General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCNN Tonight: The Assassination of JFK
Pretty decent FACTUAL accounting of the murder, the WC, the skepticism and - ultimately - the evidence-based conclusion that Oswald acted alone.
Amazing how many liberal news personalities were in on the "cover-up": Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather, Robert McNeill, Eric Severeid et al. All of them basically expressing mild derision of the CTists.
BootinUp
(47,135 posts)and stop with the crazy unsupported nonsense. Haven't seen this one but sounds worthwhile. The physical evidence in this case has been thoroughly vetted and completely supports the Warren Commission findings. Further, Earl Warren was a great progressive and man of integrity.
stopbush
(24,393 posts)was really the start of Americans not trusting their government. Sad but true, especially as Oswald did it alone.
Without the CTists continuing obsession with the JFK conspiracies, we would never have seen the Republican Party pushing distrust of government as a way to win elections and change policy with the vigor they have since the Reagan years. All they're doing is tapping into fear and fantasy, the same way they tap into the fears and fantasies of Christianity to grease the skids.
The CTists are, in a very real way, enablers of the RW strategy.
BootinUp
(47,135 posts)Distrust of government never leads to progressive legislation.
Quite the opposite.
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)Many of the theories, especially the ones emphasizing the idea of a coup d'etat, depend on the notion that the government is hyper-competent. We're supposed to believe the government is somehow capable, not only of killing a president but, also, of covering up almost all of the pertinent facts necessary to uncover the true nature of the killing. There is no Ellsberg in the JFK conspiracy, no Snowden, no Manning. There isn't even a John Dean.
If the government can't cover up a 'third-rate burglary' planned and executed by a brigade of CIA spooks, I find it very hard to believe they can cover up a murder.
ancianita
(36,009 posts)None of these 'uncoverers' have in any way shed any relevant light on how difficult it was to mount an independent investigation or independent legal fight in those days for sunlight on all the convenient or unconvenient evidence that existed at the crime scene, lab scenes and later investigations. There was no bulldog reporting during a time of brooding. There were no citizen watchdog groups in those days to challenge the power of blue ribbon committees, or to press for police, FBI, or military reports over the time the Warren Commission took center stage. What's weird is how much eyewitness testimony was not called for, or was left out of the WCR.
Government didn't have to be that competent. Just more than the general public. 'Mopping up' wasn't hard for leaders who knew a trusting public would obey when law enforcement cordoned off evidence access. They didn't have to know about the many witnesses that weren't brought forward more leads. The only leads our leaders wanted were facts to build a narrative that would stand as history, damn the rest.
I didn't turn into some CT right winger. I've been politically active, sometimes an activist, all my life. I and countless others had an inkling then -- some called it crazy conspiracy thinking, paranoia, but I've always called it vigilance -- we who lived then came to realize that the Warren Commission Report was the inexplicable beginning of the end of government of, by and for the people. The shock of the "official story" was silent. People brooded and got angry. We felt as if we were no longer participants. The message was, "you going to believe us or your lyin' eyes'.
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)that not a single person with classified status has ever thought to uncover the cover-up in this particular case.
I really don't know what that last paragraph has to do with anything I said.
ancianita
(36,009 posts)witnesses left off the witness list, could they. If you're shown the investigation sandbox, told you have unlimited inspection powers, you inspect it well and report on it well. The playground was bigger, but the assignment was the sandbox.
I got carried away on that last paragraph...just pretend I didn't write it.
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)It sounds an awful lot like learned helplessness to me. There's nothing that can be done. So we'll just lament that nothing can be done.
ancianita
(36,009 posts)After reading thepublic's first edition of the Warren Report, I put the event and my questions away, as many who've been through these things might do. My politics became motivated by vigilance. Every year on this date we may confront ourselves with the country's internal issue of presidential security, along with the trustworthiness of the press and government sources to keep the public truthfully informed about events of national concern. Or not.
Learned helplessness has to have teachers. People drive toward agency most of their lives or until confronted with threats to their activities. Some heroically move on in spite of official cease and desist-style threats, e.g., Ellsberg; others hunker down, maybe go about community organizing or other work that improves human capacities to think and communicate.
If I sound as if I lament, I'll spare you.
ancianita
(36,009 posts)was betrayed. "Obsession" is a RW rhetorical label, like "liberal," etc., and to use their language is what enables them. People knew that there was more to the assassination, but the time to mount an independent investigation has long since been over.
Just don't theorize that all people of that time turned into the teabrains you see today. Nevertheless, when it comes to the Kennedy assassination, their broken clock is right twice a day.
noise
(2,392 posts)What is crazy about the notion that more than one shooter was involved? AFAICT the only thing "wrong" with such a view is that it does not conform with the establishment proclamation of a single shooter.
BootinUp
(47,135 posts)noise
(2,392 posts)was not an attempt to fit the evidence to the predetermined conclusion of one shooter? All theories were on the table and the Warren Commission went with the theory that best fit the physical evidence?
Archae
(46,311 posts)The people still touting that "magic bullet" nonsense use a fake diagram of seating in the Presidential limo, and dismiss actual ballistics.
My BIL was a medic in Vietnam.
He saw one bullet go through THREE guys, and look "pristine."
(The "magic bullet" was not.)
BootinUp
(47,135 posts)in 3D space from the Zapruder film, actual measurements of the Dealy Plaza and limo, etc. Watch
The reason so many people have the idea you just expressed is because of highly inaccurate drawings or movies promoted by folks who wanted to sell a line of bullshit to make money.
The Warren Commission lined up the bullet back in '64, some aero space engineer did the work. Its the only way it could have happened, and the Zapruder film backs it up. They both react to the bullet at the same time.
More from the documentary here:
Dale Meyers JFK site:
http://www.jfkfiles.com/index.html
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)It was disproven long ago.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)a) Kennedy and Connally react at the same time. Connally's jacket lapel flips outward at Z224, just after the limo emerges from behind the Stemmons Freeway sign:
That's because of a bullet passing through him.
Also: the wound of entry in Connally's back? is slightly oblate (ovoid). This means it was caused by a bullet that was tumbling. A full metal jacketed bullet tumbles after striking something (in this case after passing through the soft tissues of Kennedy's torso without striking bone). The actual relative positions of Kennedy and Connally were such that a bullet entering Kennedy's back where it did and exiting near his throat would have HAD to strike Connally because it had nowhere else to go. Which is exactly what happened.
And the "pristine bullet"? Not pristine, at all. Flattened, slightly bent, lead extruding from the base. A Dr John K Lattimer reconstructed the wounds, using the relative positions of Kennedy and Connally, and found that a bullet causing similar wounds would experience similar deformations to those observed in CE399. The path of the bullet? it was slowed by transit of Kennedy's body; struck Connally, was deflected along a rib, exited below the right nipple, struck the wrist and was embedded partly in the thigh. The reason it didn't deform more on striking Connally's wrist? Simple physics, it had already spent much of its energy (the "test bullets" fired point-blank through the wrists of cadavers in the tests at Edgewood Arsenal are not a valid comparison).
And the autopsy, the forensic review of the Ramsey Clark panel, and the forensic review of the HSCA panel are all in 100% agreement that the wound in JFK's back is a wound of entry, not exit.
