Nov. 22, 1963: 50 years, and still no conspiracy|Op Ed LA Times

[BootinUp]

By Richard M. Mosk
October 27, 2013
As one of the surviving members of the staff of the Warren Commission, which investigated and issued a report on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, I am not looking forward to the coming weeks: Nov. 22 will mark the 50th anniversary of Kennedy's death, and that means a new round of demonizing the Warren Commission and celebrating fallacious conspiracy theories.

After Chief Justice Earl Warren hired me to work for the commission, he told me that "truth was our only client." Throughout the inquiry, that phrase remained our guiding principle.

The evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald killed the president was overwhelming. We reviewed ballistics analysis, medical records, eyewitness reports, acoustic patterns and a host of other records and investigative reports, all of which demonstrated beyond doubt that Oswald was the assassin. Scientific evidence confirmed that all the shots fired came from the spot where Oswald was perched and from a gun belonging to him. He showed consciousness of guilt by fleeing and killing a policeman. It wasn't the first time Oswald had contemplated assassinating someone. He had tried to kill a former Army general and outspoken arch-conservative prior to shooting the president.

snip

I hope on this 50th anniversary, the public will be skeptical of new criticisms of the commission and be more doubtful of the new conspiracy theories than of the Warren Commission.

Richard M. Mosk, a justice on the California Court of Appeal, was a member of the staff of the Warren Commission.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mosk-warren-commission-kennedy-assassination-20131027,0,4165051.story#axzz2iwvgCBOQ

[zappaman]

1. yup

"The Warren Commission staff was composed primarily of highly regarded lawyers from around the country with an array of political views. I was a young, soon-to-be private-sector attorney. My father, then California's attorney general, was an early supporter and political confidant of President Kennedy. I had the privilege of meeting Kennedy when I was an undergraduate at Stanford, and I had every incentive to find and expose a conspiracy if one existed. With a top-secret security clearance, I had full access to the work of the staff, and I never saw anything untoward.

It's not all that surprising that assassinations and attempted assassinations often give rise to conspiracy theories. The simple explanation that a troubled but powerless person brought down the world's most powerful leader just doesn't seem sufficient."

and

"The promotion of false conspiracy theories is not harmless. In the past, what one historian dubbed as the "paranoid style of American politics" has led to fear of and antipathy toward certain religions and social and political movements.

Conspiracy theories can be satisfying because they supply a cause more proportional to the effect of a traumatic event, but they foster a damaging distrust of institutions. The distortion of history obscures the lessons to be learned from the past."

Guess this guy was paid to cover up the conspiracy as well?

[JDPriestly]

76. All they have to do is make sure that every fragment of evidence has been released to the public

especially about Jack Ruby and the various people alleged to have been associated with Oswald before the assassination.

Those of us who remember the events still have many questions. I have no theory about who did it, but I have questions about whether the conclusions of the Warren Report, whether intentionally or mistakenly are false. We each have a right to review the evidence that is physically capable of being made public and reaching our own conclusions.

The Oswald arrest and the events following Kennedy's assassination were handled very poorly. The sloppiness of the police and investigators in the hours and days following the assassination sheds doubt on the Warren Report's findings.

And the subsequent assassinations of a number of leaders on the left including Martin Luther King, Robert Kennedy and others place the assassination of President Kennedy in a suspicious light. There sure were a lot of coincidences and even some notable similarities in the various assassinations.

I'm sure Mosk believes in the results of his Commission's work, but if he is right, he needs to persuade those of us who remember the confused reports in the hours and days after the assassination. In particular, Jack Ruby's Mafia connections and the Cuba interests of the Mafia remain in people's minds.

I have to add that if spreading false conspiracy theories is potentially bad, spreading a false official theory is just as bad. What is bad is spreading lies. The Warren Commission did not do a good enough job dealing with the common conspiracy theories. Those theories exist because people are not happy with the official explanation and because the police were so extremely sloppy in Dallas. Jack Ruby should never have had the ability to be so close to Oswald. Never. And Jack Ruby certainly should not have been so close to Oswald or the reporters or sheriffs, etc. with a gun. That would be unthinkable today. Mosk should just accept the fact that things were handled badly and people are not going to be happy with the results of any investigation.

[KansDem]

87. Was it ever explained why Ruby shot Oswald?

I've always wondered, ever since I saw it "live" on TV.

I remember once hearing one analyst say Ruby didn't want the First Lady to go through a horrible trial. To me that sounds like the "GW Bush did nothing when told the US was under attack because he didn't want to scare the children" excuse. I don't buy either one.

The 1979 HSCA final report states--

…Ruby's shooting of Oswald was not a spontaneous act, in that it involved at least some premeditation. Similarly, the committee believed it was less likely that Ruby entered the police basement without assistance, even though the assistance may have been provided with no knowledge of Ruby's intentions… The committee was troubled by the apparently unlocked doors along the stairway route and the removal of security guards from the area of the garage nearest the stairway shortly before the shooting… There is also evidence that the Dallas Police Department withheld relevant information from the Warren Commission concerning Ruby's entry to the scene of the Oswald transfer.

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

Sounds like a complete lack of security.

[MinM]

91. Ruby's cryptic response...

[Whiskeytide]

166. What is the question he answers...

... "yes" to at the end? - and who is asking it? My speakers aren't clear enough to get it. TIA.

[KansDem]

216. At 0'28"

I hear "Are these people (in) very powerful positions, Jack?"

"Yes"

[Whiskeytide]

218. Thanks. n/t

[KansDem]

217. Thanks...

That is indeed cryptic and does bring up questions.

At 0'28":
Are these people (in) very powerful positions, Jack?
Yes

[JDPriestly]

148. Yes. In Texas. That's why people are not happy with the conclusions of the Warren Report.

Too many loose ends. Too many unanswered questions. Too many unasked questions. It's this last one that is the biggest problem.

Just as the Iran-Conra and Nixon investigations leave a lot to be desired, the Warren Report never answered or even asked a lot of questions.

And we liberals suffered assassination after assassination among our leadership ranks, plus, especially under Nixon, repressive surveillance and investigations. And now under Obama, the same extremists are in the ranks of our government and in Congress, and it is very troubling for open-minded people.

[stopbush]

133. When's the last time you read the Warren Report?

I ask, because your post indicates you're unfamiliar with it, both in broad strokes and in detail.

[JDPriestly]

147. When did you last read it?

[stopbush]

151. Two years ago.

Care to answer my question with an answer, rather than with a question?

[JDPriestly]

170. I haven't read it. But you have inspired me to do so.

[stopbush]

205. Good for you. At least you're open minded. It's available online for free

through the National Archives @: http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/

[warrior1]

2. what is he selling a book

why would we believe anything he has to say

[RobertEarl]

4. He supports secrets being kept, too

Why hasn't all the gathered info been released to the public? Because they are hiding the Truth.

[cpwm17]

5. Selling books is what JFK CT'ers do best

There are numerous CT books with many mutually contradictory theories on how the assassination went down. No progress is ever made by them.

People believe in these theories for reasons other than evidence. It is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald murdered JFK and no genuine evidence has ever been presented that he had any help.

[JDPriestly]

77. I was in college when the assassination occurred. I remember it clearly. I am not happy

with the official Warren Report explanation although I don't have a favorite alternative theory.

How old were you when Kennedy was assassinated?

A lot of people who believe so firmly in the Warren Report are too young to have really understood what was going on or that many of us do not trust that Report because of the fact that so many leaders on the left were vilified or assassinated within a decade or maybe a decade and a half after Kennedy. It was really shocking. Blow after blow.

We have to ask questions. When that many people are assassinated and in similar ways, it is quite questionable.

[stopbush]

135. And the vast majority of those who discount the Warren Report have never actually read it.

Reading the WCR first might lead one to ask very different questions than the usual fantasy-based questions of most CTs.

[GreenStormCloud]

177. More than lefties were shot, or shot at.

Wallace, shot, 1968
Ford, shot at, twice, 1975. Fromme didn't know how to load a .45 semi-auto handgun. She hadn't chambered a round. Moore had the bad luck to be standing next to a retired Marine took action and grabber her gun as she was shooting. She got off two rounds that missed.

It was simply a bad time for nuts wanting fame.

[Schema Thing]

8. Because he has tons of evidence and a humanly possible scenario on his side

whereas CT's have fucking unicorns and laughably impossible scenarios - or worse yet, no positive theory for how it actually happened at all.

[SidDithers]

38. "fucking unicorns"!!!....

Well said!

Sid

[KurtNYC]

96. How did Oswald get in and out of the Soviet Union during the height of the Cold War?

How did Oswald get his honorable and pre-mature discharge from the Marines changed to "undesireable"? How did Ferry, Oswald and Jack Ruby know each other? Why did Oswald try to get into Cuba? Why did Oswald return from the USSR immediately after Kennedy was elected? When and where did Oswald practice shooting at a moving target? Why would Oswald shoot at BOTH a Bircher conservative and liberal Kennedy? Why did Oswald say he was a "patsy"? Why was Oswald working at a series of cover jobs prior to the assassination?

Can you answer any of those questions or would you rather talk about unicorns?

[MinM]

124. Great questions Kurt...

@lisapease: Oswald went to Soviet Union at CIA's behest as part of mole hunt for U2 leak. Came back by military hop. NOT a "defector". Patsy.

[stopbush]

136. Actually, Kurt, the WCR answers all of those questions, and in detail.

[KurtNYC]

146. what page or section? I find no mention of Ferrie or Ruby in the Oswald bio of WCR.

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-13.html

No mention of 544 Camp St or why it was the address on Oswald's leaflets.

[stopbush]

152. That's the point.

Your original post is a bunch of CT magical thinking - hypotheses without any basis in fact. Just because you state all of that crap as being factual doesn't make it so.

Why would the WCR address Ct fantasies that have arisen after it was published?

BTW - you do know, do you not, that the WCR explicitly did NOT rule out a conspiracy in the shooting?

[KurtNYC]

157. Someone in this exchange seems to think bullets have brakes and steering

and that they can pop out from the wound in pristine condition. Magical indeed. It isn't me who is endorsing magical thinking and magic bullets.

I advanced no theories in my questions, just simple questions about Oswald's resume and associations. You said the WCR had all the answers "in detail" and when I call your bluff you chant: CT, CT, CT! You have no answers? Just name calling.

Oswald's background and associates were known when the WCR was written. The Marines, the Soviet Union, the trip to Mexico, the pot shot at Gen Walker -- it all happened before the WCR was published.

544 Camp Street, New Orleans is not a theory. It is a fact, and one which leaves more questions than answers.

[stopbush]

206. Someone seems to not know the definition of the word "pristine."

As far as the bullet trajectory, you're simply ignorant of the forensic evidence, which includes the locations of JFK and Gov Connally in the limo. Or do you believe the Oliver Stone fiction that the bullet changed course in mid-air?

Again, the Warren report is your friend here. Why not disabuse yourself of the CT stupidities by reading it at least once before criticizing it.

[BootinUp]

208. Its not a theory its a single bullet fact.

Its the only way it could have happened.

As to the other stuff, I won't waste time on it until you concede the single bullet fact.

[Octafish]

219. The bullet looks like it was shot into cotton wadding.

JFK Exhibit F-294

Photo of 5 bullets fired from the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle: (left to right) the "magic bullet" (CE 399), two bullets fired into cotton wadding(CE 572), a bullet fired through a goat rib (CE 853), and a bullet fired through the wrist of a human cadaver (CE 856).

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=45739

The magic bullet appears to have been fired into cotton wadding.

That makes clear why the Warren Commission's case is bogus.

[BootinUp]

222. Similar looking bullets have been produced from experiments

meant to reproduce what CE399 would have gone through.

You just can't let go though. The following links include information on such tests.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100sbth.html

[Octafish]

223. No. Just on tee vee.

Feel free to post all you want from John McAdams and his acolyte David Reitzes. Their work demonstrates how they cherry-pick data to buttress their theories. Anyone who shot similar ammunition through any type of tissue -- from soft to bone -- ends up with deformed bullets.



As for letting go, there is no statute of limitation on murder. I'm surprised at the vitriol expressed on Democratic Underground toward those interested in seeing justice in the case of the assassination of a Democratic, Liberal, progressive president who preferred peace to war.

[BootinUp]

227. Gee thanks

[grantcart]

153. he went to the Soviet Union and was accepted just as we accepted dozens of

deserters and defectors. It wasn't that uncommon.

Here are a list of defectors from the Soviet Union

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

There have been a few Americans who have defected to the Soviets, the Chinese, and Vietnamese.

The Soviet Union wasn't going to refuse anyone, regardless of how worthless the contribution because it had a minor propaganda value but more importantly a refusal could undermine a more valuable asset. The fact that he was given a common labor position in Minsk showed their interest in Oswald.

He got back by walking into the consulate and requesting assistance, just like any other American citizen. Without a court order officially taking away your citizenship the State Department is compelled to provide assistance, which they did for him and his wife, loaning them the money to purchase a ticked.

If Oswald was ever an important asset he would never have been used (by our intelligence services or theirs) in such a clumsy way. The fact that all of the details of his trip were public and well known undermine claims of a conspiracy not support it.

[KurtNYC]

163. Perhaps you either haven't read or have forgotten how Oswald got into the USSR.

Oswald was refused by the Soviets. On the day his handler came to escort him out of the country he slit his wrists. They still rejected him. He got his baseless "hardship" discharge from the Marines changed to "undesireable", etc. etc. Eventually they let him stay but instead of going to Moscow University as he requested, Oswald is sent to Belarus and kept under constant surveillance. Seems like they never trusted Oswald.

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

Oswald tries very hard to be seen publicly as pro-communist and pro-Castro so how does that fit with shooting a President whom the RW believed was "soft on communism"? Why would a RW company like Reily hire a guy who spends his spare time passing out commie leaflets in the street? And finally, why would Guy Banister tolerate an organization, if there legitimately was one, like "Fair Play for Cuba" in his building?

