had announced the previous summer that he would begin withdrawing the troops by that Christmas.

[blm]

136. Then they bought control of the newsmedia and use it to assassinate the characters

of those who oppose them.

[bobbolink]

158. Which is part of the reason "boomers" petered out. They hit us hard

in the solar plexis, and left us for soul-dead.

Of course, those who want to vilify boomers wouldn't want to consider this aspect.

[unpossibles]

110. great thread

I just started reading The Octopus: The Secret Government and Death of Danny Casolaro (http://www.amazon.com/Octopus-Secret-Government-Death-Casolaro/dp/0922915393) and it's amazing. While some of it is kind of disjointed and not as credible, much of it has a lot of research behind it, and a lot of the same names pop up here and there, not too surprisingly.

What I don't understand is why so many are skeptical of the very idea of a conspiracy happening or of someone(s) abusing their power to either retain or gain something that will make them more powerful or richer. These things happen all the time on several levels, so why is it so impossible to imagine them happening at the National level?

While I disagree with many CTs, at least on specific points, I also think that it is a bad idea to instantly discount them because they are not the 'mainstream' view. For a recent example, how many here think the government lied to us in order to invade Iraq? That is a conspiracy (not a conspiracy theory) which a group of people committed in order to succeed in their goals, and while there are some freepers who don't believe it happened, it did.

We are aware of this happening quite a few times recently with many of the same players - from Watergate to BCCI to Iran-Contra to the Iraq WMDs to the Armstrong Williams media/propaganda thing to several others that are all documented now, yet could be seen as 'crazy theories.'

There are other things which may or may not have happened, such as the <insert dungeon topic here> or election fraud or JFK's assassination. But the track record of this group of criminals, liars, and thugs is so bad that I find it hard to swallow anything they tell me now. Cheney could say the sky is blue, and I would want to look up for myself to make sure he was not lying.


So yes, some things may just be coincidence, and perhaps our ability to perceive patterns - real or imagined - is at work here, but given the things which this same group of suspects has done, I find it hard to believe they are innocent either. Sure, some of the details may be wrong - and I am sure they are - but does that mean it did not happen? In other words, it is entirely possible that Oswald WAS the lone gunman, but that there was a conspiracy to murder JFK and that he was hired to do so by those wishing to keep their hands clean (which also fits their SOP).

[bobbie]

138. We've been trained by the right-wingers to learn

That if we talk about these crimes we'll be labeled CTers.
And people seem more afraid of being called a conspiracy theorist than they are of being ruled by fascists. Strange but true.

Don't have to look very far, in fact, to see how terrified otherwise sane people are of being tainted by the stain of conspiracy theorists...

Whatever, I think the correct term for those of us picking thru the past for the truth is "historian."
Or, if you prefer, "history buff."

[unpossibles]

140. very true.

although it amazes me how many times people don't seem to understand what a 'conspiracy' is - they think it assumes aliens or holograms or whatever, when in fact all it requires is multiple people planning or committing a crime together. Conspiracies happen all the time and at every level, and a 'conspiracy theory' is really just what it sounds like: someone's idea of how/what/who is behind the crime in question.

So far, this administration's power people have been behind several conspiracies which have been proven to be fact, several other suspected ones, and probably even more that are completely unknown for now.

[PATRICK]

111. (Dupe deleted)

n/t

[PATRICK]

112. The inner war

As a natural reaction to casulaties it is no accident the usual dem presidential candidates have no intimate connection with the inner coup that has been going on since FDR(for example). it was mentioned that the Kennedys were bringing changes into the corporate/mob CIA also into the military and judiciary and most other facets. The big plans of foreign policy were as entangled then but with the Cban Missile Crisis and the abandonment of the invasion of Cuba, looking to stop the crushing of South American democracies, Kennedy's own way out of the Cold War, etc. he became simply a target of just about every villain in America entwined incestuously with American policy. Worse, his own personal entanglements made this akin to hand to hand combat within the conflicted establishment.