BootinUp
(47,135 posts)lol.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)I believe the evidence. I used to think there was a conspiracy, partly because of an early exposure to conspiracy theorising; but discovering the actual facts of the case, and the evidence that points to Oswald, led me to change my mind about that...I came to realise that the case for conspiracy rests on wilfully ignoring, distorting, and misrepresenting most of the actual evidence, while engaging in lots of handwaving about why it's not relevant. "Oswald's rifle was planted!" "the 'magic bullet' and the fragments in the limo were planted!" "The Zapruder film was altered, and so were the autopsy photos!" A case that rests on the insistence that not one or two but dozens of pieces of crucial evidence were falsified and manufactured is no case at all. If you're just going to ignore all the evidence, that allows you to make wild assertions that don't require any evidence to support them (it was LBJ! the Mafia! Castro! Anti-Castro Cuban exiles! It was Joe DiMaggio taking revenge for the Kennedys killing Marilyn Monroe! etc.)
BootinUp
(47,135 posts)oswaldactedalone
(3,490 posts)nm
Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #38)
Gravitycollapse This message was self-deleted by its author.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)In other words, I'm saying the official analysis of the single bullet which entered the Presidents back and eventually lodged itself in Connally's thigh was and is correct.
The idea of a single bullet taking such a path is absolutely a satisfactory explanation of what happened. It requires no grand conspiracy. That was my point.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)Without striking any bone?
Was JFK upside down?
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Yes, a bullet entered Kennedy's upper back and exited his throat (he was leaning forward, and the base of the neck/throat area is just above the notch of the clavicle, in case you haven't noticed).
PAMod
(906 posts)He had some impressive traps.
The front of his neck is well below the area of his back where the bullet entered.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)BootinUp
(47,135 posts)Any real evidence this has anything to do with the assassination?
I'll wait.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Remember, he was supposed to be a random nobody, who just up and decided out of the blue on his complete own (otherwise, it's a "conspiracy", by definition) to shoot the President.
Oswald was in Mexico City in late September and early October of 1963. During his one-week stay, he tried to obtain visas from the Cuban consulate and Soviet embassy. But intelligence documents released in 1999 establish that, after Oswald failed to get the visas, CIA intercepts showed that someone impersonated Oswald in phone calls made to the Soviet embassy and the Cuban consulate and linked Oswald to a known KGB assassin Valery Kostikov whom the CIA and FBI had been following for over a year.
***
After President Kennedys assassination, documents show that the Agency created two more false stories in connection with Oswalds Mexico City visit. The first cover story was that the CIAs tapes of the phone calls had been erased before the assassination. The second cover story was that the CIA did not realize Oswald had visited the Cuban consulate until they looked into the matter after the assassination.
longship
(40,416 posts)It won't stop the conspiracy theorists -- really only mystery mongers. Ask them what really happened and they will spew out their litany of seemingly unanswered so-called facts, never having any cogent "theory" of what really happened. Their only goal is to promote the conspiracy, not what really happened.
We see the same bullshit with 9/11 and many other historic events of some note. It's all bullshit.
Archae
(46,311 posts)Just as most PETA members and brass get their knowledge of nature from watching Disney cartoons like "Bambi."
BootinUp
(47,135 posts)Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)Before the odious Scrappy-Doo puppy-powered his way into the series, "Scoobie Doo" was a fun way to get kids to examine their superstitions and discard them. After all, who did the monster always turn out to be? Some old white guy running a scam. Let the Scooby Gang be.
BootinUp
(47,135 posts)Good Point!
vt_native
(484 posts)Some trivia for you.
marlakay
(11,443 posts)About JFK murder with modern csi type stuff they were able to prove the single bullet and why the bullet didn't get messed up.
Ok they got me on that, but I still believe Johnson had him killed.
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)and then set up a commission which pointed to his chosen hitman's guilt?
Hmm...
Samantha
(9,314 posts)You might be interested in reading Barr McClellan's book, "Blood, Money & Power." He worked as an attorney in a law firm for a partner who represented Johnson from the inception of his political career.
While some on this thread have stated there is no documentation to prove anything but the Warren Commission report, McClellan submits substantiated documentation that proves otherwise.
Sam
the assassination doesn't really appear to be about evidence. Warren Commission defenders evidently have not read any newspapers for decades. If they had they would realize the public has all the reason in the world to doubt official government reports. Their argument seems to be: "How dare you question distinguished leaders! How dare you! You have no right to do so!" Admittedly they have a compelling case.
BootinUp
(47,135 posts)you were just wasting my time. You really have no interest in further info.
noise
(2,392 posts)You would have the American public believe that the Warren Commission acted in good faith to analyze the evidence and follow it wherever it led. In reality the Oswald lone shooter theory was the only line of inquiry in play. Thus it follows that all evidence was analyzed in order to fit that theory. That is why the magic bullet theory was put forth instead of a more plausible theory of more than one shooter.
BootinUp
(47,135 posts)Is that the case or are you just full of shit?
I read the 9/11 Commission report. Does that impress you? Are you more likely to agree with my take that their report is a cover up?
BootinUp
(47,135 posts)OK then. I will let you have your fantasies without further challenge.
noise
(2,392 posts)Do you need a celebrity TV journalist to give you the go ahead to distrust a government account? What is the proper criteria for questioning the government?
BootinUp
(47,135 posts)Non sequitur may refer to:
Non sequitur (logic), a logical fallacy where a stated conclusion is not supported by its premise
noise
(2,392 posts)skepticism of the Warren and 9/11 Commission with fantasies.
fantasy: An unrealistic or improbable supposition.
It made me wonder what you find appropriate to question.
BootinUp
(47,135 posts)I tend to be skeptical. In fact, people tell me all the time that I lean in that direction. It is one of the reasons that I have looked at the evidence in both cases and on both sides of the events raised.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)The two are not the same. One involves a consistent inability to accept any truthful statement by the state. The other involves the need to have evidence based conclusions. You are very clearly a victim of the former rather than a crusader of the latter.
stopbush
(24,393 posts)Sounds like religion to me.
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)you'd realize the government is so incompetent that its secrets can be exposed by a 29 year old armed with a thumb drive.
Yet, somehow, they've managed to cover up the murder of a president for 50 years straight? Now that's a compelling argument.
ancianita
(36,009 posts)a competent, good faith report is what dominant leaders do when they want the country to calm down. The commission couldn't find what wasn't there anymore. They were free and powerful, with some classified access, but they either got steered or just lost their way. What we read wasn't what we saw. People in Dallas said that, but you won't find it in the public record.
This isn't about some vision of grand power. This is some men calming the country down. It's not as if it was the first assassination our government had ever dealt with.
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)How was the crime scene mopped up?
ancianita
(36,009 posts)were conflicting reports that came weeks and months after the events. Some in the papers. None on TV. Not even photos that were taken on the scene were available for the public's examining. If I was alive then, and kept my radar out for all this evidence to emerge, and yet none of the public were involved in the investigation -- though people in the South where I lived were mostly okay with Kennedy's assassination, by the way -- how would I have known.
If you refer to some grand, powerful group that covered it up, I'll say no, it's not hard to give orders to clean up a crime scene. What happened to all the autopsy evidence, driver and Secret Service accounts, the First Lady's account, the car, the guns, the witnesses. I don't know.