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

[grantcart]

167. So you are or are not aware of how Oswald got into the USSR?

All of the additional details reinforce the point that Oswald would be "the last person picked by anyone for a high profile operation".

Unless I am missing the point

Oswald tries very hard to be seen publicly as pro-communist and pro-Castro so how does that fit with shooting a President whom the RW believed was "soft on communism"?

Why would a pro Cuba agitator hate Kennedy?

Kennedy invaded Cuba. People that were pro-Castro and pro-Cuba hated Kennedy for attempting to invade and overthrow Castro by military force. They also weren't happy with the fact that he quarantined Cuba and threatened it a second time during the Cuban Missile Crises, and finally they were upset that he used his influence at isolating Cuba diplomatically in the Western Hemisphere.

[KurtNYC]

172. "the last person picked by anyone for a high profile operation" unless you need a patsy perhaps.

Maybe I am misunderstanding -- you're not saying that Oswald's resume makes him too obvious to be a good patsy ?

[GreenStormCloud]

183. The RW did not believe that he was soft on Communism.

The invasion of Cuba was a fiasco, but he stood firm (And almost blew up the world) in the Cuban Missile crisis, the Berlin Crisis (Ich bin ein Berliner), and ramped up the American involvement in Vietnam. American troop levels tripling in 1961 and tripling again in 1962, reaching 12,000 American advisors.

Further remember that he campaigned on building up America's nuclear missile strength.

A Quote by JFK's inaugural speech: “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

Those are not the actions or words of a President who is soft on Communism.

[KurtNYC]

233. There was no air cover for the Bay of Pigs invasion

and Kennedy had ruled out any other overt operation so I have to think that some on the Right believed that JFK had "surrendered" Cuba. Also this leaflet was passed out in Dallas on the day of the murder so it seems that some did believe it:



But my main point in this line was that Oswald has no known motivation to shoot Gen Walker or Kennedy and shooting at BOTH would make even less sense. Similarly, Jack Ruby's stated motive for shooting Oswald and subsequently being sentenced to death himself is dubious. Lack of a clear motive is a big gap in any investigation. Oswald doesn't say during the perp walk "I shot that bastard Kennedy! Viva Cuba!" and I contrast that with Mark Chapman and John Hinckley Jr. -- both of whom surrendered at the scene(s) and never denied their actions.

[GreenStormCloud]

179. When a target is moving directly away, it is as if the target is standing still.

You don't have to lead it. The furtherest shot was at 88 yards. That is an extremely easy shot for a rifle.

[Gravitycollapse]

185. Oswald was an accomplished marksman.

Not that it would be terribly difficult for even a novice marksman to shoot a target from 88 yards away. Even if the target was moving slowly.

[GreenStormCloud]

190. Yes. He passed the Marines qualification standards to be a combat rifleman.

The Marines do not believe in scaring the enemy with misses. You are supposed to hit your enemy.

Marine riflemans creed:

This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this one is mine. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life. Without me my rifle is useless. Without my rifle, I am useless. I must fire my rifle true. I must shoot straighter than the enemy who is trying to kill me. I must shoot him before he shoots me. I will. My rifle and I know that what counts in war is not the rounds we fire, the noise of our burst, or the smoke we make. We know that it is the hits that count. We will hit.

My rifle is human, even as I am human, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weaknesses, its strengths, its parts, its accessories, its sights and its barrel. I will keep my rifle clean and ready, even as I am clean and ready. We will become part of each other.

Before God I swear this creed. My rifle and I are the defenders of my country. We are the masters of our enemy. We are the saviors of my life.

So be it, until victory is America's and there is no enemy.

Oswald had to memorize this creed and recite it on demand. It is still used by the Marines.

[doc03]

3. I don't believe the official story, never will n/t

[Shampoyeto]

178. Me either

The minority of lone-nuts is vocal, but still a minority. 50 years later they have not been able to dispel the serious doubts.

[doc03]

180. There is a show on Reelz channel this Sunday at 8pm I beleive

they are saying they have evidence of a second shooter. I don't believe the magic bullet theory and never will bullets don't make a U-turn and they don't penetrate a body and come out without scratch.

[MinM]

181. Neither did Sen. Richard Schweiker

"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.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3676119

[shraby]

6. Could be because the nitty gritty of the whole story has been under secrecy wraps since it happened.

[OnyxCollie]

7. CA Atty Gen Earl Warren provided racist rhetoric to Lt. Gen DeWitt,

a factor in DeWitt's choice to intern the Japanese on the west coast, as per Personal Justice Denied.

Warren, a conspiracy entrepreneur, would be rewarded with the Chief Justice position on the Supreme Court, and would later chair the commission that would be the purveyor of its own conspiracy theory.

Edit to add: For those whose are easily persuaded by the perceived motivations of political actors, there is this:

We assume that statesmen think and act in terms of interest defined as
power, and the evidence of history bears that assumption out. That assumption
allows us to retrace and anticipate, as it were, the steps a statesman-
past, present, or future-has taken or will take on the political scene.
We look over his shoulder when he writes his dispatches; we listen in on
his conversation with other statesmen; we read and anticipate his very
thoughts. Thinking in terms of interest defined as power, we think as he
does, and as disinterested observers we understand his thoughts and actions
perhaps better than he, the actor on the political scene, does himself.

The concept of interest defined as power imposes intellectual discipline
upon the observer, infuses rational order into the subject matter of politics,
and thus makes the theoretical understanding of politics possible. On the
side of the actor, it provides for rational discipline in action and creates that
astounding continuity in foreign policy which makes American, British, or
Russian foreign policy appear as an intelligible, rational continuum, by and
large consistent within itself, regardless of the different motives, preferences,
and intellectual and moral qualities of successive statesmen. A realist theory
of international politics, then, will guard against two popular fallacies:
the concern with motives and the concern with ideological preferences.

~snip~

Yet even if we had access to the real motives of statesmen, that knowledge
would help us little in understanding foreign policies, and might well
lead us astray. It is true that the knowledge of the statesman's motives may
give us one among many clues as to what the direction of his foreign policy
might be. It cannot give us, however, the one clue by which to predict his
foreign policies. History shows no exact and necessary correlation between
the quallty of motives and the quality of foreign policy. This is true in both
moral and political terms.

We cannot conclude from the good intentions of a statesman that his
foreign policies will be either morally praiseworthy or politically successful.
Judging his motives, we can say that he will not intentionally pursue
policies that are morally wrong, but we can say nothing about the probability
of their success. If we want to know the moral and political qualities
of his actions, we must know them, not his motives. How often have
statesmen been motivated by the desire to improve the world, and ended
by making it worse? And how often have they sought one goal, and ended
by achieving something they neither expected nor desired?

Morgenthau, H. (1948). Politics among nations: The struggle for power and peace (pp. 5, 6). New York: Knopf

[BootinUp]

9. He later said he:

"since deeply regretted the removal order and my own testimony advocating it, because it was not in keeping with our American concept of freedom and the rights of citizens...Whenever I thought of the innocent little children who were torn from home, school friends, and congenial surroundings, I was conscience-stricken...t was wrong to react so impulsively, without positive evidence of disloyalty"
—The Memoirs of Earl Warren (1977)[12]

[BootinUp]

10. Its funny that you call him a conspiracy entrepeneur

Care to support that with anything?

Earl Warren was a flawed human but he did a lot of good things that you seem not to recognize.

[OnyxCollie]

12. Conspiracy Theories by Sunstein & Vermeule.

2. Rumors and speculation. Of course it is necessary to specify how, exactly,
conspiracy theories begin.. Some such theories seem to bubble up spontaneously,
appearing roughly simultaneously in many different social networks; others are initiated
and spread, quite intentionally, by conspiracy entrepreneurs who profit directly or
indirectly from propagating their theories. An example in the latter category is the
French author Thierry Meyssan, whose book “9/11: The Big Lie” became a bestseller and
a sensation for its claims that the Pentagon explosion on 9/11 was caused by a missile,
fired as the opening salvo of a coup d’etat by the military-industrial complex, rather than
by American Airlines Flight 77. Some conspiracy entrepreneurs are entirely sincere;
others are interested in money or power, or in achieving some general social goal. Still,
even for conspiracy theories put about by conspiracy entrepreneurs, the key question is
why some theories take hold while many more do not, and vanish into obscurity.

Sunstein, C. R. & Vermeule, A. (2008). Conspiracy theories. Harvard Public Law Working Paper No.
08-03; U of Chicago, Public Law Working Paper No. 199; U of Chicago Law & Economics, Olin
Working Paper No. 387, pp. 9, 10.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585

[BootinUp]

14. I don't see anything there to support calling Earl Warren

a conspiracy entrepreneur. It is accepted that he did not want to serve on the Warren Commission.

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

[OnyxCollie]

15. There was nothing to support the internment of the Japanese

except for the economic factor, i.e. farm corporations had lobbied for decades for legislation allowing them to exploit Asians for profit.

In 1913 the California state legislature passed the Alien Land Act, which prohibited
ownership of land to aliens “ineligible to citizenship” (Daniels, Taylor, & Kitano, 1986, p. xv).
The author of the Alien Land Act, California Attorney General Ulysses S. Webb, had this to say:

The fundamental basis of all legislation upon this subject, State and Federal, has been and
is, race undesirability. It is unimportant and foreign to the question under discussion
whether a particular race is inferior. The simple and single question is, is the race
desirable... It {the law} seeks to limit their presence by curtailing their privileges which
they may enjoy here; for they will not come in large numbers and long abide with us if
they may not acquire land. And it seeks to limit the numbers who will come by limiting
the opportunities for their activity here when they arrive (War Relocation Authority,
1947, p. 37 as quoted in Okihiro & Drummond, 1986, p. 168).

The law was ineffective and openly evaded, but at a cost to the Japanese. According to
Ichihashi (1913), “the largest number {of Japanese farmers} have little property and many of
them have a form of tenancy which limits their freedom in production” (p. 29, as quoted in
Okihiro & Drummond, 1986, p. 170). One of these forms of tenancy was one “in which the
lessee agreed to pay the lessor a fixed cash rent, yet the lessor maintained ‘an absolute control
over the management of the industry as well as the disposition of the crops’” leading Ichihashi to
conclude, “All these systems were initiated by white farmers for their own convenience and
economic gains to them were thus secured” (pp. 29, 28, as quoted in Okihiro & Drummond,
1986, p. 170).

The second California Alien Land Act went into effect in 1920. Plugging the loophole in
the previous Land Act, the law prohibited leasing of land to aliens “ineligible to
citizenship” (Daniels, Taylor, & Kitano, 1986, p. xv). This law was similarly ineffective due to
lack of enforcement. According to McWilliams (1944):

Enforcement of the Alien Land Law of 1920 was vested in local law-enforcement
officials. The act was easily evaded: title to a farm land was placed in the names of
Hawaiian or American-born Japanese; verbal agreements were entered into that ran
counter to the terms of written documents; Japanese were employed as “managers”
instead of “tenants.” By these and other devices, and with the connivance of lawenforcement
officials, the act was blithely ignored. The amount of land escheated to the
state under this statute is wholly negligible (p. 65, as quoted in Okihiro & Drummond,
1986, p. 170).

McWilliams argued that the reason for the lack of enforcement for the Alien Land Act
was that the removal of the Japanese would harm the economic interests of the capitalist class
who depended on them for their labor (Okihiro & Drummond, 1986). Thus the propertyless
condition of the Japanese left them dependent upon and open to exploitation by organized groups
who, in turn, were dependent upon the Japanese for their existence. According to McWillams
(1944), “The grossest imposition was practised upon the Japanese, ranging from petty chiseling
to large-scale fraud.... In Santa Maria -in Santa Barbara County- local interests have been
charged with bilking the Japanese out of holdings valued at $500,000” (p. 139, as quoted in
Okihiro & Drummond, 1986, p. 170). The Japanese were also forced to pay high rents in
comparison to Caucasians. (see Table 1.)

Earl Warren was a part of that, your ignorance notwithstanding.

[BootinUp]

16. As he later regretted. You are not ignorant of that I assume?

[OnyxCollie]

17. As I had added to my first post,

Yet even if we had access to the real motives of statesmen, that knowledge
would help us little in understanding foreign policies, and might well
lead us astray. It is true that the knowledge of the statesman's motives may
give us one among many clues as to what the direction of his foreign policy
might be. It cannot give us, however, the one clue by which to predict his
foreign policies. History shows no exact and necessary correlation between
the quallty of motives and the quality of foreign policy. This is true in both
moral and political terms.

We cannot conclude from the good intentions of a statesman that his
foreign policies will be either morally praiseworthy or politically successful.
Judging his motives, we can say that he will not intentionally pursue
policies that are morally wrong, but we can say nothing about the probability
of their success. If we want to know the moral and political qualities
of his actions, we must know them, not his motives. How often have
statesmen been motivated by the desire to improve the world, and ended
by making it worse? And how often have they sought one goal, and ended
by achieving something they neither expected nor desired?

Morgenthau, H. (1948). Politics among nations: The struggle for power and peace (pp. 5, 6). New York: Knopf

He regretted it. Big fucking deal. The corporations got everything and the Japanese lost everything.

Those who excuse it because the principal actors said they felt bad are suckers.

[BootinUp]

20. Of course you also make this huge leap

that Warren's support of internment was this economic racist thing instead of his actual statements that he was concerned about security, you know WWII and all. If you had a scrap of a racist comment it might make interesting fodder. Otherwise its just a bubble you live in.

[BootinUp]

23. Heres a decent attempt to explain Warren on Japanese Internment You probably aren't interested

but others might be. You will have to click the link as its a long article and I will not attempt to secure a piece here or there to make the authors point.


