HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Who was responsible for t...

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 06:47 PM

Who was responsible for the JFK conspiracy theories?

The KGB, no less.

109 replies, 26106 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 109 replies Author Time Post
Reply Who was responsible for the JFK conspiracy theories? (Original post)
Archae Sep 2013 OP
nadinbrzezinski Sep 2013 #1
Stupefacto Sep 2013 #2
FreakinDJ Sep 2013 #3
duffyduff Sep 2013 #16
MrMickeysMom Sep 2013 #22
defacto7 Sep 2013 #33
Bay Boy Sep 2013 #77
defacto7 Sep 2013 #81
Bay Boy Sep 2013 #96
defacto7 Sep 2013 #97
Bay Boy Sep 2013 #98
longship Sep 2013 #101
defacto7 Sep 2013 #102
longship Sep 2013 #103
defacto7 Sep 2013 #104
longship Sep 2013 #105
gopiscrap Sep 2013 #35
former9thward Sep 2013 #4
Bolo Boffin Sep 2013 #9
Post removed Sep 2013 #13
Bolo Boffin Sep 2013 #15
NYC_SKP Sep 2013 #17
Bolo Boffin Sep 2013 #19
NYC_SKP Sep 2013 #20
rhett o rick Sep 2013 #49
Bolo Boffin Sep 2013 #55
rhett o rick Sep 2013 #58
Bolo Boffin Sep 2013 #59
rhett o rick Sep 2013 #60
Bolo Boffin Sep 2013 #66
rhett o rick Sep 2013 #69
nyquil_man Sep 2013 #74
rhett o rick Sep 2013 #85
nyquil_man Sep 2013 #94
NightWatcher Sep 2013 #5
Archae Sep 2013 #23
Zen Democrat Sep 2013 #28
zappaman Sep 2013 #50
Archae Sep 2013 #52
Octafish Sep 2013 #68
Bolo Boffin Sep 2013 #70
Octafish Sep 2013 #72
Bolo Boffin Sep 2013 #73
Octafish Sep 2013 #75
Bolo Boffin Sep 2013 #76
Octafish Sep 2013 #79
zappaman Sep 2013 #87
Octafish Sep 2013 #92
zappaman Sep 2013 #88
OnyxCollie Sep 2013 #6
Octafish Sep 2013 #8
dflprincess Sep 2013 #30
grasswire Sep 2013 #32
AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2013 #78
dflprincess Sep 2013 #83
indie9197 Sep 2013 #84
AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2013 #89
dflprincess Sep 2013 #82
Octafish Sep 2013 #7
Taverner Sep 2013 #27
Octafish Sep 2013 #46
REP Sep 2013 #10
whistler162 Sep 2013 #11
Warren DeMontague Sep 2013 #12
MinM Sep 2013 #14
MinM Sep 2013 #37
joshcryer Sep 2013 #18
Samantha Sep 2013 #21
Boomerproud Sep 2013 #99
YoungDemCA Oct 2013 #108
Archae Sep 2013 #24
Junkdrawer Sep 2013 #29
Junkdrawer Sep 2013 #25
Taverner Sep 2013 #26
Recursion Sep 2013 #36
Rex Sep 2013 #31
gopiscrap Sep 2013 #34
WinkyDink Sep 2013 #38
Sand Wind Sep 2013 #39
RZM Sep 2013 #62
Sand Wind Sep 2013 #40
KurtNYC Sep 2013 #41
aolwien Sep 2013 #42
Octafish Sep 2013 #43
Archae Sep 2013 #45
Octafish Sep 2013 #47
zappaman Sep 2013 #48
Octafish Sep 2013 #56
zappaman Sep 2013 #57
Octafish Sep 2013 #61
zappaman Sep 2013 #63
Octafish Sep 2013 #64
zappaman Sep 2013 #65
Octafish Sep 2013 #71
zappaman Sep 2013 #86
Octafish Sep 2013 #90
dionysus Apr 2014 #109
jakeXT Sep 2013 #44
Laelth Sep 2013 #51
grantcart Sep 2013 #93
thucythucy Sep 2013 #53
Archae Sep 2013 #54
nyquil_man Sep 2013 #67
MinM Sep 2013 #80
MinM Sep 2013 #91
dflprincess Sep 2013 #100
MinM Sep 2013 #106
dflprincess Sep 2013 #107
Bluenorthwest Sep 2013 #95

Response to Archae (Original post)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 06:52 PM

1. Nope, not quite

 

They recede the movie by decades. Some emerged within months.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 06:54 PM

2. The people who didn't think Oswald as a lone shooter made sense

 

As simple as that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stupefacto (Reply #2)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 06:56 PM

3. welcome to du

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stupefacto (Reply #2)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 10:39 PM

16. No. It was because it was an easy way to make a fast buck.

 

Oswald acted alone, and nothing has EVER been shown to disprove it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duffyduff (Reply #16)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 11:33 PM

22. Go to Creative Speculation...

I've made it pretty easy for you (movie, "Rush to Judgement". If you mean nothing has ever been read by you, you might be right. Therefore, as one who's not read any chronicles or timelines based on the evidence which has never materialized via the Warren Commission, or congressional committees who ultimately admitted there was more than one gunman, we have an unsolved assassination. No conspiracy about it at all. Just a bunch of detached Americans who don't bother to read.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duffyduff (Reply #16)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 01:40 AM

33. I don't care for the conspiracy theories.

I have to ask though, have you ever been to the book depository? Some time back when I did own rifles (I do not own guns of any sort now), I was a marksman and practiced with the German national rifle champion regularly. Visiting the book depository was a WTF moment for me. At that point I had to conclude that whatever the plot was, there's no way the assassination happened from that spot. I had no preconceived opinions of the shooting just an appreciation of JFK. For me, there's no way it happened from there, with that gun, without the hand of a very lucky deity.

Since that point all I can say is that things are not what we've been taught, and until the year 2035 none of us will know for sure.

That's just my observation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Reply #33)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 09:24 PM

77. Are you saying you visited the Texas Book Depository...

... looked out the window and thought that it would have been an impossible shot?
It doesn't matter to you that the shot has been duplicated, with the same weapon, many times?
You know it was less than 100 yards, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bay Boy (Reply #77)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 10:11 PM

81. Yes on all counts.

But I don't believe it's that easy from my viewpoint. There are better marksman than I, I'm sure. There are better marksmen than Oswald too. The angle, the tree, the weapon, the timing, I just have my personal doubts. They were lucky shots to say the least but there would also have to be a bit of a crap shoot hoping for a hit rather than a miss. It's not like a target range. In a testing situation, there are preparations and a lot of time to think about it, putting together all the scenarios you've heard over the years and it makes you more aware of the strategy. Oswald didn't have years to triangulate all those possibilities that a test marksman would have.