Kennedy's flings made one big convenient excuse used by LBJ and the many other dems including the Kennedy clan to avoid any investigation. Even without the sinister side story of sleeping with the spy, the Mafia chick or whomever, it was the tainted vulnerability that helped more serious ploys and embarassments. The same with Cold War entanglements and the danger that the fumbling, betrayed and strongly u-turning young liberal navigated away from the rabid RW Cubans, cold war corporate pirates and all GOP and apparatchik control. The same with the mob and its entanglements with Hoover, the Kennedys, the CIA. So he was shot with impunity and all the evil spaghetti coiled protectively around itself once more as the enemy within- the RW corporatist takeover of intel, the military, the gov't and everything reformulated around its losses(the mob heavily wounded and extracted, the black CIA driven deeper and under the scrutiny of law, Latin America partially and temporarily spared the full ravages of colonial fascism, the Cold War spun out to be reformulated under the Nixon original plan as a more controlled institution of perpetual terror for the peons.

Then to make it short came the refomrers like carter trying to continue the clean-up and unwittingly making the RW in its internal disarray howl and stage electoral coups like crazy to stave off their defeat at the hands of democratic, liberal and legal forces. Again the CIA reformulated into an even more senile bitter RW rehash of the original plan. Under Reagan the blood of Latins began to flow in rivers and dictators pop up.

Then Clinton who by some instinct born of subconscious awareness of the danger tread very lightly in the Intel and military communities- and was betrayed on a less spectacular level than JFK. Reversing the lessons of JFK, Clinton became more accomodating to the beast, letting it run, chafing at the bit, ever plotting(unknown, alas, to him) to escape this last control and springboard from the concessions Clinton thought wisely given.

The innocence and protective disentanglement, nearly the irrelevance of the appeasing , ignorant Dems, has been moral progress of a vulnerable sort and political(if not plain intellectual) regression. Just as most of the masses, now pooling the real facts and outside the beltway perspectives, can sense more than the massive horrors they see, the grasp of the good pol becomes backward, tentative, recoiling at the lessons out there, unable to formulate the progress needed to see this as an internal ongoing crisis- that makes the almost nostalgic myth of populist, democratic America utterly incompetent and unwilling to win this war. Assassination, stolen elections, defeat, cowed and diverted by media and "think tank" corrupted gameboards we have some of the nicest followers a people could wish for to lead from behind their oppressed, repressed, murdered, impoverished, disenfranchised ranks. As we charge into fraud and later military mob control.

And they make such easy friends of corrupted corporate leaders and political RW fascists who literally robbed them blind. The mystery of the savage resentment and antagonism of the Right is simple.

A few of the white millionaires club were sincerely American. The big plans spoiled by these good men and public awakening has created a crazy quilt of setbacks to offset the inevitable failures and repressive horrors of RW takeover. They blame the liberals for not having the culmination of their plans. They blame them for their failures. They gnash their chicken beaks in fury. Meanwhile, the stunning moderation of the Dems seeking almost to emulate the "dream" of RW success in its kind, compassionate, efficient, Utopian form can't do anything except upset their unbenownst enemies even more. The RW hates its setbacks, its failuures, its undeniable treasons and persoanl corruptions. It has come to hate the people, the Utopian myth, the pretexts, the lies it has had to uphold to pervert democracy. It hates everything except(maybe) itself. Dems enjoy the robust contest of debate and election. The GOP goes for its gun and the dark alleys and slander and ruthlessness. And still they can't stop the good guys from innocently wrecking their house of marked cards even while the good guys never seem to have a clue what is really happening or what they could do to ultimately win.

And it has come to live for its hate and all its destructive power, from bullet to boardroom to bedroom to cell room. All the while too many Dem leaders are trying to morph into kindly South sea Islanders(or more wily collaborating traitors) donning moomoos and suits and quoting harsh scripture to please the high and mighty invaders. Why did they not, the outside observer always ask, have the wit and decency to drive the scum back into the sea? And if assimilation has gone on too long, is it really too late?

[Ghost Dog]

149. Nice writing there, Patrick.

Succinct, accurate; occasionally even poetic, imho. :-(

[bobbie]

113. Thank you so much for this thread on a major new book Octafish

Bobby Kennedy didn't bye the big Oswald lie for one second.

Of course that doesn't stop the liars from peddling it.
Latest example: Vincent Bugliosi.