If you imply that people who witnessed the crime then, or that a public shut out of the discovery process should now come forward, the people directly involved are no longer around. There were no rewards offered at that time for those who could come forward to help inform the crime investigation, either.
I'm hopelessly incompetent, I'm afraid.
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)Okay.
ancianita
(36,009 posts)nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)If it happened the way you think it happened, there should be a least some sliver of a chance of proving it.
ancianita
(36,009 posts)go forward from there.
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)What was with all the talk about sandboxes?
ancianita
(36,009 posts)unlimited access to military intel or, being located in DC, knew the whereabouts of Dallas eyewitnesses without 'help.' So it's my speculation that, in that larger 'playground' further local leads got lost.
It's a metaphor I've come across for mapping reality. Quaint but useful.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)you have quite the compelling case as well.
You say it doesn't really appear to be about evidence in 2013. People are presenting you with evidence. In this very thread, they are doing it. And yet instead of dealing with that evidence, you retreat into your standard anti-authoritarian argument.
If you want it to be about evidence, start dealing with the evidence. If you don't want it to be about evidence, what is your complaint?
ancianita
(36,009 posts)when the public had a right to know. The problem then was that it took a whole year for the Warren Commission to come up with too much narrative and too little eyewitness or other hard evidence -- some questionable Zapruder slides that supported the narrative, sure. The public's distrust of government was justified as much because of that report as reportedly suppressed evidence.
Codifying and re-authorizing old reports doesn't create new facts. The missing facts that people knew existed are now scorned as fantasy. The pro-government "official story," now shown in razzle dazzle digital makes it all seem so right.
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)There were 26 volumes of evidence accompanying that report. It wasn't just some Zapruder slides.
You say the evidence was suppressed and people knew it existed. How on earth did they know that?
ancianita
(36,009 posts)Which is why I pointedly brought up the only source -- the one volume summary -- that the public had at the time.
Guess I need to get cracking on those volumes before 2017.
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)They were printed in smaller quantities than the Report itself, but they were available to the public in 1964.
ancianita
(36,009 posts)in 1968. A lot changed for me over those years, and I regret not being better informed, in spite of all the reading I believed I did.
Edit: Sorry to remiss in thanking you for your substance and logic here. I've learned a lot, and I don't want to seem unappreciative. Thank you.
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)I just jump in and argue. I'm glad if somebody gains something from it, though.
BootinUp
(47,135 posts)Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly
McClellan's overwrought conspiracy theory claims that Lyndon Johnson-motivated by power lust, fear of being dropped from the Kennedy ticket, and the need to cover up various scandals-masterminded Kennedy's assassination with the help of his evil "superlawyer" Ed Clark. But his evidence is meager and murky, even by the standards of Kennedy conspiracy scholarship. The main exhibit is a smudged partial fingerprint from Oswald's sniper's nest that may or may not belong to a Johnson associate, depending on which fingerprint expert you ask. Otherwise McClellan relies on what he heard during his years at Clark's law firm-e.g., a partner told him that Clark arranged the assassination-and the description of scenes in which a "a fixed stare," vague, unspoken understandings, and "code words" proved that Johnson and Clark were conspiring. Sample accusations include: "I knew Clark was admitting to the payoff for the assassination even though he never said he received a payoff for assassinating Kennedy...." The book offers many detailed accounts of conspiratorial meetings that turn out to be not fact but "faction" or "journalistic novelization"-that is, conjecture designed to distract readers from the lack of evidence. McClellan styles the assassination as the defeat of Camelot by Texas's sleazy nexus of dirty politicians, slick lawyers and oil money; the unmasking of Johnson, the personification of such back-room power politics, therefore promises a public "emotional purging" leading to the renewal of democracy. His confusingly structured, evasively argued, often nonsensical theories attest to the crime's continuing potency as a symbol of America's mythic heart of darkness. Photos.
Copyright 2003 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.
---------------------
My comment: I find it somewhat distressing that you really think Johnson had something to do with his assassination. Why would you accuse President Johnson of that? Just curious.
noise
(2,392 posts)where are you, we got some questions for you. Lydon Johnson where are you, we need some answers from you. Come on Lydon Johnson, I see you had something to gain.
BootinUp
(47,135 posts)please respond to it.
marlakay
(11,443 posts)Dont have any proof at all, just watching program for two nights on PBS about kennedy and saw hundreds of photos I hadn't seen before around the time before election and after, in every single photo Johnson has a look of absolute hatred on his face towards Kennedy.
So that's why I said I think he had it done, proof, no, just my beliefs.
Samantha
(9,314 posts)Additionally, that fingerprint that was found in another sniper nest in the book depository was sent to a French fingerprint expert without any description to what crime it was associated with. It took months to get his findings back, but it came back with the name Wallace. Wallace was the very person McClellan had identified in another sniper's nest (I believe on the 6th floor) that fired at Kennedy. Wallace is also the person I have heard named in books that have seen published recently. Admittedly, I have not read those books but have heard some details in promos. I keep thinking this is not new information as advertised, but points covered in McClellan's book.
The book reviews Johnson's entire career and other crimes he is believed to have committed. It is beyond belief to me that a man who functioned at the level of corruption he did for decades could ascend to the Vice President. You might want to read how Johnson won his first Congressional seat in Texas and the controversy surrounding that.
Why do I think Johnson had something to do with it? I could write for the rest of the afternoon all of my reasons, but I don't have the time to do that. You should pick up a copy of this book and judge the credibility of it for yourself. It was the basis of a special aired by the History Channel, you might remember that, and it caused a huge outcry from the Johnson family. It was decided that other people who knew Johnson should be given air time to refute all of the allegations. I eagerly tuned into that. They generally spoke about Johnson in general and addressed zero allegations contained in the book.
Johnson was about to be indicted because of two scandals, one involving Billy Sol Estes and the other I would have to again look up. Johnson was worried he might be indicted as a sitting Vice President for criminal acts about to be made public. He looked at the Office of the President as a place where he would be immune to prosecution for those scandals (I am not too sure he was correct about that, but that was his opinion). Additionally, his relationship with the Kennedy family was extremely tenuous. They despised each other, Kennedy and Johnson. And that is an understatement.
Jacqueline Kennedy did not believe the official report of how her husband met his death. She commissioned very privately a top-notch investigative firm in France to examine the assassination. She received the final report a few months later, and sealed it for I believe 50 years. I do think that is 50 years following the passing of her two children (but I can't say definitely without looking that up again). Robert Kennedy did not believe the official findings as well. That is one of the reasons he chose to run for President. He thought he could only find out the truth by winning the Presidency and gaining access to information only the President could insist upon having.
But whether one thinks Johnson was involved in the death of the late President John Kennedy or not, one cannot ignore the totally corrupt life Johnson lived and many of the crimes he was accused of committing (one exhibit in book is a copy of a court order in which the accused was convicted of murder; a subsequent notation made by the Judge issuing the order found Johnson guilty participating with the accused but noted that since Johnson was deceased by the time the trial was held, nothing could be done about Johnson's participation).