It's all my own observation which means absolutely nada, nothing. If I had a practice shot from there I might surprise myself and find out it wasn't that big a deal. But just from my quick sighting, I was very skeptical and still am. It was close to 15 years ago that I was there.

BTW, you said the word "impossible". I try to save that one for better data than this. I did say" there's no way" which for me is just an expression. I won't say it's impossible. I would say he'd need to be a better shot than I am... or than I was... or have a lot of luck on his side. I wish luck had not been on his side if that's how it happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Reply #81)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 02:45 PM

96. I've hit lots of moving targets at greater distances than

...100 yards. They are called deer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bay Boy (Reply #96)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 04:31 PM

97. Wow, You've shot deer from the book depository window?

Amazing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Reply #97)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 05:24 PM

98. I don't think they let you do that...

but I have shot deer from raised platforms. Pretty much the same thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Reply #33)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 10:34 PM

101. "Argument from personal incredulity" fallacy.

I cannot personally imagine how anybody could have done what happened. Therefore, it did not happen. And now I get to trot out all sorts of lunatic conjectures of what really happened.

It is a very common conspiracy theory technique. You discount the official story but have absolutely no cogent hypothesis that matches the known facts.

But, of course, when you also dismiss the facts there's nothing left except fringe conjectures with no facts.

It all gets so tiring. This thread doesn't belong in this forum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #101)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 11:19 PM

102. Good points.

I guess sharing an experience and having an opinion based on that experience is not valid communication if an idea when pitted against those persons or facilities that have universally accepted credibility.

That may sound snarky but really it is not. When there is a controversy with so many conspiracy theories that cannot be proven, a person, namely myself in this case, should not add to the unproven clutter by stating a personal opinion based on my experience. There really may be something to that. I suppose I have to yield to the professional testing and it's outcome and either keep my experience to myself or just trust those who have offered us data. Although that sounds more like faith.

Best to not muddy the acceptable data.

But back to your statements,

Your first paragraph is your paraphrased version of what I said or later clarified. No. I trotted out nothing.

Paragraph 2, Good point. Didn't mean to do that.

Paragraph 3, Facts? I liked your phrasing in the previous paragraph, "cogent hypothesis that matches the known facts" But now you use facts as an absolute. Data maybe?

Last paragraph... you could not be more correct and I shouldn't have entered the fray. Apologies are offered and I am out.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Reply #102)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 01:36 AM

103. Well, the data drives the hypothesis.

And then, if additional data does not support the hypothesis, then it may be in question.

But the important thing is that it is not sufficient to merely malign a hypothesis you don't agree with. Nullifying a hypothesis without a replacement hypothesis is worthless, and is a classic mistake by conspiracy theorists. When asked for a replacement hypothesis they have nothing to offer -- or virtually everything to offer. It was the mafia, or Cuba, or Russia, or the KKK, or those fucking UFOs!!!

There's no cogent explanation from any conspiracy theory. They exist only to shoot down the prevalent narrative when they have none of their own. I've dealt with this before with both Kennedy and 9/11. I ask for data to support their hypothesis and they only say things aimed at negating the actual data. They have no credible data to support their non-existent hypotheses except for possibly cherry-picked data.

We also see these things with Creationists and climate change deniers. Their techniques are the same.

It's all rubbish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #103)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 02:10 AM

104. Looks like I made a hell of a fool of myself....

I stand corrected... although I still like to think that my personal experiences are of some value and I have a right to express the questions they create. But they are not helpful in a sensational situation like this. I guess there are times to keep one's mouth shut.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Reply #104)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 02:44 AM

105. You are no fool, my friend. You're just human.

Just like the rest of us here at DU.

I am happy to meet another fallible human here. God only knows I shove a foot down my own throat often enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stupefacto (Reply #2)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 01:45 AM

35. welcome to DU

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 06:58 PM

4. Maybe it was Congress.

They investigated the assassination in 1979 and found there was a conspiracy. http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/summary.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #4)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 08:11 PM

9. Sigh.

Intentional omission of material information...

The HSCA only concluded conspiracy based on the Dictabelt evidence, which has since been shown to be non-credible.

But it sure is a fun propaganda line to say that Congress found a conspiracy, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #9)


Response to Post removed (Reply #13)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 10:38 PM

15. Oh, wow, linking to the anti-Semitic WhatReallyHappened.com

Points for you.

How do you know I'm a Junior?

Actually, there's credible evidence in the MLK case. One good bit is that James Earl Ray had a brand new $700 rifle (1968 dollars) that could fire soft point bullets which break apart on impact, ensuring massive damage and/or death. When equipping an assassin, that would be the ammunition of choice and the best available rifle to fire it from. When hiring an assassin, you want to make sure the target is dead.

Oswald, of course, had a $20 rifle that could only fire full metal jacket bullets, much more likely to punch through human flesh and stay intact.

Guess who I learned that from? Vincent Bugliosi, who cites Ray's rifle as credible evidence MLK died from a conspiracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #15)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 10:51 PM

17. Bad site, true, but the Washington Post article is legit, I think. Here's a different source:

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #17)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 11:15 PM

19. And then Thomas' study was itself torn apart in 2005

http://jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJustice_45%284%29_207-226%282005%29.pdf

The only evidence ever for a fourth shot (and thus conspiracy) was the Dictabelt, and interpreting it to have recorded a fourth shot doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

Besides, any shot from the "grassy knoll" would have hit Jackie, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #19)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 11:18 PM

20. Not taking a side either way but was notified of the hidden post.

 

And when I saw that it was just a WaPo article (though linked to a shitty site) I thought I'd add an acceptable link.

I don't have a favorite theory about the event.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #15)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 02:31 PM

49. If you want to believe the government's story, that's your prerogative but why would

 

you want to lock and hide posts that disagree with you? Some think that the government might lie occasionally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #49)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 04:26 PM

55. Congress is still part of the government, yes?

Last edited Mon Sep 16, 2013, 06:47 PM - Edit history (1)

I don't want to lock and/or hide posts that disagree with me. What a silly thing for you to say.

I don't even have the power to do so. As a host of Creative Speculation and the BOG, I have the ability there to lock threads and block people from posting in those groups. Would you like to know how many threads I have locked in either group? The number is fewer than five. Do you want to how many people I have blocked? Zero. Wouldn't those numbers be a lot higher if I wanted to lock and hide viewpoints that disagree with me? Yes, they would.

A jury of six DU members hid the above post on my alert. Four of the six agreed with me that linking to that website was not within the community standards of DU. It has nothing to do with people that simply disagree with me. It's about promoting links to a hate website.