The Unacknowledged Lesson: Earl Warren and the Japanese Relocation Controversy
G. Edward White

snippet:
Warren's confession of error in the Japanese relocation controversy raises several questions. How did Earl Warren, one of the most vigorous advocates of civil liberties in the history of the Supreme Court, come to advocate and defend a policy that constituted a wholesale deprivation of the civil rights of Japanese-Americans? How could Warren, a principal force behind the Court's unanimous attack on racism in Brown v. Board of Education and its progeny, have ignored the racist character of the relocation, which was imposed only against Japanese nationals and aliens, leaving unaffected people of Italian or German origin? How did Warren, a champion of equality and fairness under the law as chief justice, justify the patently inequitable nature of a relocation process reserved only for Japanese? And why did Warren, whose strength of convictions was well-known to his acquaintances, who almost never admitted that he had been wrong on an issue, and who rarely changed his mind once he had formed an opinion, decide to recant on the Japanese relocation issue? An examination of these questions takes one inside the mind of one of America's least penetrable public figures.
* A documented copy of this essay is in the author's possession; footnotes have been omitted from this version. Quotations ascribed to Earl Warren are principally from The Memoirs of Earl Warren (1977).

http://www.vqronline.org/articles/1979/autumn/white-unacknowledged-lesson/

[OnyxCollie]

24. Well, what does it say?

Did you read it or not?

I already did my research; I wrote my Master's thesis on the internment.

[BootinUp]

25. It puts things in context.

If you are not interested in reading an article written by someone who worked with him thats fine.

[OnyxCollie]

29. I'm not interested in reading a long article to see if you had a point.

Do your own goddamn research.

[BootinUp]

32. Oh yeah, research like I just did, yeah.

[BootinUp]

33. And here is a link to the relevant part of

the book you raised in case anyone wants to read it. It doesn't contain any racist remarks by Warren as far as I can tell. From the link you need to scroll back a page or so.

http://books.google.com/books?id=P7n5EJlN250C&pg=PA98&lpg=PA98&dq=Dewitt+Personal+Justice+Denied+warren&source=bl&ots=-VWtbps0yt&sig=D0nj--RFLJjT_RoY-Mc5EDqTiIQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dZdtUtyLBuKligKI9oHACQ&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Dewitt%20Personal%20Justice%20Denied%20warren&f=false

[OnyxCollie]

35. From Personal Justice Denied

Personal Justice Denied Summary
http://www.archives.gov/research/japanese-americans/justice-denied/summary.pdf

Fourth, as anti-Japanese organizations began to speak out and
rumors from Hawaii spread, West Coast politicians quickly took up
the familiar anti-Japanese cry. The Congressional delegations in Washington
organized themselves and pressed the War and Justice Departments
and the President for stern measures to control the ethnic
Japanese-moving quickly from control of aliens to evacuation and
removal of citizens. In California, Governor Olson, Attorney General
Warren, Mayor Bowron of Los Angeles and many local authorities
joined the clamor. These opinions were not informed by any knowledge
of actual military risks, rather they were stoked by virulent agitation
which encountered little opposition. Only a few churchmen and aca
demicians were prepared to defend the ethnic Japanese. There was
little or no political risk in claiming that it was "better to be safe than
sorry" and, as many did, that the best way for ethnic Japanese to prove
their loyalty was to volunteer to enter detention. The press amplified
the unreflective emotional excitement of the hour. Through late January
and early February 1942, the rising clamor from the West Coast
was heard within the federal government as its demands became more
draconian.

~snip~

In his 1943 Final Report, General DeWitt cited a number offactors
in support of the exclusion decision: signaling from shore to enemy
submarines; arms and contraband found by the FBI during raids on
ethnic Japanese homes and businesses; dangers to the ethnic Japanese
from vigilantes; concentration of ethnic Japanese around or near' militarily
sensitive areas; the number of Japanese ethnic organizations on
the coast which might shelter pro-Japanese attitudes or activities such
as Emperor-worshipping Shinto; and the presence of the Kibei, who
had spent some time in Japan.

The first two items point to demonstrable military danger. But
the reports of shore-to-ship signaling were investigated by the Federal
Communications Commission, the agency with relevant expertise, and
no identifiable cases of such signaling were substantiated. The FBI did
confiscate arms .and contraband from some ethnic Japanese, but most
were items normally in the possession of any law-abiding civilian, and
the FBI concluded that these searches had uncovered no dangerous
persons that "we could not otherwise know about." Thus neither of
these "facts" militarily justified exclusion.

...

Discussing conspiracies with you is like debating a rather dull child.

You've wasted enough of my time; go play in the BOG.

[BootinUp]

44. You're insulting remarks have become boring and dull

and child like, but I knew they would be.

[indepat]

36. My wife, a political science major in the early '50s, still vividly recalls one of her professors,

who had clerked for Justice Frankfurter, with tears streaming down his face as he discussed the Korematsu case. I suspect the internment of American citizens in concentration camps based on race influenced Chief Justice Warren's decisions on the Supreme Court.

[OnyxCollie]

37. You should read Justice Douglas' notes.

Things were not as you believe them to be.

[BootinUp]

55. The secret Notes? Your attempts at sliming Warren are really pathetic

His reputation is quite safe as a leader of the most progressive court we have had in addition to being a 3 term Governor of California and a highly respected Attorney General.

http://www.history.com/topics/earl-warren
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Court

[OnyxCollie]

68. Your tantrums are really pathetic.

Flailing your little fists about, It's not true!

[RC]

11. The grassy knoll refuses to die.

Key persons conveniently dead. A convenient route change. The skepticism of the Warren Commission were immediate. Move along now, nothing to see here.

[stopbush]

138. Magical thinking. A route change? Not really.

[BootinUp]

13. The Key To The Warren Report |American Heritage

Seen in its proper historical context—amid the height of the Cold War—the investigation into Kennedy’s assassination looks much more impressive and its shortcomings much more understandable
Max Holland

November 1995 | Volume 46, Issue 7

In September 1994, after doggedly repeating a white lie for forty-seven years, the Air Force finally admitted the truth about a mysterious 1947 crash in the New Mexico desert. The debris was not a weather balloon after all but wreckage from Project Mogul, a top-secret high-altitude balloon system for detecting the first Soviet nuclear blasts halfway across the globe.

During the half-century interim, flying-saucer buffs and conspiracy theorists had adorned the incident with mythic significance, weaving wisps of evidence and contradictions in the Air Force’s account into fantastic theories: Bodies of extra-terrestrial beings had been recovered by the Air Force; the government was hiding live aliens; death threats had been issued to keep knowledgeable people from talking. Such fictions had provided grist for scores of books, articles, and television shows.

In retrospect the Air Force had obviously thought the Cold War prevented it from revealing a project that remained sensitive long after the Soviet Union exploded its first atomic bomb. And such surreptitiousness was certainly not isolated. Might it provide a model even for understanding that greatest alleged government cover-up, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy? Indeed our understanding of the assassination and its aftermath may, like so much else, have been clouded by Cold War exigencies. It may be that the suppression of a few embarrassing but not central truths encouraged the spread of myriad farfetched theories.

Admittedly there are Americans who prefer to believe in conspiracies and cover-ups in any situation. H. L. Mencken noted the “virulence of the national appetite for bogus revelation” in 1917, and more than a century after the Lincoln assassination skeptics were still seeking to exhume John Wilkes Booth’s remains. The Columbia University historian Richard Hofstadter definitively described this syndrome in his classic 1963 lecture “The Paranoid Style in American Politics,” later published as an essay. “Heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy” are almost as old as the Republic, Hofstadter observed, as evinced by the anti-Masonic movement of the 1820s, the anti-Catholicism of the 1850s, claims about an international banking cartel in the early 1900s, and Sen. Joe McCarthy’s “immense conspiracy” of the 1950s. But a recurring syndrome is not to be confused with a constant one, Hofstadter argued. Paranoia fluctuates according to the rate of change sweeping through society, and varies with affluence and education.

Link to American Heritage article

[RagAss]

18. Nobody knows a fucking thing about Oswald.

Nobody ever did.

[BootinUp]

22. Clearly a silly statement on its face. Maybe what you mean to say

is that nobody knows what his motive was. Yes its all speculation. But the article from American Heritage in my later post below the OP helps piece together some important facts that might yield a satisfactory picture.

For one, both the Ruskies and Castro were shocked and scared shitless.
Then there is this bit which is worth considering:

Lacking a confession or hard evidence like a note, the commission ultimately decided not to ascribe to Oswald “any one motive or group of motives.” This nonconclusion was sound and sensible for several reasons. First, the commission viewed itself as akin to a judge at a criminal trial, with the job simply of determining Oswald’s culpability and the conspiracy issue; motive was less important. Second, the issue seemed a bottomless pit. In a moment of dark humor one staff member, Norman Redlich, wrote a spoof titled the “Washing Machine Theory of the Assassination,” describing how Marina Oswald’s rejection of her husband’s offer to buy her a washing machine had triggered Oswald’s sense of failure and his need to prove his mettle by assassinating a President. There was a serious purpose in Redlich’s spoof: He wanted to show that there was simply no way to pick one motive from all the possibilities. The chances of achieving unanimity among the commissioners were slim to nil, and anyway a consensus was bound to subject the report to valid, as opposed to irresponsible, criticism. Consequently the report listed a few possibilities and concluded that “others may study Lee Oswald’s life and arrive at their own conclusions as to his possible motives.”

However reasonable and sound this non-conclusion was, what is striking in retrospect is how a very plausible motive was buried. Ample details about Oswald’s extraordinary political activities were provided, but in a detached and clinical manner; the avalanche of facts tended to obscure a salient one. Whenever Oswald actually took violent action, whenever he set free his internal demons, it was on a political stage. This was true when he attempted suicide in 1959, after the Soviets initially refused his defection, and again in April 1963, when he stalked a right-wing retired general named Edwin A. Walker. Walker and Kennedy had one thing in common in Oswald’s eyes: their anti-Communism, especially their antipathy to the “purer” Cuban Revolution that had captured Oswald’s imagination. (Walker had called for “liquidating the scourge that has descended on Cuba.”) The November murder was first of all an act of opportunity by a bent personality, but Kennedy was not in all likelihood a random victim of Oswald.

How did this de-emphasis occur? The most important factor was the cautiousness described above. The commission’s task was not to promote speculation and theorizing, no matter how plausible. Another significant, if perhaps less conscious, element was the dominant role lawyers played on the commission and in writing the report. In the most trenchant criticism of the Warren Report ever to appear, a 1965 Esquire article, the critic Dwight Macdonald accepted the commission’s conclusions but called the report a prosecutor’s brief that failed to meet its overarching purpose, which was to produce an objective account of what happened in Dallas. Because the report was written by lawyers, Macdonald said it had a telling defect: “omnivorous inclusiveness. … [the] prose is at best workmanlike but too often turgidly legalistic or pompously official. It obscures the strong points of its case, and many are very strong, under a midden-heap of inessential facts. … Its tone is that of the advocate, smoothing away or sidestepping objections to his ‘case’ rather than the impartial judge or the researcher welcoming all data with detached curiosity.” Oswald’s seriousness about his politics was buried under a “midden-heap” of facts.

[RagAss]

165. No...I meant what I said....

How many folks know he lived in the Bronx, N.Y. at age 12-13?

http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/03/JA/DR/.d-dr.html

[Politicalboi]

19. Bullshit

"Truth was our only client." Throughout the inquiry, that phrase remained our guiding principle.

Yeah right. Then how come we don't know why the Secret Service men weren't on JFK's car. That says ALL I need to know. While the Secret Service was surrounding that pig LBJ's car. He had a hand in it, he was going to be impeached that following Monday. I HATE LBJ.

[Logical]

49. LOL, the truth is boring I understand. But Oswald did it alone. n-t

[stopbush]

139. The SS testified as to why they weren't on JFK's limo that day.

Nothing suspicious about it. Read the WCR. It might save you from displaying your ignorance on the subject in the future.

[Archae]

21. How to tell a conspiracy theory is pure bullshit...

One key method:

The theorists use a lie in their theory.
And long after the lie is exposed to BE a lie, it's still clung to, desperately.

In the case of the JFK killing, the diagram of the seating in the Presidential limousine use by CT's turns out to be a lie.

Yet, that diagram is still used to "prove" the "magic bullet" lie.

[Gin]

26. We as citizens couldn't handle the truth......its easier to swallow what we are told.... Good god

Fearing sheeple. Color me a CT

[Kaleva]

28. The truth may be that Oswald acted alone but many refuse to consider that.

They feel more comfortable believing what CTer's say.

[villager]

40. The truth may be that Oswald didn't act alone, but many refuse to consider that.

They feel more comfortable believing what hand-picked status quo spokespeople say.

[BootinUp]

56. I read my first JFK conspiracy book in grade school

And have trudged through all kinds of similar stuff in the dungeon or on the internet or seen CT shows through the years. Believe me when I say I strongly questioned the official story at one time. My doubts were pretty much laid to rest by the Dale Meyers work, he was also a doubter before.

Here is page answering questions about his work http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/faq_01.htm

Here is a clip from the show he did in '04 for ABC that is very good.

I don't know why you would think that you and other CT'ers are the only ones that use critical thinking. Have you based all your assumptions on books or materials written from one point of view?

[villager]

57. "Murder by Cartoon"

Some nice analysis of Meyers' work for ABC here:

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter12c:animania

?height=550&width=729

[BootinUp]

59. Meyers responded to these claims apparently

10th faq answer down. http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/faq_01.htm

I recall a few years ago watching his computer generated stuff and also clicking frame by frame through the zapruder film and comparing. Looked pretty convincing. At any rate, even the HSCA determined the single bullet part of the Warren commission finding was correct as well so its a little humorous how HSCA stuff is being used to argue against their findings.

Your source surely has tried to discredit the Meyers work. If he really wanted to make a convincing case he should get access to the actual models/data instead of using 2 d photos like Meyers says imho.

[villager]

60. Since you credit the HSCA then, I guess -- since you don't cherry pick, right? -- you agree

....with them that the murder of JFK was likely the result of a conspiracy involving more than one person. Or shooter.