There's always a "latest example."

[Fiatjustitia]

131. Treason doth never prosper...

Time and again, authors dealing with this subject have used Ovid's famous quotation:

"Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason? For if treason prosper, none dare call it treason."

If this is the greatest truth for our time, it is also our greatest challenge. Traitors prosper from the ignorance, the faintheartedness and the cowardice of those unwilling to undertake the challenge of removing them from power. If we are going to take on the thieves of our dreams and aspirations for the welfare of all of the citizens of our country, we must seriously do so with everything we have.

The question remains, why have so few been willing to join in making the sacrifices necessary to wage this war and achieve victory over the vicious and greedy undermining forces that have been the subject of such long-term and arguably impotent complaining? Granted, the people spoke in electing a Congressional check on the executive power. Yet, this new Congress, for all its stated intentions, continues to receive ratings as low as the executive.

Does that not suggest that the Democrats might do well to draw an analogy between their failure to perceive the extent of the racially bigoted fury that drove the GOP to power in the late 60's, using the "hippies" as their scapgoated strawman, and conclude that the GOP's failure to discern the depth and extent of Bush fatigue and disgust with Iraq could propel their own electoral victories in elections through 2008?

Yet, what we are seeing is the continued "luntzing" of political discourse and speechifying causing the disgusted electorate evermore to conclude that there is no difference between the GOP and the Democrats, despite the clear message sent in the recent election that Democrats must differentiate our party from the interests and rhetoric of the GOP and end their failed policies, cronyism and corrupt practices once and for all.

The interest piqued by Mike Gravel's comments during the recent debate regarding the Military Industrial Complex's creation of a warfare state to the point where it governs this culture shows that voters are starving for our politicians to speak the truth about what has gone wrong with our government and what must be done to right it. No one here will be surprised to note that the mainstream media and other Democratic candidates studiously ignored Gravel and his message.

Why?

[milkyway]

141. I've read the first 50 pages of "Brothers" and think it's excellent. The Bay of Pigs

gets a very different account here than what is popularly believed. Most people think that Kennedy got cold feet and at the last minute changed his mind about sending in the military. This book, however, shows that JFK had balls of steel and refused to buckle under pressure from the military. Before the invasion, JFK repeatedly told the military and CIA that he would not use the military; it had to be strictly a CIA operation. He was assured the mission could succeed without use of the military.

As it became clear that the invading anti-Castro Cuban forces were getting their asses kicked, JFK was put under extreme pressure to use our military forces to bail them out. JFK refused, and this began the all-out war the military/national security apparatus waged against the Kennedys and their inner circle. Recently it has been revealed through declassified documents that the military knew the anti-Castro Cubans would fail, a point at which JFK would then have to relent and use U.S. forces. In other words, the Cubans were used as cannon fodder to force JFK to order a military invasion of Cuba. JFK knew if he refused, he would be tarred as weak on Communism and history would regard The Bay of Pigs as his disaster, but he still stood his ground.

And on another point, don't forget the one name that ties together 11/22/63 and 9/11/01: George H.W. Bush. Keep up the great work, Octafish.

[bobbie]

145. Precisely milkyway, and not only did Kennedy have balls of steel

But the National Security Act of 1947 made it ILLEGAL for Kennedy to have used overt military force in conjunction with the covert action of the CIA against Cuba. So much of what we've heard about this mission over the years is propaganda designed to make JFK look bad. He was LEGALLY PRECLUDED from sending in the air force. Obviously the CIA knew this.

I think you're right. I think the mission was supposed to fail. I'm becoming more and more certain that the Bay of Pigs episode was sabotaged by CIA leadership to make Kennedy look bad, and likely to result in the military hostilities you mention: war with Cuba, Russia, ideally both. The gov't and weapons industry wanted a profitable war and they would, and did, stop at nothing to get it. But Kennedy wouldn't give it to them no matter what they did... He was, as he said himself, almost a peace at any price president.

It wouldn't be the only time the CIA sabotaged foreign policy. They did just that when they sent a U-2 spy plane to fly over Russia and then drop out of the sky ("engine trouble," i.e., a bomb on board) against Eisenhower's explicit orders about flyovers, right before a joint Russian/US peace conference between Eisenhower and Khrushchev near the end of Ike's presidency. It destroyed Eisenhower's hopes of leaving office with a legacy of progress towards peace. It's likely what led him to make his farewell speech warning us against the "Military Industrial Complex." He got burned bad and he knew it. Kennedy gets burned next. The CIA was out of control and Kennedy got in their way. Balls of steel and all.

Back to the Bay of Pigs. So many questions arise whenever I read about it...
For example, why was Allen Dulles, head of the CIA, OUT OF THE COUNTRY during the all-important Bay of Pigs?! He could not be reached. Incommunicado.

This "breakdown of leadership" was one of the biggest factors in the disaster, as reported by Max Taylor, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in the aftermath.

To quote Chuck D:
Don't believe the hype.

[milkyway]

159. From Talbot's text, pg. 47, about the Bay of Pigs:

...The country's military and intelligence chiefs had clearly believed they could sandbag the young, untested commander-in-chief into joining the battle. But he had stunned them by refusing to escalate the fighting.

"They were sure I'd give in to them and send the go-ahead order to the Essex," Kennedy said to Dave Powers. "They couldn't believe that a new president like me wouldn't panic and try to save his own face. Well, they had me figured all wrong."

What JFK suspected about the CIA--that the agency knew all along that its plan was doomed to fail unless Kennedy could be panicked into sending in U.S. forces at the eleventh hour--was confirmed years later. In 2005, a secret internal CIA history of the Bay of Pigs was finally released to the public. The 300-page document contained proof that Bissell concealed the operation's bleak prospects from Kennedy when he briefed him about it for the first time shortly after JFK's election. The internal history quoted a CIA memo dated November 15, 1960, that was prepared for Bissell before the Kennedy briefing. In it, the agency conceded that "our concept...to secure a beach with airstrip is now seen to be unachievable, except as joint Agency/DOD action." In other words, "The CIA knew that it couldn't accomplish this type of overt paramilitary mission without direct Pentagon participation--and committed that to paper and then went ahead and tried it anyway," explained Peter Kornbluh of the National Security Archive, the George Washington University-based research group that made public the CIA document. Furthermore, there is no evidence that Bissell informed Kennedy of the CIA's bleak assessment.

__________

JFK knew that as the leader of the executive branch he would be tagged with this "loss" at the Bay of Pigs, yet he placed the national interests above preserving his reputation. Compare this to the coward currently in the Oval Office, who supports the troops by sending more of them to die so that he and the screaming monkeys of the right can always maintain that he wasn't the one who "lost" Iraq, it was his successor in 2009 who lost it when they inevitably pull out our troops.

[bobbie]

165. Ohmygod, so he was screwed either way

If refuses to break the law and send in overt military aid they claim he's a commie coddling traitor and Cuban exiles hate him.
If he sends in military aid then he openly breaks the law and the whole world knows that the US president can't be trusted.

He was totally sandbagged.
The military industrial establishment expected their man Nixon to ascend to the thrown, so they had it out for Kennedy from the start.

Thanks for posting the quote.

[bobbie]

147. Octafish succeeds where I failed...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=819678

You're my hero Octafish.

:party: :bounce: :party: :bounce: :bounce: :party: :bounce: :party: :bounce:

[TheUnspeakable]

148. keep at it, bobbie..

You're EXACTLY right. Octafish is just so loved here, people gravitate to his threads.( Love you Octafish) The more I've learned about JFK, after i cleansed my mind of the right-wing brainwashing, (wanting to do away with the Fed.Reserve,threatening to smash the CIA into pieces, planning to withdraw from Nam etc.) the more i understand why he had to die-and it matters so much today that EVERYONE understand this because it's all still being run by the same people. We have to change that. I was about to reply to your birthday post last week, but it disappeared. (later found it in the 9/11 dungeon) So happy belated birthday!!

[Octafish]

152. You are my hero, bobbie.

We're all in this together.

PS: Sorry I didn't see your thread, my Friend. I searched under the article's title.

[billbuckhead]

160. Check out this Kennedy assassination video

If authentic it makes a damning case for government conspiracy.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY02Qkuc_f8>

[bobbie]

170. Yes billbuckhead

The complicity of the secret service is one of the most difficult aspects for people to accept. But the fact is the assassins couldn't have accomplished what they did if the guards did their job. They left the President completely unprotected from every angle. And it's not just that they were hung over from staying up all night drinking (which is true of many of them). It's more. And it's apparent on the video you linked to.

If you're interested in more detail there is a tremendous online book on the subject here:
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n1.html

[bobbie]

164. It was locked Octafish! There is nothing to see.

You, on the other hand, have performed a miracle...
I genuflect.

[Gabi Hayes]

163. Talbot, I think, is on WGN radio as I type. talking all about this.

fascinating


compelling


http://wgnradio.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6336&Itemid=160

[Gabi Hayes]

168. I'm on hold to talk to Talbot

what should I ask?

about George Bush of the CIA and his mysterious memo?

The JOannides/Walker/Greek coup relationship?

what?


Octafish, if you're here, call the show!

312-591-7200

[bobbie]

172. Yes! Ask about the Bush memos!

Keep us posted!

[Gabi Hayes]

171. did you know there's a photo of Joannides at the Ambassador Hotel

the night RFK was killed?

he's there with the No. 2 man of JM/WAVE, which funded the DRE, supposedly the group that received more money from the CIA than anybody else up to that time?

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

[bobbie]

173. Gabi, Talbot said in an interview that the men in the photos are not the CIA agents

Named in the BBC documentary. I'll send the link when I find it.
Sorry.
Of course he could be wrong.

On edit:
Here is the Talbot statement on the subject of the photos from the Ambassador hotel.


http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/..._6_-_Transcript

"REX: I'd like to switch forward because there's been some more recent news in the 43-year-old murder, and you've been involved in some of the news. Shane O'Sullivan, of BBC Newsnight, last fall put out a story that three high-level CIA officials were present at the Ambassador Hotel when RFK was killed. You and Washington Post reporter Jeff Morley then started tracking down the story. Can you tell us about that?

DAVID: Yeah, I think it's a fascinating episode in Kennedy research. As you say, a young filmmaker named Shane O'Sullivan went on the air - on the BBC - in November, with a startling report alleging that David Morales, George Joannides, and a fellow named Gordon Campbell - and the first two have long been connected in research circles to Dallas - were caught on camera at the Ambassador Hotel the night Bobby was killed in Los Angeles. He showed clips of news footage and still photographs that were taken that night and identified them as these three men, three CIA officials who were connected, again, to the Agency's secret war on Castro. Well, this was a kind of "holy shit" moment, because if that was the case, then you're connecting the same people who might have JFK to the people who might have killed RFK.

So I was in the finishing stages of my book, but I felt this had to be looked into before I sent my book off to the publisher, so Jeff Morley and I got an assignment from The New Yorker to look into it. With the New Yorker's resources, we were able to criss-cross he country, going from Miami to Northern California, Arizona and Washington and New England, and talked to a number of people to pin down whether or not these three CIA agents were indeed there. Well, unfortunately for Shane, and those who believed the story, we found that it simply wasn't true. Gordon Campbell - the person he identified as Gordon Campbell - turned out to be a U.S. Army official who had been attached to the CIA's JMWAVE station in Miami, but he had died in 1962, so of course it was impossible for him to show up in 1968 at the Ambassador.

We also found, finally - and I'm actually looking at these photographs right now - excellent photographs taken of David Morales around 1968. We've only had a very kind of rudimentary photo of him for the most part, that was taken out of a Cuban newspaper - and it's even in my book because I wasn't able to get these other photos in time - and so we weren't able to really get a good sense of what David Morales looked like until now. And if you compare these new photos that we now have in our possession - Jeff Morley and I, we've seen four photos of Morales from that period - it's clearly not the man in the news footage at the Ambassador Hotel. The physical characteristics are just completely different. People who knew him well say the same thing when they look at Shane O'Sullivan's report and these photos.

The same is true of George Joannides. We also found good photos of Joannides taken around the same time, and again, it's simply not the man caught on camera at the Ambassador.