So you will kindly stop saying that I want to lock and hide posts that merely disagree with me. I find the suggestion insulting and you now know it to be false.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #55)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 07:05 PM

58. I may be mistaken, but didnt you alert to have this thread locked? And someone alerted on

 

post #13 above. I apologize if I mistakenly assumed it was you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #58)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 07:08 PM

59. Oh, yes, I think I did.

In both cases. And I explained why I did in the post you just responded to. Do me the simple courtesy of assuming that I am stating what I actually feel and think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #59)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 07:49 PM

60. So it was a coincidence that both alerts were leveled against posters that you disagree with?

 

The only reason I bring this up is that it appears to me that the small number here that appear to do the most alerting, do so to silence those that have an opposite world view. Just my opinion, but that should not be the behavior of "politically liberal" people. Just sayin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #60)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 08:43 PM

66. You do not see me or anyone alerting on EVERY post we disagree with.

You don't even see MOST posts alerted on.

You don't even see a plurality of posts alerted on.

You see posts and threads alerted on that violate DU rules and standards. You see juries and hosts make the final decisions in all cases. You see the DU system of moderation at work the way it was intended to work.

So there is no "silencing" of anyone going on. There is discussion and disagreement within rules and standards accepted and acknowledged by everyone who signs up for an account here at DU.

And intimations to the contrary are insulting, I tell you for a second time, and I would ask you as a fellow DU host and someone who is expected to maintain decorum and civility to lay off the snide sidelong accusations already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #66)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 08:48 PM

69. Good Grief. nm

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #49)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 09:08 PM

74. "Some think that the government might lie occasionally."

How often is occasionally?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nyquil_man (Reply #74)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 10:43 PM

85. Do you believe everything your government tells you? nm

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #85)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 03:08 AM

94. You can't define "occasionally"?

Why do you make a statement when you can't define the terms within that statement?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 07:00 PM

5. people who didn't believe in "Magic bullets"???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NightWatcher (Reply #5)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 11:49 PM

23. The "magic" bullet never existed.

Connoly was in a "jump seat" which was lower than the back seat, and he was turning after hearing the first shot.

ABC news, and Mythbusters showed that the "magic bullet" is a pile of horseshit.

Three shots.

First, missed.

Second, went through both Connoly and Kennedy. (My BIL, who was a medic in Vietnam, saw one bullet go through THREE people and look "pristine."
(Besides, the "magic bullet" was not "pristine," it was flattened somewhat.)

Third hit Kennedy's head from behind and blew his brains out.

Oswald was a radical leftist, who wanted to kill Kennedy since Kennedy was trying to go after Castro.

These are all the credible facts, and the 70's hearing based it's fidings on a bad dictabelt recording.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #23)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 12:07 AM

28. Yeah, Oswald was a "radical leftist" who hung out with right-wingers in Dallas and New Orleans.

And who was given money by the State Department to return to the US with a Russian wife after denouncing his citizenship in Moscow. Yeah, he must have been some "leftist" to have been hanging out with the White Russian anti-Communist community in Dallas and the anti-Castro brigades in New Orleans.

The magic bullet is a scam because there was more metal left in John Connolly's leg than was missing from the "somewhat flattened" bullet that was produced without a chain of custody.

The answer to the question "Who Started the Conspiracy Theories" the answer is simple. The Warren Commission. The testimonies and conclusions were so contradictory and bizarre that believing that thing is folly. According to information known now after the AARB findings, Sen. Russell, Sen. Cooper and Rep. Boggs didn't agree with the conclusion and believed someone else had to be involved. They were persuaded to sign the final report with the understanding, particularly on Sen. Russell's part, that their objections would be published in the volumes. It was years before the men knew that didn't happen. As Allen Dulles said, on record, about the obvious inconsistencies in the report, "Nobody reads anymore."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #23)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 02:39 PM

50. Notice how this simple fact of where they were sitting is completed ignored by the CTers?

Can't have facts get in the way of a good murder mystery!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #50)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 03:17 PM

52. The JFK CT's continue to use this false diagram



Even though the facts have Connoly sitting lower, and he was turning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #50)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 08:46 PM

68. Yeah. That must be why Gerald Ford altered the Warren Commission report.

Gerald Ford's Terrible Fiction

Moving the Back Wound and the Single Bullet Theory

As a member of the Warren Commission that investigated the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy, Gerald R. Ford, then a Michigan congressman, suggested that the panel change its initial description of the bullet wound in Kennedy's back to place it higher up in his body. On another page he also added "hurriedly" to the description of how the assassin walked away from the scene. (click on images to inlarge)

Read Gerald Ford's correction to the Warren Commission Report Draft:

page 1 page 2

The change, critics said, may have been intended to support the controversial theory that a single bullet struck Kennedy from behind, exited his neck and then wounded Texas Gov. John Connally. The Warren Commission relied on it heavily in concluding that Lee Harvey Oswald was Kennedy's lone assassin, firing from the Texas School Book Depository, above and behind the president.

Ford's handwritten editing, revealed in newly disclosed papers kept by the commission's general counsel, was accepted with a slight change.

The final report said: "A bullet had entered the base of the back of his neck slightly to the right of his spine." A small change," said Ford on Wednesday, one intended to clarify meaning, not alter history.

"My changes had nothing to do with a conspiracy theory," he said.
"My changes were only an attempt to be more precise."

The initial draft of the report stated: "A bullet had entered his back at a point slightly above the shoulder to the right of the spine."

Ford wanted it to read:"A bullet had entered the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine."


CONTINUED with photos and original documents...

http://www.jfklancer.com/Ford-Rankin.html

So, in order for the magic bullet to work, as the artist attempts to show in that diagram you ridicule above, Jerry Ford had to move the location of President Kennedy's wounds to line up. That's dishonest, at best.

In addition to serving on the Warren Commission, Gerald Ford would later become the first unelected president of the United States, remembered as the man who pardoned Nixon and kept all the dirty laundry out of court and the public eye. Odd how often he turn up to help the secret state at just the right time, huh, zappaman?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #68)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 08:54 PM

70. So Ford replaced "entered his back at a point slightly above the shoulder"

with "entered the back of his neck"

In most human beings, including JFK, the neck is slightly above the shoulder.

For the rest of this discussion, let's take it to Creative Speculation where it belongs, OK, Octafish?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #70)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 09:03 PM

72. Why do you want fewer people to learn what happened to President Kennedy, Bolo Boffin?

Gerald Ford changed the location of the wounds in the report, otherwise the magic bullet's trajectory can't possibly line up.

What's even sadder, the Warren Commission's principle source of investigation was the FBI. They never said the magic bullet theory was plausible because they never reported it as having caused all the wounds in Connally and the President. That was Arlen Specter's theory.

FBI should be on trial: they destroyed evidence in the case.