I leave you with one of the many reviews I have on this book:
"...the book offers photographs, copies of letters, insider interviews and details of fingerprints as proof that Edward A. Clark, the powerful head of Johnson's private and business legal team and a former ambassador to Australia, led the plan and cover-up for the 1963 assassination in Dallas." (Dallas Ft. Worth Star Telegram).
The overall abundance of wealth of documented evidence McClellan submits is staggering.
Sam
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)Evidently the fingerprint was a very strong match for Mac Wallace. It could not have been better. For years I have been reading about the Kennedy assassination, and more intensely so in the last several weeks. This is the first time I have been strongly convinced that Lyndon Johnson was involved at some level in the planning of this tragedy.
Samantha
(9,314 posts)That fingerprint match was a real turning point for me. A lot of Wallace's history is reported in the book, including his conviction for murder, but that unidentified fingerprint was left in suspense for 35 years. Unbelievable. When Darby made his case, that question as to whether or not Johnson had been involved in Kennedy's assassination was no longer a question to me. Johnson's history with Wallace is painstakingly reported in the book.
Another issue which was once pointed out but left unanswered for years revolved around the Secret Service Protection Plan. People who have discussed the assassination point to pictures along the route the entourage took and specifically pinpoint irregularities that should not have been -- things like completely open windows, windows without coverings, that type of thing. There is a procedure that is followed to protect the President, and all of the discrepancies people noted are in conflict with that plan. McClellan reports in the book that it was Johnson who handed over the Secret Service plan for protecting the President.
Got to go - it is late - I hope you pick up the book and read it for yourself.
Sam
stopbush
(24,393 posts)Thanks for bringing up that CT idiocy.
The whole point of JFK's trip to Texas was to bring together the conservative and progressive sides of the D Party to help him win re-election in '64. Does anyone think for a second that dropping Texan LBJ from the ticket would do anything but lose Texas for the Ds?
BootinUp
(47,135 posts)BootinUp
(47,135 posts)I didn't bring it up, I replied to it, and I would appreciate if you would acknowledge that. Just sayin.
stopbush
(24,393 posts)roamer65
(36,745 posts)...and the Billy Sol Estes affair.
stopbush
(24,393 posts)After all, LBJ was an extremely progressive president who not only carried out many of JFK's programs, but whose Great Society was a real effort to use the wealth and power of government to help all Americans.
Samantha
(9,314 posts)However, Kennedy quietly planned to end our involvement in the Vietnam war; Johnson escalated it.
The death of a US president should be looked at not through a political lens but as a matter of national tragedy.
Sam
stopbush
(24,393 posts)JFK's trajectory was escalation, reinforced by all of his public pronouncements, including the speech he made the morning of his death.
RFK confirmed after JFK's death that they would have considered war in Nam, but would cross that bridge when they came to it.
Yes, LBJ escalated the war, but he was only able to because JFK laid the ground work and, more importantly, laid out the philosophy. JFK did believe in the domino theory, after all.
Samantha
(9,314 posts)Eisenhower sent in the advisors, and JFK inherited a bad situation from him. Presidents say a lot of things publicly out of necessity that do not reflect their private thoughts on the matter. JFK's war was against the Viet Cong and not necessarily the Vietnamese people themselves. He wanted to teach the Vietnamese people how to ward off that threat. Below is a link his brother Robert recorded for historical purposes in 1964 for the JFK Library.
From where I sit, Johnson, who campaigned for election did so on ending the Vietnam conflict. After he was legitimately elected to the office under his own campaign, about three days later he ordered a massive escalation.
I do not know your age and you have from your own personal life any investment in this controversy, but as someone who was was ready to leave the Country to avoid seeing her husband drafted into a war which we both opposed, I am very passionate about this subject, followed it closely as it unfolded and I personally hold Johnson in deep contempt for his outright lies to the voting public -- lies which allowed him to win the White House -- a betrayal which led to the torture, wounding, and often death to many people my own age. Johnson was the war monger. Here is a passage from the link of Robert Kennedy's audio interview and the summary contained at the end:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/vietnam.htm
"So would Kennedy have fallen into the Vietnam quagmire just as Johnson did? No one can be sure, and Kennedy supporters can certainly believe that he would have avoided Johnson's massive committment -- even though he had the same advisors as Johnson and the same desire to prevent a Communist takeover.
However, the Oliver Stone version of the Kennedy assassination, as expressed in the movie JFK, holds that Kennedy had already decided to pull out of Vietnam, and was killed for that reason. That's just not so."
Sam
stopbush
(24,393 posts)The neighbor kid who lived behind us was two years older than me. He was blown up by a mortar in 'Nam on his frickin birthday. A few weeks later, his dad got a posthumously delivered letter from him saying how scared he was.
I was no fan of LBJ and his escalation - it could have got me killed. But I took my chances and went through the draft. Luckily, I pulled a low number that was well below the cut-off date at the time (I still have my draft card, BTW). My brother's birthday - one year older than me - drew #13 in his draft year. He went for a CO and got it. Had our minister vouch for him. Of course, these days he's a flaming Republican.
So, yeah, I had some "personal life investment" in the war and those years. That doesn't change the fact that JFK DID increase the number of military advisors in 'Nam dramatically.
I happen to be a fan of both JFK and LBJ. But the fact is that LBJ accomplished more for this country than did JFK, simply because he had the time to do so. His escalation of the war is a major debit against his presidency. That's enough of a black mark in and of itself, and we shouldn't let it color all the great things he did for this country.
Those who idealize JFK and loathe LBJ do so almost entirely out of their HOPE and belief that JFK would have withdrawn from Nam, but that isn't the course he was on. His public statements shout to the rafters that he was committed to Vietnam. All of the "but he privately said" crap is just hearsay and nothing else.
Those who accuse LBJ of being behind the murder of JFK are delusional fucks. I have no time or patience for such idiocies.
Samantha
(9,314 posts)But Barr McClellan is certainly no delusional f**k, and neither am I and the scores of other Americans who like both you and I have a right to their opinion. In McClellan's case, he worked directly on Johnson issues for decades and is acutely aware of his nefarious activities and no one to date has refuted any of the material in his book.
Sam
stopbush
(24,393 posts)doesn't make them true, let alone viable explanations. Tossing in words like "nefarious" to characterize LBJ's activities doesn't add a shred of verisimilitude to the claims.
The LBJ CTs are just as bad as the JFK CTs, and they can be dismissed with a simple question: is that what really happened? Just because somebody has malice towards somebody doesn't mean they are the guilty party in a crime.
The JFK CTs accuse everyone for the killing, from the mob to LBJ to the Cubans to the Russians to whoever. Unless you're willing to be an idiot like Oliver Stone and aver that they were ALL involved and conspiring together, then you're left with the stark truth that 98% of JFK CTs are wrong simply because they don't pick THE way it actually happened, if there was a conspiracy. Only one of the CTs could be true IF there was conspiracy, which there wasn't.
LBJ may have aspired to the office of president, he may have personally hated JFK. None of that means he was involved in the killing. He may have personally benefited from the killing, but so what? A politician may benefit when an opponent make some stupid statement in a debate (ie: Todd Aiken). That doesn't mean the politician put the words in Aiken's mouth or plotted to have him say something stupid.