[BootinUp]

61. I think they made a mistake with regards to using the acoustic

analysis which was of such poor quality to determine there was a fourth shot that left no other evidence. And I find their conspiracy finding a little humorous cause they then exclude just about every possible co-conspirator you might hope they included. lol.

[villager]

62. Of course you do.

You only pick the facts/conclusions/suppositions that support your current opinion, with the usual fervor of a convert.

But exclude the others, from the same source, when they don't.

[BootinUp]

63. In your case, I gather your real problem with the official story

is it does not fit with your desire for a conspiracy as you indicated in a post below:


---------------------------------------------------------
Star Member villager (19,735 posts)
58. The real fervor is from those who have stayed willingly blind through three major "coincidental"

...assassinations in the 60's, refusing to see a pattern, lest their own particular fairy tale world is a little too rocked...
----------------------------------------------------------


I mean thats what its all about for you no? There is no chance that evidence will sway you from it, isn't that true? I could go through all of it from professor mcadams site and we would still be at post 58.

[villager]

64. And I could sift through the other evidence that points to a conspiracy....

But no, I don't "desire" one.

But I think since the purveyors of the lone nut theory -- which has always been wobbly -- like to use Occam's Razor, it becomes rather obvious that when the same political actors benefit from a series of major assassinations, they aren't all "coincidence."

My true desire, since you were kind enough to wonder, would be to live in a country where such political actors do not continue to thrive. To this very day.

[BootinUp]

65. But why is the lone nut theory wobbly?

There are other cases of lone nuts attempting or succeeding in assassinations. Is it something about JFK in particular?

[villager]

66. Let me turn the question around: Do you believe that all three major 60's assassinations were really

..coincidences?

Each successfully carried out by the particular lone nut we were told did it, and that the benefits accrued to the military/industrial/intelligence sector of our society, by their deaths, was just an "unfortunate boon" to these rightwing interests, courtesy of these same, successful lone nuts?

[BootinUp]

67. I will try to answer that question

perhaps not tonight.

Right now I am reading Meyers report on the acoustic evidence. I think I read it before but been awhile. So far it does not make the HSCA finding look to solid. You might want to check it out. http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/acoustics.htm

[YoungDemCA]

213. lol

nt

[Logical]

122. That's, this will help me ignore your other posts! nt

[AnotherMcIntosh]

27. Too bad that Hale Boggs who was on the Warren Commission and wanted to re-open an investigation

didn't get a chance to do so before his death from an airplane crash. Flying can be dangerous.

He was the House Majority leader (D).

[dflprincess]

45. Boggs was the most outspoken critic among the three dissenting members

He was very frustrated from the almost total reliance on information fed to the Commission by the FBI.

The other two members who dissented were Senator Sherman Cooper and Senator Richard Russell.

Cooper was the only commission member who refused to go along with the single bullet theory and told both Robert and Edward Kennedy that he did not believe Oswald acted alone. He publicly said he was dissatisfied with the commission and called its report "premature and inconclusive".

Russell Long referred to the Commission as a "railroad" job and while on the Commission, repeatedly said he thought the FBI had acted too quickly in naming Oswald the only assassin, did not a good investigationvoiced and neglected to follow up leads.

I always thought the biggest flaw in the Warren Commission was that it never asked "Who killed JFK?" but only "How do we prove Oswald did all by himself?"

[AnotherMcIntosh]

50. The first odd thing was that the police, FBI, et al immediately knew that (1) Oswald was the shooter

(2) he was the only one involved.

How did they know that he was the only one involved? How could anyone know?

From the beginning, it didn't make sense.

[Nay]

79. Another unexplainable thing was why the Secret Service agents were called off

of the back of the President's car as the motorcade turned onto the fatal road. The agents that were called off did it reluctantly, and even raised their palms in a "what the hell?" gesture. Has that ever been explained to anyone's satisfaction?

[BootinUp]

83. Simple, they weren't called off.

There is no satisfactory evidence it ever happened that way. But its been awhile since I dug through all the CT's and debunkings.

[Last Stand]

169. It's on video.

Released 2 y/a. Clearly shows an agent approaching a SS agent standing on the rear bumper of the vehicle, saying something to him, the SS agent finally gets off the back of the vehicle with obvious reluctance and objection, removing any obstruction to the back of the President's head.

[BootinUp]

188. See post #139 above

[AnotherMcIntosh]

95. The puzzled "what the hell" gesture can be seen here:

[grantcart]

154. Well he was identified as the only employee who his employer was certain wasn't missing.

About ninety seconds after the shooting, in the second-floor lunchroom, Oswald encountered police officer Marrion Baker accompanied by Oswald's supervisor Roy Truly; Baker let Oswald pass after Truly identified him as an employee. According to Baker, Oswald did not appear to be nervous or out of breath.[156] Truly said that Oswald appeared "startled" when Baker aimed his gun at him.[157] Mrs. Robert Reid—clerical supervisor at the Depository, returning to her office within two minutes of the assassination—said that she saw Oswald who "was very calm" on the second floor with a Coke in his hands. As they walked past each other, Mrs. Reid said to Oswald, "The President has been shot" to which he mumbled something in response, but Reid did not understand him.[158] Oswald is believed to have left the Depository through the front entrance just before police sealed it off. Oswald's supervisor, Roy Truly, later pointed out to officers that Oswald was the only employee that he was certain was missing.[159][160]

After that they broadcasted his description and when officer Tippit pulled up to ask him some questions (presumably because he matched the description) Oswald pulled out a gun and put 4 bullets into him.

That was what tipped off the police that they should be looking for Oswald.

Now if Oswald wasn't involved then why would he murder Tippit?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

155. Yep, stop looking for anyone else if an employer is reportedly missing one employee. Good call.

[grantcart]

156. You raised the question "how did the police know it was Oswald so quickly"

The answer is: immediately after the shooting police arrived and walked past Oswald. After examining the scene the employer was able to account for all but one employee. Logically the police broadcasted an all points bulletin for a person of interest who was missing from the building where a snipers nest had been found.

A policeman responding to that APB (and probably assuming that it was just a coincidence, he didn't draw his weapon) pulls up to Oswald and asks him questions and is gunned down by Oswald. He is seen fleeing and going into the movie theater where he again pulls out a gun and tries to shoot another policeman.

Now your original question was "how in the world would they even know anything about Oswald?" When the facts show a common sense explanation rather than admitting that the question was a complete red herring we now get another red herring (they stopped looking for anyone else).

Let's try and stay on your original point, OK?

Do you think that it is still a mystery how Oswald became a person of interest or is the fact that he fled the place where they found the materials on the 6th floor and his shooting of Tippit pretty well answer that particular question?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

158. Not true. Anyone can see the questions at #50: "How did they know that he was the only one involved?

How could anyone know?"

Where except in your imagination did you come up with the question which you attribute to me: "how did the police know it was Oswald so quickly"?

Why did you change the subject?

What's your agenda?

[grantcart]

159. And I am dealing with the first question:

50. The first odd thing was that the police, FBI, et al immediately knew that (1) Oswald was the shooter

I believe that this is the only time anyone has raised this question because Oswald's actions were

1) well known
2) well documented
3) very incriminating.

Do you still think there is some deep mystery on how Oswald became so quickly identified?

(the second part assumes that they did immediately accept that he worked alone and I don't believe any law enforcement jumped to that conclusion, but that is beside the point.)

I don't have 'an agenda'. Those that are committed to the conspiracy theory have an agenda to find facts that support that, those facts have not been established and every time somebody thinks that they do a reasonable explanation has been found. That doesn't mean that it couldn't exist. Oswald was a very strange and mercurial fellow.

I trust Ted Kennedy on the subject and he accepted the Warren Commission Report.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/02/kennedy-memoir-talks-of-chappaquiddick-jfk-and-other-presidents/?_r=0

In the 532-page book, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, Mr. Kennedy also said he has always accepted the official findings of President John F. Kennedy’s assassination, an event that he said left family members fearing for the emotional health of his brother, Robert F. Kennedy. Mr. Kennedy that he often thought of one brother’s deep grief over the loss of another and said it “veered close to being a tragedy within a tragedy.”

Senator Kennedy said he had a full briefing by Earl Warren, the chief justice, on the commission’s investigation into the Nov. 22, 1963, shooting in Dallas. He pronounced himself convinced that the Warren Commission got it right and said he was “satisfied then, and satisfied now.”

Now to the question that I raised, do you still find it mysterious that the Dallas Police became quickly interested in Lee Harvey Oswald.

Seems like a pretty straight forward yes or no.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

160. At #156, you said I "raised the question 'how did the police know it was Oswald so quickly'

I didn't.

Anyone can see the questions at #50:

"How did they know that he was the only one involved? How could anyone know?"

At # 158, I asked:

Where except in your imagination did you come up with the question which you attribute to me: "how did the police know it was Oswald so quickly"?

Why did you change the subject?

What's your agenda?

If you are going to make up stuff about what I said, we're done.

[grantcart]

161. So we are clear on this point: There is absolutely nothing unusual or mysterious

as to why the Dallas Police Department became interested in Oswald as a person of interest immediately after the shooting?

You would agree with that statement, right?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

162. What we are clear on is that you create strawmen and falsely attribute statements to others.

Anyone reading the exchanges can get that.

I got that.

Why don't you?

[grantcart]

164. I found your post ambiguous and am trying to understand exactly what it is you are alleging.

I will take full responsibility for not understanding the nuance of what you were saying, but questions are not strawmen.

It seems that your point is not that Oswald was an early suspect but that he was quickly identified as the only suspect.

I was not aware that the FBI came to an early conclusion that Oswald was the only shooter, and assumed that it was only after a lengthy investigation. If you have any actual citation that shows the FBI came to an early conclusion, I would be interested in that.

There is of course one major indicator that a conspiracy was in hand, but it isn't in the various points that are usually discussed (like the magic bullet), it is in Ruby.

Ruby was not a 'made man' in the Mafia but did business and was in that community. He made a lot of statements after his conviction that muddied the waters but, and here is the real problem, on his death bed he said no one else was involved. And on top of it there are credible statements by reliable people who knew Ruby that he was a non stop talker, the last person anyone would put on a 'nobody talks operation'.

In the end somebody always talks, the fact that no one has in 50 years is, in itself an indicator.

Until somebody has actual facts of a conspiracy I am going to have to do along with Ted, he was smart guy and deeply invested in the answer.

[BootinUp]

200. Maybe he wasn't in a good mood?

lol.

[BootinUp]

53. Having doubts in the 60s and 70s, and now are two different things

The zapruder film has been turned into a 3d digital proof of what happened. The only thing that is too bad is that he didn't live to see that.

[oswaldactedalone]

30. I agree

with the author of the editorial

[BootinUp]

31. lol nt

[BluegrassStateBlues]

34. The birth of conspiracy theories was a huge detriment to the intelligence of American society.

Even the smallest of things are questioned and analyzed in ways that have no scientific basis. When the theories are devoid of facts, the CTers drag out their own whacko specialists to give us the information. Then the Internet came along and now everyone is an expert.

My tolerance for conspiracy theorists dissipates more every day.

[SamYeager]

52. The JFK CT BS was the precursor to birtherism n/t

[KamaAina]

111. CTs are older than JFK

Pearl Harbor has a number of them woven around it.

[YoungDemCA]

211. I agree with you on this...

"Now everyone is an expert"-yep.

[SidDithers]

39. We all know it was George HW Bush...

Damn you BFEE!!

Sid

[BootinUp]

42. heehee

Thank You.

[Octafish]

71. Yeah. It's not like George Herbert Walker Bush wasn't in Dallas on November 22, 1963.

Because that is what he told the FBI a few minutes after the President's death was announced when he phoned in his suspect.



Here's a transcript of the text:

TO: SAC, HOUSTON DATE: 11-22-63

FROM: SA GRAHAM W. KITCHEL

SUBJECT: UNKNOWN SUBJECT;
ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT
JOHN F. KENNEDY

At 1:45 p.m. Mr. GEORGE H. W. BUSH, President of the Zapata Off-Shore Drilling Company, Houston, Texas, residence 5525 Briar, Houston, telephonically furnished the following information to writer by long distance telephone call from Tyler, Texas.

BUSH stated that he wanted to be kept confidential but wanted to furnish hearsay that he recalled hearing in recent weeks, the day and source unknown. He stated that one JAMES PARROTT has been talking of killing the President when he comes to Houston.

BUSH stated that PARROTT is possibly a student at the University of Houston and is active in political matters in this area. He stated that he felt Mrs. FAWLEY, telephone number SU 2-5239, or ARLINE SMITH, telephone number JA 9-9194 of the Harris County Republican Party Headquarters would be able to furnish additional information regarding the identity of PARROTT.

BUSH stated that he was proceeding to Dallas, Texas, would remain in the Sheraton-Dallas Hotel and return to his residence on 11-23-63. His office telephone number is CA 2-0395.

# # #

Why do you find humor in the BFEE, SidDithers? Shouldn't you be pointing out their treason?

[greytdemocrat]

74. Sid is soooo bad.

He knew you'd bite on this one...

[Octafish]

81. ''Bite'' is the operative word.

I responded to make the record clear.

"And the conspiracy theorists can say what they will..." -- George Herbert Walker Bush eulogizing Gerald Rudolph Ford, Jan. 2, 2007

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3029417

[PAMod]

142. Why would Bush have to be in Dallas to be involved in the assassination?

That's one of those odd things that people often say, that makes me scratch my head.

I've heard people say that Joseph Milteer and Jack Ruby, etc. were in Dealey Plaza that day, and other potentially nefarious figures were in Dallas, i.e. Bush & Nixon.

But unless you're shooting a weapon, or driving the getaway car, you wouldn't really have to be there, would you? Couldn't you be a conspirator and be at home on the couch?

And of course, in the same vein, even if you were in Dallas that day, or even in Dealey Plaza, odds are that you probably did not have a role in the murder...

[Octafish]

144. So, why not ask George Herbert Walker Bush?

He would know the answers.

[YoungDemCA]

209. There you go, posting something logical in response to the CT'ers...

And of course, they dodge it.

[Bolo Boffin]

212. Tyler, Texas is not Dallas, Texas. It's not even all that close.

Closer than Austin, but that's not saying much.

[Octafish]

41. So why did Gerald Ford have to alter the 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, 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.

[BootinUp]

43. With more recent (last 15 years or so) analysis on the bullet path

There just isn't any more reason to doubt the Warren Commission findings. I challenge you to actually read or watch some of this information.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl.htm

http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100sbth.html

Also, there is a very good article I posted above about the Warren Commission that I highly recommend http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023932103#post13

[Octafish]

82. Thanks, but all that makes assumptions and cherry-picks in order to buttress the Warren Commission.

Michael T. Griffith does an excellent job in his essay, "TEN REASONS I REJECT THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY."

EXCERPT...

No matter how far forward Kennedy would have leaned, and no matter how far forward he would have tilted his head, the trajectory through the neck would have been slightly upward, since the back wound was below the throat wound.

(emphasis in original)

[BootinUp]

84. An independently certified 3D computer model says Mr. Griffith is very wrong.

[Octafish]

86. Got a link to that?

"Independent" being the operative word.

[BootinUp]

186. Sure!

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/faq_01.htm (a downloadable report is at the link)


Has your recreation been independently examined by forensic animation experts?

Yes. ABC News hired independent experts from Z-Axis Corporation, one of the nation's leading forensic animation companies, to assess my work and submit a report. Established in 1983, Z-Axis Corporation had been involved in the business of producing computer generated animations of events, processes and concepts for major litigations in the United States and Europe. They participated in most of major air crash litigations in the U.S. over the past 15 years including the crash of Delta Flight 191 in Dallas, the crash of USAir 427 in Pittsburgh, the crash of American 965 in Cali, Colombia and the crash of Korean Air 801 in Guam. They also performed work for the prosecution in the Oklahoma City bombing trials of Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols.

On October 9, 2003, Z-Axis Corporation CEO and co-founder Alan Treibitz and Senior Producer Gary Freed met with me at my studio near Detroit, Michigan. Over a six hour period, I answered questions and shared all of the materials and methods that went into the making of the assassination recreation. Treibitz and Freed reported that I did "an excellent job" of matching the Zapruder film which allowed the assassination sequence to be viewed "from any point of view with absolute geometric integrity." Regarding the use of error cones to describe potential inaccuracies in establishing the single bullet trajectory, Treibitz and Freed reported that "Mr. Myers' techniques for establishing this cone were well thought out and accurately created." Treibitz and Freed concluded, "Mr. Myers has taken a comprehensive and reasoned approach to animating this event and has successfully incorporated many diverse visual records into a unified and consistent recreation. We believe that the thoroughness and detail incorporated into his work is well beyond that required to present a fair and accurate depiction."

[Click HERE to read the complete Z-Axis report.]

[MinM]

201. "I Don't Think Lee Harvey Oswald Pulled the Trigger" Dale Myers

The lone-nutter version of your guy with the cartoons has been debunked...

Dale Myers' cartoon version of the Zapruder film allows viewers to study the JFK assassination "with an incredible degree of accuracy."

Or so its creator says.

The material on this page reveals how Myers manipulated reality in an attempt to prop up the lone assassin theory...

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

[BootinUp]

203. Take it up with the independent certifying party. nt

[Octafish]

220. ABC News, the company Bill Casey rebuilt for the Company...

You know bought ABC? Capital Cities, made into a big time player by William Casey, who later became head of the CIA during Iran-Contra.

You know who Capital Cities made famous in white man circles? Rush Limbaugh.

Alex Carey: Corporations and Propaganda

The Attack on Democracy

The 20th century, said Carey, is marked by three historic developments: the growth of democracy via the expansion of the franchise, the growth of corporations, and the growth of propaganda to protect corporations from democracy. Carey wrote that the people of the US have been subjected to an unparalleled, expensive, 3/4 century long propaganda effort designed to expand corporate rights by undermining democracy and destroying the unions. And, in his manuscript, unpublished during his life time, he described that history, going back to World War I and ending with the Reagan era. Carey covers the little known role of the US Chamber of Commerce in the McCarthy witch hunts of post WWII and shows how the continued campaign against "Big Government" plays an important role in bringing Reagan to power.

John Pilger called Carey "a second Orwell", Noam Chomsky dedicated his book, Manufacturing Consent, to him. And even though TUC Radio runs our documentary based on Carey's manuscript at least every two years and draws a huge response each time, Alex Carey is still unknown.

Given today's spotlight on corporations that may change. It is not only the Occupy movement that inspired me to present this program again at this time. By an amazing historic coincidence Bill Moyers and Charlie Cray of Greenpeace have just added the missing chapter to Carey's analysis. Carey's manuscript ends in 1988 when he committed suicide. Moyers and Cray begin with 1971 and bring the corporate propaganda project up to date.

This is a fairly complex production with many voices, historic sound clips, and source material. The program has been used by writers and students of history and propaganda. Alex Carey: Taking the Risk out of Democracy, Corporate Propaganda VS Freedom and Liberty with a foreword by Noam Chomsky was published by the University of Illinois Press in 1995.

SOURCE: http://tucradio.org/new.html

If you find a moment, here's the first part (scroll down at the link for the second part) on Carey.

http://tucradio.org/AlexCarey_ONE.mp3

This guy fills in a lot of blanks since Dr. Carey's suicide.

The Propaganda System That Has Helped Create a Permanent Overclass Is Over a Century in the Making

Pulling back the curtain on how intent the wealthiest Americans have been on establishing a propaganda tool to subvert democracy.

Wednesday, 17 April 2013 00:00
By Andrew Gavin Marshall, AlterNet | News Analysis

Where there is the possibility of democracy, there is the inevitability of elite insecurity. All through its history, democracy has been under a sustained attack by elite interests, political, economic, and cultural. There is a simple reason for this: democracy – as in true democracy – places power with people. In such circumstances, the few who hold power become threatened. With technological changes in modern history, with literacy and education, mass communication, organization and activism, elites have had to react to the changing nature of society – locally and globally.

From the late 19th century on, the “threats” to elite interests from the possibility of true democracy mobilized institutions, ideologies, and individuals in support of power. What began was a massive social engineering project with one objective: control. Through educational institutions, the social sciences, philanthropic foundations, public relations and advertising agencies, corporations, banks, and states, powerful interests sought to reform and protect their power from the potential of popular democracy.

SNIP...

The development of psychology, psychoanalysis, and other disciplines increasingly portrayed the “public” and the population as irrational beings incapable of making their own decisions. The premise was simple: if the population was driven by dangerous, irrational emotions, they needed to be kept out of power and ruled over by those who were driven by reason and rationality, naturally, those who were already in power.

The Princeton Radio Project, which began in the 1930s with Rockefeller Foundation funding, brought together many psychologists, social scientists, and “experts” armed with an interest in social control, mass communication, and propaganda. The Princeton Radio Project had a profound influence upon the development of a modern "democratic propaganda" in the United States and elsewhere in the industrialized world. It helped in establishing and nurturing the ideas, institutions, and individuals who would come to shape America’s “democratic propaganda” throughout the Cold War, a program fostered between the private corporations which own the media, advertising, marketing, and public relations industries, and the state itself.

CONTINUED...

http://truth-out.org/news/item/15784-the-propaganda-system-that-has-helped-create-a-permanent-overclass-is-over-a-century-in-the-making

ABC and the rest of Corporate McPravda are now just organs of the CIA, in service to the One Percent. These media monopolies need to go the way of Too Big To Fail Banks: Extinction.

[Bolo Boffin]

221. A fine example of the genetic fallacy, Octafish

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic

This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something's or someone's origins. It's similar to an ad hominem fallacy in that it leverages existing negative perceptions to make someone's argument look bad, without actually presenting a case for why the argument itself lacks merit.

[Octafish]

224. Your expert opionion, Bolo Boffin? What's not true in what I posted?

The fact that Casey headed CIA?
The fact that Casey was big time Wall Street?
The fact that Capital Cities/ABC gave rise to Hate Radio?

So, when the facts aren't on your side, you attack the messenger.

[Bolo Boffin]

225. None of that has anything to do with the video.

Claiming that it does is a genetic fallacy.

Now could you try to show why the video is wrong?

[Octafish]

228. Quit with the Sideshow, Bolo Boffin. When it comes to Dallas, CIA calls up its assets in the media.

The facts are the point of how the nation's mass media are manipulated by the CIA.

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.

CIA Instructions to Media Assets

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.

SOURCE: http://www.boston.com/community/forums/news/national/general/cia-instructions-to-media-assets-doc-1035-960/80/6210620

From 2003, first OP on DU I could find on it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x765619

So, when you can't argue the facts, the instructions call for an attack on the messenger.

What a co-incidence.

[Bolo Boffin]

231. Another fine example of the genetic fallacy, Octafish.

And a bonus implication that I'm following the CIA playbook and thus I must be CIA! Two for the video and one for me. Wonderful.

So anyway, about that video. Are you going to get around to showing why it's wrong in a non-fallacious way? Because that would be a lot more convincing.

[Octafish]

232. Jumping to that conclusion would be a logical fallacy.

One doesn't have to be on the CIA payroll to echo what's in the memo.

[Bolo Boffin]

234. I know you didn't say outright that i am CIA.

The implication is all you need.

[Octafish]

236. So why continue to say what I didn't say, Bolo Boffin?

The effect really isn't the same as when adding some slander, is it? Like when someone calls me "Conspiracy Theorist" and means it as a perjorative, readers may get the wrong idea about me.

[Bolo Boffin]

237. What have I said you said that you didn't?

This self-martyrdom act of yours does get tiresome.

[Octafish]

239. ''This self-martyrdom act of yours does get tiresome.''

You're the one bringing up stuff I didn't say, Bolo Boffin.

Why do you say things I didn't say?

[Bolo Boffin]

240. Well, it does. What did I say you said that you didn't? n/t

[Octafish]

244. Who cares?

And why do you spend so many hours watching what I write?

[Bolo Boffin]

250. So you intend to keep climbing up on that cross, nailing yourself on, and wailing?

OK, if that's what floats your boats.

I don't really spend that much time "watching what you write." Just as it falls into my view. I should make a computer file of all the things you say with links so that I can whip them out whenever I like.

Kinda like what you seem to have done with me.

[Octafish]

255. How much time do you have to dedicate yourself to a subthread on an old thread?

Interesting.

[Bolo Boffin]

262. What subthread on an old thread are you referring to?

The "old thread" that's your JFK report thread from last week?

Or the old thread you linked to and brought to our attention?

Interesting.

[Octafish]

264. Hours spent on this one.

Is it a hobby?

[Bolo Boffin]

268. This thread? *scoff*

You must be joking. The replies have occurred over a matter of hours, but the actual process of replying in this thread has barely amounted to an hour, if that.

I'm quite aware you think you're wasting my time. But any time I spend demonstrating your obstinate refusal to declare your true opinions on anything at all, your massive failures of logic, and your inability to respect anyone who dares disagree with you on CT matters to be time well and truly spent in pursuit of truth.

So lay on, Octafish.

[Octafish]

272. Really, Bolo Boffin?

Think about it: Hours devoted, just going by the postmarks on this thread alone. Go back through the DU archives and the hours add up into days. Which is one of those odd things that turn up in MetaData.

And those who believe "Them" in the secret government who hold onto metadata and the rest of the inside knowledge and secrets are all good patriots, remember what the national security state has done for We the People lately: Kept the secrets that most benefit them -- the warmonger have-mores -- and most penalized the 99-percent We the People of democracy.

That secret government is at the heart of the rot that is modern America. The management of that same secret government, after being ordered to stop trying to kill Castro, failed to tell President Kennedy about ZR/RIFLE. Then, they didn't tell the Warren Commission they hadn't told him. Later, when asked by Congress, they also lied.

That same secret national security leadership would later tell President Johnson that North Vietnam attacked our destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin, later bug the Watergate on behalf of CREEP, later meet with the Ayatollah's people to extend the hostage ordeal in Iran, tell Ronald Pruneface that trading arms for hostages and sending the profits to go around Congress in Central America was a good idea, got paid big time by petrodollars at BCCI and big bucks from Rev Moon, would help loot the S&Ls and later the entire banking system, and made war on Iraq and Afghanistan and other nations that had zero to do with September 11.

Odd, that long string of unconstitutionality by the people running the cia and nsa and all the rest of the secret alphabet soup in the the secret government. Going from their actions, the actions of the national security state are treasonous as they only serve to benefit themselves -- the friends of the Dulles Brothers, Harrimans, Rockefellers, the Have-Mores -- at the expense of everyone else, the BFEE. And while it didn't start there, what we live in today was made possible by what went on down there in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963.

[Bolo Boffin]

273. Really, Octafish.

Really.

[Octafish]

274. Really monitoring away.

Right?

[Bolo Boffin]

275. Maybe you should calm down. I'm not monitoring you.

I'm watching Person of Interest on DVR right now, though. Getting ready for American Horror Story. SPOOKY!

[Bolo Boffin]

69. You say alter. I say more accurately describe.

None of these examples you've provided of Gerald Ford "altering" the Warren Commission are very remarkable.

Q: Is the neck "a point slightly above the shoulder"?

[Octafish]

85. Either way, Ford lied.

He needed to, in order to make the government's lone nut theory work.

Gerald Ford forced to admit the Warren Report fictionalized

By MIKE FEINSILBER
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (July 2) - Thirty-three years ago, Gerald R. Ford took pen in
hand and changed - ever so slightly - the Warren Commission's key sentence
on the place where a bullet entered John F. Kennedy's body when he was
killed in Dallas.

The effect of Ford's change was to strengthen the commission's conclusion
that a single bullet passed through Kennedy and severely wounded Texas
Gov. John Connally - a crucial element in its finding that Lee Harvey
Oswald was the sole gunman.

SNIP...

''This is the most significant lie in the whole Warren Commission
report,'' said Robert D. Morningstar, a computer systems specialist in New
York City who said he has studied the assassination since it occurred and
written an Internet book about it.

The effect of Ford's editing, Morningstar said, was to suggest that a
bullet struck Kennedy in the neck, ''raising the wound two or three
inches. Without that alteration, they could never have hoodwinked the
public as to the true number of assassins.''

CONTINUED...

Archived copy: http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=133311

Original: Associated Press, July 2, 1997

It's amazing, if not magical, what needs to be assumed to make the Warren Commission theory plausible.

[Bolo Boffin]

88. Bullshit he did.

And you didn't answer my question. The back of the neck is slightly above the shoulder, is it not? Gerald Ford didn't move JFK's wound at all.

YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT THAT.

[Octafish]

89. Why defend a puke liar, Bolo Boffin? And your question has nothing to do with the subject.

Ford lied to support the Warren Commission THEORY about the magic bullet.



Congressional investigator Gaeton Fonzi said the physical evidence -- the President's clothing -- demonstrates the WC falsehood: The bullet hole is in his back. That's not the neck.

BTW: The all-caps is hysterical: Ford pardoned Nixon, who served at the behest of Prescott Bush and spawned Poppy and Smirko. Odd, what.

[Bolo Boffin]

90. What do you care about attacking Republicans, Octafish?

You're happy to attack Obama when it suits your CT needs. Heck, you even posted an article accusing Bobby Kennedy of being an accessory to his brother's murder. So stop smearing me already.

It's about the truth. And the truth is Gerald Ford's change of words there does not amount to a lie. It's different words that describe the same thing. Ford's words are tighter and more precise. So the only thing he's guilty of is valid editing.

You are wrong here, Octafish. I make a point of saying that because you have a way of forgetting when that happens.

[Octafish]

92. Got a link for any of that?

I'm always happy to show where I get my information. And I'm always happy to apologize if I'm wrong.

So, show where what I wrote is not true.

[Bolo Boffin]

93. It amazes me that you deny what you do in other threads, Octafish.

Go back to your JFK conference report. All the links are there.

ETA:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3893175

Your link to an article that smeared Bobby Kennedy as an accessory to his brother's murder. Own what you do.

[Octafish]

94. No link to back up what you say. Here's a link from me:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=801508

Note how you interjected yourself into a subthread in order to label me a "conspiracy theorist."

[Bolo Boffin]

97. I just added the link to your posted article smearing Bobby Kennedy.

Here it is again:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3893175

Own what you do.

Here's where you attacked President Obama for stepping on your CT toes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7133118

Your link in #94 is to another thread where you attack a Democrat (Cass Sunstein) because he dared suggest someone help conspiracy theorists break out of their epistimic closure. Oh, it starts as a salvo in the Glenn Greenwald wars, but you quickly move the discussion to your favorite topic of all. And I pointed that out.

[Octafish]

99. Out of context, of course.

I'd say good work, but it's not. And like I wrote there: Out of context is your friend, Bolo Boffin. Not mine.

[Bolo Boffin]

101. The hell it is.

The part smearing Bobby Kennedy is an entire section of the article you linked to.

The context of the Obama attack is exactly what I'm saying. Posting a picture of Obama and Bush hugging at the inauguration while saying he repeated a Bush lie (which, of all the many lies George Bush did tell, that particular statement was not one) - that's the context. That's what you did. Own it.

[Octafish]

103. Show where I smeared Bobby Kennedy, Bolo Boffin.

You can't.

[Bolo Boffin]

105. Right here, Octafish. Third time's the charm?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7133118

Right there. That's where you smeared him.

Allow me to quote from the article you posted here:

THE ROLE OF ROBERT F. KENNEDY

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

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

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

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

That is from the article you posted here. It's a smear of RFK and you posted it here. You did that. Own it.

[Octafish]

109. Wow, Bolo Boffin. No where do I smear Robert Kennedy. So, there is that.

As for Martin Schotz, he made the case that when RFK went along with the Warren Report to protect the nation, he hurt the nation.

You really should read more. A good place to get caught up:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022416498

[Bolo Boffin]

110. That says RFK is an accessory to his brother's murder. It doesn't get more "smear" than that.

And now, far from disavowing such heinous bullshit, you're starting to spill that you agree with what he wrote.

You are wrong to do so, Octafish.

[Octafish]

116. Not what I wrote, Bolo Boffin. And yet you insist on saying that's what I wrote.

Why is that?

[Bolo Boffin]

119. Why did you post it here, Octafish?

You didn't post it saying, "Good Lord, what in the world was this cretin thinking when he wrote this?"

No, you posted it and recommended people read it. And you have hinted that you agree with his conclusion on RFK when you said that by accepting the Warren Commission, RFK "hurt the nation." Your words.

So out with it, Octafish. Do you think RFK was an accessory to his brother's murder after the fact or do you not?

[Octafish]

127. More words you made up, Bolo Boffin.

Why do you insist on associating me with words I did not write?

[Bolo Boffin]

129. I didn't make you post that article here!

At least twice, and both times approvingly! I didn't make you do that. You did that. You associated yourself with those words!

This is getting sad.

[Octafish]

131. What's sad is you continue to smear me by alleging what I did not write, Bolo Boffin.

Remember, people judge you by the words you use -- what comes out of your mouth, Bolo Boffin.

[Bolo Boffin]

132. You. Posted. That. Article. And. Refuse. To. Disavow. The. RFK. Smear. n/t

[Octafish]

145. I didn't write what you said, though.

Big. Difference.

[Bolo Boffin]

168. Yes, you did.

Own what you did.

[Octafish]

173. If you're willing to misrepresent what I write, what else do you misrepresent?

Own up, Bolo Boffin. You're famous on the Internet for misrepresenting what people say.

[zappaman]

175. Why can't you answer a simple question?

Did RFK help cover up his brother's assassanation?
You're famous on the Internet for not answering simple questions when called on your nonsense.

[Bolo Boffin]

176. I haven't misrepresented you. You posted that link that smeared Bobby Kennedy.

And you refuse to disavow that part of it.

Confess, Octafish. You blame Bobby Kennedy as an accessory after the fact to his brother's murder. Your hamhanded attempts at deflection and distraction are useless. The light is shining on you. Admit what you believe.

Of course you could disavow this smear of RFK here and now. But you never will. Because you believe it to be true.

[zappaman]

123. Simple question.

And I will go first.

Was RFK an accessory to JFK's assassination like the article you linked to asserts?

I say NO.

What's your answer?

[Octafish]

128. Why do you want fewer people to learn what happened to President Kennedy, zappaman?

Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy believed President Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy.

That's what his son and daughter, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Rory Kennedy, reported in an interview with Charlie Rose last weekend in Dallas.



It's also what author and Salon founder David Talbot reported, when he called Robert F. Kennedy the "first conspiracy theorist" in 2007.

Here's why the news from Robert and Rory is so important:

The important issue is that he and his sister reported their father -- the president's principal counselor and the nation's chief law enforcement officer -- privately thought a conspiracy was behind the assassination of President Kennedy.

RFK called the Warren Commission report "shoddy workmanship."

Attorney General Kennedy knew about the Ruby-Mafia connections immediately, which is vital when considering the Mafia were hired by Allen Dulles and the CIA during Eisenhower's administration to murder Fidel Castro -- an operation which the CIA failed to inform the president and attorney general.

The interview with Charlie Rose marked the first time members of the immediate Kennedy family have voiced the attorney general's doubts about the Warren Commission and its lone gunman theory.

Those are the facts we learned Friday, Jan. 11, 2013. It's called history.

I think the record is pretty clear of where I stand. Check my journal on DU2 or DU3.

[zappaman]

134. So you can't answer the question?

I'm glad DUers can see your thoughts, my friend.
Truly I am.

I'm sorry that you think RFK was an accessory to his brother's assassination.
I don't and I don't link to articles that assert he was.

[Octafish]

143. Wow! Tag Team propaganda.

Nice smear, zappaman. Show where I wrote that.

[Bolo Boffin]

196. You really do think Robert Kennedy was an accessory after the fact in his brother's murder.

Wow. It's amazing.

[Octafish]

245. That's a propaganda technique.

Attributing false words to another person.

[Bolo Boffin]

253. So you do not think RFK was an accessory to his brother's murder?

Why will you not say so plainly one way or the other, Octafish? Even if Dick Cheney himself were accusing me of some belief so heinous and so foreign to me, I would respond plainly what I actually believe. The question is put to you, sir, and there is no possible justification in delaying your answer because of your personal opinion of me.

What do you believe about RFK's possible role in the murder of his brother and the escape of his murderers, Octafish?

[Octafish]

256. You bring up things I didn't say and try to make me use my time defending them.

That is an interesting technique for wasting my time, Bolo Boffin. Here's a teachable moment, what I did post on the subject:

Bobby Kennedy: America's first assassination conspiracy theorist

[Bolo Boffin]

260. No, that's not what you think.

Your performance here and in the JFK report thread shows that's not what you think. That's you posting an article, seeming to commend the author, and yet only reporting what Talbot says. I have no reason to think you actually believe one word of that article, the normal paths of ascertaining that being denied here.

Just because you post an article doesn't mean you can be held accountable for what that article says.

Just because you commend an author to us doesn't mean you can be held accountable for what that author says.

Just because you do this over and over again doesn't mean you back up anything any of these articles or authors say.

And anyone who tries to figure out your actual beliefs or hold you accountable for those articles is following the CIA playbook and trying to attack and smear you.

Good Lord, what a silly stance for you to take.

[Octafish]

266. Don't write things I didn't write, then.

Your problem will be solved.

[Bolo Boffin]

269. I haven't. n/t

[Octafish]

98. So you post where I show how you cherry-pick a quote?

That doesn't do anything to support your case, Bolo Boffin. In fact, that makes clear how you take a quote out of context to support Gerald Ford and the Warren Commission.

Instead of saying you're amazed, here's what you should do, instead, Bolo Boffin -- Read and learn:

REX: Well, they also wouldn't admit that the CIA is involved in the assassination, would they?

MARTIN: Well, I don't - let me put it this way: I don't know if they would want to. In other words, the problem becomes that once the government becomes involved in covering this up, they become involved in a crime. Then you have the problem that people have to confront the fact that their government is basically illegitimate. And do people really want to do that?

I know, for instance, when I was involved in anti-war activities in the eighties around nuclear weapons, and I started sort of educating myself more on U.S. military policy. You know, you reach a point where you become very, very upset and frightened when you begin to realize what your own government's own policies - which are threatening you!

You think of your government as somehow being there to provide some sense of security, or some concern for the welfare of the American people, and you see that the policies have absolutely nothing to do with, and don't seem to have anything to do with protecting the American people, and in fact, are endangering the American people, and the thing is out of control. And that is a very, very disturbing reality, and I think that a lot of people would prefer to not deal with that reality, and prefer to believe at some level that the government is there to protect us. There's some truth, there's some legitimacy to it.

CONTINUED...

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Unredacted_-_Episode_5

If you can't read, or don't want to read, you can listen to the interview at the above link.

BTW: Gerald Ford was a liar and he pardoned Nixon, which prevented all the "co-conspirators" from facing trial. I'd think that would make Gerald Ford's lie regarding the Warren Commission something worthy of investigation. And that is the subject, Bolo Boffin.

[Bolo Boffin]

100. Cherry pick??? It's an entire section of the article!

With its own title and everything!

Own what you did.

You know, it would be really good for you to state in no uncertain terms that you do not believe Bobby Kennedy was an accessory to his brother's murder before or after the fact. You could do that in your next reply to me. You did, after all, post a link to an article that spent quite a lot of time explaining just why RFK should be considered as such. The least you could do is repudiate that part of the article.

Will you, though? Or will you just retreat further into your political pessimism?

[Octafish]

102. Why should I spend time fighting your straw man, Bolo Boffin?

No where did I write what you allege.

[Bolo Boffin]

104. You linked to an article that smeared Bobby Kennedy.

And you will not disavow that smear.

THAT's some bloody context for you.

[Octafish]

106. That's not what I wrote or what the article stated.

Why do you continue to repeat something that I didn't write, Bolo Boffin? Are you trying to get me angry so I write something you can alert? If so, you are a smaller person than I had been led to believe by your writings.

[Bolo Boffin]

107. You are wrong.

From the article you linked to:

THE ROLE OF ROBERT F. KENNEDY

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

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

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

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

And that is not all the article says about Robert Kennedy. That's all I can quote under DU rules.

Own what you did.

ETA: Anytime you want to disavow this article (or at least this section of it), feel free.

[Octafish]

113. So where did I smear Robert Kennedy, Bolo Boffin?

Show. Otherwise, don't try to get me angry by stating things I did not state.

Would you like it if I said things about you that you didn't say?

Here's something you did say:

"If it's in your journal, it's probably a crap conspiracy theory. Thank you, no. n/t"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5891293#5903481

Your words, Bolo Boffin.

[Bolo Boffin]

115. When you posted the article that smears him. That's when you did it.

And you have yet to disavow that section of the article.

Would you like for me to show you how to own what you do, Octafish? Very well.

Yes, I have called you a conspiracy theorist, Octafish. Because you are. Yes, I have said that I don't feel the need to read your journal because more likely than not, what's there is crap conspiracy theory. Because it is.

There. Now you can add a link to this post to whatever file you must be keeping of the things I say. But first: own what you did when you posted an article smearing Robert Kennedy here.

Or just come out and say you think Robert Kennedy WAS an accessory to his brother's murder. You either think he was or he wasn't.

[Octafish]

118. So, I didn't say what you allege and I have to apologize?

Does the irony escape you?

[Bolo Boffin]

120. What doesn't escape me is your unwillingness to disavow the smear of RFK.

You continue to refuse to say whether or not you think RFK is an accessory to his brother's murder.

Why is that?

[zappaman]

114. WOW!

So now RFK helped assassinate JFK?
At this point, CTers have blamed just about everyone alive!

But what can you expect from people who think Oswald may have been 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

[Octafish]

117. Tag Team!

More out of context. Yes!

As for Oswald, when was he convicted of any crime, zappaman? A policeman found him having a Coke on the second floor a minute after the shooting.

[zappaman]

121. It's not out of context at all

What did Oswald do that make you think he may have been a hero?
He killed 2 people and tried to kill a 3rd.
That's some hero, huh?

"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

[Octafish]

125. Tag Team! Yay!

Oswald wasn't convicted. Why do you insist on making him a convict?

As for context:

I'd rather side with Jim Garrison than with you, zappaman.

Jim Garrison was a hero:

Garrison's Case Finally Coming Together

by Martin Shackelford
Fair Play No. 25

In 1969, government secrecy severely hampered the investigation by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison into the assassination of President Kennedy. Today, with the documents released under the JFK Records Act, some of that secrecy has crumbled, and elements of Garrison's case look stronger today than in 1969.

Perry Raymond Russo, the key witness who described conspiratorial conversations including the defendant Clay Shaw and the deceased David Ferrie, maintained the veracity of his testimony until his death in 1995.

The case was sabotaged, however, by Garrison's inability to establish supporting claims that David Ferrie had long known Lee Harvey Oswald, and that Clay Shaw was connected to the CIA. There is no longer any doubt that both of these claims are true.



As late as 1993, with the publication of Gerald Posner's book Case Closed, Garrison's critics were denying that David Ferrie was in the Civil Air Patrol in New Orleans at the same time at Oswald (the mid-1950s), despite contrary witness testimony. Shortly after the publication of Posner's book, however, the PBS news program "Frontline" located two photographs showing Ferrie and Oswald together at a CAP barbecue; one, shown on the program "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?," has since been widely published. In addition, former Deputy Counsel Robert Tanenbaum of the House Select Committee on Assassinations has stated that his staff located a film showing Oswald and Ferrie at an anti-Castro training camp near New Orleans in the summer of 1963.

Clay Shaw's connections to the Central Intelligence Agency are now thoroughly documented. Though he told reporters he was in the Medical Corps during World War Two, documents show that he worked for an Army Counterintelligence group called the Special Operations Section. His military record remains classified. In Europe, he became involved with a Rome-based CIA front organization, the Centro Mondiale Commerciale. Between 1948 and 1956, he filed reports with the CIA's Domestic Contact Division, and provided documents to the Foreign Documents Division.

SNIP...

A September 1977 memo written by HSCA staff counsel Jonathan Blackmer concluded: "We have reason to believe Shaw was heavily involved in the anti-Castro efforts in New Orleans in the 1960s and possibly one of the high-level planners or 'cut out' to the planners of the assassination."

SOURCE:

http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/25th_Issue/shaw.html

As for Oswald, I don't know if he was a hero in all this or not. He did say he was a "patsy" accused of a crime he did not commit, but then he was shot dead while in police custody. So, likely we will never hear his side of the story.

Have you ever done anything heroic, zappaman? Be honest.

[zappaman]

126. You didn't answer the question, but you never do.

What did Oswald do that could be considered heroic?

"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

[Octafish]

130. Tag Team! Yay! What I wrote 10 years ago today...

Yeah. Code name "Harvey" and code name "Lee" and...

... code name "Oswald" were just three. Maybe they were the tramps who look suspiciously like some figures out of the CIA anti-Castro Cuban community "Mr. George Bush" of the CIA talked with Mr. Hoover about...

Even the cop looks phony...

(e) The three tramps

1. INTRODUCTION

660. Immediately after the assassination, law enforcement officers conducted a search of the area behind the grassy knoll in which several railroad boxcars were situated. As a result of this search, approximately six to eight persons who appeared to be derelicts were taken either to the nearby Dallas County Sheriff's office, or to the Dallas Police Department for questioning. All were released without being booked, fingerprinted or photographed. (222) Among these "derelicts" were three men who, according to the arresting officers, had been found in a boxcar approximately one-half mile south of the assassination scene. (223) As the police led the three derelicts through Dealey Plaza to the sheriff's office, they were photographed by several press photographers. (224)

661. When allegations of a CIA connection with President Kennedy's death emerged in the years following the assassination, these photographs received wide publicity in newspapers, television and in the April 28, 1975 issue of Newsweek magazine. (225) It was claimed that two of the derelicts or "tramps," as they had come to be called, bore striking resemblances to Watergate burglars E. Howard Hunt and Frank Sturgis respectively. (226) Allegations have been made that Hunt, who had been a CIA employee in 1963, Sturgis, who, while not an employee, had been involved in CIA-related activities, bad been together in Dallas on November 22, 1963 and had participated in the assassination as part of a CIA conspiracy.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/infojfk/jfk6/tramps.htm

Original post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=186998&mesg_id=187218

Ten years ago to the day, zappaman. What were you doing 10 years ago? Making fun of Oliver Stone?

[zappaman]

137. Here's also what you wrote earlier this year...

"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

!0 years ago, I was attending the first JFK Assassination Symposium in Dallas.
I assume you were busy blaming Ford, Bush and now RFK as accessories after the fact in regards to JFK's assassination?

BTW, which guys at the conference you just attended agreed with you that...
"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

Anyone?

[Octafish]

141. Wow, zappaman. You're so wise, you're repeating the same thing twice.

You're still wrong, parsing words as you do to smear, but you're able to state it twice, certainly.

Show where Oswald killed JFK or anyone, zappaman. The evidence shows he didn't shoot anybody that day, which is what he stated while in police custody.

"I didn't shoot Pres. John F. Kennedy or Officer J. D. Tippit. . . . "

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/LHO.html

Why do you insist on making Oswald guilty, zappaman? And why do you insist on misstating what I wrote? Would that help your Tag Team?

[Bolo Boffin]

195. "Show where Oswald killed JFK or anyone..." Sure.

53 Reasons It was Lee Harvey Oswald

32 Arguments and Reasons There Was No Conspiracy Behind Oswald Killing Kennedy

Done.

[Octafish]

226. So what? Bugliosi ignores what we've learned over the past 50 years.

Epic book resurrects finding that
Oswald acted alone in killing JFK

Bugliosi picks only the evidence that backs his argument

By Josiah Thompson
This review originally appeared in the June 3, 2007 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Former Los Angeles prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi claims to be "Reclaiming History" from the riffraff of conspiracy theorists in his massive new book on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The term "conspiracy theorist" is practically married to the assassination, tossed about the way the House Un-American Activities Committee used to throw around "Communist sympathizer." One size fits all!

But according to Bugliosi, conspiracy theorists are the reason more than 75 percent of Americans don't believe the conclusions of the Warren Commission, established by President Lyndon Johnson to investigate the crimes. Bugliosi's intent is to expose its critics as "fraudulent" on the way to resurrecting the conclusion of that panel, which found that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.

SNIP...

But what about Bugliosi's more serious intent -- to resuscitate a variant of the Warren Commission's account of the assassination?

In 1993, another lawyer, Gerald Posner, tried the same thing in his book Case Closed. Yet Bugliosi cites numerous examples of Posner's "distortion" and "misrepresentation." He quotes approvingly a Washington Post review of Posner's book, which criticized him for presenting "only the evidence that supports the case he's trying to build, framing the evidence in a way that misleads readers."

But this is exactly what Bugliosi does. Like any experienced prosecutor, he highlights the evidence that furthers his case while ignoring or confusing contrary evidence. Examples of this approach can be found almost everywhere in the book.

CONTINUED...

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

PS: Two links to Bugliosi really shows where you're at, Bolo Boffin. Read more, learn and get up-to-date. A scholar, Josiah Thompson is a good source.

[Bolo Boffin]

235. Bugliosi manifestly does not do that. Thompson's assertion is ludicrous.

Reclaiming History is 1612 pages of dense type, with a CD containing additional endnotes. If you or Josiah Thompson or anyone else thinks that the only thing in this massive book is the cherry picked evidence that points to Oswald, Bugliosi's work is done. No one could have that much evidence against him and not be guilty.

But that is not all that's in the book. Plenty of CTs are examined in minute detail. Their evidence is also presented so that this examination can take place. So Thompson is wrong in his assertion.

But Thompson's article does have something going for it: he does present a few examples of where he thinks Bugliosi blows it. So I'll tell you what. I'll look at these arguments and work through the evidence on both sides. But I'd like you to answer a few questions first.

1. You have made quite an endorsement of Thompson as a scholar. Do you stand by everything he says in the article you have linked to here? Are they all your opinion as well as his? If not, could you state clearly and for the record where you disagree with the article?

2. Thompson has made his mark in the conspiracy advocacy community by, among other things, insisting that the Zapruder film is genuine. Do you share that conclusion with him? If not, could you state clearly and for the record where you differ with Thompson on issues concerning the Zapruder film?

This is an article you posted here. You brought it to our attention with a general statement of Thompson's worth as a scholar. But given your behavior with another such article brought to our attention by you, I want to make sure I know where you stand on the issues. If you are just asking questions, though, and don't have any real opinion on what happened, I'd like to have that established, too.

Where I disagree with Bugliosi, I've said so in my two threads. Kindly do me and DU the same courtesy, Octafish.

[Octafish]

238. So now you don't like Bugliosi?

Both your links go straight to Bugliosi.

As for Josiah Thompson, he presented a report at the Duquesne converence in which he admitted to making mistakes when he first analyzed the case in the mid-1960s.

That's an adult thing to do, learning.

[Bolo Boffin]

241. I didn't say that, Octafish.

I said I disagreed with him in a few places. And where I did, I stated so quite clearly.

Both of those links go to threads of mine where I lay out Bugliosi's summary of his main arguments in Reclaiming History. Where I disagree, I say so clearly and for the record.

That's very nice about Thompson's position. However, I asked YOU where you agreed and disagreed with him. If you could say so clearly and for the record, both on the issue of the Zapruder film and the article you linked to here of your own free will and volition, we would all thank you.

Getting you to state your own convictions as to what happened: why is it always like pulling teeth with you?

[Octafish]

243. Why should I answer your demands, Bolo Boffin?

The record shows you misrepresent what I write.

[Bolo Boffin]

247. "demands" - you must mean my questions.

Specifically these two questions:

If you could say so clearly and for the record, both on the issue of the Zapruder film and the article you linked to here of your own free will and volition, we would all thank you.

If I misrepresent what you write, you can demonstrate that clearly by quoting and linking to what I said, quoting and linking to what you said, and a quick demonstration of how I misrepresented you. If you could please do that now? Thank you.

[Octafish]

249. I have, all up and down this thread.

For starters, look at what you wrote I said about RFK.

[Bolo Boffin]

251. You posted an article that smeared Robert Kennedy and commended the author to us.

It is a natural assumption to think you shared in the author's slander of RFK. If you do not, state so clearly that you don't. I cannot for the life of me understand why you would not say clearly what you think of RFK as an accessory to his brother's murder.

I've searched this thread and the other up and down. I cannot find where you have stated one way or the other what you think on the matter in so many words. I can see where you have posted the article that smeared him - twice!. I can see where you have commended the author to us - twice! But I cannot see where you have disavowed that huge section of the article where the author condemns Robert Kennedy as an accessory to his brother's murder. Do you believe this or do you not?

This question isn't hard, Octafish. If you do not, I would be happy to apologize to you for saying you did, because it's an awful thing to say about someone. And though I said it with all the reason in the world to think it, I would still apologize to you.

But if you DO think RFK was an accessory after the fact to his brother's murder just as that author said, what silly game are you playing at to say I've distorted your words or ascribed to you a belief you do not have - if in fact you do have it?

[Octafish]

254. No.That's what you said I wrote.

Which isn't what I wrote. It also shows why I don't think you are very interested in discussing anything, let alone learning anything. What Frederick Douglass wrote applies:

“It is a frequent and favorite device of an indefensible cause to misstate and pervert the views of those who advocate a good cause.”

[Bolo Boffin]

258. So what I said you wrote is you commending the author to us? That's where

That's where I misrepresented you? In saying you commended the author to us?

So in this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3893175

When you link to this article:

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

And say this:

DU is a Truth Machine:

And then quote from that article, you were not commending the author and his article to us?

And then when you linked to where you had previously linked to that article on DU, here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9674993&mesg_id=9683064

And say this about the article:

Something about water worth grokking:

And again quote from it, this is not saying the author is worth reading? That this author is saying something we should all get to know and understand and learn from?

And then in this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3936639

Where you say this about the author and the case he made against RFK:

As for Martin Schotz, he made the case that when RFK went along with the Warren Report to protect the nation, he hurt the nation.

You are not commending the author to us? You are not agreeing with him?

Who do you think believes you when you say such silly things, Octafish?

[Octafish]

259. No where there did I write what you said, Bolo Boffin.

So, there is that.

[Bolo Boffin]

261. You aren't fooling anyone. n/t

[Octafish]

265. Not my problem.

Why do you care?

[duffyduff]

46. America knew the truth the minute Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested.

Trying to debate the subject with those who still, despite all of the evidence, cling to a conspiracy, is like debating flat-earthers.

It's not worth the time.

[Logical]

48. +1000! n-t

[Logical]

47. Oh no, the grassy knoll people will be freaking out. n-t

[Rex]

51. 50 years later and water is still wet.

nt.

[kiva]

54. Conspiracy theorists are like true religious believers.

Simply put, they cannot believe that major events like assassinations are the result of poor security or the hatred of a single individual, they must be part of a much larger plan - that way the world makes sense. Even if the plan is made and executed by the enemy (whoever that is in any given situation), CTer can sleep soundly knowing that these events are all part of a greater plan.

[villager]

58. The real fervor is from those who have stayed willingly blind through three major "coincidental"

...assassinations in the 60's, refusing to see a pattern, lest their own particular fairy tale world is a little too rocked...

[Art_from_Ark]

72. And three men who had been opponents of Richard Nixon for the Presidency,

that is, John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and George Wallace, all ended up getting shot, and all by "lone gunmen".

[YoungDemCA]

214. Coincidences happen.

Such is life.

[Art_from_Ark]

215. Two times is a coincidence

Three times is not. Especially when the common element in that particular equation was a crook who kept an enemies list.

[meanit]

70. In 1964, when the Warren report was issued,

a whole lot of regular working class people felt that is was a whitewash. It just didn't pass the smell test. Something was wrong.
But according to many here, the people who felt this way were just a bunch of delusional conspiracy theorists looking for "fucking unicorns". I wonder if any of the people here that are steadfastly supporting the Warren Report were actually around at the time it was issued, and have an idea of what the mood of the country really was back then? Some point to a 2004 documentary aired by ABC/Disney Corporation as a verification of the Warren Report, but was that just not a book made into a film too?

A whole lot Americans have never really been satisfied with the explanation of the Kennedy assassination. Many, many things still do not add up, but instead of trying to clear the air, there are still thousands of Kennedy assassination files locked up under "national security" bullshit 50 years after the fact.

How can anyone blame people for still being skeptical?

[BootinUp]

73. Nothing wrong with being skeptical

As I indicated in another post I was too.

Here is a page that talks about evidence/records release you may find interesting.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arrb/index.htm

You might want to poke around there more, it is probably the single best internet resource for information on the Kennedy Assassination.


And the article at the American Heritage post 13 I think discusses reasons why evidence wasn't released and how it affected the perception of the Warren Commission Report.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

78. Those who want to squelch any inquiry may be understood by remembering a quote from Einstein.

“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.”

[grahamhgreen]

140. United States House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1976 concluded it was a likely conspiracy.

So do many who have examined the issue.

They also recommended further investigations.

Let's have em.


United States House Select Committee on Assassinations - http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/

[BootinUp]

184. Oh dear. The only problem is that conclusion was all based on a very flawed

analysis of an audio recording.

Interesting reading for a few pages anyways.
http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/acoustics.htm

[MinM]

193. HSCA came to the correct conclusion in spite of CIA obstruction.

As the former chief counsel of the House Select Committee (G. Robert Blakey) now concedes. Although that's just part of the story. Let's go back to how the first two chairmen (Thomas N. Downing and his successor, Henry B. Gonzalez) and Blakey's predecessor (Richard A. Sprague) were replaced...

Eventually we arrived at this neutered version of the HSCA under Chairman Louis Stokes and the aforementioned chief counsel Robert Blakey. Before being replaced however .. the incorruptible Richard Sprague was able to leave the committee with one lasting legacy ..

Gaeton Fonzi, Investigator of Kennedy Assassination, Dies at 76
By PAUL VITELLO
Published: September 11, 2012

...Of course it was a conspiracy, said Mr. Fonzi, a journalist recruited mainly on the strength of scathing magazine critiques he had written about the Warren Commission and its conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald had acted alone in killing the president in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963. But who were the conspirators? What was their motive? How could the committee close its doors without the answers?

Mr. Fonzi, who died in Florida on Aug. 30 at 76, nailed those questions to the committee’s locked doors, figuratively, in a long article he wrote the next year for Washingtonian magazine and in a 1993 book, “The Last Investigation.” In both, he chronicled the near-blanket refusal of government intelligence agencies, especially the C.I.A., to provide the committee with documents it requested. And he accused committee leaders of folding under pressure — from Congressional budget hawks, political advisers and the intelligence agencies themselves — just as promising new leads were emerging...

Mr. Blakey was criticized by Mr. Fonzi as overly deferential to the C.I.A., and he now concedes that Mr. Fonzi was probably right on that score. Mr. Blakey said he was shocked in 2003 when declassified C.I.A. documents revealed the full identity of the retired agent who had acted as the committee’s liaison to the C.I.A. The agency never told Mr. Blakey that the agent, George Joannides, had overseen a group of anti-Castro Cuban exiles in Dallas in the months before the assassination, when Oswald had two well-publicized clashes with them.

At the time of the revelation, the C.I.A. said Mr. Joannides had withheld nothing relevant from the committee. Mr. Joannides died in 1990.

“Mr. Joannides obstructed our investigation,” Mr. Blakey said. Asked how that had affected the committee’s work, he added: “We’ll never know. But I can say that for a guy like Gaeton, a guy who really wanted to know what happened to Kennedy, it kind of tortured him.” ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/us/gaeton-fonzi-76-investigated-kennedy-assassination.html?_r=0

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/MinM/42

[Bolo Boffin]

194. Nope. The Dictabelt recorded a motorcycle two miles away from Dealey Plaza.

http://www.thekennedyhalfcentury.com/pdf/Kennedy-Half-Century-Audio-Research.pdf

Since the HSCA conclusion of conspiracy was based solely on that Dictabelt evidence, they were wrong.

[MinM]

197. Admittedly that was the weakest evidence...

but given the obstacles they had to overcome they still came to the correct conclusion ..

Conspiracy!

Of course that's what we all really want isn't it? For them to get it right .. right(?)

[Bolo Boffin]

198. That was the only thing that got them to conclude conspiracy.

Before that, they were affirming the Warren Commission report up and down. And the bulk of the HSCA report on JFK did exactly that.

Hint: when the only evidence of conspiracy falls apart, you can't claim it or the HSCA anymore.

[BootinUp]

199. MinM, the whole basis for the "conspiracy" was the flawed 4th shot nonsense.

Read some of the audio analysis I posted.

[Gravitycollapse]

189. Skepticism is not the main goal of conspiracy theorists...

In fact, they exist within a realm that does not allow skepticism especially when that skepticism might question their own incoherent theories.

Instead, conspiracy theorists are perpetually obsessed with implicating deity like entities that could never possibly have existed in the past or today.

[DiverDave]

75. I just want a reasonable, coherent explanation for

the "magic bullet"
You tell me how a object traveling at thousands of feet per second can stop, turn and then accelerate in that new direction.
Oh, then show up underneath the body after it was moved, with no marks on it.

I believe that Garrison was close.

[BootinUp]

80. That movie is legendary for its inaccuracies, but sure I know exactly

how to give you a coherent explanation. You simply need to watch this:

I am sure you will have other questions. The guy who did this amazing work has a faq page that may interest you. http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/faq_01.htm

[DiverDave]

171. nope, aint no way a ballistic object

Acts that way, and to have not a mark on it? No,it was a conspiracy and if anyone believes differently they are being willfully blind I see no credible evidence that 1 person fired all those shots.
That weapon could not have cycled that many rounds in that short of time and to still be able to get a headshot? nope.
Why would many at the scene point AWAY from the book depository after the shots?
I guess they all misheard.
Oswald said it all
He was a patsy

[BootinUp]

182. Your just f'in with me, lol.

[GreenStormCloud]

191. Easy to fire that fast. The bullet was a full metal jacket bullet, designed to penetrate.

The first shot starts the timing. Oswald gets to begin with a completely ready rifle at a range of 58 yards. He then has 8.3 seconds to fire two more rounds, according the the film shot by Zapgruder. That is 4.15 secodns to work the bolt, aim and fire again. Keep in mind that his rifle was a military combat bolt action rifle. They are designed for the bolt to be able to be rapidly worked so the soldier cant get off the next shot rapidly. 4.15 seconds is lots of time for the next shot.

Pointing away - easy - echos. There were tall buildings and an overpass that echo and distort direction.

However, I do believe that he was a patsy. I believe that it was a Mafia hit, with Oswald as the sucker that pulls the trigger. When the Mafia makes a very high-profile hit they use a sucker who doesn't survive. The expection was that Oswald would have been killed when he shot it out with the Dallas police. (Normally when a person shots an officer in the presence of a second officer, at very close range, the second officer kills him on the spot.) When that didn't happen, Ruby, who had mob links and had cancer, had to finish the job and kill Oswald. He likely expected to be gunned down on the spot after shooting Oswald.

[The Midway Rebel]

108. How dare they criticize my middle class hobby!

We have conventions and sell t-shirts and books and shit.

[Octafish]

149. Like when the Government swore Iraq had WMDs.

But, Iraq didn't. Now THAT was a most profitable occupation.

[The Midway Rebel]

174. Wow, a blue link to one of your own posts.

That has fuck all to do with November 22, 1963. That convinces of a conspiracy for sure. Not.

[Octafish]

192. Right, like where did you write about lying America into wars for profit?

Here's another blue link, also full of original sources.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002366571

Read and learn.

[The Midway Rebel]

202. Awesome.

Where can I buy one of your t-shirts?

[Octafish]

230. So, your answer should be: ''I haven't written anything on DU about wars for profit.''

Which is fine, just don't make out my writings on that subject to be something which they are not.

[The Midway Rebel]

277. I haven't written anything on DU about wars for profit...

Last edited Thu Oct 31, 2013, 10:42 PM - Edit history (1)

...and if I did I would not foolishly tie it to some conspiracy theory in order to justify my middle class hobby.

Happy now?

[Gravitycollapse]

187. That was a fairly easily obtained conspiracy. The level of complexity to the JFK assassination...

in most conspiracy theories is absurd.

[KamaAina]

112. No conspiracy?

I thought there were about three brazillion of them.

[gopiscrap]

150. Fuck that I wouldn't trust the god damn Warren Commission

for all money in the world!

[BootinUp]

204. While there seems to be a few folks interested

Last edited Mon Oct 28, 2013, 11:52 PM - Edit history (1)

in a serious discussion, this thread has mostly devolved into a thread suitable for the dungeon.

[Rex]

207. Mission accomplished.

nt.

[YoungDemCA]

210. The responses in this thread prove that conspiratorial thinking is not just for the Right...

Amazing, really.

[Octafish]

229. What's amazing is how closed-minded some people are.

Surprised to see that a "YoungDemCA" could be one.

Here's what Cass Sunstein has to say on the subject of Conspiracy Thinking:

Obama Confidant s Spine-Chilling Proposal

Cass Sunstein wants the government to "cognitively infiltrate" anti-government groups

Cass Sunstein has long been one of Barack Obama’s closest confidants. Often mentioned as a likely Obama nominee to the Supreme Court, Sunstein is currently Obama’s head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs where, among other things, he is responsible for “overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs.” In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-”independent” advocates to “cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites — as well as other activist groups — which advocate views that Sunstein deems “false conspiracy theories” about the Government. This would be designed to increase citizens’ faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists. The paper’s abstract can be read, and the full paper downloaded, here.

Something else important to know about Cass Sunstein.

[Rex]

242. Not amazing, so typical that it is scary. Social engineering seems to work like a charm.

Even on the most advance form of life on the planet!

[Octafish]

246. Remember who was elected on a platform to eliminate the Department of Education?

Why Pruneface and the other racist assholes who support him would think that was a good idea:

“Once you learn to read, you will forever be free.” -- Frederick Douglass

BTW: Reagan denied Jim Garrison's request to extradite a suspect in his case, Edgar Eugene Bradley. Some investigators believe disruptors within his office fed him a false lead -- one Eugene Hale Brading, who was arrested in Dealey Plaza. You gotta admire spycraft, similar names and such, adds confusion and makes it harder to follow the story.

[Rex]

248. Amazing.

How many dots are needed for some to make a whole picture?

[Octafish]

252. Remember Steve Kangas?

We were zooming around downtown Pittsburgh, at the Duquesne JFK conference, riding a comfy bus between venues, and one guy brought up the Mellon bank and I asked if they remembered Steve Kangas, found dead outside Richard Mellon Scaife's office? He remembered Paul Kangas, an attorney who investigated Dallas and wrote about the Nixon connections.



[font size="1"]Paul Signac's oil-on-canvas painting "Place des Lices, St. Tropez" (1893), Carnegie Museum of Art[/font size]

[Rex]

257. I did not know that about Kangas!

Thank you for that and the links!

[Bolo Boffin]

263. Yes, Kangas committed suicide in Scaife's offices.

It was a sad end to a great blogger.

[Zen Democrat]

267. That makes me want to vomit. Some lost soul still trying to sell that POS report.

Hey Dude,

We know a lot more now. People have talked. The Dallas doctors have been talking. The staff at Bethesda talked. The Dallas Police Chief talked. We have taped conversations from the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. We had the Congressional investigations (which brought on another wave of murdered witnesses). We had the AARB. We now read the words of Sens. Dick Russell and Sherman Cooper that they never believed the single bullet theory, and that neither did Rep. Boggs. We don't know the names of the triggermen, but we know who sent them, an evil convergence of right-wingers in the CIA, Gen. LeMay, Gen. Lansdale, their compadres in anti-Fidel activities, to wit, organized crime and anti-Castro Cubans. One of the plotters ramrodded the Warren Commission, Allen Dulles. A man that JFK had fired as DCI a year earlier. The medical staff at the autopsy gave taped interviews that the man in charge was a general in the amphitheatre who puffed on a big cigar. They we have the Air Force One tapes that were "found" last year in which the previously expunged version had cleaned up the mentions of Gen. Curtis LeMay and his whereabouts. He was out of town and they had to get him into the autopsy room. The Warren Commission and the media couldn't say that we had a fascist coup d'etat. But we did. No POTUS has ever been really in charge since JFK. You know who's doing the bidding of the Power by which administrations have the easiest time with the media. Hint: It's always Republicans.

It's been 50 years and I have a feeling that the old military empire is bleeding out.

[BootinUp]

270. Well if you have to, stick your head out the window at least!

As to the rest of your post....well, I can only suggest there is more than enough information in this thread to make reasonable minds question their beliefs. Give it try if you are not afraid to.

[BootinUp]

271. To the brave 13 who reccd this thread...

[GoneFishin]

276. Nonsense. That anyone can still advance the "official" story as true is laughable.

Anyone that still swallows it after all the problems that have been raised will never be convinced under any circumstances.

I don't know what really happened, but I know that isn't it.

[BootinUp]

278. Why didn't you just post that

you are close minded to the evidence, that you read some CT theory or saw some pictures that showed a CT point of view and thats all you need to know?

[GoneFishin]

279. Because that is not the truth. It's that simple. n/t