Those are just a few facts about Dallas more DUers and more Americans should know. No speculation, Bolo Boffin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #72)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 09:06 PM

73. I want DU's rules to be respected by you, Octafish. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #73)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 09:12 PM

75. What rule did I break, Bolo Boffin?

The only theory referenced in my post is the magic bullet theory, which you and zappaman support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #75)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 09:14 PM

76. You know quite well, Octafish.

No conspiracy theories in GD. These discussions belong in Creative Speculation if you want to have them here at DU. That's in the rules and standards you agreed to when you signed up for an account here at DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #76)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 09:29 PM

79. You act like an authority, but you can't show where I broke a rule.

That's disingenuous. What have you to say about whay I wrote?

Fact: Gerald Ford altered the Warren Report.

Something else DUers and all who care about democracy should know: Ford broke the rules by informing J Edgar Hoover of secret commission proceedings, including naming those who disagreed with its direction.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2008-08-08/news/36794059_1_confidential-fbi-files-warren-commission-gerald-r-ford


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #76)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 10:49 PM

87. Seriously?

You're engaging with a guy who is not sure if Oswald is a hero...

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #87)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 12:34 AM

92. Seeing how he was murdered while in police custody before trial...

...I'll stick to what I wrote: I don' t know.

Why do you attempt to smear me for believing in due process, zappaman?

Don't you know Oswald never had his day in court? What's more, the FBI actually DESTROYED evidence?

I'm not really surprised so few Americans know his story:

The FBI destroyed evidence -- obstructed justice -- when Special Agent James P. Hosty destroyed a note wriiten by Lee Harvey Oswald and left at the Dallas FBI office 13 days before the assassination of President Kennedy. A secretary who received the note from Oswald read it and told the House Select Committee on Assassinations that it contained a threat to blow up the FBI in Dallas. In her words, Oswald's "letter" read: ("I will either blow up the Dallas Police Department and the FBI office.". Hosty said its contents were of a "non-violent" nature, directed toward him because he had interviewed Marina Oswald when Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't home.

The FBI destroying this note is just one of many examples of important information that the FBI excluded from reporting to the Warren Commission. Other government agencies also withheld important information from the Warren Commission include the Secret Service and the CIA.

What was in the note Hosty destroyed upon hearing Oswald was dead? Oswald could have been warning the FBI about the upcoming assassination. Because the FBI destroyed evidence, we probably will never know for certain what was really in the note. Oswald might have even been trying to do something heroic.

That's not all. Remember Joseph Adams Milteer, tape recorded by the FBI detailing an assassination on President Kennedy in Miami?

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

Again, the FBI failed to protect the President before Dallas, or investigate Milteer afterward. My source, an FBI agent who was there, Don Adams:

Guy is the real deal, a brave agent who stepped forward. Among his assassination-connected work, FBI Special Agent Don Adams interviewed racist Joseph Adams Milteer, a guy an FBI informant had taped detailing a pre-Dallas plot in Miami.



He wrote a book on the experience:

http://adamsjfk.com/?page_id=30







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #23)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 10:52 PM

88. See what I mean?

In this thread alone, you can see DUers completely ignoring this simple fact while still promoting the "magic bullet" nonsense.
Sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 07:10 PM

6. Chair of the Warren Commission, Chief Justice Earl Warren.

 

As California Atty. Gen., his discussions with Lt Gen DeWitt regarding the evil Japanese influenced DeWitt's decision for internment, as per Personal Justice Denied.

Warren is a conspiracy entrepreneur.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Reply #6)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 08:08 PM

8. McCloy was no cupcake

A fact curiously missing from American history and any mention of the Warren Commission - The Nazi Ties to Two Warren Commission Members



Here's a fact curiously missing from American history and any mention of the Warren Commission: Two of its members were directly responsible for the rise of post-war fascism. Allen Dulles, as a top official of the OSS and CIA, incorporated NAZI war criminals into the CIA from its founding. John McCloy, as High Commissioner for Germany, allowed Klaus Barbie and who-knows-who-else to escape justice. Of course, both men were also barons of Wall Street and Beltway Insiders. We all can see what that means today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Reply #6)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 12:14 AM

30. It never gets mentioned that the Warren Commission members did not all agree with its conclusions.

Three members, Senator Sherman Cooper, Senator Richard Russell, and Congressman Hale Boggs disented. Boggs was the most vocal and did say that J. Edgar Hoover had "lied his eyes out" about Ruby and Oswald and other areas of his testimony. Boggs was also frustrated at the way the Commission relied so heavily on the FBI and it's version of events.

Both Sherman and Russell eventually made their belief that Oswald did not act alone public - both had the same criticisms Boggs had about the the Commission and the FBI.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dflprincess (Reply #30)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 12:39 AM

32. wasn't Hale Boggs killed in a questionable plane crash? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #32)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 09:28 PM

78. Yes. And do you know who drove him to the airport?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #78)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 10:16 PM

83. Bill Clinton n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dflprincess (Reply #83)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 10:38 PM

84. wow

I think I have some reading and research to do

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to indie9197 (Reply #84)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 10:58 PM

89. While you are researching, it may be worthwhile

 

to Google
Bill Clinton CIA

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #32)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 10:15 PM

82. Yes he was.

The plane crashed in a remote area of Alaska and was never found.

At the time he died, it was assumed that he was going to be the next Speaker of the House and he had made it clear that he was open to reopening the investigation into JFK's death.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 07:17 PM

7. Disinformationists, Misinformationists, and the Truth.

CIA was so afraid of Mark Lane and the other critics of the Warren Report they came up with a plan:

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




RE: Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

e. Oswald would not have been any sensible person's choice for a co-conspirator. He was a "loner," mixed up, of questionable reliability and an unknown quantity to any professional intelligence service. (Archivist's note: This claim is demonstrably untrue with the latest file releases. The CIA had an operational interest in Oswald less than a month before the assassination. Source: Oswald and the CIA, John Newman and newly released files from the National Archives.)

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

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


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

Scanned Document



If they didn't have anything to fear, they'd have released all the documents by now, wouldn't they?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #7)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 12:04 AM

27. The right hand didn't know what the left was doing

 

There was another operation of "active measures" within the intelligence community trying to make it look like JFK was killed by them

The whole "better to be feared than loved"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #27)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 02:16 PM

46. Mass Media ignoring 'RFK Believed in Conspiracy' shows corrupt nature of America's Press

I read you loud and clear, Taverner. Professionals painted the picture in Dallas -- the best money can buy.

Their con continues to the present day, protected by their ownership of what a democracy most needs, honest news media.



Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his sister Rory Kennedy told Charlie Rose that their father, the Attorney General of the United States, Robert F. Kennedy, believed there was a conspiracy behind the death of his brother, President John F. Kennedy. For the first time in almost 50 years, members of the slain president's family were on the record about their father's thoughts about the assassination.