You're old enough to know better. You have a right to your opinion, of course, but one need not respect an opinion once it lurches off into the conspiratorial morass. There's more than enough actual EVIDENCE in the case to believe the Warren Commission verdict. I'll take evidence over hearsay any day of the week.
Bottom line: you're saying that a single smudged fingerprint OUTWEIGHS the mountains of evidence that point to Oswald as the loner killer. Think about it.
Samantha
(9,314 posts)"You are old enough to know better?" Really? If you ever respond to another post of mine, you need to remain civil.
You also have a flaw in your reasoning process if you believe I said anything like a single smudged fingerprint outweighs the mounts of evidence that point to Oswald as the lone killer. I was 90 percent already there in my belief Johnson played a key role, an opinion I arrived at after decades of reading many published accounts, but the identification of that fingerprint (which had gone unidentified for 35 years) as belonging to Wallace cinched, read that word again, cinched my continuing opinion. Mac Wallace was a name I was already familiar with as a man who had been convicted of murder and was a known associate of Johnson for a long period of time.
Additionally, a majority of Americans do not believe in the Warren Commission report:
"By the beginning of the new century skepticism had turned to incredulity. Opinion polls now showed that around 90 percent of Americans believed that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent or, at most, he merely assisted in a conspiracy to kill the president." (emphasis added, quoted from the History News Network) http://hnn.us/article/8059
If that is not enough to convince you, you might like to read up on the United States House Select Committee's on Assassinations findings in 1976:
"The United States House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) was established in 1976 to investigate the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. The Committee investigated until 1978 and issued its final report, and concluded that Kennedy was very likely assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. However, the Committee noted that it believed that the conspiracy did not include the governments of the Soviet Union or Cuba. The Committee also stated it did not believe the conspiracy was organized by any organized crime group, nor any anti-Castro group, but that it could not rule out individual members of any of these two groups acting together.
The HSCA suffered from being conducted mostly in secret, and then issued a public report with much of its evidence sealed for 50 years under Congressional rules.[1] In 1992, Congress passed legislation to collect and open up all the evidence relating to Kennedy's death, and created the Assassination Records Review Board to further that goal." at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Select_Committee_on_Assassinations.
Here are that committee's specific findings with regard to the Kennedy assassination:
" Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at Kennedy. The second and third shots Oswald fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President.
Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that at least two gunmen fired at the President. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations. (my emphasis added)*
The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy.
The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Soviet Government was not involved in the assassination of Kennedy.
The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Cuban Government was not involved in the assassination of 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 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 Kennedy, but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved.
The Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in the assassination of Kennedy.[4]
Agencies and departments of the U.S. Government performed with varying degrees of competency in the fulfilment of their duties. President Kennedy did not receive adequate protection. A thorough and reliable investigation into the responsibility of Lee Harvey Oswald for the assassination was conducted. The investigation into the possibility of conspiracy in the assassination was inadequate. The conclusions of the investigations were arrived at in good faith, but presented in a fashion that was too definitive." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Select_Committee_on_Assassinations
My personal opinion is that Lee Harvey Oswald participated in the Kennedy assassination but there was more than one assassin. More than half of the witnesses personally interviewed about the death of our president said they heard shots from the Grassy Knoll. More than half. This fact was featured in a documentary I viewed over the weekend on Reelz, so I have no link. I do believe that Wallace was the second hitman, and that he fired from a position in front of the late President Kennedy's limousine. Because some believed Oswald was not a reliable player in his important role, and determined that President Kennedy would indeed lose his life that day, the organizers of the assassination took out an insurance policy by placing Wallace in position to fire from the front.
Bullets and fingerprints aside, there are much larger questions to be answered: who planned the assassination, who organized the minutia of the detail, what principals participated, and why did they do it. It is an extremely healthy endeavor that we undertake in continuing to attempt to learn the answers to these questions in order to better protect our Presidents now and in the future, and additionally to hold accountable those who played a role who are today still living.
stopbush
(24,393 posts)you're awfully sensitive about what others have to say about you. Your smearing LBJ is OK, but being called on it isn't?
BTW - citing the long-refuted opinion of the HSCA that a fourth shot was fired at JFK doesn't help your case. Why you CTists cling to this phony "proof" would be amusing were it not so sad.
And you are absolutely wrong in asserting that more than half of the people who were in Dealey Plaza asserted they heard shots from the grassy knoll. The HSCA - which you cite as an authoritative source - found that 47% of ear witnesses thought they heard shots from the TSBD. Only 20% thought they heard shots from the grassy knoll. 29% thought the shots came from somewhere other than the TSBD or the GK. Those figures basically confirm what the WCR found.
That doesn't mean that some money-grubbing CTist author won't find a way to skew the numbers to feed his cash cow.
Sorry, but you've bought the misinformation of the CTists hook, line and sinker.
Samantha
(9,314 posts)I am not at all "awfully sensitive" -- I just believe differences can be discussed politely and with civility. Obviously you do not.
I do not "accuse" LBJ of anything. I state it is my opinion and I cite reputable sources.
You do not have access to all of the documents the HSCA has so you cannot say the "phony proof" was discarded. The bit about the recording device on the motorcycle was later retracted by them, but that was not the only reason it believed four shots were fired.
I have read in different places numbers hovering around approximately half of the witnesses interviewed heard shots and saw smoke from that area.
There are many reputable people who have first-hand knowledge of the details of the assassination. McClellan was a partner in the law firm that represented Johnson for decades, for God's sake. I cannot begin to conceive how you would consider a person who served in that capacity as a "money-grubbing CTist." Beyond him, Jacqueline Kennedy authorized her own private investigation through professional French investigators. Bobby Kennedy did not believe the official version - the list goes on and on.
People are entitled to come to their own conclusions on matters such as this and because they do not necessarily comport with your personal viewpoints does not justify your tone and derisive remarks. You just can't bully people into thinking the same way you do.
Sam
stopbush
(24,393 posts)The Dictabelt evidence has been falsified based on the HSCA's own criteria. HSCA lead counsel G. Robert Blakey himself said that if it could be proved that no motorcycle was at the corner of Houston and Elm to record a 4th shot, the evidence was falsified. That has now been proven beyond any doubt. The Dictabelt "evidence" was the linchpin that held the other shaky conspiracy evidence together, evidence that the HSCA was ready to toss in their final report before the Dictabelt evidence was presented at the 11th hour. It was false. End of story. And when did the HSCA retract the part about the recording device having to be on Officer HB McLain's motorcycle and with McLain's motorcycle being positioned at Elm & Houston to record the shot, a "fact" McLain denied vehemently when he appeared before the HSCA? Please cite a source, because I missed that.
RFK - three months before he himself was killed stated publicly that he had seen the assassination archives and that he stood behind the findings of the WC. A few minutes after addressing that topic he stated that he "intended to tell the truth in this campaign." Was he lying? Was he a spineless politician?
Gun smoke hovering over the grassy knoll? What were they firing? Muskets? Perhaps, as no spent cartridge casings were ever found at the grassy knoll. Reporter Robert McNeill followed the police up the knoll and jumped the wall with them - there was nobody there and no evidence anyone had been there.
Yes - it's your opinion that you're accusing LBJ of having JFK murdered. Are we straight on that?
Samantha
(9,314 posts)I will let you figure that difference out on your own.
The HSCA's retraction on the dictabelt was noted in Wikipedia on the United States House Select Committee page. The notation simply says "later" retracted, not the literal date of the retraction. I am sure you can find that if you look for it.
Robert F. Kennedy had to publicly say that until he could prove differently. And that is why he chose to run for President. Earlier, he and Ethel had decided not to stay in Washington if President Kennedy won a second term. They were going back to Massachusetts to try to lead a somewhat normal life. Following his brother's death, Robert Kennedy decided to run because he knew the only way he could gain access to undisclosed information on the assassination was to sit in the Oval Office.
I am just going to leave your curt third paragraph hanging. You do need to read more and expand your base of knowledge on this subject.
I am done here with you on this subject.
Sam
stopbush
(24,393 posts)Last edited Mon Nov 18, 2013, 05:11 PM - Edit history (1)
their belief that the Dictabelt evidence was sound.
Your memory is faulty. Here's what the page does say:
"The fourth shot came from a second assassin located on the grassy knoll, but missed. The HSCA concluded the existence and location of this alleged fourth shot based on a Dallas Police Department dictabelt recording that was later discredited, because it was recorded after the assassination, and therefore invalid."
Note, Wiki does NOT say the HSCA discredited the evidence, just that it was discredited. It doesn't say the HSCA retracted anything.
I looked up YOUR source for your claim and found it to be wanting. Comments?
As far as RFK - I guess you believe he was spineless after all.
And what source do you have for your claim that the reason he chose to run for President was to reopen the file on his brother's murder? That's not what RFK himself was saying. He said he was running to get us out of 'Nam. You're now asserting that those claims were simply a cover to get elected so he could reopen the investigation on the assassination. You're saying he was lying to all those bright-eyed kids who came to hear his speeches.
It might help if you'd stop and consider what your words are actually saying once you get beyond the surface level of defending your pet JFK CT.
mattclearing
(10,091 posts)On May 8th, 1962, following JFK's orders, McNamara instructed a stunned Gen. Paul Harkins "to devise a plan for bringing full responsibility [for the Vietnam War] over to South Vietnam." Mutinous, the general ignored the order until July 23rd, 1962, when McNamara again commanded him to produce a plan for withdrawal. The brass returned May 6th, 1963, with a half-baked proposal that didn't complete withdrawal as quickly as JFK had wanted. McNamara ordered them back yet again.
On September 2nd, 1963, in a televised interview, JFK told the American people he didn't want to get drawn into Vietnam. "In the final analysis, it is their war," he said. "They are the ones who have to win or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment. We can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it, the people of Vietnam."
Six weeks before his death, on October 11th, 1963, JFK bypassed his own National Security Council and had Bundy issue National Security Action Memorandum 263, making official policy the withdrawal from Vietnam of the bulk of U.S. military personnel by the end of 1965, beginning with "1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963." On November 14th, 1963, a week before Dallas, he announced at a press conference that he was ordering up a plan for "how we can bring Americans out of there." The morning of November 21st, as he prepared to leave for Texas, he reviewed a casualty list for Vietnam indicating that more than 100 Americans to date had died there. Shaken and angry, JFK told his assistant press secretary Malcolm Kilduff, "It's time for us to get out. The Vietnamese aren't fighting for themselves. We're the ones doing the fighting. After I come back from Texas, that's going to change. There's no reason for us to lose another man over there. Vietnam is not worth another American life."
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/john-f-kennedys-vision-of-peace-20131120
stopbush
(24,393 posts)He's an anti-vaccination nut who is given to flights of fancy.
I can't think of him as a credible source on this topic.
mattclearing
(10,091 posts)Rolling Stone saw it fit to print, which indicates to me that the information is legit.
stopbush
(24,393 posts)who carried a lot less baggage than RFK Jr:
1. 1983 - arrested for heroin possession
2. divorced his first wife in 1984 after 12 years of marriage and remarried his pregnant paramour TWO WEEKS later
3. filed for divorce from his second wife, Mary, in 2010
4. Mary discovers RFK Jrs diary that details 37 sexual escapades he had in 2001 alone. The diary uses a number code for various sex acts, with "10" being intercourse (16 out of 37 women earned a 10 from Jr.) When confronted about his diary by a reporter, he claims "I have no diary from 2001."
5. Mary hangs herself on the couple's estate in 2012, despondent over their bitter divorce struggle and his serial unfaithfulness
As far as Rolling Stone "seeing fit to print" Jr's latest article - which you claim makes Jr's claims legit":
"An outspoken opponent of vaccination, in June 2005 Kennedy authored an article in Rolling Stone and Salon.com alleging a government conspiracy to cover up connections between the vaccine preservative thimerosal and childhood autism. The article contained a number of factual errors, leading Salon.com to issue five corrections and ultimately to retract the article completely on January 16, 2011. The retraction was motivated by accumulating evidence of errors and scientific fraud underlying the vaccine-autism claim. Previous to this retraction, sometime in 2010, Rolling Stone had also deleted Kennedy's article from their archives without explanation. As of January 2011, the original, uncorrected, version of the article was still posted on Kennedys website, including his factual errors which Salon had corrected." - Source Wikipedia
mattclearing
(10,091 posts)You can shoot the messenger, but it's pretty clear that the message is correct:
https://www.google.com/search?q=They+are+the+ones+who+have+to+win+or+lose+it.+We+can+help+them,+we+can+give+them+equipment.+We+can+send+our+men+out+there+as+advisors,+but+they+have+to+win+it,+the+people+of+Vietnam.&client=safari&rls=en&ei=gvCPUuqnNKOAiQeR74DIBA&start=0&sa=N
https://www.google.com/search?q=It's+time+for+us+to+get+out.+The+Vietnamese+aren't+fighting+for+themselves.+We're+the+ones+doing+the+fighting.+After+I+come+back+from+Texas,+that's+going+to+change.+There's+no+reason+for+us+to+lose+another+man+over+there.+Vietnam+is+not+worth+another+American+life.&client=safari&rls=en&biw=1066&bih=892&ei=VPCPUreHAsWAiQeK4YDYAw&start=0&sa=N
stopbush
(24,393 posts)"In the past 3 years we have increased the defense budget of the United States by over 20 percent; increased the program of acquisition for Polaris submarines from 24 to 41; increased our Minuteman missile purchase program by more than 75 percent; doubled the number of strategic bombers and missiles on alert; doubled the number of nuclear weapons available in the strategic alert forces; increased the tactical nuclear forces deployed in Western Europe by over 60 percent; added five combat ready divisions to the Army of the United States, and five tactical fighter wings to the Air Force of the United States; increased our strategic airlift capability by 75 percent; and increased our special counter-insurgency forces which are engaged now in South Viet-Nam by 600 percent. I hope those who want a stronger America and place it on some signs will also place those figures next to it.