On the other hand, David Morales has told - before he died - he told his attorney Robert Walton, and he told a good friend, who I did interview again, that he was in Dallas and Los Angeles at the times of the assassinations. He went further with his attorney and told him that he played a role in it. He did tell his friend Reuben Carbajal, who again, I interviewed, that the CIA killed JFK. So it wasn't complete lunacy for Shane O'Sullivan to assume that this might have been David Morales caught on camera. We have other evidence that Morales was connected to these assassinations, but these photographs or news footage that Shane used in his films simply don't corroborate it.

REX: It would certainly be the height of brazenness for three high-level CIA officials to be in the ballroom while planning that murder."

[Gabi Hayes]

174. thanks! they are talking about the RFK hit now. just finished

he just said that whoever killed JFK would NOT allow Bobby to assume the presidency!

he doesn't say who he thinks was explicitly behind it

too bad about that photo, but I'm not surprised.

Joannides is quite the mystery man. hardly any info about him at all

have you seen this forum?

keep you busy for the rest of your life:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showforum=126

some knowledgeable people on this thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3915

[bobbie]

175. I have seen that forum, it's one of the best of the JFK forums

I post there using my real name. :)

Thanks for the link.
Did you get to ask Talbot a question?

[Gabi Hayes]

176. NO! still waiting, dammit, and I'm starting to tear up: I never heard this before,

but Richard Goodwin claims, having been right there, that Bobby's last words were

''JACK, JACK...''

can you stand it?

[bobbie]

178. Seriously, Goodwin is on the program with Talbot

He's actually saying that Bobby said that while lying on the floor of the pantry at the Ambassador?

[Gabi Hayes]

179. no. he's quoting him. I think he said Goodwin was holding Bobby.

haven't read that before, and wonder if this is one of Goodwin's Jesse Jackson/MLK moments, as I don't think he's very credible these days, along the lines of his wife, 'historian' Doris Kearns Goodwin

[Gabi Hayes]

177. aren't you listening to the show? here's the link again. last round coming up

http://wgnradio.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6336&Itemid=160

if I'm getting on, this will be it. show's over in ten minutes

[bobbie]

180. I got to hear the last 10 minutes, thank you for the link(s)

And they said it'd be in their audio archive in about a week.
So I'll get to hear the whole thing.

Talbot is certainly articulate.
I appreciate his closing thoughts.

[Gabi Hayes]

182. I'm as cynical as it gets, but if his last words were "Jack, Jack".....

well, I can hardly stand that

and I hate thinking about what it means for all of us, and just how much WORSE things are than we can imagine; how very difficult it's going to be to keep the country from descending into irreversible fascism

you KNOW Richard Helms, David Phillips, the Hunt and Dulles Brothers, etal are smiling up from Hell, with their bestest bud, Falwell, knowing that everything is running very smoothly

[Gabi Hayes]

181. didn't get on, but I'll link this show when it's podcasted. it was very good.

touched most of the relevant bases, with the highlight being Talbot's contention that those who killed JFK also did Bobby, basically

that's the HEART of the evil that's controlled this country since the end of WWII, with the Dulles brothers bringing in the NAZIS

that's the real story of what this country has become, because it leads directly from Greece to Mossadegh/Guatemala/Dominican Rep/Bay of Pigs, and on and on

the same elements that started it all are STILL in control

he even talked about Posner wanting the Joannides (and other CIAers) records being released, but naively so, I think

Posner, Blakey, McAdams, etal, KNOW those records will never be released. if they are, they've had forty five years to doctor them

to all those coincidence theorists on this thread: wise up. read the historical context behind what's happened to us since the National Security Act of 1947. you've been 'cleverly', or should I say, willingly, played. believe your dogma. believe, even, that Angleton, of all people, realized HE was being played by the Dulles brothers, and came to know that they were the ULTIMATE traitors, that their proteges (can you say GHW Bush?) are STILL running things sixty years later

sigh

[bobbie]

189. FYI, David Talbot is discussing his book on the education forum

For those who are interested and/or have read it.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9824&st=90
Post #100 is where he joins the thread.

Pretty kewl opportunity to get to talk to the author.

[bobthedrummer]

190. Kick.