The story made news, as it were, for a day or two -- it was on page 8 here in Detroit (try finding it using The Free Press or Detroit News web site search engines) -- and apart from several threads on DU, that's about it as coverage goes. The Charlie Rose interview was part of a program put together by the media and good people in Dallas to celebrate JFK's life.

What bothers me about the media coverage is the constant attack, not on the government's lousy investigation of the assassination and its attendant cover-up, but, rather, the attack on anyone who brings up the subject of conspiracy in the death of the president, even when it's children of attorney general who also was the brother of the slain president.

Check out this condescending piece of opinion from the Dallas Observer:



Not Even Charlie Rose Could Rein in RFK Jr. in Dallas Last Night. Also: Conspiracy Theories!

By Betsy Lewis Sat., Jan. 12 2013 at 11:01 AM

It got weird when he went into a historical lecture about his father's investigation into the JFK assassination. He was speaking about it as if he had been part of it, then cited a book called The Unspeakable by Jim Douglas (sic - actually "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters" by James Douglass) as being the best book on the subject, then kept referencing things from the book. He was losing the audience, so he burst out, "My father believed that the Warren Report was a shoddy piece of craftsmanship," to the delighted applause of the mostly Baby Boomer audience.

Whenever Charlie Rose would ask about the family, RFK Jr. would evade the question until he heard either delighted Boomer applause or delighted Boomer laughter. One of his responses to a family question was an unrelated story about World War II. A lady behind me who must have recently Netflixed The Iron Lady kept saying, "Here here!" for the benefit of us unfortunate people around her.
Some of the strangest RFK Jr. outbursts with the biggest applause were:

"We're becoming a national security state!" (applause, "Here here!"

"Corporations want profits!" (applause, "Here here!"

"Corporations are great things, but we'd be nuts to let them run our government!" (applause, "Here here!"

"Nationalism in Africa! The end of colonialism!"

At this point, I don't think anyone knew what the hell he was talking about. It was something about the Kennedy family airlifting President Obama's father out of Kenya to begin a new life in America.

RFK Jr.: "Yes."

CONTINUED...

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/mixmaster/2013/01/charlie_rose_live_the_kennedy.php



Me, I don't believe any of that stuff was "out there." Why writer Betsy Lewis chooses to believe what the media tell her is true I'll guess lies in allegiance to a pay check.

Likewise for the lack of coverage given the story in the national media, where the same few corporations that swore up and down there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, both in 1990 and 2002, now want no part of "conspiracy talk" during the 50th anniversary observance. So far, as far as I'm aware, the Charlie Rose program has not aired.

What's more telling is what didn't get noted in the nation's corrupt mass media at all: The fact that Attorney General and later Senator Robert F. Kennedy also was assassinated. Some think that was a coincidence, because the mass media told them so. One thing's for certain, the questions still surrounding the deaths of two liberal icons doesn't get discussed at all today in our supposedly "free press."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 08:32 PM

10. Paranoid schizophrenics, others with mental health disorders that cause disordered thinking

The more functional can string together theories that seem coherent, but don't bear close scrutiny. Others cling to delusions about shape-shifting reptilian aliens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 08:35 PM

11. bah.....

It was President Obama!

He was also responsible for the disappearances of Judge Crater, Amelia Earhardt, and Jimmy Hoffa. Everyone knows that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 08:57 PM

12. It was love that killed Kennedy!

Mike Wallace wants my body! Why, they offered me so much money, what could I do?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 10:33 PM

14. The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) 1976

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MinM (Reply #14)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 09:59 AM

37. Sen. Richard Schweiker[R-PA]:"The Warren Commission has collapsed like a House of Cards"


"The Warren Commission was set up at the time to feed pablum to the American people for reasons not yet known .. One of the Biggest Cover-ups in the history of this Country occurred at that time." -- Sen. Richard Schweiker (6:30 into the 1978 documentary above)

From 1975 to '76, Schweiker chaired a subcommittee under the "Church Committee" that looked into to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. In an interview on Face the Nation, he claimed the original investigation "was snuffed out before it even began" and that "the fatal mistake the Warren Commission made was to not use its own investigators, but instead to rely on the CIA and FBI personnel, which played directly into the hands of senior intelligence officials who directed the cover-up." ...

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

A couple of side notes...

1) It's very powerful watching Senator Schweiker's smackdown of the Warren Commission.

2) You will never see a Republican like Richard Schweiker again. The Koch Bros & Co. would never allow it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 10:59 PM

18. Active measures.

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

I'm familiar with this propaganda tactic from debating creationists in the late 90s to debating climate change deniers in the early 2000s.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 11:28 PM

21. It was a lack of trust in its own government by the people which gave rise to the JFK conspiracy

theories overall, and the rest is in the details.

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Samantha (Reply #21)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 05:28 PM

99. You win.

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Samantha (Reply #21)

Wed Oct 23, 2013, 04:27 AM

108. Yup

 

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 11:50 PM

24. Why would the KGB spread these conspiracy theories?

Simple.

To cultivate distrust in the US government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #24)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 12:09 AM

29. Damn that Putin n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 11:51 PM

25. The people who covered up the crime. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 12:01 AM

26. KGB, NSA, CIA, Stasi, take a number

 

That's the biggest problem - there is too much disinformation to conclude anything more than "there was another gunman"

And don't think the CIA and NSA don't WANT you to think they did it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #26)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 02:51 AM

36. If there were other bullets fired, where did they hit?

We have one bullet missing the car and hitting the embankment, one hitting Kennedy and Connoly, and one hitting Kennedy and remaining in his head.

If there were other bullets, whom did they hit, and where did they end up?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 12:15 AM

31. Oh sure they started ALL conspiracies about JFK

 

is in itself a conspiracy theory...congrats! I never thought I would see you believing in CTs!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 01:43 AM

34. who was resposible

those in government who tried to cover up the truth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 10:01 AM

38. Oh, right. The KGB. SOOO much more sinister than the CIA!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 10:04 AM

39. That make sens. Today RT is doing a lot of the same job : alienate The US left from the Center. Nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sand Wind (Reply #39)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 08:06 PM

62. And there it is

 



Been saying that for years. Well done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 10:12 AM

40. Kick . Nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 10:14 AM

41. After 2 congressional investigations I thought we had most of the answers but this documentary

stands it all on its head. Oswald, Dr David Ferry, and young scientist all in a team charged with killing Castro with cancer. I find this woman chillingly credible:



The less you look at the details, the easier it is to write it all off as "theory."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 10:14 AM

42. LOL! your source is a teenage humor magazine

 

and you are countering one conspiracy theory with another conspiracy theory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aolwien (Reply #42)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 11:40 AM

43. Oliver Stone explains how Jim Garrison was on the right trail...

Jim Garrison, the KGB, and the CIA

An open letter to Foreign Affairs magazine

by Oliver Stone
The Nation magazine, August 5 /12, 2002

Last fall, Nation contributing editor Max Holland wrote an article for the ClA publication Studies in Intelligence asserting that former New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison was duped by a KGB disinformation operation that led him, along with most Americans, to believe that the CIA had been involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.