"This is not an easy effort. This requires sacrifice by the people of the United States. But this is a very dangerous and uncertain world. As I said earlier, on three occasions in the last 3 years the United States has had a direct confrontation. No one can say when it will come again. No one expects that our life will be easy, certainly not in this decade, and perhaps not in this century. But we should realize what a burden and responsibility the people of the United States have borne for so many years. Here, a country which lived in isolation, divided and protected by the Atlantic and the Pacific, uninterested in the struggles of the world around it, here in the short space of 18 years after the Second World War, we put ourselves, by our own will and by necessity, into defense of alliances with countries all around the globe. Without the United States, South Viet-Nam would collapse overnight. Without the United States, the SEATO alliance would collapse overnight. Without the United States the CENTO alliance would collapse overnight. Without the United States there would be no NATO. And gradually Europe would drift into neutralism and indifference. Without the efforts of the United States in the Alliance for Progress, the Communist advance onto the mainland of South America would long ago have taken place."
mattclearing
(10,091 posts)stopbush
(24,393 posts)JFK recounting what HIS administration had done in his 34 months in office.
JFK believed in peace through strength. He was already escalating in Vietnam. Bobby said after his death that they would have dealt with going to war in Nam when and if that was their only option. While it's nice to think that JFK was planning to pull out of Nam, he never did, and there's no way to know if and when he would have pulled the trigger. Your own citation shows that he had the Pentagon looking at withdrawal strategies for, what, two years, and yet he didn't withdraw. Maybe he was slow-walking the process, sort of the way he did on civil rights.
mattclearing
(10,091 posts)You seem to have made up your mind on this. Good for you.
roamer65
(36,745 posts)Jack Ruby's comment on made on video about "if Adlai Stevenson had been VP..." is telling enough. When you sit down and really think about it, all roads lead to Lyndon.
Samantha
(9,314 posts)Last edited Sun Nov 24, 2013, 02:44 AM - Edit history (1)
So many people get hung up on the mechanics of the assassination, they should lift their eyes to the ever-prevalent questions one always asks whenever a tragedy or scandal hits Washington: follow the money and/or who benefits from this event.
I think the other components of the assassination were those who said Kennedy was "weak on national security" (translation) he did not facilitate wars for the benefit of those who profited from it; he was planning also to withdraw from Vietnam instead of escalating into a bull-blown war; he failed to attack Russia over the Cuban Missile Crisis - you know the parties. He also was costing Texas Oil more money with some of his programs. But Johnson was the crowd pleaser to the corrupt and additionally he needed cover from the Billy Sol Estes and Baker investigations. Slide Johnson into the Oval Office and that solves everyone's problem -- except for the millions of Americans who wept over the loss of their beloved President and, of course, the family of the slain John Kennedy.
Sam
PS I was happy to read your post - I have been getting the idea so many here agree with the Warren Commission and the lone assassin cover.
The Midway Rebel
(2,191 posts)I swear at one point on NPR I have heard phone recordings where LBJ says he thinks the Chinese were behind it. At one point LBJ asked if anyone was shooting at him that day. I'm listening to this one now to see if I can find it.
https://ia700200.us.archive.org/16/items/lbj631104/lbj_6311_04_15_Hoover_64kb.mp3
Yeah around 8 minutes.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)We're not talking some no-names, either. He even pressured Richard Russell, Jr. into accepting a spot on the commission even though he HATED Earl Warren (and you hear as much when he's talking to him on the phone...essentially telling him he's going to do it whether he likes it or not).
The Midway Rebel
(2,191 posts)He was in on it too!
BootinUp
(47,135 posts)(Bush Family Evil Empire)
zappaman
(20,606 posts)BootinUp
(47,135 posts)where did that pic come from?
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)It's a 'History' Channel program, essentially an extension of the old Chariots of the Gods? stuff.
stopbush
(24,393 posts)reddread
(6,896 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)But even as it tried to shut down any other possibilities, it did the opposite, it raised EVEN MORE questions.
They are never going to get people to accept this fairy tale no matter how hard they try.
It's time for them to give up and recognize the fact that their 'story' is way out of the Mainstream and that a vast majority of the people NEVER believed it. Why?
Because they never presented any convincing evidence to refute the eyewitnesses and the forensic evidence.
But for the Deniers, it was probably a relief to see their deep held 'beliefs' confirmed. The Bill O'Reilly production last week tried to do the same thing, push the official 'story'.
I wonder if they know how little credibility the MSM has now that we know who owns them?
stopbush
(24,393 posts)Welcome to The Mainstream.
Samantha
(9,314 posts)I never believed he had weapons of mass destruction, except for the germ warfare the United States government gave him to use when Iraq was in a war with Iran. And the idea that he had WMD's and shipped them out to Syria when he realized that the United States was going to attack was ludicrous. Why would a very small country under threat of attack by the strongest military in the world ship out its strongest defensive weapons right before the attack???
And I am aware that a number of people did not believe the Bush* administration on this so I think you should supply a link to that statistic.
Sam
stopbush
(24,393 posts)You can find your own link to that source.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)story that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. All the MORE reason to doubt the JFK official story.
Most independent and other media, otoh, did NOT believe the official WMD story and neither do they accept the JFK official story.
Welcome to the Corporate Media.
Things have changed since the WMD story and btw, it was 70%.
People have access to so much of the new media and many other sources now and realize they were lied to about WMDs in Iraq.
Just as a majority doubts the JFK official story.
The majority is a far more informed mainstream than they were in 2003. On both of those 'official stories'.
stopbush
(24,393 posts)Look it up.
Rex
(65,616 posts)I don't trust their intentions one bit.
Mostly Orbiting
(36 posts)No thanks.
stopbush
(24,393 posts)where you're welcome to your evidence-free opinions.
Mostly Orbiting
(36 posts)Mr.Bill
(24,262 posts)but there will always be room to speculate on who he was associated with or was working for, if anyone.
Sorry about the deletions below. My computer appeared to not be responding to my posting, so I duped my post several times.
Response to stopbush (Original post)
Mr.Bill This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to stopbush (Original post)
Mr.Bill This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to stopbush (Original post)
Mr.Bill This message was self-deleted by its author.
upi402
(16,854 posts)CNN is total rubbish.
ancianita
(36,009 posts)stopbush
(24,393 posts)unlike the CTists.
ancianita
(36,009 posts)public doesn't make anyone who doesn't think the whole truth's been told a "theorist" at all. It's only theory if the public that lived through that event were as free to investigate as the officials of Washington were. If there was nothing to hide, why had evidence and firsthand testimony been withheld -- maybe even archived, we really don't know -- from the public immediately after and during the whole year of "discovery" before the WCR.
stopbush
(24,393 posts)and that he stood by the conclusions of the WC. That was a mere 3 months before he himself was gunned down.
If anybody had access to the archives, it was Bobby. Why doubt his word on the veracity of the WCR?
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)The same company which owns Warner Brothers and released Stone's JFK?
Yes, I can see why you wouldn't trust them. They can't seem to make up their minds.
ancianita
(36,009 posts)in this business. It's not as if they're really running a country, influencing domestic politics and stuff, is it.
Booster
(10,021 posts)He says he doesn't remember where he was but it turns out he was in Dallas that day. In Dallas and you don't remember that? There are some very interesting articles that come up.
stopbush
(24,393 posts)Booster
(10,021 posts)stopbush
(24,393 posts)knows the CT meme that Poppy was in Dallas that day. We've all seen the picture of Don Draper, er, Poppy(?) standing by the building.
Besides, your post itself told everyone what they would discover if they did your Google search. What need of doing the search when you've already spilled the beans?
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts).... " But what's more, Ford himself is guilty! Not only was it learned that he was secretly reporting on the Commission to FBI Director Hoover, but also, forced by declassified files, he has admitted that he instructed the Warren Commission to move Kennedy's backwound up by several inches !!! The significance of this cannot be overstated! For with a wound in the original location, there cannot be a single bullet theory and without a single bullet theory there cannot be a lone gunman. Last time I looked, this was called "tampering with evidence", " ....
---------------------------
But keep on lying about how all the evidence points to a lone gunman.
stopbush
(24,393 posts)The autopsy photos show exactly where the bullet entered JFK's back, and it's right where it needs to be to support the SBT.
End of story.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)stopbush
(24,393 posts)The entry wound was "moved" because one of the not-to-scale autopsy drawings placed the entry wound too low on the back. The WC wanted a more-precise drawing that matched the autopsy photos. Anything wrong with that?
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)That is pretty desperate.
stopbush
(24,393 posts)It's all there. No need to make up a single thing.
Oh, wait...that would take time and a bit of intellectual curiosity, not to mention an open mind. To quote Poppy Bush: "Nah-gah-happen," at least in your case.
Really, this stuff is BASIC to the case. The fact that you're 1. unaware of it, and 2. accusing me of making it up shows you really have no frame of reference from which to advance your opinions.
BTW - here's Arlen Specter's memo on the matter:
MEMORANDUM
April 30, 1964
TO: Mr. J. Lee Rankin
FROM: Arlen Specter
SUBJECT: Autopsy Photographs and X-rays of President John F. Kennedy
In my opinion it is indispensable that we obtain the photographs and x-rays of President Kennedy's autopsy for the following reasons:
1. THE COMMISSION SHOULD DETERMINE WITH CERTAINTY WHETHER THE SHOTS CAME FROM THE REAR. Someone from the Commission should review the films to corroborate the autopsy surgeons' testimony that the holes on the President's back and head had the characteristics of points of entry. None of the doctors at Parkland Hospital in Dallas observed the hole in the President's back or the small hole in the lower portion of his head. With all the outstanding controversy about the direction of the shots, there must be independent viewings of the films to verify testimony which has come only from Government doctors.
2. THE COMMISSION SHOULD DETERMINE WITH CERTAINTY WHETHER THE SHOTS CAME FROM ABOVE. It is essential for the Commission to know precisely the location of the bullet wound on the President's back so that the angle may be calculated. The artist's drawing prepared at Bethesda (Commission Exhibit #385) shows a slight angle of declination. It is hard, if not impossible, to explain such a slight angle of decline unless the President was farther down Elm Street than we have heretofore believed. Before coming to any conclusion on this, the angles will have to be calculated at the scene; and for this, the exact point of entry should be known.
3. THE COMMISSION SHOULD DETERMINE WITH CERTAINTY THAT THERE ARE NO MAJOR VARIATIONS BETWEEN THE FILMS AND THE ARTIST'S DRAWINGS. Commission Exhibits Nos. 385, 386, and 388 were made from the recollections of the autopsy surgeons as told to the artist. Some day someone may compare the films with the artist's drawings and find a significant error which might substantially affect the essential testimony and the Commission's conclusions. In any event, the Commission should not rely on hazy recollections, especially in view of the statement in the autopsy report (Commission Exhibit #387) that:
"The complexity of those fractures and the fragments thus produced tax safisfactory verbal description and are better appreciated in the photographs and roentgenograms which are prepared."
When Inspector Kelly talked to Attorney General Kennedy, he most probably did not fully understand all the reasons for viewing the films. According to Inspector Kelly, the Attorney General did not categorically decline to make them available, but only wanted to be satisified that they were really necessary. I suggest that the Commission transmit to the Attorney General its reasons for wanting the films and the assurances that they will be viewed only by the absolute minimum number of people from the Commission for the sole purpose of corroborating (or correcting) the artist's drawings, with the film not to become a part of the Commission's records.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)You either don't know what you are talking about, or are deliberately spreading disinformation.
Either way, have a nice day.
stopbush
(24,393 posts)Why is it disinformation to provide you with a once-confidential document written by Arlen Spector - who worked as an assistant counsel for the WC and who was, BTW, a Democrat at the time - that proves exactly what I said in a previous post about why the WC wanted to "move" the position of the bullet wound to JFK's back on the autopsy DRAWINGS to align with the autopsy PICTURES, which were obviously more accurate?
Surely even a CTist like yourself can admit that the actual photographs are prima faciae going to be more accurate than drawings. What could possibly be wrong with Specter and the WC wanting to be as accurate as possible in defining where the bullet entered JFK's back?
Sorry, but I happen to know what I'm talking about. It's you whose mind is closed to the actual documentation and evidence in this case.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)That you would cite information from the author of the disputed/debunked theory as proof of the theory is as lame as the many other farcical "facts" which are cherry picked or confabulated by those who gullibly glomb onto a story which is only believable if your only source of information is the from the perpetrators themselves.
stopbush
(24,393 posts)by the WC and after the WC. The TV networks are rife with specials that prove the SBT conclusively. Your calling it a "magic" this or that and claiming it's been debunked is wishful thinking bordering on the pathetic. The forensic evidence alone is overwhelming to support the single bullet fact.
But I'll bite: who has debunked the single bullet fact? What, exactly, is "magical" about the single bullet fact? Sources please.
BTW - the memo I provided was released by Spector before the single bullet theory was even proposed.
I'm getting the distinct feeling that you are totally ignorant of the actual evidence in this case.
Let me ask: have you ever read the WCR for yourself, or do you allow yourself to be led around by the nose by the CT money grubbers?
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)I refer you back to post #140.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)From what I've read, the "moving entry wound" story is this. The doctor who did the sketch for the Warren Commission made a mistake, and placed the entry wound a few inches higher than it actually was. In the conspiracy theory world, of course, there is no such thing as a mistake.
If the Warren Commission erred, it was in not checking up that the sketch matched the autopsy reports, and also not looking at the photographic and x-ray evidence directly, which they decided to keep out of the public eye and out of the report with the privacy interests of the Kennedy family in mind. The idea that Ford "moved the wound" came from the fact that Ford did in fact change the language in the WC report to indicate that the wound was in the neck rather than the upper back. Although conspiracy theorists obviously think this was some cover-up, the obvious explanation for this is that Ford changed the report to more accurately reflect the (mistaken) sketch which also placed the wound in the neck.
It is of course possible (CTers would argue that it's certain) that the Warren Commission intentionally failed to catch the mistake in the sketch and that Ford intentionally changed the wording because the higher entry wound would be easier to square with the theory that the bullet came from behind. So at the very worst, the WC is guilty of selective negligence, although there is no evidence at all to suggest this.
More importantly, even if this is the case, the fact still remains that the wound in the back was an entry wound (a fact that is supported not only by all the doctors who did the autopsy, but 100% the pathologists who later reviewed the autopsy evidence in subsequent investigations), and that the trajectory is 100% consistent with a shot fired from Oswald's location. So even if this was an intentional mistake by the WC, it would have been a completely unnecessary intentional mistake.
RebelOne
(30,947 posts)The assassination stories have been on TV all day. I was 24 at the time he was assassinated and I remember it well, so I do not have to see any more.