Leonardo DiCaprio wants to know who killed JFK?

[vanbean]

This looks to be timely and very interesting.

[Roy Rolling]

1. "I'm just a patsy"

I worked with Oliver Stone on "JFK" and read every JFK conspiracy book on the shelves back then and talked to Oliver about it. I became convinced it wasn't Oswald alone. Who it was, I'm not that smart....but neither was Lee Harvey to pull off what he did alone. I also talked to Jim Garrison and other New Orleans "insiders"----they made a very compelling case and, years later, the media smear campaign against him is remindful of the Michael Moore smear for "Sicko" and other films.

[stopbush]

5. Yes, it's so unlike a murderer to claim innocence after he's been caught.

You read the conspiracy books. Did you ever read the entire Warren Commission Report? Be honest.

[RaleighNCDUer]

14. No, murderers claim innocence, they do not claim to be patsies.

The only people who claim to be being used by others - i.e., 'patsies' - are those who are a part of a conspiracy. Either they ARE patsies, and realized they are being used to take the blame, or they are conspirators who are looking to shift the blame to others in the conspiracy.

Unless the murderer knew there was some way to divert a part of the blame from himself, he would NEVER claim to be a patsy. He would say "I'm innocent" - "You got the wrong guy" - "It's a mistake". Claiming to be a patsy is an affirmation of involvement, not a denial.

As for the Commission report, it did not follow up on several avenues of investigation because it was not intended to find an answer - it was intended to calm the public. That's what all the 'conspiracy theory' books are about - following up where the Commission report ignored anything other than their own pat answer.

[stopbush]

28. Or, LHO could have claimed to be a patsy in the sense of

"I'm a patsy because the USA is virulently anti-communist and law enforcement knows that I lived in Russia."

Fears of a Soviet-devised coup were the BIG worry when JFK was killed. It was LBJ's biggest worry.

[SDuderstadt]

42. "murderers claim innocence, they don't claim to be patsies"

Says who?

[JDPriestly]

20. Problem is that claiming to be a patsy is not a claim of innocence.

not in the ordinary sense. It's kind of an odd thing to say. It suggests that Oswald knew that the evidence against him was strong. It really isn't a claim of innocence, especially not when it was presumably made, as here, before the evidence against Oswald was fully known.

Oswald's claim that he was a patsy suggests that he was a part of something and being a part of whatever that something was, he believed he was set up to take all the blame. It is not the usual "I didn't do it." claim of innocence.

[dflprincess]

87. The problem with the Warren Commission was that it's mission was not to find out who killed JFK

but how to convince the public that Oswald was the one do did it and acted alone.

There was never any attempt to actually investigate the crime. According to Tip O'Neil (in his book "Man of the House") Ken O'Donnell and Dave Powers both admitted to him that they caved and let the FBI tell them what they saw and heard in Dallas - even though both told O'Neil that they knew there were shots fired from in front of the limo. But the Commission did not want to hear that especially from two people so close to Kennedy.

[defendandprotect]

105. Allen Dulles was FIRED BY JFK after Bay of Pigs ... yet he was picked to CHAIR WC...????

That would be like putting Kissinger in charge of a 9/11 commission --

Oh, yeah - Bush did try to do that, didn't he!!!

[SDuderstadt]

112. Fucking unbelievable...

only a conspiracist could conclude that Dulles was picked to chair the WARREN Commission.

[Paranoid Pessimist]

37. This keeps coming back. Jesse Ventura has this on his Conspiracies TV Show

http://www.trutv.com/video/conspiracy-theory/deathbed-c...

It's funny how that clip of Oswald saying "I'm just a patsy" never shows up on the mainstream media's JFK documentaries.

I found Jesse Ventura's fumbling attempts to fire the bolt action rifle more convincing than the computerized versions that were done for the mainstream media documentaries.

All I can say is, whoever picked Oswald as the "patsy," if that is indeed what he was, could have made a fortune as a casting director in Hollywood. He looks guilty. In addition to the "patsy" comment a reported asked him "Did you kill the president?" and his answer was "I've not been accused of that," which is a guilty seeming thing to say.

Still, the Jesse Ventura reconstruction does come off as laughable. Leaves the Texas Book Depository, goes home, gets a pistol after having left the rifle where it was used, takes a walk, gets stopped by a cop (J.D. Tippett), shoots the cop, then goes to a movie where he's arrested.

The conspirators, if there were conspirators, must be getting awfully old by now. We may never know for sure what happened. I'd be more interested in "why?".

[immune]

48. I'm more interested in the why, too.

President Kennedy, the Federal Reserve and Executive Order 11110

by Cedric X.

From The Final Call, Vol15, No.6, on January 17, 1996 (USA)

On June 4, 1963, a little known attempt was made to strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the government at interest. On that day President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order No. 11110 that returned to the U.S. government the power to issue currency, without going through the Federal Reserve. Mr. Kennedy's order gave the Treasury the power "to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury." This meant that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury's vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation. In all, Kennedy brought nearly $4.3 billion in U.S. notes into circulation. The ramifications of this bill are enormous.

With the stroke of a pen, Mr. Kennedy was on his way to putting the Federal Reserve Bank of New York out of business. If enough of these silver certificats were to come into circulation they would have eliminated the demand for Federal Reserve notes.

...

After Mr. Kennedy was assassinated just five months later, no more silver certificates were issued. The Final Call has learned that the Executive Order was never repealed by any U.S. President through an Executive Order and is still valid. Why then has no president utilized it? Virtually all of the nearly $6 trillion in debt has been created since 1963, and if a U.S. president had utilized Executive Order 11110 the debt would be nowhere near the current level. Perhaps the assassination of JFK was a warning to future presidents who would think to eliminate the U.S. debt by eliminating the Federal Reserve's control over the creation of money.

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/eo/eo2.htm

[stopbush]

66. So Jesse Ventura's ineptness at operating a rifle bolt equals ????

Let's see: the Warren Commission had numerous marksmen test the very rifle used by Oswald. Not only did all of them get off three shots in LESS time than it took Oswald, but they all shot for accuracy, even with a misaligned scope (it has never been determined if the scope was misaligned when LHO fired his shots that killed JFK. The scope could have become misaligned after he did the shooting. There's also no way of knowing whether Oswald used the scope or the iron sites on the rifle. But I digress...)

For those shooters to get off those three shots, they had to operate the very bolt action on Oswald's rifle. They had no problem doing so. Hmmm? That doesn't fit into the CTs that say "no one could duplicate Oswald's feat!!!"

BTW - those were real live people doing those tests, not computerized versions. I swear, you're grasping at straws here.

Ventura's ineptness says everything about Ventura and nothing about Oswald's skill nor the skill of the shooters who have tested his rifle over the years.

We have known the who and the why of the JFK killing for years. Who - Oswald. Why - because he wanted to make his name in history.

If you doubt that, do a search on Oswald/Gen Walker.

[Paranoid Pessimist]

88. Only that his ineptness seems to me to be hard to fake

Proves nothing, of course.

[defendandprotect]

103. Nonsense ... in fact the rifle had to be REPAIRED before it could be fired ....!!!

Geez ...

Evidently, you don't know that Gen. Edwin Walker was a right wing military crackpot

FIRED BY PRESIDENT KENNEDY because he was distributing right wing racist/Nazi material

in the military --

Walker also led the racist riot at Ole Miss and was arrested for it?

And psychiatric treatment was recommended for him --

Walker obviously had links to the assassination --

As did others FIRED BY JFK -- beginning with CIA Director Allen Dulles FIRED after Bay of Pigs!

Also Bissell/CIA -- and btw his brother was Mayor of Dallas -- quite helpful a guy to have

around during a coup in Dallas!!



Look him up on the internet --

[defendandprotect]

106. Oswald said, I believe .... "NO. I have not been accused of that."

Check that the next time around --

We've actually known for a very long time what happened --

People in DC that night generally knew who had done it --

Something like a 100 lawyers died in DC almost immediately after it --

was one of the largest cover ups by killing I think we've had so far !!


Also, look to what Jack Ruby is telling Earl Warren -- "a whole new form of government

is going to take over."

And Jack also got some notes out of prison which refer to that -- and to the murders

taking out people he knew.


Compare that with what former AG John Mitchell openly told us --

"This country is going to go so right wing it will make your head spin!"

And his wife, Martha Mitchell also telling us that these people were "Nazis" --

Jack Ruby also uses that expression --

Don't take Dick Cheney's words lightly either when he tells us that ...

"The right wing creates the reality and you all live it!"

[herbm]

2. If Bobby Kennedy knew within three hours "who did it", why did he have to spend years tracking it

down? Why didn't Teddy pick it back up? Why didn't Bobby go to the Warren Commission? Why didn't Bobby call a press conference about it for the five years he had after the assasination? All conspiracy nuts seem to do is ask questions that beg invalidating questions they never ever address. This is nothing but promtion for DiCaprio's movie.

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. Knowing something and being able to provide evidence are two

very different things.

Consider - if there was a conspiracy by the government, or elements within the government, including members of the CIA and FBI, their first priority would be to obstruct investigations and destroy evidence. Every time investigators get a lead, when they follow it up they find the evidence has gone missing, the witness refuses to talk, or the witness is dead.

Makes it difficult to find proof, doesn't it?

[stopbush]

6. You believe that a government controlled by the Democratic Party

at every level, a government peopled with people appointed by JFK all conspired together to kill him?

Does that extend to the Secret Service as well? Were these men who were sworn to protect JFK in on the plot as well? Many CTists say they were. The slander never stops.

Read the WCR - 25 THOUSAND interviews conducted. Every single conspiracy theory that was put forward at the time was investigated and found to be bull. The forensic evidence incriminates Oswald and nobody else.

I swear, you people live in a fantasy world. Get over it. Join those of us who are convinced by the scientific evidence in the case that LHO indeed acted alone. Study the evidence and one can reach no other conclusion.

BTW - before you poo-poo the evidence in the Warren Report or any of the other evidence collected by the government, do us all a favor and admit that said evidence is the ONLY evidence there is. Those who peddle conspiracy and those who peddle lone gunman are dependent entirely on the evidence collected by the government, because nobody else collected any of the evidence. Nobody else had access to the body or the gun or the bullet fragments etc.

The rest of it is all hearsay, and hearsay offered to sell books and make a buck.

Oswald did it and did it alone. Quit making excuses for the loathsome being who robbed the world of JFK.

[avaistheone1]

7. The government's own HSCA House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded it was a conspiracy

HINT: This was after the government's own review of the Warren Commission report.

Please pedal your magic bullet nonsense elsewhere. Informed Americans say say to that b.s.

[stopbush]

11. And they based that entirely on supposed "evidence" of a 4th bullet

as supposedly recorded on a Dictabelt tape. That "evidence" was found to be BS by the National Institutes of Science. That "evidence" has been subsequently falsified by synching video tapes shot that day that prove that motorcycle officer JD McClain was nowhere near the corner of Houston and Elm to record that "shot" being fired. The dictabelt evidence crashes and burns on that fact alone. Officer McLain testified to the HSCA that he was nowhere near that intersection to record a fourth shot. They chose to ignore his eyewitness testimony.

But while we're on the HSCA, read their entire report. They AGREE that Oswald was the shooter. They AGREE with your so-called "magic bullet" theory. They agree with everything in the WCR. The ONLY thing they add is the erroneous conclusion that another gunman fired from the grassy knoll. But the "evidence" they believed to reach that conclusion has been conclusively falsified in the intervening years. It was falsified at the time by the NIS.

You do yourself no favors citing the HSCA, because they agreed with the WCR in every respect. To wit:

The HSCA concluded in its 1979 report that:

Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at President John F. Kennedy. The second and third shots he fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President.

The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Soviet Government was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.

The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Cuban Government was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.

The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that anti-Castro Cuban groups, as groups, were not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved.

The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the national syndicate of organized crime, as a group, was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved.

The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.

The HSCA agreed with the single bullet theory, but concluded that it occurred at a time point during the assassination that differed from any of the several time points the Warren Commission theorized it occurred.

The Department of Justice, FBI, CIA, and the Warren Commission were all criticized for deficient job performance in their subsequent investigations, deficient in revealing to the Warren Commission information available in 1964, and the Secret Service was called deficient in their protection of the President.

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

[defendandprotect]

108. The dictabelt evidence has only been strengthened ...

There is a bank nearby which played a carillion/music at the very time of

the assassination and it can be heard on the tape.

And, here's how the wounds went according to the AUTOPSY ....


The wound in JFK's neck was an ENTRANCE WOUND -- there was NO OUTLET --!!

The wound in JFK's right rear shoulder was an ENTRANCE WOUND -- there was NO OUTLET --!!

These wounds were repeated probed by instrument and finger at the autopsy and it was

confirmed that both wounds had NO OUTLET.

Further, the wound in JFK's right rear shoulder was made at a DOWNWARD 45 DEGREE ANGLE -- !!


Now if there's anyway you can match up those wounds to create a magic bullet, let us know!!

[SDuderstadt]

43. You left out the word...

"probably".

P.S. Since you claim a "magic bullet" theory is being "pedal(ed)", perhaps you can answer the question no JFK assassination conspiracist has ever been able to answer: we know from the the surgeon that operated on Connally, Dr. Shaw, that Connally's entrance wound was in his back and the initial exit wound was in his chest. Given the relative positions of Connally and JFK in the limo, how could the bullet have hit Connally where it did WITHOUT going through JFK first?

[JDPriestly]

21. How old were you when Kennedy was killed, stopbush?

I do not trust the Warren Report version because I was alive, and old enough to understand what was going on at the time of the assassination. We were glued to the radio. The events as we remember and experience them were not explained or even reflected in the Warren Report.

I recall that there were various reports about the events of the day. The confusion about the autopsy and the results of the autopsy are very troubling.

There are many reasons to doubt the Warren Report. Please don't dismiss those of us who still question the motivations of the men who served on the Warren Commission.

[stopbush]

26. I would have been 8 years old. Why?

So what if you were glued to the radio? Why would you assume that there was any degree of accuracy to reports coming out of a highly stressful situation?

I was glued to the TV during 9/11. There was a lot of speculation during those early hours/days that were meaningless.

Why are the autopsy results "very troubling?" They are totally consistent with the way the killing went down. They are logical and consistent. You'd know that if you had ever actually read the autopsy results.

I'll ask again: have you ever read the Warren Report? If not, then I suggest you do. You may be surprised to read how thorough the investigation was. You may be surprised to read about the absolute professionalism of the law enforcement agencies that were involved in gathering evidence the day of.

But most of all, you may be surprised to learn that the WCR states that they could not rule out a conspiracy anymore than they could prove a negative, and they allowed that new evidence could come forward to prove a conspiracy. It never has.

[JDPriestly]

33. It is not surprising to me that you accept with little question the

Warren Commission Report. It is "history" to your experience, something that happened before you were aware of what was really happening.

It is those of us who lived through that time that doubt the Warren Report.

Our doubts are not due simply to the unbelievable facts alleged in the Warren Report and with regard to the assassination of John F. Kennedy, but other very strange events of the time, not the least of which is the even more incredible number of other events, other assassinations for one thing, that we are supposed to view as simply coincidences.

If the assassination of Kennedy had been the only assassination, the only serious crime against our democracy, of the period, we would probably have accepted the Warren Commission's work. But the fact is that -- the Kennedy assassination has to be viewed in the context of its time -- the Cold War, the increasing influence of the CIA and the military/industrial complex, the Viet Nam War, Halliburton's connection to Johnson -- a long, long list of factors that make those of us who are well informed and remember the time doubtful about the conclusions and methodology of the Warren Commission.

[stopbush]

35. On the contrary, I was a JFK CTist for many years.

Like 99% of JFK CTists, I had never bothered to read the WCR. But when I did finally read it at the mild urging of a friend, I was embarrassed at how little I knew about what the Report actually contained. I was embarrassed that I had felt it OK to bad mouth this report based on the allegations of others when I had not read the thing for myself.

I suggest you read it. You'll find no "unbelievable facts alleged" in the WCR. In fact, I challenge you to name such a fact here and now. What fact of the WCR do you find unbelievable?

And the smearing of LBJ just has to stop at some point. This is the president who passed the Civil Rights bill, not JFK. This is the president who got Medicare passed and enacted into law when JFK couldn't. I swear, every time some Democrat bad mouths LBJ, Karl Rove's eyes light up.

[JDPriestly]

38. I realize that LBJ passed civil rights, Medicare and a lot of other

good social legislation. But he also increased our involvement in Viet Nam. Based on experiences I had with Vietnamese students during my studies in France, I strongly opposed the Viet Cong movement. But also based on those experiences, way back in 1965, I knew that the Viet Cong would prevail. It was very obvious is you just studied what was going on in the Vietnamese culture. If I could recognize the handwriting on the wall as a young student in France just based on my encounters with other students, surely LBJ with all of his access to intelligence and reports from Viet Nam should have known how hopeless that war was.

Also, LBJ virtually owed his career to Brown & Root which is now Halliburton.

I picked up the following book somewhere a few years ago:

http://www.amazon.com/Halliburton-Agenda-Politics-Oil-M...

I recommend that you read it if you want to understand the full scope of LBJ's legacy. There are two sides to it. LBJ was a hero in terms of domestic programs but really took us on a bad path in terms of our military involvements and the privatization of our military functions.

WWII is the last war we really, really won. Significantly, we have increasingly relied on the privatization of military support services in all the subsequent wars, many of which we lost or at least cannot claim to have won. Above all, as we privatized our military support services, we lost our ability to win the hearts and minds of the countries with which we have been involved militarily. Whether there is a causal relationship between the increased privatization and our increasing inability to win hearts and minds, I do not know. But certainly the possibility deserves some investigation.

[defendandprotect]

110. If you're talking about the ONE volume ... you should know it was written by a

CIA prpagandist and that the members of the WC had little to do with the investigation

and/or the report that was issued --

If you're talking about the 26 volumes few of us have actually read those -- HOWEVER --

those who have report that they are even more damamging to the official myth than the

original report. In fact, you will notice that much of it is an attack on Oswald --

a smear.

And you're suggesting that people like Pierre Salinger and others who worked with LBJ

are merely engaging in "smearing"??

LBJ was one of our most dishonest men and one of our most dishonest politicians --

aides report his taking pay-offs in cash in the Oval Office!

And this long history of corruption points not only to stolen elections but to theft

and corruption throught his career! If not murder, who is also strongly rumored!!

Civil rights and Medicare! Great, but they were certainly not the doing of LBJ alone --

nor do they wipe out the rest of his history.


Suggest you start with what Madeleine Brown has to say about LBJ -- See YouTube videos --

[stopbush]

67. Please cite something asserted as fact in the WCR that you find to be "unbelievable."

You have made the allegation that there are "unbelievable facts alleged in the Warren Report." Please name one. I'll say it again - name one. Please don't change the subject or answer the question with another question, or with some directive that I read this or that book or watch this or that TV show. Simply state what YOU believe to be an unbelievable fact alleged in the WCR. It's a simple request that you back up YOUR allegation with an example of that which you allege.

Do so, and we can have a discussion.

[JDPriestly]

68. The single bullet theory. The lack of questioning of the autopsy results

[stopbush]

69. OK. Let's take them one at a time.

What is your problem with the single bullet theory?

[JDPriestly]

70. A friend of mine who is a physicist has explained to me that

it just does not work. It defies the laws of physics. He was attending an elite engineering school so I trust his judgment on it.

[stopbush]

71. Defies the laws of physics??? How?

The single-bullet theory is entirely dependent on the laws of physics.

I suggest you read the WCR section on the bullet trajectory, which can be found here: http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-...

The laws of physics absolutely form the basis for the WC's statements on the bullet trajectory. It is incredibly compelling evidence.

[JDPriestly]

72. My friend made a precise diagram based on the facts and

determined that the single bullet theory did not work. The Warren Report does not contain a diagram. It makes a lot of assumptions to fit its conclusions.

[stopbush]

74. Let me ask you, did his diagram look something like this?:

As depicted in the book "High Treason," and in Stone's JFK?

I ask, because that's not the way the two men were seated. That would be this:



Notice how the two men were ACTUALLY seated - not with Connally directly in front of JFK and at the same level, but with Connally seated 6 inches inboard from the side of the limo and 3 inches lower than JFK.

Here is photographic evidence taken the day of the shooting that establishes the positions of the men in the limo:



Yes! if you use the ERRONEOUS seating positions depicted in High Treason and Stone's film, then the bullet has to "magically" turn mid air to hit both men.

However, if you put the men in their correct positions - as determined by all of the photographic evidence, by the Zapruder film and by the physical layout of the limo, then it becomes clear that JFK and Connally were seated in the same line of fire.

In fact, a bullet exiting JFK's front throat had nowhere to go BUT into Connally, as it surely did.

In this image, we see the exact positions of JFK and Connally at the moment of impact of the second bullet as established beyond any doubt by the Zapruder film:



Your claim that "the Warren Report does not contain a diagram" is CT silliness taken to an absurd level. The scientific and forensic DESCRIPTION of the bullet trajectory as given in the WCR is as precise if not more precise than any single diagram could be. In addition, detailed evidence that sits in support of the WRITTEN report contains plenty of diagrams, photographs and video to support the seating positions and the bullet trajectory as determined by the evidence.

But I'll play along - should we believe the "evidence" presented in the book "High Treason" v the WCR simply because HT "contains a diagram," even though that diagram is laughably inaccurate? No, we shouldn't, any more than an artist's depiction of the man in the moon should be held to be more accurate than a written report of the moon's surface produced by NASA.

You've thrown in a huge red herring. You discount the volumes of evidence in the written WCR because "there's no diagram." Geez. Why not throw out the Zapruder tape on the grounds that "there's no sound?"

You seem to be saying that the WCR didn't include a High Treason-type diagram because they couldn't produce one from the evidence, or that such a diagram would somehow refute the single bullet theory. How childish, when one can produce their own diagram simply by reading the WCR, which is incredibly precise in its science and equally clear in its wording.

[zappaman]

76. yeah, but

my friend drew a diagram.

[stopbush]

77. Right, followed by, "there was a lot more to his explanation, but I can't remember

it all, and I don't have the diagram anymore. All I remember is that it PROVED conclusively that the entire WCR was a whitewash!!!!"

[JDPriestly]

89. That is not the diagram I saw. I could not describe it to you,

but that is not the diagram.

[zappaman]

90. if you can't describe it, we have to guess

was this it?

[defendandprotect]

111. The wounds according to the official autopsy .....

The wound in JFK's neck was an ENTRANCE WOUND -- there was NO OUTLET --!!

The wound in JFK's right rear shoulder was an ENTRANCE WOUND -- there was NO OUTLET --!!

These wounds were repeatedly probed by instrument and finger at the autopsy and it was

confirmed that both wounds had NO OUTLET.

Further, the wound in JFK's right rear shoulder was made at a DOWNWARD 45 DEGREE ANGLE -- !!

[vanbean]

27. Yeah, men like Allen Dulles, who had been fired by Kennedy because

Kennedy suspected Dulles had set him up with the Bay of Pigs fiasco. It is now known that the CIA knew that the Soviets had tipped Castro off, and that they did not warn Kennedy before the invasion. So Kennedy fired him as he was the head of the CIA. And yet, he was later to lead the Warren Commission.

[SDuderstadt]

41. Jesus...

not this shit again.

Dulles did NOT "lead" the WARREN Commission. Can JFK assassination conspiracists get ANYTHING right?

Simple question: Have you actually read the WCR?

[vanbean]

46. You are correct. He was one of seven commissioners. My mistake.

[vanbean]

47. And no, I haven't read all of the report. Nor have I read all of the Bible.

[SDuderstadt]

49. Wouldn't a logical place to start be...

actually reading the entire report?

I don't know what not having read the entire bible has to do with this, other than an attempt on your part to rationalize not having read the WCR.

[vanbean]

51. It is a good analogy. I have read enough of the report to see that it is a whitewash.

How can you believe that shit?

[SDuderstadt]

53. I see...

you're not open-minded. Please tell us how you know it's a whitewash. Be specific. Take your time.

I'm willing to bet you've hardly read any of it.

[vanbean]

57. You are the one who is not open-minded. If you don't believe by this time

that it is a whitewash, you are never going to. My God. You can climb into bed with Posner for all I care. Believe that crap at your own risk.

[SDuderstadt]

65. I believe the evidence...

Where's yours?

[stopbush]

62. Vanbean is simply shifting the goalposts and trying to change the subject.

Answering your question with a non sequitur.

Typical of the CTists when faced with evidence and/or a logical question.

[zappaman]

63. as usual, this is the CTers argument

Typical

[defendandprotect]

109. Rather, the official autopsy reports points to shot from the FRONT and no magic bullet....

And, here's how the wounds went according to the AUTOPSY ....


The wound in JFK's neck was an ENTRANCE WOUND -- there was NO OUTLET --!!

The wound in JFK's right rear shoulder was an ENTRANCE WOUND -- there was NO OUTLET --!!

These wounds were repeated probed by instrument and finger at the autopsy and it was

confirmed that both wounds had NO OUTLET.

Further, the wound in JFK's right rear shoulder was made at a DOWNWARD 45 DEGREE ANGLE -- !!

[RZM]

23. + 1

One reason for the staying power of conspiracy theories is that they are so much more fun to believe than mundane explanations. The idea that Oswald acted alone isn't as sexy as the idea of a vast conspiracy. I don't know which was the case, though given the information I've been exposed to, my personal belief is that Oswald acted alone.

A big problem with conspiracies is that the larger they are, the harder they are to keep bottled up. The more people that are brought into it, the more chances there are that somebody is going to spill the beans. And if there is one thing I know about human beings, it is that many of them have a very difficult time keeping their mouths shut. With all of the obsession over the Kennedy assassination and all of the investigations over the years, both by people within in the power structure and those outside of it, it doesn't bode well for the conspiracy theorists that they've never uncovered a witness with credible inside knowledge of a large-scale plot.

[defendandprotect]

107. The coup on JFK not only took our president, it took our government ....

You believe that a government controlled by the Democratic Party
at every level, a government peopled with people appointed by JFK all conspired together to kill him?



Yes, some Democrats did immediately begin to question it all --

LBJ tried to NOT have an investigation -- until he was forced into it and then

appointed the WC which was headed by Allen Dulles who had been FIRED BY JFK after

the Bay of Pigs!! Look up John McCloy -- very questionable right wing background.

Very close to Truman and many think he pushed the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan.

Boggs was one of the more honest members -- and he also died in a plane crash after

calling the FBI the "Gestapo" --

Russell also questioned the assassination --

Rep. Jerry Ford was someone on the panel spying for the FBI --

Ford is also someone now named as having received campaign funding/backing from our CIA.

CIA took money from any right wing sources, including from the KKK and Nazis.

The evidence exonnerates Oswald -- he did NOT fire a rifle that day.

That's what the paraffin tests show. PLUS, his fingerprints were NOT on the rifle according

to the FBI.

Presumably, Marina Oswald isn't "evidence" -- she is telling you Oswald was CIA.

So did his mother, Margueritte tell us he was CIA -- and they attempted to make her look

crazy in response!

The Tunnehim Panel/1992 JFK Assassination Classified Records Act ....

"Oswald was employed by the CIA working on high level intelligence

and probably also by the FBI"



Does that extend to the Secret Service as well? Were these men who were sworn to protect JFK in on the plot as well? Many CTists say they were. The slander never stops.

Maybe you don't realize that they work for someone heading up the shift and have to follow

instructions? The shift leader -- Roberts -- called of Rybka and other SS agent from the

sides of the car where they would have protected JFK. Called them off twice. This was

the same guy/Roberts who arranged to have the JFK parade route published in the newspaper ...

it was done via Bill Moyers, in fact.

These are also the SS agents who were drunk all night until the wee hours of the morning!

Read about some of that sometime -- might be some help to you!



Think you have to learn the difference between demanding a belief in what you say and actually

debating the issue!

Start with some research --

[herbm]

9. Weak. All the conspiracy professionals seem to be under such constraint. Why didn't he feed one of

them? Why didn't he testify to the Warren Commission? If he knew it, why did he have no proof? How could he know it with no proof?

I am sorry. Occam says that Oswald had a good day on the range.

[defendandprotect]

113. You wanted Bobby to testify to Allen Dulles ... the man his brother FIRED?

Or perhaps to John McCloy -- someone who's history you should check out?

Oswald was shown by FBI paraffin tests NOT to have fired a rifle that day!!

Can't even say "nice try" -- you're going no where.

[defendandprotect]

104. A lot of those in Washington knew immediately who did it ...

there wasn't that big a mystery --

Perhaps you don't recall that quite quickly Ted Kennedy suffered a MAJOR accident

in a private plane -- check the internet -- he was seriously hurt.

There is also much evidence that the Kennedy's were threatened all their lives --

not only re their own lives but that of their children.

The Warren Commission? You mean headed up by Allen Dulles the former head of the CIA

FIRED BY JFK after the Bay of Pigs?

Do some reasearch --

[stopbush]

4. Lenny should read the Warren Commission Report.

All of the answers are there.

Or, he can read Bugliosi's book on the subject.

Oliver Stone's movie is a POS when it comes to evidence and history. Sad that so many Americans get all of their "knowledge" about the JFK killing from that POS film.

BTW - more apologists for Oswald here. He's the guy who did the killing, yet the CTists give him a free pass.

Sickening.

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. The warren report is a joke, and its only intent was to calm the fears

of the population without letting them know what really happened.

[stopbush]

12. Have you ever read the WCR? Be honest.

[defendandprotect]

115. Yes ... and I have it right here -- it's nonsense ....

And, here's how the wounds went according to the AUTOPSY ....


The wound in JFK's neck was an ENTRANCE WOUND -- there was NO OUTLET --!!

The wound in JFK's right rear shoulder was an ENTRANCE WOUND -- there was NO OUTLET --!!

These wounds were repeated probed by instrument and finger at the autopsy and it was

confirmed that both wounds had NO OUTLET.

Further, the wound in JFK's right rear shoulder was made at a DOWNWARD 45 DEGREE ANGLE -- !!

If you can turn the neck wound and right shoulder wound into a magic bullet ...

the world is waiting to hear about it!!

[defendandprotect]

114. Bugliosi -- ????

Only one way to reply to that --

[swilton]

8. How is this theory reconciled with the new (2008)

James Douglass investigation that the military industrial complex/CIA run amok was the culprit? Anyone?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUovOtDBYJk


Can both theories be correct?

I believe that there is more to the assassination than the Warren Commission's explanation but I'm confused.

[stopbush]

13. Have you read the entire WCR? If not, why not start there

BEFORE reading Douglass' flight of fancy?

Any self-respecting thinker would avail themselves of the report being criticized before reading a book critical of said report, no?

[avaistheone1]

16. No one respects the Warren Report and you know it.

And YOU have read all 26 volumes?

[stopbush]

29. I have read the entirety of the Report that is available on the government archives

website here: http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-... /

I've read all of that. here's your chance to get started.

I have read the entirety of Vincent Bugliosi's JFK book which is over 1600 pages. What's the big deal about reading something with a lot of pages?

BTW - most historians respect the WCR. Vincent Bugliosi certainly respects it.

Seems that the people who respect it the least are those who have never bothered reading word one from it.

[Eddie Haskell]

92. Have you talked to the eye-witnesses?

Why did the Warren Commission accept the testimony of Jack Ruby over the testimony of two credible eye-witnesses? Jack Ruby!

[vanbean]

25. Wow Stopbush, I don't believe I am reading your posts here.

Douglass' book is not a flight of fancy. You keep asking if anyone has read the Warren Report. Have you read Douglass' book? His book cannot really be called a conspiracy theory, it is better described as "what really happened". The CIA had Kennedy killed. It is time we all faced up to it. I wonder if that FACT hasn't scared other leaders who did not have the courage that Kennedy had. I would encourage you to take another open-minded look at the Kennedy assasination. Also, the Warren Report did not answer all the questions as you claim it did. I am astounded to find that anyone actually believes it.

[stopbush]

30. Sorry, but his book is just another CT book that blames the

faceless "military industrial complex" for the killing, tossing in the shadowy CIA as accomplice.

As John McAdam's wrote in his review of Douglass' book:

"The portrait of Kennedy that Douglass leaves is that of a president who was either an inveterate liar, feckless, or inept at controlling the government, and possibly all three. His JFK is constantly yielding to pressure, playing into the hands of his enemies, approving a “criminal action” because the Pentagon wants it, allowing his staff to sabotage his policies, and incapable of managing the national security bureaucracy" ( http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2009/12/unspeakab... )

That doesn't sound like the JFK that I remember.

And Douglass writes from the perspective and with the prejudices of an anti-war Catholic. He jumps through hoops trying to explain away JFK's strong assertions right before his death that he thought it would be a big mistake to withdraw from 'Nam, because those inconvenient statements don't fit Douglass' narrative that JFK wanted out of Nam at all costs. Here, Douglass paints JFK as a spineless liar, a president who is so weak and so afraid of the military that he goes on record as a war hawk, when he is secretly trying to get out of Nam.

Again, that's not the JFK I remember, and it's certainly not the JFK as expressed in JFK's own words.

"Douglass’s America, ultimately, is not unlike Douglass’s Washington. The latter is riddled with treasonous Cold Warriors, intent on making war, and the former is awash with conspiratorial goings-on: multiple Oswalds, CIA spooks manipulating housewives who meet for coffee, and dozens of average Americans who get wind of the plot but do nothing. For some minds, this may constitute an aesthetically compelling vision. The forces of evil are many and powerful, and the forces of righteousness few and beleaguered. But history should not be about an aesthetically compelling vision. It should be about what happened.

"Douglass, fundamentally, doesn’t care about what really occurred." writes John McAdams.

Read the whole of McAdams' review as found at the link I provide above. It will give you chapter and verse on the most-glaring reasons for discounting Douglass' book for the flight of fancy it is. And it gives a better overview of the book than I ever could as I was fairly seething with anger as I made my way through this factually-challenged embarrassment of a book.

[vanbean]

32. John McAdams seems to be confused. Or else he is attempting to misguide his readers.

"The portrait of Kennedy that Douglass leaves is that of a president who was either an inveterate liar, feckless, or inept at controlling the government, and possibly all three. His JFK is constantly yielding to pressure, playing into the hands of his enemies, approving a “criminal action” because the Pentagon wants it, allowing his staff to sabotage his policies, and incapable of managing the national security bureaucracy"

I don't agree with that in the least. As a matter of fact, it is ridiculous. And this: "Douglass, fundamentally, doesn’t care about what really occurred." LOL! I think he is describing himself, and not Douglass. Does McAdams, whoever he is, think the Warren Commission Report is what really occurred?

Sorry Stopbush, but if the rest of McAdams' review is like the examples of it you have posted, I have better things to do than read any more similar hogwash.

It is time to face the truth.

[stopbush]

34. Face the truth? Now, that's a feckless statement.

The CTists - and I guess you count yourself among them - have not a single fact on their side. They have no evidence. They don't even have a reasonable expectation on their side.

What they have is crazed conjecture that they weave into scenarios that would make Rube Goldberg blush. Occam's Razor turns to rust in the company of the CTists.

The truth you and others need to face - but never will - is that the Warren Commission got it right. You've never read the WCR and you never will. You'll continue along in your blissful ignorance about the assassination, secure in your smug stupidity that you're "fighting the good fight" and acting as a herald for the truth, and that you're in on some secret truth, when all you're doing is touting the same uninformed fantasy that has been the received opinion of the unwashed masses since the day of the assassination - conspiracy.

[spooked911]

39. wow, talk about brainwashed.

As if reading the WCR helps anything. If you take it at face value, sure they paint a great story. But it is filled with lies and with many many omissions.

It's hard to even know where to begin with someone like you, but suffice it to say that the evidence for JFK being assassinated by the US govt is damn well overwhelming.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[stopbush]

64. Name a "lie" in the WCR. I'll wait.

You've made the claim it's full of lies, so it should be child's play to point out ONE such lie.

Again, I'll wait.

[defendandprotect]

119. "Magic Bullet" and head wound ....

[defendandprotect]

118. Presume you did NOT read the 26 VOLUMES of WC report....???

but everything but the one volume of the WC which has been written on the JFK

coup is a "POS" -- ??

And MacAdams and Bugliosi are your heroes! Wow!

[avaistheone1]

15. Read

Legacy of Secrecy and Ultimate Sacrifice by Lamar Waldron and Thom Hartmann.
The Leonard Di Caprio movie will be based on those both two extremely well researched and widely acclaimed books.
They should help answer some of your questions.

Short answer yes the JFK assassination was conducted by the mob and a few rogues at the CIA. I can answer more questions later but I am preparing for a meeting right now.

This clip below is someone's attempt to give a summary, however the information is so immense, the clip is just a tidbit of the wealth of info in these two books.


http://www.youtube.com/user/barkeley5#p/u/4/RK9h15W5Yqg

[mimigrand]

18. the truth is out there

Dr. Steven Greer has the answerers to who killed the
President.  Check out the Disclosure Project and read his
books.  It will all make sense once we understand his
message.

[wildbilln864]

36. Dr. Steven Greer!?

Now that thar's funny! And welcome to the DU.

[defendandprotect]

120. How about a link ...???

[JDPriestly]

24. I sometimes wonder whether what we used to call the Mafia

has just sort of bought its way into both parties and woven itself into our political system.

I don't feel like going into more detail here, but the ubiquity of casinos, of gambling, the increase in illicit drug-trading, the trading of favors for political favors, the brutality, the lies, the money paid almost in tribute. It's all like a big racket now.

We suffered great corruption during the Gilded Age in the 19th century. We have returned to that, and it seems like the Mafia led the way this time. Maybe that is just my perception.

But the Abramoff scandal, the BCCI scandal -- many strange events implicate potential Mafia involvement.

[spooked911]

31. You're basically right

though the mafia are sort of low-level patsies for the truly evil powers that be.

[deconstruct911]

59. Very well said spooked

I agree 100%

[defendandprotect]

122. Elites keep the Mafia in business ... for many reasons, including their own interests ....

however, many of us could ask is there really any difference between elites

and Mafia?

[defendandprotect]

121. Obviously, many others were involved .... the mob could not have done this ....

and neither could the CIA have done it even with them --

This was a well-coordinated effort --

but it couldn't have been done without the protection of LBJ in the White House --

and after him Nixon keeping the cover ups going --

And it is part of the reason why it is so dangerous for the right wing to lose the

White House or Congress again for any period of time --

so dangerous that computer steals -- and/or political violence -- whatever it takes

is sure to continue.

[jakeXT]

19. Multiple interests meet and they all agree

Reminds me of the MLK assasination

William Pepper, Ray's last lawyer, claims that Ray was set up by the U.S. government, who had hired a Mafia hit man to kill King. A team of Green Beret snipers lurked nearby as back up, should the Mafia hit man miss.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-49205406167826...

[JohnyCanuck]

22. Video from a civil trial which concluded MLK was killed by a conspiracy involving government agencie

This is a video of the summation to the jury by the King family lawyer, Dr. William Pepper, in which he summarizes the evidence which was presented in the course of a civil trial brought by the King family against some of the suspected conspirators. The jury agreed with the King family and Dr. Pepper after a 59 min deliberation and concluded that MLK had been killed as a result of a conspiracy involving US government agencies.

Somehow this trial and the jury's verdict never got much notice in the mainstream media (I'm shocked!) who every year on the anniversary of MLK's death can be relied on to trot out for public consumption the discredited in court fairy tale of James Earl Ray, the lone nut gunman, for their audiences.

The video is in the form of a youtube playlist, so the 10 videos (approx 10 min each) will play automatically in sequence.

http://www.youtube.com/user/reprehensor#p/c/6CDDC2D378C...

There are also 8 very interesting videos of the testimony of expert witness, William Schaap, testifying for the King family at the trial, on the propaganda and disinfo techniques commonly used by the FBI and government agencies against those public figures they would like to discredit and marginalize.

http://www.youtube.com/user/reprehensor#p/c/BA69081DC9C...

[defendandprotect]

117. This should be a separate thread ....

this is another bit of information the corporate-press has refused to

acknowledge!!

[defendandprotect]

116. Well, the involvement by MIC doesn't preclude CIA involvement ... nor does the

involvement of both of them preclude the involvement of LBJ ...

or Nixon, Bush -- or anyone else --

Basically, as you can see from the appearances in Dallas that day, it looks

like what E. Howard Hunt's fantasy novel -- like Agatha Chrisite's "Murder on the

Orient Express" where any number of people commit a murder together!


Obviously, like the planning for the coup on FDR -- you can check that out on internet --

look up Brig. Gen. Smedley Darlington Butler -- the coup on JFK would have been

originated by the same groups of wealthy -- with the backing of many others.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

17. Poppa. Bush

[LARED]

40. How does Leonardo DiCaprio

make this long ago answered question timely and interesting?

[vanbean]

45. How was it long ago answered?

[SDuderstadt]

50. Four investigations...

the Warren Commission, the Rockefeller Commission, Ramsey Clark and the HSCA all concluded Oswald shot and killed JFK. How many investigations do you think we need?

[vanbean]

52. It doesn't matter if its a hundred if there all bullshit. The CIA killed Kennedy. Face it.

[SDuderstadt]

54. "Bullshit" isn't a very specific criticism...

Do you have hard evidence the CIA killed JFK? Are you open to the idea that the CIA did not kill him?

[vanbean]

56. Not at this point.

[stopbush]

60. You're not interested in evidence, obviously.

Who needs evidence when a good ol' tale of fantasy will do?!

Be honest - you've never read any of the Warren Commission Report outside of the few snippets that are taken out of context in the various conspiracy books. The dead giveaway for this is when people claim/imply that the WCR is a neat, all-loose-ends-tied-up whitewash of the evidence. Anybody who has actually read the thing knows that the WCR contains plenty of caveats about the conclusions reached on what happened that day. What isn't in question is the forensic evidence that proves beyond any doubt that Oswald used his Carcano rifle to kill JFK. Every commission that has investigated the killing is unequivocal on that very salient fact.

If you had any self respect, you'd read the WCR, maybe read Bugliosi's mammoth tome on the subject. But you're not open to the evidence because it always, ALWAYS contradicts the nutty CTs. I get you're the type of JFK CTist who salivates at the newest CT book/film/TV show to hit the market because it serves to reinforce your smug and "enlightened" opinion about who killed JFK. Evidence has no place in the fantasy world you inhabit.

I'm willing to bet that you even accept the erroneous seating positions of JFK and Connally in the CT books that purport that the single bullet changed direction mid-air. It's easy to make such stupid claims when you can't even get basic things like seating position and angle of bullet trajectory correct. The only question is whether such stupidities are merely uninformed or willful. Over the years, it's been interesting to watch as the merely uniformed mistakes made in CT books have morphed into vehemently defended, willful lies. All accomplished by moving the goalposts and launching newer and zanier theories in an attempt to divert attention from the earlier stupidities that are now embarrassing to admit once held sway.

Your mind is closed to reality. Sad, but the norm in this country. Most people believe - and have always believed - that there was a conspiracy behind JFK's killing. It's received opinion. Yet most people think that they're privy to some great secret that the majority of Americans aren't in on. Right. And Saddam had WMDs.

[vanbean]

73. ROFLMAO!

[stopbush]

75. Another evidence-free attempt at a diversion by vanbean.

I'm not impressed.

I'll ask again: how much of the WCR have you read? Please be honest if you can.

[vanbean]

79. LOL! Well, I read chapter 7 for example but what makes you think I need to impress you?

I'm sure you are convinced that Oswald was bashful around girls and that he pulled a pocket knife on someone and he said he was a Marxist. It sure left out a lot though, but I'm sure you don't know anything about that. If you can't see the whitewash there, you're not going to. Especially if you have read the information that has surfaced over the last years about Oswald(s).

Yeppers that Warren Commission Report was spot on!
Are you impressed? LOL! Of course you're not.

[stopbush]

80. Wow. Chapter 7 of the WCR accounts for 50 pages out of an 888 page report

and THAT'S what you take away from the background provided on Oswald?

Well, I'm not impressed by your comprehension skills.

As far as "leaving things out," unless you're prepared to examine the volumes of evidence that are referenced as footnotes in Chapter 7 of the WCR written report, you should hold off on making any claims that "it sure left out a lot, though." The devil is in the details.

Complaining that the details aren't all present in a written report that clearly says via footnotes "go here to see the details that support this paragraph" displays - again - a lack of comprehension skills.

[vanbean]

82. Too funny. Did I say that is all that I read? No wonder you believe

that crap. You talk about comprehension skills? Why in the world can't you see that report for what it is? Do the details in the footnotes tell you to go to the reference that indicate Oswald worked for the CIA? I sure hope you're impressed by yourself. "via footnotes" LOL! Come out of there you devils! Did it ever occur to you why they included that crap about Oswald? I'll bet you would pay an apple core to help whitewash the fence.

[zappaman]

55. The CIA?

I thought it was the mob...
oops, I mean the FBI...
oops, I mean Cuba...
oops, I mean LBJ...
oops, I mean the banking guys...
oops, I mean the secret service...
oops, I mean just about everybody...
the only person we know is innocent is LHO, right?

[deconstruct911]

58. I thought the banking guys were cia

CIA, THE BANKS AND THE BROKERS

Understanding the interrelationships between CIA and the banking and brokerage world is critical to grasping the already frightening implications of the above revelations. Let's look at the history of CIA, Wall Street and the big banks by looking at some of the key players in CIA's history.

Clark Clifford - The National Security Act of 1947 was written by Clark Clifford, a Democratic Party powerhouse, former Secretary of Defense, and one-time advisor to President Harry Truman. In the 1980s, as Chairman of First American Bancshares, Clifford was instrumental in getting the corrupt CIA drug bank BCCI a license to operate on American shores. His profession: Wall Street lawyer and banker.

John Foster and Allen Dulles - These two brothers "designed" the CIA for Clifford. Both were active in intelligence operations during WW II. Allen Dulles was the U.S. Ambassador to Switzerland where he met frequently with Nazi leaders and looked after U.S. investments in Germany. John Foster went on to become Secretary of State under Dwight Eisenhower and Allen went on to serve as CIA Director under Eisenhower and was later fired by JFK. Their professions: partners in the most powerful - to this day - Wall Street law firm of Sullivan, Cromwell.

Bill Casey - Ronald Reagan's CIA Director and OSS veteran who served as chief wrangler during the Iran-Contra years was, under President Richard Nixon, Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. His profession: Wall Street lawyer and stockbroker.

David Doherty - The current Vice President of the New York Stock Exchange for enforcement is the retired General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency.

George Herbert Walker Bush - President from 1989 to January 1993, also served as CIA Director for 13 months from 1976-7. He is now a paid consultant to the Carlyle Group, the 11th largest defense contractor in the nation, which also shares joint investments with the bin Laden family.

A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard - The current Executive Director of the Central Intelligence Agency is the former Chairman of the investment bank A.B. Brown and former Vice Chairman of Banker's Trust.

John Deutch - This retired CIA Director from the Clinton Administration currently sits on the board at Citigroup, the nation's second largest bank, which has been repeatedly and overtly involved in the documented laundering of drug money. This includes Citigroup's 2001 purchase of a Mexican bank known to launder drug money, Banamex.

Nora Slatkin - This retired CIA Executive Director also sits on Citibank's board.

Maurice "Hank" Greenburg - The CEO of AIG insurance, manager of the third largest capital investment pool in the world, was floated as a possible CIA Director in 1995. FTW exposed Greenberg's and AIG's long connection to CIA drug trafficking and covert operations in a two-part series that was interrupted just prior to the attacks of September 11. AIG's stock has bounced back remarkably well since the attacks.

[defendandprotect]

123. THIS should also be a separate thread .....

[stopbush]

61. Ha! You're right.

It really frosts my balls that so many people give that SOB Oswald a pass when he's the guy who actually killed JFK.

They don't look at it that way, of course.

More's the pity.

[LARED]

85. Truther logic

They're all CIA.

[immune]

86. They're all CIARD

Caught In A Revolving Door. Corporate, government, corporate, government, corporate, government.

[LARED]

91. Great, more incoherent gibberish.

[stopbush]

78. Every JFK CT book/film is based on the evidence gathered and presented in those 4 government

commissions that investigated the JFK killing.

Following your "logic," every JFK CT book/film etc ever made is "bullshit" because they all rely on the evidence produced from those government investigations. They had to - nobody BUT the government was involved in gathering and examining the evidence.

And therein lies the rub...

Now, granted, they also rely on cherry picking those government investigations, ignoring all evidence that refutes their CT claims while exaggerating any caveats the investigations expressed. They also distort evidence and outright lie about the evidence (ex: "nobody could duplicate Oswald's shots;" "the magic bullet was pristine;" "the Carcano is not a high-powered weapon;" "the Carcano had a left-handed site on it';" etc) to make their case.

Apparently, none of these CT authors ever had to present evidence on the level of a 5th-grade writing course.

[vanbean]

83. Have you read Douglass' book? I don't think so. You are way too excited to be able to reason.

You accuse everyone of not reading. You assume what is in the book, and that is not honest. You appear to be a goose that's better than the gander. Calm down and take your time.

[stopbush]

93. Yeah, I've read it, and a waste of time it was.

The book was recommended to me as being "different than other CT books." A friend told me it was very well written and contained "new information."

So I must say that I was extremely disappointed when it turned out to be just another evidence-free rehash of the usual bullshit.

I can see how a person not familiar with the evidence and who is predisposed to see muggers in every shadow might think that the book had something new and insightful to offer. But to me, it was a little bit like reading theology books that offer a "new" perspective on the god delusion - at the end of the day, they're still describing make believe.

Douglass is a fan of the multiple Oswalds fantasy, which is pure fantasy. He doubts that Oswald went to Mexico City, when there is overwhelming evidence from multiple sources that he did. He pushes the idea that Oswald had some kind of high-level security clearance when he was in the USMC, when the documented evidence proves that to be laughably false. He believes sources like the hapless Roger Craig who pushed the fantasy that Ruth Paine was a CIA spook who drove Oswald away from the TBD in a Rambler station wagon, when we have Oswald's bus transfer as evidence he took public transportation away from the crime scene, not to mention the fact that Ruth Paine owned a Chevy, not a Rambler.

I mean, the stupidities go on and on and on with this guy Douglass, just as they do with so many other CTists. What's sad in Douglass' case is that he wrote his book only three years ago. You would think that at this late date, a serious author would have availed himself of all the evidence available, and that he would have steered clear of citing as experts people who have been discredited for decades. You would think he'd consciously avoid falling into the same speculative traps that have torpedoed the books of so many CTists. But no, he trollops out the same old same old to make the same old same old lame arguments that were made in the earliest CT books.

I know that you haven't read the entire WCR nor Bugliosi's book. Let me tell you that when one has read those things, one becomes quite adept at recognizing bullshit when one sees it. When an author like Douglass makes an off-the-hand claim about Oswald's security clearance, and when the reader knows that the claim is bullshit because the reader knows the evidence contradicts the claim, what is one supposed to do? Suspend disbelief and cut the guy some slack? Why would one do that?

How does one treat a book that posits that George Custer and his men made a heroic stand and "died with their boots on" when we know from forensic evidence and long-suppressed accounts of the Indians involved in the massacre that Custer and his men did NOT make a heroic stand at Little Big Horn, and that they were slaughtered as a gang of routed individuals running for their lives? How does one put the "they died as heroes" genie back in the bottle when the evidence puts the lie to the story?

That is, of course, exactly what you're asking me and others who are conversant with the evidence in the JFK killing to do. To ignore the science. To put conjecture on the same level as fact. To unread the evidence. Or worse, to cherry-pick the evidence to support some theory that contradicts the evidence when the evidence is taken in whole.

Let's face it, you're on record in this thread saying that the four exhaustive investigations that were done of the JFK killing, investigations that poured over the evidence and reached the same conclusion (that Oswald did the killing, probably by himself) are worthless for the sole reason that they found that Oswald did the killing. You won't even believe the HSCA which allowed that Oswald "probably' acted alone (ie: they thought that there was probably a conspiracy on some level, but they couldn't prove it). You've also stated that if even a hundred investigations found the same thing that you wouldn't believe the results.

Think about that. That's like saying you will never believe the evidence for evolution because it contradicts the Biblical account of Adam and Eve.

You're welcome to such intellectual masturbation, but serious people who respect science don't have that luxury. We're pretty much bound by the facts. You're not. Have at it.

Oh, Happy Thanksgiving.

[vanbean]

95. Happy Thanksgiving to you too. Enjoy your turkey, because you are going to be eating crow

in the near future. I admire your enthusiasm for this topic. It interests me as well, obviously. I also envy you as it would be comforting to believe that the WCR was correct. I don't share that comfort. I also do not share your desire for the tunnel vision that you seem to have. Also, you resort to name calling by using the term "CTist"(I'm not going to elaborate on your sad, lame Custer analogy). Don't resort to that. That's Rush Limbaugh's type of crap. It cheapens your integrity. Conspiricies exist. People do conspire. You have accused me of intellectual masturbation because we disagree. All of that just shows that you are too excited. Why? I can't help but think that you are, for some reason, afraid of truth. Let me ask you this (and please answer): What would you do, how would you react, what would you say, if facts and testimony came forth that proved without a shadow of a doubt that the CIA did in fact kill JFK? Sit back, take a deep breath and contemplate that calmly before you answer. Take your time. And be as honest as you can.

You are right in your belief that I haven't read the entire WCR. But I have read at least 75% of it, and it is a cover-up. Even many (more than many) learned people who don't claim to know what happened in the assasination recognize the report as a whitewash. My God, man. It is so, so obvious. That attribute of the report is what has caused so much concern. It amazes me that a good liberal, as I am sure you are, can not discern that fact!

My friend, this story is not over. As I said, I wish you were right. I wish I would be the one to eat the crow, and I would gladly eat it hot. I mean that. But the truth is coming out. We won't have to wait much longer, in my opinion. If(when) you get served the roasted raven, don't eat it cold. It will taste much worse.

Enjoy the rest of the holiday weekend. Remember, we are on the same side.

(edited for typos)

[stopbush]

97. Eating crow soon? Hmm. I hear the same stuff from religious types who assure me that

"you'll find out soon enough that hell exists for non-believers."

A point of agreement: I believe that conspiracies do exist. I believe that conspiracies exist to carry out political assassinations. Two examples: Abraham Lincoln and Anwar Sadat. Both were assassinated as the end result of conspiracies aimed at killing them. That's what the EVIDENCE shows.

That is NOT what the evidence shows in the JFK killing. Quite the opposite.

As to your question, "What would you do, how would you react, what would you say, if facts and testimony came forth that proved without a shadow of a doubt that the CIA did in fact kill JFK?"

Answer: I would accept facts (evidence) that proved such a thing beyond a shadow of a doubt. Testimony? I'd be less impressed with testimony, just as any court in the land is less impressed with eyewitness testimony than they are with forensic evidence. Anyone who has seen the movie "Who Shot Liberty Valence?" knows the reliability of eyewitness testimony. Anyone who has tried to determine a football play before watching it in slo-mo knows that eyewitness testimony is not exactly to be trusted as the final word.

But here's my overall problem with your question: the idea that the CIA was involved in killing JFK has NO facts to support it at this time. I'm talking about FACTS, not about conjecture, not about tying together odds and ends of disparate narratives and weaving them into a grand conspiracy.

The fact is that your theory that the CIA was involved has miles to travel before it establishes even Fact One. The distance from establishing Fact One to establishing evidence that "proved without a shadow of a doubt that the CIA did in fact kill JFK" can be measured in light years.

And that must be set against the forensic evidence, testimony etc. that was gathered in the WCR, and that was reviewed in detail by three other exhaustive commissions that proved that Oswald did the killing and that the CIA was not involved. That's the kind of evidence that rational and logical people would NORMALLY consider to be beyond a shadow of a doubt.

All of these shadowy scenarios that so enamor you are pure conjecture. Why can't you see that? Most importantly, the fact remains that even if somebody has motive and opportunity to carry out a killing it doesn't mean they actually carried it out.

Here's a fact for you to consider: on the morning of Nov 22 1963, a man was overheard saying that "if a person really wanted to kill the president, all they would need to do is get themselves up in a high building with a high-powered rifle and there's nothing anyone could do to stop them."

You may be surprised to know that even though this little morsel was overheard by a government official, the person who said this was never brought in for questioning after the JFK killing. They were never detained before the killing. In fact, there is no record at all that this person was ever called to testify anywhere about the killing, nor were they ever interviewed by even the most-rabid CTist.

The reason? Those words were spoken by JFK himself on that fateful morning. They were spoken in his hotel room in Ft Worth and were overheard by both Jackie and Ken O'Donnell.

Yet, were I to follow the "logic" of what the typical JFK CTist considers to be evidence, those words as spoken by JFK - and WHEN they were spoken by JFK - SHOULD serve to make JFK himself a prime suspect in his own murder. After all, he described his own killing EXACTLY as it went down, even down to such details as the type of weapon used and the vantage point from which the shooter would shoot.

Think about that. Then think about the kind of "evidence" the theories that you seem to believe put forward as "proof" for their claims. They will have nothing on the words JFK himself spoke that morning.

[vanbean]

126. You are just getting too weird. Stew in you own soup. Bye. Put me on ignore.

[stopbush]

127. Done. You're ignored, along with the othe DU CT nuts.

[SDuderstadt]

98. Conspiracist "logic"...

"if you do not agree with me about the JFK assassination, you cannot be a liberal". I'll put my liberal credentials up against yours anyday, dude.

Let's turn this around, VB. What evidence would convince you that Oswald killed JFK on his own? Does it ever occur to you that the reason that you guys have been fumbling around with zero accomplishment for nearly fifty years is because Oswald DID do it? How is the CIA supposed to prove that they didn't assassinate JFK?

If we're on the same side, why do you demonize those who've looked at the evidence and reached a different conclusion than you?

[NYMdaveNYI]

99. "How is the CIA supposed to prove that they didn't assassinate JFK?"

You’re a witch.

Oh, I’m wrong?

Prove you’re NOT a witch.

[Cetacea]

129. Your friend Buggy doesn't seem to have an issue with selling books.

Not that his nod to the Warren Commission did all that well.
He sold more books when he was mystifying Chucky.

[LARED]

84. For giggles lets say it's not answered

How does Leonardo DiCaprio make this timely and interesting? I guess I am interested in why anyone thinks what a celebrity thinks is important and adds something special.


I mean what's next quizzing Bono about his thoughts on the latest prostate cancer treatment? Lady Gaga about the latest investigations into the positive and negative aspect of nuclear energy using 4th generation reactors?

[mrarundale]

131. I'm with LARED on this one...

JFK is way past it's expiration date...but it's a good indicator of what 9-11 will be in about 5 years...Stay tuned for "Did the ancient Egyptians have Ipods?" followed by..."What happened to Building 7"....

[RetiredTrotskyite]

81. He's Smarter...

than I would give him credit for.

[sylvi]

94. I guess he finally found out What's Eating Gilbert Grape

and has moved on to deeper questions.

[vanbean]

96. LOL! Good one!

[Debuttante]

100. Go Dicaprio

I will watch the movie.

[cherokeeprogressive]

101. It's about fucking time. Maybe now we can get to the bottom of this once and for all!

After all, what we needed was the right voice!

[defendandprotect]

124. If Di Caprio's theory is the mob did it ... it follows on Hartmann ... and not likely ...

even with the help of the CIA not likely --

Had to be involvement of everyone -- and they needed the protection of LBJ in the

White House --

and later Nixon -- keeping the cover up going --

then Reagan -- then Bush --

Any too long a period with a return of power to the LEFT would be too dangerous for them.

Release of records in 2017 -- can you imagine the destruction, shredding, theft of records

going on!!

[defendandprotect]

102. Is there a link to DiCaprio comments or something?

[defendandprotect]

125. Presume this is a movie -- is there a trailer -- or date of release?

[disillusioned73]

128. Look forward to seeing the movie..

[k-robjoe]

130. "The day the dream died"

I never heard about this documentary produced in 1988. But now I learn that it was this documentary that got Oliver Stone started on his movie.

The first two parts :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63FjqTDeajY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulShN9CXBCI&feature=rela...