This spring, Foreign Affairs magazine published a generous review of Hollands article. As co-writers of the film JFK, we sent a reply to Foreign Affairs. The editors refused to publish it. We offered to pay for an ad, but Foreign Affairs again refused.

For the record, here is our reply:


Dear Editors of Foreign Affairs Philip Zelikow's review of Max Holland's recent article in the CIA publication Studies in Intelligence is a disservice to your readers. Zelikow uncritically accepts Holland's theory that a KGB disinformation operation back in 1967 is at the root of most Americans' current belief that the CIA was involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.

Holland's thesis rests on one unproven premise: that the KGB planted a false story in March 1967 in Paese Sera, an Italian leftwing newspaper. The story reported that Clay Shaw, then recently charged with conspiracy to assassinate the President, was a board member of Centro Mondiale Comerciale (CMC), an organization that had been forced out of Italy amid charges that it was a CIA money-laundering front.

The problem Zelikow ignores is that Holland's only evidence to support his premise is one handwritten note by a KGB defector named Vasili Mitrokhin that "refers to a disinformation scheme in 1967 that involved Paese Sera and resulted in publication of a false story in New York." The note, supposedly summarizing a KGB document that Holland has never seen, does not mention Clay Shaw, Centro Mondiale Comerciale, Jim Garrison, or any specific New York publication.

Holland speculates that the New York publication may have been the National Guardian, which based an article on the Paese Sera series. But one short article in an obscure left-wing weekly that routinely picked up stories from the international press does not seem like much of an accomplishment for a KGB disinformation operation. There is no evidence that the Guardian article was picked up anywhere else in the U.S.

Rather than speculate, Holland might have tried to interview the editors of Paese Sera who were responsible for the articles on Centro Mondiale Comerciale, as scholar Joan Mellen has done for her forthcoming biography of Garrison. They would have told him that the six-part series had nothing to do with the KGB or the JFK assassination, that they had never heard of Jim Garrison when they assigned the story six months before, and that they were astonished to see that Shaw might have any connection to the assassination. The articles were actually assigned in the wake of a right-wing coup in Greece and were intended to prevent such a coup in Italy.

Holland says "everything in the Paese Sera story was a lie." His evidence? A recently released CIA document saying that the Agency itself looked into Paese Sera's allegations. and found that the CIA had no connection to CMC or its parent Permindex. Holland may be willing to accept this as the whole truth, but it is unconvincing to the rest of us who have noticed the Agency's tendency to distance itself from its fronts, to release to the public only documents that serve its interest, to fabricate evidence, and to lie outright even under oath to congressional committees.

Two important facts from the Paese Sera story remain true:

1. CMC was forced to leave Italy (for Johannesburg, South Africa) in 1962 under a cloud of suspicion about its CIA connections.

2. Clay Shaw was a member of CMC's board, along with such well-known fascist sympathizers as Gutierrez di Spadaforo, undersecretary of agriculture for Mussolini; Ferenc Nagy, former premier of Hungary, and Giuseppe Zigiotti, president of the Fascist National Association for Militia Arms.


Holland claims that the Paese Sera articles were what led Garrison to believe the CIA was involved in the assassination. This is nonsense. Garrison's book On the Trail of the Assassins describes in detail how his uncovering of various pieces of evidence actually led him to the conclusion that the CIA was involved. This gradual process began two days after the assassination when he questioned David Ferrie, a pilot who flew secret missions to Cuba for the CIA and trained Lee Harvey Oswald in his Civil Air Patrol unit. It included his investigation of a 1961 raid of a munitions cache by CIA operatives in Houma, Louisiana; the discovery that several of Oswald's co-workers at Reily Coffee Company in New Orleans now worked at NASA; the fact that Oswald was working out of an office that was running the CIA's local training camp for Operation Mongoose; many eyewitnesses who saw Clay Shaw, David Ferrie and Oswald together, etc. No doubt the Paese Sera series was another piece of the puzzle for Garrison, but it was not the centerpiece of his thinking that Holland makes it out to be.

From the moment his investigation of the JFK assassination became public, Garrison was pilloried in the press. This treatment was part of an orchestrated effort by the CIA to discredit critics of the Warren Commission. A CIA memo dated April 1, 1967, never mentioned by Holland or Zelikow, outlines the strategy and calls for the Agency's "assets" in the media (writers and editors) to publish stories saying the critics were politically motivated, financially motivated, egomaniacal, sloppy in their research, supported the Soviet Union, etc. This is exactly the inaccurate portrait of Garrison that emerged in the press.

With the publication of Holland's recent article attempting to link Jim Garrison to the KGB, the CIA continues to pursue this misguided strategy of smearing Garrison and other critics of the Warren Commission. Fortunately, the American public has never bought the tired old lie that the CIA's misadventures can be written off as figments of KGB disinformation. Too bad your critic did.



Oliver Stone and Zachary Sklar co-writers of the film JFK

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #43)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 02:16 PM

45. Oliver Stone?

His movie "JFK" had two facts in it.

Kennedy was shot and killed.
Clay Shaw was tried for the killing.

The rest is pure fiction.

Garrison was a grandstander.
He failed completely in the Clay Shaw trial.

Oliver Stone is also a vicious anti-Semite.

"The Jewish domination of the media," he said. "There's a major lobby in the United States. They are hard workers. They stay on top of every comment, the most powerful lobby in Washington. Israel has f***** up United States foreign policy for years."

Earlier this year, Stone described Hitler as "an easy scapegoat."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/26/oliver-stone-jewish-domin_n_659795.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #45)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 02:22 PM

47. JFK the movie wasn't a documentary.

As far as the facts about the assassination goes, magic bullet, Jim Garrison, etc. -- it was spot-on, including the biggest thing Oliver Stone got right: JFK was pulling US out of Vietnam.

National Security Action Memorandum 263



"I will never send draftees over there to fight."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #45)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 02:29 PM

48. Not to mention what a farce the Shaw trial was.

Garrison was a nut.

"He went from a highly intelligent eccentric to a lunatic in the period of one year. . . . Every time press interest in the case would start to wane, he would propound a new theory. One week it would be 14 Cubans shooting from storm drains. The next week it would be H. L. Hunt and the far right in Dallas. This was no Robin Hood no Untouchable either."
Rosemary James in Newsweek, 12/23/91.

It took the jury less than an hour to find Shaw not guilty since there was no case there.
Why people still defend this lunatic is beyond me...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #48)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 06:13 PM

56. "Shoot Him Down" -- NBC, the CIA and Jim Garrison

An odd choice of words, considering the subject:



"Shoot Him Down"

NBC, the CIA and Jim Garrison

by William Davy

EXCERPT...

The newly released CIA files present an interesting biography of "reporter" Sheridan. In 1955 Sheridan was security approved as an investigator for the CIA. A month later this was cancelled because Sheridan accepted a position at the ultra-secret National Security Agency. In 1956 he was security approved once again by the CIA so that he could attend their "Basic Orientation Course". After leaving the NSA, Sheridan went to work for Bobby Kennedy's Justice Department in the "Get Hoffa" squad, where his tactics in nailing Hoffa earned him a rebuke from none other than Chief Justice Earl Warren and paved the way for Hoffa's eventual release. With this background in the intelligence communities Sheridan was now apparently qualified to work for NBC as a reporter, despite having no previous journalism experience. However, documents reveal that Sheridan did not sever contact with the CIA. In early May of 1967 the Counter Intelligence office of the CIA issued a memorandum for the Deputy Director of Plans which stated:

Richard Lansdale, Associate General Counsel, has advised us that NBC plans to do a derogatory TV special on Garrison and his probe of the Kennedy assassination; that NBC regards Garrison as a menace to the country and means to destroy him. The program is to be presented within the next few weeks. Mr. Lansdale learned this information from Mr. Walter Sheridan of NBC.

As noted previously, during Sheridan's tenure in New Orleans he enlisted the aid of Richard Townley from NBC's affiliate, WDSU-TV. Townley's loose tongue offered further proof that the NBC White Paper was no more than a deliberate attempt to sabotage the investigation and to ruin Jim Garrison. A recently released FBI memo reads:

A local FBI agent reported that Richard Townley, WDSU-TV, New Orleans, remarked to a special agent of the New Orleans office last evening that he had received instructions from NBC, New York, to prepare a one hour TV special on Jim Garrison with the instruction "shoot him down."


After the program aired, Garrison petitioned the FCC who agreed that the program was biased and granted Garrison a 30-minute rebuttal to air on July 15 at 7:30 P.M. --- hardly equal time. Nevertheless, the NBC program aided greatly in the discreditation of the DA's office and potentially contaminated the Shaw jury pool.

SNIP...

Later that week Miller called CIA Associate General Counsel Richard Lansdale to inform him of the expected arrival in Washington of Alvin Beauboeuf. Beauboeuf was one of assassination suspect David Ferrie's close friends, having accompanied him on his mad dash to Texas on the day of the assassination. Miller's source on Beauboeuf was Walter Sheridan. As Lansdale notes in his memo, "the NBC special) is expected to 'bury' Garrison because everyone is convinced that Garrison is a wild and dangerous man." Miller went on to assure the CIA that "Beauboeuf would be glad to talk with us or help in any way we want." Garrison would note that after Beauboeuf's Washington trip "a change came over Beauboeuf; he refused to cooperate with us further and he made charges against my investigators."

To recap, we have evidence that NBC reporter Sheridan was providing intelligence on the Garrison investigation to a CIA lawyer, a situation that indicates certain sinister possibilities. In fact, recently declassified records show that Sheridan wasn't satisfied with solely presenting his own warped view of Garrison. A May 11th CIA memo reveals that Sheridan wanted to meet with the CIA "under any terms we propose" and that Sheridan desired to make the CIA's view of Garrison "a part of the background in the following NBC show."

CONTINUED...

http://www.ctka.net/nbc_cia.html



Jim Garrison was a good man, a good prosecutor and a good Democrat. He was the only public official to prosecute anyone with a crime in connection with the assassination of President Kennedy. He was opposed in his work by some of the most powerful -- and undemocratic -- forces in the world. Here's something to think about, CIA holds many JFK assassination documents that need to see the light of day:



50 years later, sealed JFK files still raise questions

Serious researchers and conspiracy theorists alike note that several hundred pages of investigative documents related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy remain classified. Many questions hinge on a deceased CIA agent and his activities before the assassination.

By David Porter, Associated Press
Christian Science Monitor / August 17, 2013

Five decades after President John F. Kennedy was fatally shot and long after official inquiries ended, thousands of pages of investigative documents remain withheld from public view. The contents of these files are partially known and intriguing and conspiracy buffs are not the only ones seeking to open them for a closer look.

Some serious researchers believe the off-limits files could shed valuable new light on nagging mysteries of the assassination including what US intelligence agencies knew about accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald before Nov. 22, 1963.

It turns out that several hundred of the still-classified pages concern a deceased CIA agent, George Joannides, whose activities just before the assassination and, fascinatingly, during a government investigation years later, have tantalized researchers for years.

"This is not about conspiracy, this is about transparency," said Jefferson Morley, a former Washington Post reporter and author embroiled in a decade-long lawsuit against the CIA, seeking release of the closed documents. "I think the CIA should obey the law. I don't think most people think that's a crazy idea."

Morley's effort has been joined by others, including G. Robert Blakey, chief counsel for a House investigation into the JFK assassination in the 1970s. But so far, the Joannides files and thousands more pages primarily from the CIA remain off-limits at a National Archives center in College Park, Md.

CONTINUED...

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2013/0817/50-years-later-sealed-JFK-files-still-raise-questions



If Oswald was a lone nut, why would the CIA work so hard to impede Garrison? Why would they continue to hold documents? Why would the CIA claim "national security"? What are they hiding?

Why do you want to smear Jim Garrison's memory as a "nut," Zappaman? That seems like something John McAdams would say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #56)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 06:46 PM

57. And a liar.

But don't let the fact he was a nut and a liar get in the way of your bloviating.

But there are liars, and one of the worst was the late Jim Garrison, whose book On the Trail of the Assassins was the basis of Oliver Stone's movie JFK. The following is a list of lies in On the Trail of the Assassins. To qualify as a lie on this list, a statement:

(1.) Must have been something of which Garrison had first-hand knowledge. Things that he was told and probably believed don't count. Thus a lot of silly factoids about the case, such as the tales of Julia Ann Mercer or the testimony of Roger Craig, are repeated by Garrison. These don't get included for the simple reason that Garrison probably believed them.
(2.)Must be material to Garrison's case. Thus stray and random errors of fact don't count. The lies included here serve to strengthen Garrison's case against Clay Shaw, to make Garrison look better as an investigator and prosecutor and to conceal misconduct on the part of Garrison and his staff.

So, so many lies.
Is it any wonder he lost the case?

http://www.jfkassassination.net/jimlie.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #57)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 07:56 PM

61. No, Garrison wasn't a liar. That's what the CIA and FBI want you to think.

Gee. Why would they want you to think that way?

Here's a good resource for those interested in learning what is known:

Garrison Investigation

All of the information there is sourced and linked to original documents, if available.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #61)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 08:08 PM

63. Here's what JFK researcher Harold Weisberg thought.

"...as an investigator, Jim Garrison could not find a pubic hair in a whorehouse at rush hour".
Love that quote.

Or researcher Sylvia Meagher, who had this to say...
". . . as the Garrison investigation continued to unfold, it gave cause for increasingly serious misgivings about the validity of his evidence, the credibility of his witnesses, and the scrupulousness of his methods. The fact that many critics of the Warren Report have remained passionate advocates of the Garrison investigation, even condoning tactics which they might not condone on the part of others, is a matter of regret and disappointment."

The list of critics, none of who are the CIA, FBI or even the dreaded BFEE, is long when it comes to pointing out the man was a nut and a liar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #63)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 08:34 PM

64. I don't understand why you make fun of the BFEE, zappaman.

Their trail as warmonger-banksters goes back at least to war profiteering during World War I, when Samuel Prescott Bush ran Remington selling rifles to both sides. Before that, there's evidence their ancestors were slave holders.

I've talked about his son, Prescott Sheldon Bush; grandson, George Herbert Walker Bush; and great-grandsons, George Walker Bush, John Ellis (Jeb) Bush, and Neil Mallon Bush. From what you've written about the BFEE, you seem to take their side, which is odd for someone interested in supporting democracy.

Meagher and Weinstein, whom I both hold in highest regard, had their reasons for clashing with Garrison. I notice you didn't provide links to your source for your quotes. Why is that, zappaman?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to zappaman (Reply #65)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 08:55 PM

71. Wow! An acolyte of McAdams, the professional debunker.

You never did explain why you side with the BFEE, zappaman. Why is that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #71)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 10:45 PM

86. Cuz they pay well, my good friend.

Pretty sure I've told you that before...



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #86)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 12:04 AM

90. You mock me for posting about the crimes and treasons of the BFEE...

...and never explain why you defend the Bush warmongers, banksters and traitors. Of course, you never show where I'm wrong about the BFEE, which is what a neutral observer would expect if you actually wanted to discuss the subject.

Are you sure you're on the right board, zappaman?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #86)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 04:05 PM

109. we need a bullwhip toting, hard nosed investigative journalist to get down to the bottom of why

you're a front-man for the BFEE. someone who's seen shootouts to have nightmares, and has ice water in their veins.

someone who would march through 3 feet of hail, in a fire, dodging turbine blades, to uncover the truth.

why do you love the BFEE so much zappaman, why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 12:18 PM

44. Evidence contradicting the official version? NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 02:46 PM

51. I opposed the unrec, from the beginning.

This thread makes me question my judgment.

-Laelth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laelth (Reply #51)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 01:22 AM

93. lol.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 03:24 PM

53. The Dallas Police Department.

If it had done its job and protected Oswald, there presumably would have been a trial, with competent defense counsel, able to cross-examine witnesses and question any and all evidence presented by the prosecution.

In such a case, the world's media would have covered the trial from beginning to end. A jury of twelve responsible citizens would have judged the evidence, and a verdict would have been rendered. If Oswald was indeed the lone shooter (which I believe was the case) the evidence presented would have been convincing, and most conspiracy theories would have been laid to rest (in an event like this there will always but a few conspiracy fanatics--FDR bombed Pearl Harbor, Obama is Muslim etc.).

Instead, the handling of Oswald during the time he was in custody was calculated to provide the Dallas chief of police with maximum publicity (for instance, press conferences at which Oswald was paraded to the media and security was practically nil). Instead of moving him in the early morning--as was recommended by the FBI--the DPD decided to move him during Sunday late morning--with all the cameras rolling--one last chance to strut their stuff before the world. As a result, an unhinged person with a gun was able to slip into the crowd, kill the suspect, and throw the whole process into chaos.

Props should also go to the CIA and FBI for concealing pertinent information--for instance the details of CIA plots to kill Castro, the destruction of a note Oswald wrote to the FBI threatening retribution for harassing his wife. This wouldn't have changed the conclusions, and I think it was mostly an exercise in CYA by the various entities, but when it was revealed that SOME evidence was concealed, it threw the entire investigation into question.

Sad sad time for this nation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 03:29 PM

54. Obviously, the KGB wasn't alone in spreading JFK conspiracy theories.

There have been many others.

Certified lunatics, paranoids who in many cases have been in mental hospitals.
Fortunately, the number of these is very low.

The second group are agenda pushers.
Everything has to do with their agenda, whatever it is.
In Oliver Stone's case, it's blaming Jews for everything and insisting our government is as bad as the old Soviet Union was.

The third and largest group are in it for one reason.
$$$.

They are making lots of cash selling to the suckers.
Books, videos, movies, web sites, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 08:43 PM

67. Mark Lane played a pretty significant role.

About a month after the assassination, he published 15 points intended to refute the case against Oswald. After that, he was hired by Oswald's mother to represent Oswald before the Warren Commission.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nyquil_man (Reply #67)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 10:06 PM

80. Pauley Perrette (NCIS' Abby) produced Citizen Lane


@PauleyP: Me #BobTanenbaum #MarkLane #DickGregory and @TheSteveJaffe at my #CitizenLane documentary screening


http://www.citizenlane.com/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MinM (Reply #80)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 12:23 AM

91. Executive Action (1973)

Mark Lane co-wrote Executive Action (20 years before JFK)...
The criticism of the film and its suggestion of a Military-industrial complex conspiracy led to the film being removed totally from the movie theaters by early December 1973 and getting no TV/Video runs until the 1980s and mid-1990s, when it got legal release and distribution for TV and video. The film was originally released on November 7, 1973, almost two weeks before the tenth anniversary of the JFK Assassination.

Donald Sutherland has been credited as having the idea for the film and for hiring Freed and Lane to write the screenplay.[2] Sutherland planned to act in and produce Executive Action, however, he abandoned the project and took a role in another film after failing to obtain financing for the film. [2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Action_(film)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MinM (Reply #91)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 10:22 PM

100. That film is chilling

and, I thought, much better than Stone's "JFK".

I enjoyed that so many of the cast were "Hollywood Liberals".

BTW, it is available on Netflix.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dflprincess (Reply #100)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 02:42 PM

106. The Parallax View


was pretty good too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MinM (Reply #106)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 09:42 PM

107. Thanks for the tip.

I've added it to my Netflix list and found out it's available for streaming until Oct. 1.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 11:11 AM

95. Warren Commission, Dorothy Kilgallen, the fact that Dallas cops let Oswald get shot

 

on live TV.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread