Truth, lies and mythmaking

“Slamming O’Reilly for O’Reilly-osity surely misses the point,” says Slate.

This from Katy Waldman’s smart review of “Kennedy’s Last Days,” a children’s book based on Bill O’Reilly’s Killing Kennedy. (Smart except for the fact that Waldman fails to credit JFK Facts for breaking the story. My feelings are not hurt. I swear.)

Waldman: “It’s more interesting to mine the characterization of Kennedy and his assassin for insight into what the author might value and fear. O’Reilly’s president is two things: a Hero and a Performer. As both, he is admired, beloved. Oswald is his opposite—the Envious Nobody. There goes LHO, “unhappy that his return to the United States has not attracted widespread media attention,” needing “to be noticed and appreciated,” with “little to show for his time on earth.

Fact check: There’s some evidence for the first of these claims. Oswald’s return to the United States from the Soviet Union in June 1962 generated some newspaper coverage in Texas but the 22-year old ex-Marine hoped for more. Oswald did like to get attention. George De Mohrenschildt described Oswald as an actor in the story of his own life. But the notion that Oswald felt that he had “little to show for his time on earth” is more imagined, than documented. 

Waldman: “See his power fantasies and spasms of shame—how he measures “Marina’s cheap dresses” against Jackie O’s glamor.”

Fact check: O’Reilly’s version is debatable. Actually, Marina Oswald was the one who wanted to buy nice dresses and Lee didn’t care if she wore cheap dresses. He fought with his wife because he felt she was shallow and materialistic and insufficiently appreciative of his political ideals. Oswald did say good things about First Lady Jackie Kennedy, according to George De Mohrenschildt–but not at his wife’s expense. 

Waldman: “On the other side, Kennedy. Courageous, handsome, anointed, “deadly serious about defending his country at all costs.” He “exudes fearlessness and vigor.” His “greenish-gray eyes” sparkle above a “dazzling smile and a deep tan.” You can feel O’Reilly reaching for both the highest compliment he can give JFK and the cruelest insult he can hurl at Oswald. They are these: Kennedy is Great. Oswald is small. Were the “slightly built drifter” given the opportunity, you could almost imagine him lying about his reportage on Fox News.”

Fact check: This is spot-on. O’Reilly views critics of his Fox News Reportage  the same way he views Oswald: as contemptible worms who will be judge harshly by history. And O’Reilly’s critics view his reign of error about the Falklands Island War, the murder of the nuns in the El Salvador, and the riot in Los Angeles  the same way they view his Fox News reportage: as the manifestation of misinformation, disinformation, and self-serving myth-making. 

via Kennedy’s Last Days, the children’s book by Bill O’Reilly on the JFK assassination, may contain untruths about George de Mohrenschildt..

168 comments

  1. Ramon F Herrera says:

    Jeff:

    Allow me to congratulate and thank you… but not for the reason other participants have. That has had enough coverage by posters.

    JFK Facts deserves credit for as of late daring to swim in waters that were avoided in previous years. I am referring to the partisan aspect of the JFK case.

    With that in mind…

    The polar opposite, the real nemesis of Faux is not CNN, but MSNBC. According to some, CNN is close to neutral, with a slight left slant.

    Pray tell: why would CNN then be the one to interview Morley? To broadcast the URL http://jfkfacts.org? Isn’t that more in line with MSNBC? After all, their heavy artillery is always pointing towards the Becks and O’Reillys.

    I offer a response.

    Chris Matthew is terrified at the notion of remotely considering that his hero (last night he said that there are no greater presidents than Johnson and Obama, or similar words) -LBJ- may have been involved at least in the coverup.

    That is the only logical psychological explanation for Matthew’s vile, irrational attacks against the “Oswald alone, 3 shots” deniers, who are about 80% of his viewers and of America.

    ======================

    ps: See this excellent piece:

    http://www.ctka.net/2012/Evaluating_the_Case_against_Lyndon_Johnson.html

    If it is too long for you, just read the 5th. paragraph, from the bottom.

    • ed connor says:

      Maybe Chris Matthews should read his late boss’s autobiography, “Man of the House.”
      In it, Tip O’Neill writes that he believed the Warren Commission for many years, but eventually began to question the LN theory, because his friends, Ken O’Donnell and Dave Powers, riding behind JFK, told O’Neill they both saw a shot fired from in front of the Lincoln. They were told that they were mistaken, and should not repeat such allegations, because they would be hurtful to the Kennedy family.

      • That is MOSTLY correct. O’Donnell was the one who brought up the issue of causing more pain to the Kennedy family. That part didn’t come from the FBI. But for the FBI to tell them they were mistaken in what they saw-that was the coverup in action. O’Donnell and Powers knew what they saw-they just couldn’t get it past the FBI&WC.

      • Steve Stirlen says:

        Ed,

        You are spot on. But, when I mentioned this to our friend Photon, he said it was probably Tip’s penchant for drinking that caused him to be confused as to what O’Donnell and Powers were trying to tell him.

        • Photon says:

          In June of 1975 in an interview with the Chicago Tribune O’Donnell specifically denied ever saying what O’Neill claimed he said. Nowhere in “Johnny,We Hardly Knew Ye” did the authors identify where the shots came from.
          Where is there any quote from Dave Powers contradicting his Warren testimony?
          This is just another myth that anybody with real interest in the case can take down with little effort.But it is instructive to see that CTs will latch onto any straw that seems to support their position, no matter how unreliable. See the Carlos Hathcock myth.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon,

            How about this? You go to the “Is Marina Oswald a credible witness” thread and answer the four or five questions I have posed to you, and THEN I will give you YOUR answer. You are the master of the duck and dodge, and then you show up to “refute” something written based on your “extensive” knowledge of this case. You have yet to answer ONE question about the CIA and the non-Oswald photo except to say it was a “mistake.” You are full of it, and you know it. How about YOU answer some questions first, and then I will return the favor? Because Gunn and Blakey—two people who were ACTUALLY involved with this case think that some of your “experts” are full of it. You might also want to look at Mr. Morley’s description of Helms and Angleton, etc and respond to what he has written. Care to get real about this case, Photon?

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon,

            If CT seem to “latch” onto straws, there could be a reason for this reaction. Please read the quote below by Mr. Gunn and give us your feedback:

            “The institution that had the opportunity to best get to the bottom of this, as much as it was possible, was the Warren Commission, and they didn’t do it,” he says. “Now it’s too late to do what should have been done originally.”

            As you are well aware, Mr. Gunn was on the ARRB. Does his admission that the WC “didn’t do it” concern you at all, Photon?

          • Photon says:

            What is the point of answering your questions when you have already posted your conclusions?
            The CIA misidentified the individual in the photo from Mexico City as Oswald.Why is that so hard for you to accept?
            Spencer developed post restorative photos of JFK that have never been released. Why is that so hard for you to accept?
            How can Tip O’Neill’s version of events be true when the person he claims made a statement categorically denies it?
            Despite Blakey’s claims about the CIA, he has publically stated that Oswald was the lone assassin and that he could have convicted him.Why can’t you accept that?
            Did Hoover personally run the investigation? Did the WC exclusively rely on FBI information?
            Up until Appalachin Hoover didn’t even believe in the Mafia. Does that mean there was none?
            If Gunn is too dense to know what happened, why put any faith in his conclusions? I believe that he said that there was information that could tend to exonerate Oswald-without ever saying what it was.
            The fact is that all of the evidence so far obtained is consistant with Lee Oswald shooting three shots at JFK’s head and hitting it once. His clipboard was found on the sixth floor several days after the assassination. Why was it on the sixth floor-and why had he not filled the last three orders on the clipboard?

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi Photon

            Once you’ve answered Steve’s questions could you answer this one?

            I really seriously do not know how you can continue to support the WCR when the FBI report annexed to it on the sequence of the shots completely contradicts the WC’s own conclusions.

            How do you reconcile those two items in your own mind?

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon,

            I have NOT posted my conclusions. What I have done is asked YOU specific questions about the “facts and evidence” as you call them and YOU have not given anyone anything but the WC. We have read the WC. NO ONE, save a few people, believes the WC. Even the people who WROTE the WC don’t believe it. That is a FACT. You can look it up for yourself.

            1. No matter how hard you try, you will never convince anyone, except the LN, that the CIA is telling the truth. Try as you might, you will never sell that pill to anyone. The CIA has YET to identify the man in MC. It was a lie from day one, and it still is today. Period.

            2. You have yet to reconcile how you can continually refer to the “experts” in the case that gave us all this “evidence” with the fact that these “experts” work for agencies that, according to you, either “blew it or misidentified or were grossly incompetent.” How can you expect anyone to believe the WC when YOU have indicated that these agencies were awful at their best and deceitful at their worst?

            3. Blakey did say he could convict Oswald. You are correct. However, what YOU don’t say is that Blakey does not know the FULL story of Dallas because of the CIA’s refusal to be honest. Please make sure you include that in your explanation as well.

            4. Did Hoover run the investigation? Really? You have to ask that question? He took over the investigation as soon as the shots were fired. Surely with all of your inside knowledge, YOU know how Hoover ran the FBI and what he did to agents that did not follow the company line. Really, Photon? You have to ask that question?

            5. Could you PLEASE address the phone call between Hoover and Johnson about “the little problem we have in MC?” You gloss over that every time it has been asked. Can you also PLEASE explain how a voice recording of a man reported to be Oswald has been LOST? How do you lose a tape in the crime of the century?

            6. So, now Gunn is dense? Do you know Mr. Gunn? Have you personally talked to Mr. Gunn? You know he is dense because of your extensive interactions with him? Why don’t you read ALL of what he said before you attempt to assassinate his character?

            7. So, the DPD found his clipboard “several” days later? Fine police work wouldn’t you say, Photon? They can find the bullet shells and the rifle and make a palm print in a day, but in the crime of the century it takes several days to find a clipboard? You know what that factoid means to me? Nothing. It means that the DPD is, once again, not to be trusted.

          • Photon says:

            The FBI report was a rushed project with multiple errors and apparently prepared without knowledge of the autopsy report .
            The WC had more complete information and was able to address the errors in the FBI report. Hoover claimed that the FBI had all three bullets fired. Was that a mistake, or is every other investigator in this case wrong ?

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi Photon

            I think there are two issues here. You have previously described yourself as a ‘Company analyst’. In that role would you have ever have allowed an attachment, that completely contradicts your findings, to be issued with that report? If so, why?

            So the FBI, who were firearms and ballistics experts for the WC, have come up with a shot scenario that disproves not only the WC findings but also the autopsy report. Doesn’t that give you pause?

            Are you able to outline the mistakes they have made in more detail?

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon,

            Here is a quote from a member of the “more informed” WC, Senator Richard Russell.

            Russell originally agreed that John F. Kennedy and J. D. Tippit had been killed by Lee Harvey Oswald and that Jack Ruby was not part of any conspiracy. However, later he began to have doubts claiming that “no one man could have done the known shooting.” On a taped telephone conversation Russell had with Lyndon B. Johnson about Oswald being the lone gunman, he is heard saying that “I don’t believe it”. Johnson responded with the words: “I don’t either”.

            Yep, more informed indeed!

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon,

            Does this sound like the body that was able “to correct the errors of the FBI?”

            “In the final session of the Commission on September 18, Senator Richard Russell led a group of three members who disputed the single bullet theory and wanted to write a separate dissent. In the end, they accepted minor wording changes and agreed to Warren’s insistence that the Report be unanimous. But Russell was shocked to find later that the session had not been transcribed. Instead, the extant record of the meeting is a brief set of minutes which omits entirely any mention of the disagreement.
            With the delivery of the Report a week later, the Commission dissolved, leaving no government body to answer the many questions that would soon be asked.”

            Yes, indeed, correction are needed.

          • Photon says:

            Exactly where did Hoover say” the little problem that we have in MC”?
            A verbatim quote,please.If you start putting out allegations that are false what is the point of explaining them? What experts did I say were incompetent? Got any names? I said that the Dallas Police Department was incompetent in protecting JFK and Oswald.I said nothing about the investigative division of the Department, but the fact that they had an airtight case against Oswald in less than 24 hours is more a reflection of the overwhelming evidence available than the Department’s investigative skills. The Tippit murder contributed to that evidence.
            Blackley doesn’t know the full story of Dallas because he is not aware of what connections Oswald had with other individuals, not because he has any doubts that Oswald shot him. Please post a quote from him that does not support that.
            If Gunn can’t figure out what happened in Dallas after being on the ARRB he is dense in my book.And why is he teaching history in some nondescript university in the middle of Morocco? Doesn’t that strike you as unusual?
            How was a tape recording of man reported to be Oswald lost? How about proving that said tape ever existed .What is your source for the claim that it did?
            You can’t deal with the clipboard issue because it conclusively proves that Oswald was preoccupied with something for a significant period of time before the assassination. It has nothing to do with the assassination per se and it is not surprising that it wasn’t found initially. But for those who claim Oswald was a Patsy or totally innocent it brings up a real problem-what caused Lee Oswald to stop working before the assassination?

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon,

            Will this work for you?

            J. Edgar Hoover gave the news to President Johnson early on the morning after the assassination: “We have up here the tape and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet Embassy, using Oswald’s name. That picture and the tape do not correspond to this man’s voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet Embassy down there” (Johnson to Hoover, White House Telephone Transcripts, 23 November 1963, LBJ Library, Austin, Texas). The recording of this call was erased, and a transcript survived only by luck; see Rex Bradford, ‘The Fourteen Minute Gap,’ at history–matters.com. Later that day, Hoover reported the evidence of an impostor to the head of the Secret Service: HSCA Report, pp.249f.”

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon:

            What strikes me as unusual is that Gunn is not afraid to identify himself and present his credentials to the world. Can we say the same about YOU?

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon:
            The Lopez Report excerpted a memorandum from FBI’s Belmont to Tolson on 11/23/63, which states:

            …..Inasmuch as the Dallas Agents who listened to the tape of the conversation allegedly of Oswald from the Cuban Embassy to the Russian Embassy in Mexico and examined the photographs of the visitor to the Embassy in Mexico and were of the opinion that neither the tape nor the photograph pertained to Oswald,…..[2]

            Also in the Lopez Report is the following excerpt of a memo from Hoover to Secret Service Chief Rowley on 11/23:

            …..The Central Intelligence Agency advised that on October 1, 1963, an extremely sensitive source had reported that an individual indentified himself as Lee Oswald, who contacted the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City inquiring as to any messages. Special Agents of this Bureau, who have conversed with Oswald in Dallas, Texas, have observed photographs of the individual referred to above and have listened to his voice. These Special Agents are of the opinion that the above-referred-to-individual was not Lee Harvey Oswald…..[3]

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon:

            Now, would you care to give me SOME information that would provide anyone on this site the reassuring notion that the CIA told the whole truth about the assassination? Because I have given YOU several concrete examples of people DIRECTLY involved in the investigation that DO NOT believe that to be the case. You may please see again on THIS site Mr. Morley’s description of Helms, Angleton, etc. You are full of it on this point and you know it. YOU said the CIA made a mistake. Not me. In the crime of this century, don’t you think a “mistake” of this magnitude constitutes incompetence? Or, is this a time for more LN “clarification?”

          • Photon says:

            Steve, you made a false quote that never existed.Where is the source for your verbatim quote of Hoover saying ” the little problem that we have in MC”?
            What else are you posting here as facts that are untrue?

          • David Regan says:

            In Johnson’s words, “Warren told me he wouldn’t do it under any circumstances … wouldn’t have anything to do with it … and I said let me read you one report … and I said OK … there’s a million Americans involved here … I just pulled out what Hoover told me about a little incident in Mexico City.… And he started crying and said, well I won’t turn you down … I’ll just do whatever you say”: Johnson to Russell, White House Telephone Transcripts, 29 November 1963, 8:55pm, LBJ Library, Austin, Texas.

          • David Regan says:

            During a 11/29/63 call to LBJ, Hoover notes that “we hoped to have this thing wrapped up today” but “this angle in Mexico is giving us a great deal of trouble” http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/lbjlib/phone_calls/Nov_1963/audio/LBJ-Hoover_11-29-63.htm

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon,

            Nice try. You have refused to answer a single question of mine with anything other than WC BS. I have given you people that dared to speak out against the BS of the WC—people who worked for the very government you said got this case right. You have given me nothing. I give you people who worked on the investigative committees who said they were lied to, stonewalled, and deceived. You give me some BS about LHO and his clipboard. What page is that info on the WC report? Because, as I have clearly demonstrated on this thread and the Marina thread, the VERY people you quote don’t believe what they wrote or said based on—AND READ THIS VERY CAREFULLY—the fact they were not given ALL of the facts of the case. So, you can keep selling the WC BS, and I will continue to call you out on the fact that the very people who conducted the investigation of the crime of the century were made up of what we call LIARS. Just know that as you continue to troll this site and question everyone who disagrees with the WC, I will continue to tell you the same mesaage: it is hard to have a honest and accurate report on JFK’s assassination that was created AND investigated by LIARS. Fair enough?

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon:

            Try this:

            Home Archive Catalog Search Site Guide
            LBJ-Hoover 11-29-63

            CONTENTS
            browse by agency
            list of holdings
            index to audio clips

            HELP
            about the archive
            using the archive
            using Adobe Reader
            listening to audio
            troubleshooting

            Click on a WMA, MOV, or MP3 link to listen to audio. To view a transcript, click the TRANSCRIPT link, located at the upper-right. Use the Return to link to return to the table of contents. Use the ‘listening to audio’ menu item above if you need help getting the audio to work.

            Return to: LBJ Phone Calls – November 1963
            TRANSCRIPT (PDF: 598 K)
            President Johnson asks FBI Director Hoover “if you’re familiar with this proposed group that they’re trying to put together” and then goes on to run the names of the prospective Commissioners by Hoover for his opinion. When Hoover says “it would be very very bad to have a rash of investigations,” Johnson counters that “the only way we can stop is probably to appoint a high level one to evaluate your report.” On the investigation and forthcoming FBI report, Hoover notes that “we hoped to have this thing wrapped up today” but “this angle in Mexico is giving us a great deal of trouble,” This is a reference to the matter of Alvarado, the Nicaraguan who a few days before walked into the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City and told of having seen Oswald take money in the Cuban Embassy to kill Kennedy. Hoover relays one interesting fact here, a date-change in the story, which is nowhere found in the official accounting of this episode.

            After a discussion of the value of lie detector tests, the conversation moves to the ongoing investigation. Hoover makes several apparent misstatements of fact, including repeatedly referring to the finding of the gun and shells on the fifth floor, not the sixth, of the Book Depository building. The conversation ends with Hoover advising Johnson to ride in a bulletproof car.

            Complete Recording15:35WMAMOVMP3

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon,

            How about this?

            LBJ: Have you established any more about the visit to the Soviet embassy in Mexico in September?

            Hoover: No, that’s one angle that’s very confusing, for this reason—we have up here the tape and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet embassy, using Oswald’s name. That picture and the tape do not correspond to this man’s voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet embassy down there.[1]

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon:

            Does this help?

            “Did the CIA and FBI give you access to the necessary files?

            CIA clearly did lie about the case. For example, Helms lied about the case. The CIA appear to have been not cooperative, to have put out false photographs of Oswald, to have claimed they had no photographs of Oswald. There were many cases where they seem to h”ave tried to cover their tracks.

            How do you know that you found the underlying cause of this?

            You have to draw a distinction between the FBI and the Agency in the 1960s — and the substantial lack of candor between them and the Warren Commission — and the subsequent behavior of the agencies as they dealt with the congressional committee [in 1977].”

          • KenS says:

            re: Photon, March 10, 2015 @ 3:11

            “You can’t deal with the clipboard issue because it conclusively proves that Oswald was preoccupied with something for a significant period of time before the assassination. It has nothing to do with the assassination per se and it is not surprising that it wasn’t found initially. But for those who claim Oswald was a Patsy or totally innocent it brings up a real problem-what caused Lee Oswald to stop working before the assassination?”

            Just a guess, but how about lunch?

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon:

            Can you identify the man in this picture?

            http://harveyandlee.net/4LHO/Mex%20Sov.jpg

            If you were unable to, please call the good folks at Langley and ask for a job. Because they cannot identify him either. However, if you were able to identify him, PLEASE let everyone on this site know, as this could be a key piece of information.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon:

            Care to comment about the word “lie” and the need to “backtrack?”

            “Did the CIA and FBI give you access to the necessary files?

            CIA clearly did lie about the case. For example, Helms lied about the case. The CIA appear to have been not cooperative, to have put out false photographs of Oswald, to have claimed they had no photographs of Oswald. There were many cases where they seem to have tried to cover their tracks.

            How do you know that you found the underlying cause of this?

            You have to draw a distinction between the FBI and the Agency in the 1960s — and the substantial lack of candor between them and the Warren Commission — and the subsequent behavior of the agencies as they dealt with the congressional committee [in 1977].

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon:

            Could this be considered a “little problem?”

            And a transcript of a telephone call FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover made to President Johnson just six hours after the plane arrived in Dallas supports the belief that FBI agents listened to a tape that suggested an impersonation.

            “We have up here the tape and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet embassy using Oswald’s name,” Hoover told Johnson, according to a transcript of that call released in 1993. “That picture and the tape do not correspond to this man’s voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet embassy down there.”

            Hmmmm…I wonder what they did about this problem?

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon,

            Clearly you have seen that the title of this thread is “Truth, lies and myth making.” How does this one sound to you?

            In his dissenting statement, dictated on Sept. 16, 1964, Russell disagreed with the Warren Report view that JFK and Connally were hit by the same bullet, and also disagreed with the Report’s conclusion of no conspiracy. In Russell’s judgment, the insufficiency of the evidence gathered against Oswald “preclude[d] the conclusive determination that Oswald and Oswald alone, without the knowledge, encouragement or assistance of any other person, planned and perpetrated the assassination.”

            Russell’s plan to resign from the Warren Commission is reflected in an entry on his desk calendar for Feb. 22/23, 1964: “write Pres J & Resign from Commission.” In a 2-page letter of resignation addressed to President Johnson dated Feb. 24, 1964, but never mailed, Russell complained that the Commission was scheduling, holding, or cancelling meetings without notifying him. Why Russell changed his mind about resigning is unexplained.

            Photon, does this fall under the “truth” or “lies” category?

          • I read “Johnny We Hardly Knew Ya” and I recall that, as you said Photon, they didn’t identify where the shots came from. But perhaps they, as authors, didn’t want to reveal their true feelings in the book. A con versation in a restaurant is a much more relaxing place to be open and honest about what they saw.

          • ed connor says:

            Photon, you claim that Tip O’Neill was incorrect in writing that Ken O’Donnell and Dave Powers told him they believed they saw a frontal shot in Dallas.
            You state that this revelation was not included in “Johnny We Hardly Knew Ye” (1972), and that “How can Tip’s version of events be true when the person he claims made a statement categorically denies it?”
            In my trial experience (about 500 trials), almost every one involved perjury by somebody. People deny what they did because they don’t want the repercussions.
            O’Donnell and Powers did not want to further traumatize JBK, according to Tip. But why would Tip include this item in his autobiography, when he had been a steadfast defender of the Warren Commission all his life?
            And, in “Johnny We Hardly Knew Ye,” Dave Powers also omitted getting fillated by Mimi Alford in the White House pool in 1963. He even wrote that, when JBK was out of town, he and JFK would drink Heinekens and play old records in the upstairs living quarters. Dave was a beard for the boss.
            Powers, O’Donnell and JFK are all dead, as is Tip. Only Mimi survives.
            Do you believe her?

          • Photon says:

            Steve, which commissioner attended the fewest number of meetings and therefore should be the least informed member of the committee?

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        Boom. There we have it from the Speaker of the House. JFK’s best friend’s, riding behind him, saw a shot from the front (and were told to shut up). But a shot from the front means Conspiracy Reality. Which is what they tried to tell the Warren Omission but were ignored.

      • Steve Stirlen says:

        Photon:

        Nice try.

        So, why was he ON the committee at all? Because, as YOU are well aware, the WC was a sham committee put together by a sham president investigated by sham agencies. I am sure you forgot that as you were trying to ANSWER the questions that have been posed to you last night and this morning.

        You know the ones? The ones about Oswald in Mexico City, the CIA lying about the picture they released, the tape that was erased of his “Oswald’s” voice, Hoover saying we have someone that looks like Oswald, etc???

        Oh by the way, did you have a chance to identify the man in the picture that I posted today? You know the man—the one the CIA said was “Oswald.” Have you had any luck with his identification? Because the CIA has been stumped for 51 years. I am sure you have had far more success????

        Care to answer ANY of the Mexico City problem? Or, is it still just a “mistake?” Or would you care to admit that the CIA simply LIED?

        • Photon says:

          I don’t know who the man is-unless you do the answer could be anyone-from a plumber to an embassy employee to a visitor trying to get a visa,etc. The obvious answer is that it isn’t Oswald and the individual that made the identification made a simple mistake.
          The CIA was very peripherally involved in the investigation of the case.They are not a criminal investigative body, yet you seem to think thay are. Hoover’s initial conversations with Johnson were marked by some incorrect assumptions based on incomplete evidence. So those comments are true when the complete and accurate evidence wasn’t yet available?
          Russell had no doubt that Oswald was the lone assassin,at least initially.Since he missed 90% of the meetings he never learned enough about the single -bullet fact to understand it and the evidence that supported it.It got so bad that Warren sent him a note complaining about his non-attendance and consequent ignorance about the case. And you and other CT theorists put him up as some kind of expert on the workings of the Commision and expert in the case. Why did Johnson pick him? Beats me-he had no interests beyond the Senate ( and frankly no life aside from Senate duties) so maybe Johnson felt that he could devote time to the exercise. Obviously that belief was wrong.

          • The central point here Photon, is that Russell, Boggs, and McCloy wanted an addendum of dissent as part of the Warren Report. So it was not the unanimous conclusion it was touted to be. Ford lied through his teeth in claiming such afterward.

            Russell called for a session in which he could state his misgivings for the record. That session was held, and the record was disappeared by Earl Warren. All this BS for ‘appearances’ – which was all the Warren Commission ever was, the “appearance of integrity and lawful justice” – while being the furthest thing from it.

            The Warren Commission was perception manipulation, a form of propaganda.
            \\][//

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon:

            I have to give you your due. This is the first time in our exchanges that you made an honest attempt to answer the questions put before you.

            However, as my dad often said, there are no free passes in life. And I am not going to give you a free pass on the photo of Oswald being a “mistake.” That is bogus, and you know it, and you are being a hypocrite for saying so. When anyone from the CT side makes a claim as ludicrous as yours, the LN side foams at the mouth and then howls at the moon. Well, you can’t have it both ways. When the Fetzer group began the Z-film is a hoax talk, the LN crowd went nuts, and rightfully so. Or when it was suggested that a Secret Service agent shot the president, the LN crowd almost had to be rushed to a hospital.

            There is NO way you can sit behind your computer and tell me that the CIA made a mistake in the CRIME OF THE CENTURY. You say the CIA is not an investigative body. They ARE an intelligence-gathering agency, which should be a MAJOR part of the criminal investigative effort. You expect me and everyone else to BELIEVE that the CIA is capable of toppling foreign governments—Iran and Guatemala for example—but they CANNOT be asked to produce a picture of Oswald in Mexico City? That is pure NONSENSE and you know it, and you probably have a hard time typing the word mistake.

            The CIA has made NO attempt to clear up any of the deceit that happened in Mexico City. They erased tapes, said the photos have been destroyed as a matter of “routine practice,” Jane Roman said she was “signing off something she knew was not true,” cameras were not working that weekend, etc. I could go on, but you get the point. Mexico City, as you are well aware, was considered the “hotbed” of international spying and espionage. For ANYONE to suggest that the CIA was not KEENLY aware of what was happening down there should evoke the same reaction as the reaction that the Z-film is a hoax brings forth form the LN crowd. However, it doesn’t. That is hypocritical of YOU. It is also DECEITFUL. And most Americans that are free thinkers know it is a load of garbage.

            Hoover was a phony. He was then and he is today. His “enemies list,” which included “threats” such as Dr. King, should have been grounds for termination 50 years ago. However, because he was smart enough to keep dirt on all of the people in power he was able to guarantee himself lifetime employment. It gives me great comfort knowing that our “top cop” was able to keep his job because he was able to keep photos of power brokers having sex with their girlfriends or call girls in his special “cabinet.”

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon,

            I am glad you mentioned the WC and its members. You are probably correct—Russell did miss more than any one else. But that is not a badge of honor, considering that most members of the WC missed more than they attended. If I remember correctly, Ford and Dulles attended the most. Maybe Russell knew something the other members knew but was afraid to say: they were not getting the information they needed to prove that Oswald did not have accomplices. Again, and my memory could be fading a little, I believe there were three members of the WC that did not buy the SBT. I know that Russell and Boggs disagreed.

            You will have to forgive me, but anything that Dulles said MUST be viewed with the lens of his CIA tenure. He was fired by JFK, and don’t bother selling me any of that crap that he and Kennedy remained on friendly terms. If you read the story of Dulles, you will see a man who believed he was above democracy. THIS IS JUST MY OPINION, but to think that he had cut all his CIA ties would be foolhardy. And you are well aware of the CIA’s performance before and after the assassination.

            Gerald Ford? Has there ever been a bigger joke in our government outside of LBJ? His pardon of Richard Nixon? Really? The back channel that he established with J. Edgar Hoover during the WC investigation seems like the typical “we will tell the public one thing and do another behind their backs” style of democracy that has become the norm during my lifetime.

            I have said this before and I will say it again: why do politicians appoint other politicians to “investigate” the actions of politicians? Gee, I wonder what they will find? LBJ was banking on their reputations to carry the day. If that was LBJ’s goal, he failed miserably

        • leslie sharp says:

          Steven Sirlin, I’ve been following the story of the photograph for other reasons, and as you know the FBI is in the loop. FBI Agent James Hosty recognized immediately that the photograph sent from MC was not Oswald, He also recognized the building in the background as that of the Russian embassy so he and Agent Bardwell Odum cropped the photo before taking it to the Executive Inn.

          The WC was urged not to publish the mystery man photo, however they did which created utter confusion about CIA involvement from MC. Some of this might be written off as sloppy work or in photon’s version, a “mistake;” however, it is not unreasonable to wonder if the confusion was deliberate.

          And how did Hosty know that “they” wouldn’t want anyone to know photographs were being taken in front of the embassy? Why didn’t the CIA crop the photos before sending them?

          From: “Reclaiming History” Vincent Bugliosi, pg 203/4

          “Shanklin proceeds to outline the assignments for the day … ….As the meeting ends, Bardwell Odum, a senior agent on the criminal squad, shows Hosty a surveillance photograph that had been flown up to Dallas in a two-seat navy jet fighter from Mexico City during the night. It was thought to be a photograph of Lee Oswald as he walked out of the Soviet embassy. Hosty takes one look and knows immediately that it isn’t Oswald. Odum asks if it might be an associate of Oswald’s.
          “Not so far as I know,” Hosty tells him.
          “Well, I’ve been ordered to show this to Oswald’s wife,” Odum says.
          “Bard,” Hosty replies, pointing to the background of the photograph, “you can’t show that photo to people outside the bureau. Look, you can see the doorway to the Soviet embassy.” Using a pair of scissors they crop out the doorway so no one will know where the photo was taken. They don’t want the Soviets to learn that the Soviet embassy in Mexico City is under photographic survelllance, something, however that the Soviets had to assume.

          The structure of Bugliosi’s paragraph makes it difficult to know if this is a Bugliosi interpretation, supposition, or if he knows for certain that Hosty / Odum and/or their bosses in the FBI “did not want the Soviets to learn [about the operation]”

          Precisely who was running the photo surveillance in MC? I thought it was Win Scott’s guys and that it was highly classified.

          FBI Gordon Shanklin was not called to testify before the WC. Why? Bardwell Odum was not called to testify before the WC. Odum, helped Hosty crop the CIA photo, had interviewed Sylvia Odum, his name was on an FBI report stating he handled the “magic bullet” which he denies, he interviewed the Paines, he met Marina and Marguerite on at least two occasions. He was privy to Hosty’s statement that the photo from MC was taken in front of the Russian embassy.

    • Steve Stirlen says:

      Oh, my dear sweet goodness. If LBJ is considered by anyone as one of our greatest presidents, then I would like to add that Alexander the Great might be the world’s greatest pacifist. Heaven help us all!

      • Photon says:

        In terms of significant legislation passed he could certainly be considered as such.
        If it hadn’t been for Vietnam you would be seeing his likeness on coins today

        • Vanessa says:

          Hi Photon

          And the coups. Don’t forget there was a bumper crop of coups under LBJ’s tenure. Surely he deserves credit for that too?

          In 1964 there were 12 (the most in one year ever). There’s a nice little table in the link below. If I’m reading this table correctly it looks like there were over 30 coups from 1964 – 68.

          “The decline of the coup culture. Research demonstrates that the annual number of coups has fallen dramatically since the end of the Cold War. The coup in Thailand is the only one to have taken place this year [2014] – in 1964 there were 12.”

          “Goemans and Marinov chalk up these trends in large part to the disappearance of Cold War superpower competition. During the Cold War, the U.S. and the Soviet Union frequently covertly or overtly supported the overthrow of left-wing or right-wing governments in the developing world and tended not to be all that concerned with the democratic credentials of the government that took its place.”

          http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2014/05/22/coup_in_thailand_why_does_the_southeast_asian_country_still_have_so_many.html

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Vanessa
            March 9, 2015 at 1:37 am

            Hello Vanessa. To be sure I am clear here, are you blaming Johnson for all of these coups? I haven’t researched it but I doubt this would be true.

            I know Johnson was against the most infamous coup of this period, the overthrow of Ngo Dinh Diem.

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi Bill 🙂

            I’ve been waiting for someone to call me out on this. The article seemed to imply that the majority were US-backed coups. Otherwise I’m not sure they would have made that point about the replacement regimes not being democratic. Not something that would have been expected from the communists, I imagine. But now you have called me on it I will follow up and see if we can’t make this more specific.

            If the coups are US-backed then I would hold LBJ responsible. After all didn’t Photon say that the CIA only work at the behest of their political masters.

            I think those low figures for the early ’60’s and that dramatic increase in 1964 is interesting don’t you?

            Almost like the brakes had been suddenly taken off…

          • “I know Johnson was against the most infamous coup of this period, the overthrow of Ngo Dinh Diem.”~Bill Clarke

            The overthrow of Diem was certainly not the most infamous coup of this period. The coup in Dallas was and remains the most infamous coup of the modern era. And Johnson was certainly party to it.
            \\][//

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Vanessa
            March 12, 2015 at 7:37 am

            I didn’t mean to increase your workload, Vanessa, but I wasn’t clear about this. I also don’t have an answer so it will be interesting to see what you come up with. It is probably going to be a can of worms what with the U.S. and the communist fighting for influence all over the world at this time. Good luck.

            I don’t remember Proton’s statement but I have commented on the CIA working for the president. I would have never used “only” since there are always exceptions. But often I fear we blame the CIA when in fact we should be blaming the president that sent them to do that mission.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten
            March 12, 2015 at 10:46 am

            “The overthrow of Diem was certainly not the most infamous coup of this period. The coup in Dallas was and remains the most infamous coup of the modern era. And Johnson was certainly party to it.”

            Sorry Willy. Sometimes I forget who I’m dealing with.

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi Bill

            Well I’m not having much luck with coups in 1964. The tables in the report don’t actually back up the claims made in the article. I count 5 coups in 1964 while the authors claim 12 (uh oh). Anyway I’m following up.

            Although so far, Brazil is a standout and the general consensus seems to be that it was US-backed. And LBJ even said that the US should be “taking “every step that we can” to support the overthrow of the supposed left wing government by the military.

            As for CIA involvement – well, you’ll be amazed to hear that although it is suspected, the files are still classified (!).

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Brazilian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat

          • lysias says:

            Very convincing case that the U.S. was involved in the 1964 coup in Brazil is made by Klaus Eichner and Ernst Langrock in their book Der Drahtzieher. Vernon Walters – ein Geheimdienstgeneral des Kalten Krieges. Walters was then U.S. military attaché in Brazil, and he has admitted he was working for the Defense Intelligence Agency at the time. He was a long-time friend of the Brazilian general who led the coup.

        • Steve Stirlen says:

          Photon,

          “except for Vietnam.” Yes, you are right! Except for the 58,000 innocent American soldiers that were killed for the bogus “Domino theory.” Or the millions of innocent Vietnamese that were killed, maimed, or displaced by the military actions. Or, the innocent American soldiers that survived the jungles of Asia to come home and find that their government had betrayed them on American soil as well. If JFK had survived, the Baker and Estes scandals probably would have been the end of his corrupt career. He WOULD not have been on anything, except a roll call for a federal prison.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Steve Stirlen
            March 9, 2015 at 4:12 pm

            In your dreams. Baker and Estes would never laid a glove on Johnson. You think Johnson was stupid or something?

          • Of course the Baker and Estes scandals would have gotten Johnson had Kennedy lived, and Johnson were dropped from the ticket.

            A backlog history of criminal enterprise could have vomited from the bowels of secrecy if Johnson were actually investigated with subpoena powers.

            Johnson wasn’t so smart as he was politically powerful. Stripped of power he would have been torn apart by a tornado of justice.
            \\][//

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten
            March 12, 2015 at 10:52 am

            Willy, I’ll file this with all the other great things that would have happened if only Jack had lived. My wastebasket is getting rather full.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Steve Stirlen
            March 12, 2015 at 12:07 pm

            Steve, just the other day on Facebook there was a list of the most corrupt politicians in the U.S.. Johnson wasn’t on the list. I know it was just Facebook but I thought it ironic at least.

            I know enough about Johnson to know that he was corrupt. I’m just not sure others before and after him was not as corrupt. But to each his own.

            Funny you should mention a prison named after LBJ. The major military detention center in Vietnam was down south at Long Binh. The troops called it the Long Binh Jail or usually the LBJ for short. They tell me it was a very bad place.

          • Jean Davison says:

            In September 1963 JFK said this about the Domino Theory in an NBC interview:

            Mr. BRINKLEY. Mr. President, have you had any reason to doubt this so-called “domino theory,” that if South Viet-Nam falls, the rest of Southeast Asia will go behind it?

            The PRESIDENT. No, I believe it. I believe it. I think that the struggle is close enough. China is so large, looms so high just beyond the frontiers, that if South Viet-Nam went, it would not only give them an improved geographic position for a guerrilla assault on Malaya but would also give the impression that the wave of the future in Southeast Asia was China and the Communists. So I believe it.

            http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=9397

            And in a CBS interview the same month he said…

            QUOTE:
            Our best judgment is that he [South Vietnam President Diem] can’t be successful on this basis. We hope that he comes to see that; but in the final analysis it is the people and the Government itself who have to win or lose this struggle. All we can do is help, and we are making it very clear. But I don’t agree with those who say we should withdraw. That would be a great mistake. That would be a great mistake. I know people don’t like Americans to be engaged in this kind of an effort. Forty-seven Americans have been killed in combat with the enemy, but this is a very important struggle even though it is far away.

            We took all this–made this effort to defend Europe. Now Europe is quite secure. We also have to participate–we may not like it–in the defense of Asia.
            UNQUOTE

            http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=9388

            No doubt Kennedy wanted to withdraw from Vietnam and that was his stated goal, but on the other hand it wasn’t that easy given what he said above.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Jean Davison
            March 14, 2015 at 9:54 am

            I agree, Jean. These people who today poke fun at the Domino Theory seem to ignore the time period of the early years when the theory was in fact, as JFK declares, true.

            I too believe JFK and LBJ would have loved not having the problem of Vietnam on their backs but what they wanted and what they could do was two different things. I see no way either could have survived politically a total withdrawal from Vietnam. I think sometimes we forget what a kiss of death it was to any politician that was deemed “soft on communism”.

          • David Regan says:

            Compared to most other presidents, JFK enjoyed very high public approval ratings for the duration of his abbreviated presidency. He averaged 70.1% approval, the highest of any post-World War II president. By comparison, the average for all presidents between 1938 and 2012 is 54%.

        • “If it hadn’t been for Vietnam you would be seeing his likeness on coins today”~Photon

          You are Non compos mentis.
          \\][//

        • Bill Clarke says:

          Photon
          March 7, 2015 at 10:46 am

          Bang on! They will never be able to admit it but what you say is totally correct.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Bill,

            With all due respect to you, yes. He was also the most corrupt and deceitful politician the United States has ever known. He has 58,000 innocent American lives to account for someday. (That does not include the Vietnamese lives he shattered.) He did not run for another term because he knew he had failed, and he had no chance of re-election. Why he has a library named after him instead of a prison is still a mystery to me.

          • David Regan says:

            Bill, interesting you mention Nixon above in this thread. Just thought the following quotes from the Vietnam era would be of interest:

            Richard M. Nixon, speech, April 16, 1954.
            If in order to avoid further Communist expansion in Asia and particularly in Indo-China, if in order to avoid it we must take the risk by putting American boys in, I believe that the executive branch of the government has to take the politically unpopular position of facing up to it and doing it, and I personally would support such a decision.

            John F. Kennedy, speech, New York Times, October 13, 1960.
            Should I become President…I will not risk American lives…by permitting any other nation to drag us into the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time through an unwise commitment that is unwise militarily, unnecessary to our security and unsupported by our allies.

            Barry M. Goldwater, Why Not Victory?, 1962.
            Once upon a time our traditional goal in war and can anyone doubt that we are at war? – was victory. Once upon a time we were proud of our strength, our military power. Now we seem ashamed of it. Once upon a time the rest of the world looked to us for leadership. Now they look to us for a quick handout and a fence-straddling international posture.

            Gen. Curtis LeMay, May 1964
            Tell the Vietnamese they’ve got to draw in their horns or we’re going to bomb them back into the Stone Age.

            Lyndon Johnson, Oct. 1964
            We are not about to send American boys nine or ten thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves.

            Ronald Reagan, 1964
            We are at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it has been said if we lose that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening.

          • David Regan says:

            It’s most unlikely, IMO. At least according to Roger Hilsman and going by Daniel Ellsberg’s interview with RFK in 1967. I suggest reading his memoir “Secrets”. The war drums were pounding as early as 1961 for Kennedy to send in combat troops.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            David Regan
            March 25, 2015 at 10:07 am

            Thanks David, some of these I hadn’t seen before. I learned long ago not to put money on what a politician says. They are by nature liars I fear.

            And we see this in the quotes you posted. JFK did put American lives at risk and lost some in Vietnam. Johnson certainly sent half a million boys 10,000 miles to do what Asian boys should have done. So much for what they say.

            The retort to LeMay’s “bomb’um back to the stone ages” was that the poor people were not far removed from the stone ages. It shows how much LeMay knew.

        • J.D. says:

          It never ceases to amaze me how often people say things like “If not for Vietnam…” as if Vietnam were little more than an inconvenient footnote to the illustrious life and career of Lyndon Johnson.

          Vietnam was a major war that resulted in the deaths of nearly 60,000 American soldiers (about 12 times as many as we lost in Iraq), along with spreading unfathomable misery to the Vietnamese people, the effects of which linger to this day. Johnson was not originally responsible for our involvement there, but he bears the final responsibility for every casualty that happened during his administration. (Yes, the same goes for Kennedy.) Johnson’s extraordinary legislative accomplishments do not somehow make Vietnam less of a disaster.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            J.D.
            March 12, 2015 at 2:37 pm

            I agree with most of what you say J.D. but what is the difference in saying, “if not for Vietnam how great things would have been” and saying, “if only Jack had lived how great things would have been”? They look very similar to me, the tragedy of Vietnam noted.

            I don’t think anyone ignores the terrible consequences of Vietnam. I know I don’t. But we like to wonder how history would be different if certain things had happened or not happened.

            I forget the exact number but over 20,000 of the names on The Wall belong to Nixon and Kissinger. I hope both the lying bastards burn in a very hot hell. Peace with honor!!

          • David Regan says:

            Bill Clarke – how about throwing in the Bush administration with the company you mention?

            “What a deadly web we weave, when we practice to deceive…”
            The CIA just declassified the document that supposedly justified the Iraq invasion. https://news.vice.com/article/the-cia-just-declassified-the-document-that-supposedly-justified-the-iraq-invasion via @vicenews

          • Bill Clarke says:

            David Regan
            March 23, 2015 at 10:32 pm

            Bill Clarke – how about throwing in the Bush administration with the company you mention?

            I have no problem doing so, David. The reason I didn’t is because we were speaking of the Vietnam War and not Iraq. I believe several times in this group and many times in McAdam’s group I have expressed my disgust of the cowardly draft dodgers that led us into Iraq.

            The War Wimps were told by their own military that it wasn’t necessary to go into Iraq. They didn’t listen. The top general told them what the troop force requirement would be. They fired him and went in way short of troops. They should have been the ones fired.

            I didn’t support them when the went into Iraq, I didn’t support the half measure in which they fought the war and I don’t support the way Obama left Iraq. The whole thing has seen nothing but incompetence with the exception of Petraus time there.

            And this gets our young men and women killed unnecessarily. That is a criminal offense in my book.

          • Fearfaxer says:

            Bill Clarke,

            One thing that struck me about visiting the Kennedys’ gravesite at Arlington is that just to the right of it, there’s a section where a number of vets who died in 1970 are buried. Of course a number of these are people who died of natural causes, but all too many of them were killed in Indochina. I’m not much for alternate historical musing, but you can’t help but wonder if a lot of those men would still be alive if either one or the other of the Kennedy brothers hadn’t been assassinated. We’ll never know.

        • Larry Schnapf says:

          agreed!

  2. JohnR says:

    I’m a little confused. He lied in BOTH books? Is that one lie or two?

  3. Larry Schnapf says:

    Neither extreme portrayal of these men is correct. JFK was a deeply flawed and reckless leader who had two good weeks during the 1962 missile crisis. Indeed, his ineffectual and conflicting foreign affairs policies likely brought on the crisis. And Oswald was not a despicable, crazed lowlife. He was just a kid from difficult circumstances struggling to find his place in the world.

    WC defenders like OReilly and Bugliosi use this extreme narrative to explain why so many of us believe in a conspiracy-claiming we cant accept that a “great” man could be taken down by a “nobody” But they are the ones laboring under an emotional handicap–they just cant accept that something as sinister as a conspiracy to kill the president could have happened in our beloved country. You see because if we are right, that means the USA is no different than the Europeans, or worse, like a banana republic in Latin America

  4. Ronnie Wayne says:

    This is a kids book? “power fantasies and spasms of shame” “exudes fearlessness and vigor” ??? How old are the kids?

  5. Rule of Law says:

    I lament JFK Facts morphing from the sensible Lone Nut/Conspiracy divide into an irrelevant progressive/conservative chasm. As a political conservative/libertarian, I have found this site to be a great source of information and yes, informed opinion from a variety of perspectives. I have been comfortable here, as I would imagine my progressive colleagues and all in between have been.

    Truth cannot be found by researchers ever seeking validation for their cherished political assumptions, assumptions rooted in orthodoxy. It does not matter whether that orthodoxy is progressive or conservative. Let’s stick to seeking the facts of the case. That’s this site’s professed mission, as well as the driver of Jeff’s highly commendable FOIA lawsuit.

    I hope that JFK Facts will eschew political divisiveness so that reasonable minds, regardless of political orientation, can both agree and differ with each other in a comfortable milieu. A good way to start is to respect others’ opinions and avoid assuming that conservative = lone nutter/CIA apologist or that progressive = paranoid conspiracy theorist.

    • Bob Zentrails says:

      Either the LN argument is true, or the conspiracy was deeply, deeply political and likely (I say CLEARLY) right wing in nature.

      Not sure how you leave politics out of the JFK assassination unless you agree with the WC.

      • Photon says:

        ” … Or the conspiracy was deeply,deeply political and likely ( I say CLEARLY) right wing in nature.”
        From the very beginning JFK conspiracy theory has been driven not by facts or evidence, but by the inability of its most prominent adherents to accept the fact that JFK was killed by a leftist. Even in the first broadcasts of the assassination media outlets almost uniformly mentioned right-wing elements and Goldwater supporters as being prominent in Dallas, implying that the assassin must have come from that community.
        Bob’s comment reveals a fundamental flaw common in CT research-a conclusion has been made before examining the evidence. So to support that conclusion anything is acceptable,from JFK’s supposed Vietnam plans to claims of CIA involvement to accepting as real a case of prosecutorial misconduct that ruined an innocent man.
        It is amazing how many conspiracy theories are out there; even more so that virtually none will accept the possibility of a leftist conspiracy. Indeed, the fact that the one government whose survival was insured by removing JFK had contacts with the purported assassin only weeks before the assassination is avoided like the plague. And yet a character like Prouty who came to his initial doubts about the story because he forgot that there is an International Date Line is considered a valid witness.

        • Sam says:

          It’s never a good idea to make blanket statements about controversial historical events based simply on Left-Right ideological litmus strips.

          For example, while LBJ promoted some liberal causes like civil rights and the Great Society, he also was hawkish on Vietnam, and cozy with Brown & Root, and in Texas promoted himself in his Senate campaigns as being more conservative than most of the rest of America realized. But to rule out LBJ as a ruthless possible coup participant in the JFK assassination is absurd: He wanted to be president, desperately. There’s strong motive there, especially when you look at his political past, his rush to escalate the war in Vietnam, and his hatred of the Kennedys, his using blackmail in 1960 to force JFK’s hand in the selection of running mate away from Symington.
          If you look at the Republicans in that time, you had a major split between Rockefeller Republicans (progressive in an old Wendall Wilkie way) but conservative Wall Streeter establishment types, and Barry Goldwater Republicans, who were less willing to work with the Eastern Establishment, more rigid on social issues than the Eastern GOP. Some of these Eastern establishment GOPers would have been willing to “hold their noses” and help with the LBJ transition, knowing that they had rid themselves of the Kennedys, who, from Jack to Teddy, were regarded as being “too liberal” for their tastes, not supportive enough of Vietnam and of militant American expansionism, not friends of Big Oil (as LBJ was).

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Steve Stirlen
            March 9, 2015 at 4:12 pm

            “But to rule out LBJ as a ruthless possible coup participant in the JFK assassination is absurd: He wanted to be president, desperately. There’s strong motive there, especially when you look at his political past, his rush to escalate the war in Vietnam, and his hatred of the Kennedys, his using blackmail in 1960 to force JFK’s hand in the selection of running mate away from Symington.”

            1. No, it isn’t absurd.

            2. Motive does not prove guilt.

            3. He didn’t want the Vietnam War; he hardly “rushed” to escalate the war. Kennedy was killed in November, 1963 and our Marines landed at Da Nang on March 8, 1965. Over 15 months’ time. You call that “rushing”? During 1964 LBJ did just as JFK had been doing in Vietnam; sending more “advisers” and material to SVN. I’ll pass mention of JFK escalating the war since it seems to be upsetting to some here.

            4. Johnson hated Bobby and Bobby hated him. I’m not so sure the same is true for LBJ and JFK. In fact, I don’t think it was. Even if true this isn’t evidence that LBJ did it.

            5. There is no evidence that Johnson used blackmail to get on the ticket. There is evidence that JFK needed Johnson to carry the south in general and Texas in particular. There is evidence that Hoover used blackmail to keep his job but that is another story,

          • Sam says:

            Bill, have you read Douglass’ book, “JFK and the Unspeakable”?
            I think if you read that book you will find a well documented thread that shows how JFK was deescalating the war, or trying to, and was working to keep a lid on it until after the 1964 election, when he planned, as he told Evelyn Lincoln, to pull all US advisors out. When Lyndon Johnson got in, he reversed JFK’s NSM 263, and built up advisors during 1964. Then, he took a weak gunboat incident in August of that year, and instead of taking it to the UN (or ignoring it as he would the attack on the USS Liberty in ’67 where US sailors actually DIED), he used it as a pretext for war. Of course LBJ didn’t put boots on the ground (Marines) in Vietnam until early 1965—he had to wait until after the ’64 election. Do you think he was a dope? LBJ knew how Washington worked. I find that Vietnam timeline for escalation (a turnaround from JFK’s withdrawal of 1000 troops announced in May of 1963) to be quite rapid, given how the political process in Washington (and an election) works. Incidentally, Woodrow Wilson did the same thing, waiting until 1917 (after he got reelected in ’16) before putting us “over there” in Europe.

            Motive does not PROVE guilt. But I never said that. I said that when there is a strong motive, open-minded people should look into it.

            As for LBJ’s 1960 blackmail charge, there is evidence. He publicly stated that JFK has addison’s disease at the time of the lead up to the convention in June. LBJ was close friends with J. Edgar Hoover. They lived next door to each other. Hoover had sexual dirt on the Kennedys. LBJ was quite willing to tap into this dirt from his friend to “convince” JFK to put him on the ticket, when JFK wanted Stuart Symington of Missouri (a border state) to run on the ticket with him.

          • “2. Motive does not prove guilt.”~Bill Clarke

            No, it doesn’t ‘prove’ guilt but it is one of the main indicators for just suspicion.

            3. He didn’t want the Vietnam War; he hardly “rushed” to escalate the war. Kennedy was killed in November, 1963 and our Marines landed at Da Nang on March 8, 1965. Over 15 months’ time. You call that “rushing”? During 1964 LBJ did just as JFK had been doing in Vietnam; sending more “advisers” and material to SVN. I’ll pass mention of JFK escalating the war since it seems to be upsetting to some here.”~Ibid

            We have been through your revisionist history before Bill, concerning:

            NATIONAL SECURITY ACTION MEMORANDUM NO. 263
            “The President approved the military recommendations contained in Section I B (1-3)* of the report, but directed that no formal announcement be made of the implementation of plans to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963.”
            . . . .
            NATIONAL SECURITY ACTION MEMORANDUM NO.273 reverses Kennedy’s order to withdraw troops from Vietnam. It also calls for heightened operations in Laos.

            Also in the works was “Operation Plan 34-63”, later and better known as OPLAN 34A, which involved aggressive covert raids against North Vietnam. The “Gulf of Tonkin” “incident(s)” of August 1964 were part of these operations.
            . . . .
            On Nov 26, 1963, President Johnson signed a National Security Action Memorandum #273, the highest level national security document, as guidance for future Vietnam plans and policy.

            This brief directive most significantly initiated changes reversing Kennedy’s Vietnam policy of NSAM #263, Oct 11, 1963. Kennedy had decreed then that “the bulk of U.S. personnel would be out of Vietnam by the end of 1965.
            \\][//

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten
            March 12, 2015 at 12:11 pm

            PART 1

            “2. Motive does not prove guilt.”~Bill Clarke

            ww. No, it doesn’t ‘prove’ guilt but it is one of the main indicators for just suspicion.

            bc. Just suspicion doesn’t prove guilt either.

            bc. He didn’t want the Vietnam War; he hardly “rushed” to escalate the war. Kennedy was killed in November, 1963 and our Marines landed at Da Nang on March 8, 1965. Over 15 months’ time. You call that “rushing”? During 1964 LBJ did just as JFK had been doing in Vietnam; sending more “advisers” and material to SVN. I’ll pass mention of JFK escalating the war since it seems to be upsetting to some here.”~Ibid
            ww. We have been through your revisionist history before Bill, concerning:

            bc. Who said I was the revisionist here, Willy? As we work through your reply documents here I will point out where you have revised what is actually said and what you claim.

            ww. NATIONAL SECURITY ACTION MEMORANDUM NO. 263

            ““The President approved the military recommendations contained in Section I B (1-3)* of the report, but directed that no formal announcement be made of the implementation of plans to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963.”

            bc. We’ll get back to this one but you forgot this part; “This action should be explained in low key as an initial step in a long-term program to replace U.S. personnel with trained Vietnamese without impairment of the war effort”. Do you understand, “without impairment”? Did you kknow that JFK and McNamara agreed to bring these men home by normal rotation? That means as one goes home one comes over. See Miller Center Tapes I’ve referenced many times.
            . . . .
            ww. NATIONAL SECURITY ACTION MEMORANDUM NO.273 reverses Kennedy’s order to withdraw troops from Vietnam. It also calls for heightened operations in Laos.

            bc. It does no such thing and this is a major revision of the truth by you here. McNamara said the 1,000 men were in fact sent home although they didn’t quite make the end of year deadline. These men were the only men JFK had ordered home. They came home. So what is your problem here, Willy?

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten
            March 12, 2015 at 12:11 pm

            PART 2

            ww. Also in the works was “Operation Plan 34-63”, later and better known as OPLAN 34A, which involved aggressive covert raids against North Vietnam. The “Gulf of Tonkin” “incident(s)” of August 1964 were part of these operations.

            bc. These raids were not aggressive. In fact they were a flop under JFK and the CIA, they remained a flop under LBJ and the military. The Gulf of Tonkin was not part of Oplan 34-A, they were Desoto patrols that we had ran against the Soviet Union, Korea, China and then Vietnam. Oplan 34-A was under the MACV-SOG command in Vietnam, the Desoto Patrols was under the command of the 7th Fleet. They were not part of each other. I can understand your confusion here since John Newman makes much the same claim that you do here. Newman even says it gave us an open end authority to send “Americans” north of the 17th parallel. DiEugenio parrots the same nonsense, demonstrating a lack of scholarship and research in their work.
            . . . .
            ww. On Nov 26, 1963, President Johnson signed a National Security Action Memorandum #273, the highest level national security document, as guidance for future Vietnam plans and policy.

            ww. This brief directive most significantly initiated changes reversing Kennedy’s Vietnam policy of NSAM #263, Oct 11, 1963. Kennedy had decreed then that “the bulk of U.S. personnel would be out of Vietnam by the end of 1965.

            bc. Not so Willy and here is your most severe revision of NSAM 263. Did you forget what it said or you just revising a bit here? Here is what the order says, Willy.
            “2. A program be established to train Vietnamese so that essential functions now performed by U.S. military personnel can be carried out by Vietnamese by the end of 1965. It should be possible to withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel by that time.”
            Please note, Willy, that the president did not “decree” this but instead it says “It should be POSSIBLE to withdraw the BULK of U.S. personnel by that time.” It doesn’t say “we will come what may” as Newman claims in his book that JFK had decided.

          • Sam says:

            Bill,

            I find your arguments about JFK escalating (or maintaining) an aggressive military posture in Vietnam to be unconvincing.

            All of his actions, including calling off tanks in Berlin when the wall went up in August of 1961, NOT launching airstrikes in Cuba during the missile crisis (and getting pilloried by his own Joint Chiefs as being cowardly), and putting forth his limited nuclear test ban in 1963–ALL run in opposition to the hawks who wanted Kennedy to be more militarily aggressive. Kennedy also did NOT enlarge our involvement into Laos and Thailand in 1962 as he was being pressured to do. So all you have left is Vietnam, where you try to prove that he was a hawk. It doesn’t fit the pattern. You know it. We know it. So why do you keep beating this flimsy drum?

            I can see JFK trying not to rush the US out of Vietnam completely before the 1964 election, but trying to keep a lid on an unstable situation. That’s the best you can prove. It doesn’t have enough teeth to convince any rational historian of your claims, and you can include Robert Dallek among those remain unconvinced.

          • “Who said I was the revisionist here, Willy?” Bill Clarke

            Why of course I said you are the revisionist here Bill. It is obvious!

            Yes indeed, we went through this before. And it remains my position that you are misrepresenting the facts of history at hand here.

            You site McNamara as explaining the situation, when in fact McNamara is a bonafied liar and war criminal, just like your pal LBJ.
            We went over how Kennedy actually directed the writing of the Report that McNamara is claimed to have written. But you dismiss this evidence by attempts to defame Fletcher Prouty, who explains the entire story in great detail.
            I am not going to argue this over again with you on the short string available here for such a complex debate.

            I will however complain that you hold to this spurious proposition of the “Domino Theory” even though history proves no such repercussions ever took place.
            And concurrently refuse to ever take your picnic basket on a holiday in Cambodia, where the real repercussions of American aggression in S.E.Asia manifested in gruesome reality.
            \\][//

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten
            March 13, 2015 at 12:54 pm

            “I am not going to argue this over again with you on the short string available here for such a complex debate.”

            What you don’t want to argue, Willy, is the false statement you made concerning NSAM 263. So you come up with these diversions like Prouty, the Domino Theory and McNamara in hopes no one will notice you had “revised” NSAM 263. And you call me a revisionist! Nothing complex, nothing complicated here Willy. Just stand up like a man and acknowledge your mistake. It was a mistake wasn’t it? Nothing intentional here I’m sure.

            Now I’ll show you which one of us misrepresents historical fact here and it is you.

            You said; “This brief directive most significantly initiated changes reversing Kennedy’s Vietnam policy of NSAM #263, Oct 11, 1963. Kennedy had decreed then that “the bulk of U.S. personnel would be out of Vietnam by the end of 1965”.

            Here is what NSAM 263 actually says; ““2. A program be established to train Vietnamese so that essential functions now performed by U.S. military personnel can be carried out by Vietnamese by the end of 1965. It should be possible to withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel by that time.” “It should be possible”! Not the same as what you claimed and this is much more than a simple word game. Your false version signals a definite action. “It should be possible signals an indefinite action, a hope or estimate.

            So Willy, what are you going to do to square away this false statement of yours? Most,including Mr. DiEugenio, leave the discussion when NSAM 263 is actually posted but I have higher hopes for you.

            You did get one thing right. McNamara is a self-serving liar and one should not believe a word he says. But I wasn’t quoting McNamara; I had him on tape with JFK at the NSC meeting when NSAM 2263 was drafted. http://tapes.millercenter.virginia.edu/clips/1963_1005_vietnam/index.htm
            President Kennedy: Otherwise we ought to just do it by rotation of.. [unclear].
            McNamara: Or we can do it just through normal attrition…[unclear: normal rotation]
            JFK: Yeah.
            McNamara: Normal rotation.

            I don’t reject Prouty’s crap because he is a nut case (and he is). I reject it because there is no evidence to support it and some, which I have posted, that does not support it at all. It amuses me that so many intelligent people take Prouty at his word. Good grief!

            Your Noam Chomskyish drama about Cambodia was also amusing. So Willy, I’ve shown who is misrepresenting historical fact here.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Sam
            March 13, 2015 at 11:50 am

            Bill,

            I find your arguments about JFK escalating (or maintaining) an aggressive military posture in Vietnam to be unconvincing.

            That is okay Sam, I wasn’t trying to convince you. Most people have already made up their minds so all you can do is present the evidence so if an unbiased person reads it it might help them answer their questions.

            To start with I don’t consider JFK to be a Hawk. He wasn’t a Dove either.

            Why would JFK called out the tanks when the wall went up in Berlin? The wall and the land it stood on belonged to East Berlin. JFK had no right to mess with it. JFK did have the tanks at Check Point Charlie. He was no wimp.

            In Cuba he used the U.S. Navy to barricade the island. An act of war.

            In 1963 JFK could have done the same in Vietnam as he had done in Laos. He didn’t.

            Robert Dallek is a fine fellow with some good work under his belt. But I believe many historians share my views. As a fact this reference says “most Vietnam historians” agree with me.
            ————————————————-
            Did John F. Kennedy give the order to withdraw from Vietnam?

            * * *

            Certainly, most Vietnam historians have said “no”—or would have if they considered the question worth posing. They have asserted continuity between Kennedy’s policy and Lyndon Johnson’s, while usually claiming that neither president liked the war and also that Kennedy especially had expressed to friends his desire to get out sometime after the 1964 election.

            https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/vietnam/exit.htm

          • As Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., has attested, President Kennedy signaled his intention to withdraw from Vietnam in a variety of ways and put it firmly on the record with his National Security Action Memorandum (NSAM) #263 of October 11, 1963. Those who try to say it was no more than a call for a rotation of troops or a gimmick and that the Johnson NSAM #273, issued within a week of the assassination, merely confirmed the policy, ignore the obvious question. If LBJ was merely continuing Kennedy’s policies, why was it necessary to reverse Kennedy’s October NSAM #263?”

            Those here arguing the doctrinaire position of official dogma, seem to forget that Kennedy had to be very careful in his public speaking compared to the agenda for peace he had in mind. Kennedy wanted out of Vietnam and he wanted out of the Cold War.

            The question remains, why NSAM #273, if it does not reverse NSAM #263?
            Why weren’t US personnel out of Vietnam by 1965?

            You can split hairs about the meaning of language in these documents, but you cannot deny to course of history as steered by the warmongering military industrial complex and the accessory of mainstream academia and media.

            Remember Orwell’s prescient dictum:
            “He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”
            The Military Industrial Complex controls the present, thus control the past, and if we do not wake up, will control our future.
            \\][//

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten
            March 14, 2015 at 11:51 am

            I see you talking Willy but I don’t see you addressing your false words about what NSAM 263 says. I’m not surprised but am a bit disappointed. This isn’t good for your credibility here, Willy. If you “revised” NSAM 263 for us what else have you “revised” to compliment your agenda? What you claim NSAM 263 says is false; you need to correct it.

            Now, for these additional diversions you just posted.

            1. As for your boy Schlesinger; “He justifiably excoriates the sycophantic courtier Schlesinger, whose histories “repeatedly manipulated and obscured the facts” and whose accounts—“profoundly misleading if not out-and-out deceptive”—were written to serve not scholarship but the Kennedys.

            http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/01/the-real-cuban-missile-crisis/309190/

            2. The 1,000 man withdrawal was done by normal rotation. I gave you a reference in which you can listen and read JFK and McNamara agree on this. If this doesn’t do it for you Willy I suggest you are beyond help here. I did not say the broader order was to be done by rotation. It was to be done as the Viets became trained. The entire plan was based on the Viets taking over as they were trained.

            You ask; “The question remains, why NSAM #273, if it does not reverse NSAM #263?”

            First you would have to ask JFK since he is the man that ordered Bundy to write NSAM 273 Bundy did so and the draft was waiting for the president’s signature when he was murdered.

            2. Did it ever occur to you that this new order (273) was to ADD to NSAM 263 instead of reversing it? It should have Willy. What happened between NSAM 263 and NSAM 273? Hint; Ngo Dinh Diem was overthrown. We might need to add something to the old order.

            You ask; “Why weren’t US personnel out of Vietnam by 1965”?

            Because JFK had never ordered them out by 1965. It is as simple as that unless like Hillary you begin to believe your own propaganda! Remember the “it should be possible”? You know, what NSAM 263 really says and not your false statement about what it says? Well Willy, it wasn’t possible. If you knew the history of the war you would know why it wasn’t possible.

            You speak of splitting hairs but your false statement about NSAM 263 is much past splitting a hair. It is simply a false statement and needs your correction.

          • “First you would have to ask JFK since he is the man that ordered Bundy to write NSAM 273 Bundy did so and the draft was waiting for the president’s signature when he was murdered.” ~Bill Clarke

            Bill, Kennedy never saw Bundy’s NSAM 273, nor the final draft completed after Kennedy’s death.

            “In Honolulu, McGeorge Bundy prepared a draft of what would eventually be NSAM 273. The plan was to present it to Kennedy after the meeting ended. Dated November 21, this draft reflected the change in military reporting. It speaks, for example, of a need to “turn the tide not only of battle but of belief.”

            >The final version of NSAM 273, signed by Johnson on November 26, differs from the draft in several respects. Most are minor changes of wording. The main change is that the draft paragraph 7 has been struck in its entirety (there are two pencil slashes on the November 21 draft), and replaced with the following:

            Planning should include different levels of possible increased activity, and in each instance there be estimates such factors as: A. Resulting damage to North Vietnam; B. The plausibility denial; C. Vietnamese retaliation; D. Other international reaction. Plans submitted promptly for approval by authority.”
            https://www.bostonreview.net/us/galbraith-exit-strategy-vietnam

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten
            March 14, 2015 at 4:15 pm

            Willy, your refusal to correct your false statement about NSAM 263 is disappointing and confusing. Why make a false statement about a document that is so readily available on the internet? This is like Hillary claiming sniper fire while she was on video at the time.

            On total this doesn’t leave me a lot of reason to discuss these matters with you. If you will revise NSAM 263 without correction, and you did, then you will revise other documents without correction.

            Make this right, Willy.

          • Bill Clarke,

            I will “make it right” by stating that Memorandum No. 263 was in fact meant as a decree and was put in subtle language. I stand by that. If you cannot bear it, that is your problem.
            \\][//

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten
            March 15, 2015 at 5:10 pm

            The only problem I have is with false statements, Willy. You made one and now, instead of correcting it, you proudly “stand by it”! I’m not impressed.

            Let me guess; this “subtle” writing gives you license to claim anything you wish about NSAM 263? You think you are the only one that can read what Jack “really” meant here. Horse apples. The order is clearly written by brilliant men who need no help from you to express exactly what they mean here.

          • “You think you are the only one that can read what Jack “really” meant here.”~Bill Clarke

            I am hardly “the only one”, and you know that.
            Anyone who knows the full story knows that Kennedy was intent on getting out of Vietnam, and was walking a tight-rope with the MIC in trying to accomplish that.
            You are trying to pass of this bogus BS that Bundy wrote NSAM 273 “for Kennedy” – you know the record is clear, that the final draft of that memorandum was changed substantially, and lead to the escalation that the military brass were intent, to the point of fomenting a putsch, on getting in Vietnam.
            . . .
            “The President also said that our decision to remove 1,000 U.S. advisors by December of this year should not be raised formally with Diem. Instead the action should be carried out routinely as part of our general posture of withdrawing people when they are no longer needed.”- (October 5, 1963)
            “Counterfactual Historical Reasoning: NSAM 263 and NSAM 273,” mimeo for a conference at the LBJ Library, 14–15 October 1993, published as “NSAM 263 and 273: Manipulating History” in Lloyd C. Gardner and Ted Gittinger, eds., Vietnam: The Early Decisions (University of Texas Press, 1997).
            \\][//

          • “At Honolulu, a preliminary plan, known as CINCPAC OPLAN 34-63 and later implemented as OPLAN 34A, was prepared for presentation. This plan called for intensified sabotage raids against the North, employing Vietnamese commandos under U.S. control—a significant escalation.[5 ] While JCS chief Taylor had approved preparation of this plan, it had not been shown to McNamara. Tab E of the meeting’s briefing book, also approved by Taylor and also not sent in advance to McNamara, showed that the withdrawal ordered by Kennedy in October was already being gutted, by the device of substituting for the withdrawal of full units that of individual soldiers who were being rotated out of Vietnam in any event.”

            https://www.bostonreview.net/us/galbraith-exit-strategy-vietnam
            \\][//

          • I think it is crystal clear that what Maxwell Taylor was up to in Honolulu was acting on the certain knowledge that he would no longer have Kennedy to contend with and that McNamara was going to have a new boss by the time the dust had settled in Dallas.
            Bundy was assisting in this coup by his presence in the White House Situation Room during this debacle.
            \\][//

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten
            March 16, 2015 at 9:42 am

            “You think you are the only one that can read what Jack “really” meant here.”~Bill Clarke

            ww. “I am hardly “the only one”, and you know that.”

            bc. In all honesty Willy, in all the years I’ve been defending a true reading of NSAM 263 you are the ONLY ONE that has told me “Jack had ordered the BULK of troops out by 1965. Your comrades to a person tell me “Jack had ordered ALL of the troops out by 1965. Both statements are false of course.

            ww. Anyone who knows the full story knows that Kennedy was intent on getting out of Vietnam, and was walking a tight-rope with the MIC in trying to accomplish that.

            bc. Pure junk.

            ww. You are trying to pass of this bogus
            BS that Bundy wrote NSAM 273 “for Kennedy”

            bc. If it was bogus you could prove it like I did your false statement on NSAM 263. You can’t. Again Willy. JFK requested that Mac Bundy prepare what was to later to become NSAM 273. Bundy did so and had the draft copy waiting for the president to return from Dallas. Now that was done under the orders of JFK.

            ww. – you know the record is clear, that the final draft of that memorandum was changed substantially, and lead to the escalation that the military brass were intent, to the point of fomenting a putsch, on getting in Vietnam.

            bc. No it wasn’t and your “putsch” point is getting pretty far out there. You been reading Prouty again?

            ww. “The President also said that our decision to remove 1,000 U.S. advisors by December of this year should not be raised formally with Diem. Instead the action should be carried out routinely as part of our general posture of withdrawing people when they are no longer needed.”- (October 5, 1963)

            bc. No problem here Willy. Just a regular old routine of moving some home. It doesn’t say they won’t send replacements does it?

            ww. “Counterfactual Historical Reasoning: NSAM 263 and NSAM 273,” mimeo for a conference at the LBJ Library, 14–15 October 1993, published as “NSAM 263 and 273: Manipulating History” in Lloyd C. Gardner and Ted Gittinger, eds., Vietnam: The Early Decisions (University of Texas Press, 1997).

            bc. My copy of “The Early Decisions” was sent to me free of charge by ted Gittinger. On the fly sheet it says, “From one Vietnam Veteran to another”. He was a brilliant man and a great friend. What does your copy say?

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten
            March 16, 2015 at 1:07 pm

            More disinformation by Willy.

            Give it up Willy, your false statement about NSAM263 has been exposed.

            So without an order to withdraw you have nothing in your message here. Nothing! You ever find that order to withdraw and we’ll discuss it. I won’t hold my breath.

          • Bill Clarke, I disagree with your interpretation of the history of the Vietnam situation, and insist Kennedy was determined to get the US out of South East Asia.
            I reiterate that this was one of the primary motives that Kennedy was removed by a coup d’etat.

            I include this further item for the JFKfacts readership to consider, but urge that they also read the entire essay at the URL at the end of this comment.
            . . . . .
            October 4, a memorandum titled “South Vietnam Actions” from General Maxwell Taylor to his fellow Joint Chiefs of Staff, Generals May, Wheeler, Shoup, and Admiral McDonald, that reads:

            “b. The program currently in progress to train Vietnamese forces will be reviewed and accelerated as necessary to insure that all essential functions visualized to be required for the projected operational environment, to include those now performed by U.S. military units and personnel, can be assumed properly by the Vietnamese by the end of calendar year 1965. All planning will be directed towards preparing RVN forces for the withdrawal of all U.S. special assistance units and personnel by the end of calendar year 1965.”
            . . . .
            “All planning” is an unconditional phrase. There is no contingency here, or elsewhere in this memorandum. The next paragraph reads:
            . . . .
            “c. Execute the plan to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963 per your DTG 212201Z July, and as approved for planning by JCS DTG 062042Z September. Previous guidance on the public affairs annex is altered to the extent that the action will now be treated in low key, as the initial increment of U.S. forces whose presence is no longer required because (a) Vietnamese forces have been trained to assume the function involved; or (b) the function for which they came to Vietnam has been completed.”
            https://www.bostonreview.net/us/galbraith-exit-strategy-vietnam
            \\][//

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten
            March 16, 2015 at 5:54 pm

            Bill Clarke, I disagree with your interpretation of the history of the Vietnam situation, and insist Kennedy was determined to get the US out of South East Asia.

            That is certainly your right Willy, I respect that. But what is not you right is to edit NSAM 263 with a false statement to support your point. And this is what you have done.

            I thought even most conspiracy members had finally moved on from this, “Jack was killed because he was withdrawing from Vietnam” crap. Are you becoming outdated?

          • “What you don’t want to argue, Willy, is the false statement you made concerning NSAM 263.”
            ~Bill Clarke

            My statement about NSAM 263 is no more false than you falsely claiming that NSAM 273 was written for Kennedy. In fact NSAM 273 was revised for the satisfaction of escalation for Johnson to sign.
            \\][//

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten
            March 17, 2015 at 9:47 am

            Willy, do you really not know that JFK requested that Bundy write another NSAM?

            Or perhaps you think Bundy wrote the draft under the orders of Vice President Johnson?

            come on Willy.

          • “Willy, do you really not know that JFK requested that Bundy write another NSAM?”~Bill Clarke

            This is getting absurd Bill. I have made it clear that I know the sequence of the writing of NSAM 273.

            Yes the first draft was written for Kennedy.
            The simple fact you refuse to acknowledge is that this is not the draft that was finally signed by Johnson.

            Again:
            The final version of NSAM 273, signed by Johnson on November 26, differs from the draft in several respects. Most are minor changes of wording. The main change is that the draft paragraph 7 has been struck in its entirety (there are two pencil slashes on the November 21 draft), and replaced with the following:

            Planning should include different levels of possible increased activity, and in each instance there be estimates such factors as: A. Resulting damage to North Vietnam; B. The plausibility denial; C. Vietnamese retaliation; D. Other international reaction. Plans submitted promptly for approval by authority.”

            Do you seriously contend that Kennedy would have put his signature to this draft?
            \\][//

          • For a complete accounting of National Security Action Memorandum Number 273, see:

            http://jfklancer.com/NSAM273.html
            \\][//

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten
            March 17, 2015 at 7:59 pm

            This treatment by Burham is pretty weak. Peter Dale Scott does a better job but draws the same false conclusions. Then we always have http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199209–.htm.

            Part One: “The DRAFT”
            Perhaps the most powerful evidence indicating that select Senior Administration Officials and Senior Military personnel may have had foreknowledge of the plot to assassinate the 35th President of the United States, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, is found in the DRAFT of National Security Action Memorandum (NSAM) Number 273.”

            So in the first sentence we know we are in for a biased snow job here. And Burham’s treatment doesn’t get much better.

            “The first sentence is indeed quite revelatory of its dubious nature: “The President has reviewed the discussions of South Vietnam which occurred in Honolulu, and has discussed the matter further with Ambassador Lodge.” That is false.”

            Yes, that is false because it was written in advance. No doubt JFK would have reviewed and discussed it with Lodge before signing it.

            “7. With respect to action against North Vietnam, there should be a detailed plan for the development of additional Government of Vietnam resources, especially for sea-going activity, and such planning should indicate the time and investment necessary to achieve a wholly new level of effectiveness in the field of action. (Action: DOD and CIA) “

            Please note Willy, it says, “Government of Vietnam resources”. Newman claims this gave us an order for American action in North Vietnam. It is to laugh if not so sad.

            “As shown above, it could not have been the sitting president, JFK, as he was in Texas at the time.”

            Wasn’t LBJ also in Texas at the time? So it could not have been LBJ either. Gee Willy, this is getting pretty weak.

            “Again, consider the simplicity of NSAM 263 — JFK, after reviewing the McNamara-Taylor Report, approved only the recommendation to WITHDRAW. Done deal.”

            This isn’t true and all one needs to do to confirm this is to read NSAM 263. I sometimes wonder, Willy, if you boys do read it before making these sweeping untrue statements about it.

            “If you recall, the only part of the McNamara-Taylor Report that the President approved concerning US military policy is the section incorporated by direct reference in his National Security Action Memorandum Number 263 which called for the withdrawal of the bulk of all US Personnel by the end of 1965.”

            This wasn’t true when you made the false claim and it isn’t true when Burham makes the statement. Again, all one has to do to see this is false is to read NSAM 263.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten
            March 17, 2015 at 7:41 pm

            “Willy, do you really not know that JFK requested that Bundy write another NSAM?”~Bill Clarke

            This is getting absurd Bill. I have made it clear that I know the sequence of the writing of NSAM 273.

            Well, you could have fooled me Willy.

            Yes the first draft was written for Kennedy.
            The simple fact you refuse to acknowledge is that this is not the draft that was finally signed by Johnson.

            Oh no, I’m well aware of the difference in the draft and the official NSAM 273. Sorry you missed that.

            In paragraph 7 of the draft they clearly refer to SVN forces. The Oplan 34-A operations. It is my belief that paragraph 7 of NSAM 273 is still referring to the SVG and the Oplan 34-A operations.

            https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Kennedy-Johnson_Transition_in_Vietnam_Policy

            The counter-argument is that NSAM 273 was drafted while Kennedy was still alive. However, Kennedy never saw that draft, and the draft does not match the final version, particularly in the key area of covert operations. Is this difference a molehill in what was essentially a continuity of policy, or are authors like Scott correct that the change was in fact a profound one?

          • Bill,
            I am convinced that Bundy had foreknowledge of the assassination of Kennedy, and that he drafted the final version NSAM 273 knowing that it would be Johnson that it would be presented to for the presidential signature.

            I think Bundy was party to setting up Kennedy for the Bay of Pigs fiasco as well.
            You know Bundy was the one who called off the airstrikes against Castro’s ‘air force’, with that phone call to General Cabell.
            This phone call came at a suspiciously opportune moment, when there was no one to countermand it that knew the essential importance to the mission.

            So yes, I agree with Peter Dale Scott, Fletcher Prouty, John M. Newman, Galbraith, and indeed McNamara, that Kennedy was intent on total military withdrawal from Vietnam by 1965.
            \\][//

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten
            March 18, 2015 at 8:42 am

            Willy, this one of yours is much too far out of the strike zone for me to swing at.

            Congratulations on joining such an astute group of BS specialist. You should do well there.

        • Steve Stirlen says:

          Photon,

          Are you talking about the “facts and evidence” that were “collected” by the CIA, FBI, and the DPD? If that is the facts and evidence you are talking about, you are going to have to do better. Because as YOU are well aware, all three of these agencies showed gross neglect, incompetence, or outright lies as to the “facts” of this case. You said the CIA made a “mistake” in Mexico City, Blakey said in 2003 that he did not believe a SINGLE thing the CIA has said. YOU said the DPD “blew it” twice that weekend, and J. Edgar Hoover said the case was “solved” by Sunday, even though he KNEW the tape of Oswald in Mexico City was a voice that was not Oswald’s. Oh yeah, the “evidence” is ROCK solid. The evidence was so ROCK solid that Senator Russell refused to sign the WC unless there was an addendum added. Oh yeah, Photon, ROCK solid “evidence and facts!” Airtight case! Open and shut!

          You are more than free to criticize Prouty if you wish. However, there is NO way he is any more or less credible than YOUR rag-tag collection of “experts.”

        • “From the very beginning JFK conspiracy theory has been driven not by facts or evidence, but by the inability of its most prominent adherents to accept the fact that JFK was killed by a leftist.”~Photon

          From the very beginning the Warren Commission was not driven by facts or evidence, but an agenda to prove that Oswald was the single gunman in Dealey Plaza.

          We have been all over this before on this site. The call between Hoover the day of the assassination, with Hoover saying the case against Olswald was not very strong. Followed by a completely different attitude of certainty that Oswald was their man, AFTER Ruby had killed Oswald and there would be no trial to test the case against him.
          And this is just the beginning.
          Adding to that the totally botched autopsy, that cannot in light of the circumstances be anything other than purposely done to confuse the real forensics of the body of Kennedy.
          It is absurd to the point of Kafkaesque that the doctors chosen for the autopsy of the President of the United States were totally inexperienced in death by gunfire, and that the autopsy was run by general officers in the gallery rather than the doctors themselves.

          There is nothing clearer than the fact that Kennedy was killed by the military industrial complex in a coup d’etat.
          \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Willy , to claim that the officer in charge of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the AFIP would be “totally inexperienced in death by gunfire” is so completely false that I do not understand why you would make it.
            Why make such a statement?

          • Where is Dr Fink’s autopsy report? Those reports were written by the inexperienced general pathologists Humes and Boswell

            The autopsy was carried out by three pathologists, all of them middle–ranking military officers whose only practical experience of forensic autopsies was a one–week course taken by one of the pathologists ten years earlier.
            The room in which they worked was crowded with a variety of non–medical onlookers, several of whom were giving orders to the pathologists.
            The written records from the autopsy are incomplete, and perhaps corrupt. The original autopsy report was deliberately destroyed by Dr James Humes, the senior pathologist, after the murder of Lee Oswald. The rewritten autopsy report includes measurements and other data that do not exist in the pathologists’ surviving notes and diagrams.
            The photographic record is incomplete. The pathologists and photographers recalled ordering and taking photographs which appear no longer to exist.
            http://22november1963.org.uk/pierre-finck-jfk-back-throat-wounds
            \\][//

          • You shoot yourself in your own foot bringing up Dr. Finck Poton,

            He is the one pathologist to finally admit that the autopsy was controlled by high military officers in the gallery. He admitted that they were ordered not to dissect the throat, or the back wound, by ‘perhaps an Admiral’ to paraphrase Finck.

            The autopsy of JFK wasn’t “botched” because of incompetence, it was manipulated by the military.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            “The autopsy was carried out by three pathologists, all of them middle ranking military officers whose only practical experience of forensic autopsies was a one week course course taken by one of the pathologists ten years earlier”. That is simply untrue.
            Why would Dr. Finck write an autopsy report? For each procedure there is one report written by the lead pathologist.Don’t know much about autopsy protocol, do you Willy?

          • “Why would Dr. Finck write an autopsy report? For each procedure there is one report written by the lead pathologist.Don’t know much about autopsy protocol, do you Willy?”~Photon

            That was my point Photon; Finck was not a lead pathologist in the autopsy of JFK.

            You have avoided every point I have made, resisting in face of the fact, that Humes and Boswell were unqualified to do a forensic autopsy. You bring up Finck, the only forensic pathologist, as if he were one of the head doctors in the autopsy – he was NOT, that is why I asked where was his autopsy report, and you use that question to assert I don’t know anything about autopsy protocol.

            Dr Finck gave testimony under oath, in a court law, that the autopsy was not under control of the pathologists, but was under control of general officers giving orders from the gallery.

            Your spinning dervish rhetorical machinations will not get you out of this Photon.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            It was not controlled by high officers in the military. Dr Burkley was acting as an agent of the Kennedy family and expressed their wishes for a limited autopsy to make the corpse more presentable for an open casket wake; in addition he relayed RFK’s requests to be as fast as possible to get Mrs. Kennedy back to the White House. Humes stated that these requests did not stop him from doing an adequate autopsy. As the autopsy team’s conclusions about the origins of the wounds have not been reputiated by a single forensic pathologist who has reviewed the records save Cyril Wecht it would appear that he was correct.
            Willy, you claimed that the 3 pathologists that did the autopsy on JFK had no experience in dealing with bullet wounds. That was not true.Do you think that Dr. Finck sat in the gallery and did nothing?

          • “Willy, you claimed that the 3 pathologists that did the autopsy on JFK had no experience in dealing with bullet wounds. That was not true.Do you think that Dr. Finck sat in the gallery and did nothing?”~Photon

            Humes and Boswell were the lead pathologists, and they were NOT qualified for a forensic examination of a case involving bullet wounds. No matter how you slice and dice your rhetoric those are simple facts. Humes and Boswell knew they were in over their heads and called on Finck for advice and assistance. Finck was not a designated head for this autopsy, and you know that perfectly well Photon.
            You do not know who gave the orders from the gallery not to dissect the throat and back wounds. Those orders would not have need been given if the autopsy team weren’t intent on doing such dissection.
            The facts are that this autopsy was a travesty, no matter how many sycophantic “pathologists’ you bring forward to claim it was perfectly legitimate. The lead autopsy doctors were unqualified, they were directed by higher officers during the procedures.
            You cannot blame Jackie and Robert Kennedy for these circumstances, the military was in control. There is no excuse for the autopsy of the President of the United States to have been so utterly compromised as this was.
            \\][//

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon:

            Why would Dr. Finck be told not to dissect the track of the wound if he knew just by looking that it was compatible with what he thought? Whomever told him not to track the neck wound—you may fill in the name here ________________—wouldn’t they want to confirm what Finck clearly observed? I mean, surely they did not think that something could be amiss, would they? Oh wait, you will pull out the “Kennedy family did not want a full autopsy” theory, correct?

            Mr Oser :You are one of the three autopsy specialists and pathologists at the time, and you saw what you described as an entrance wound in the neck area of the President of the United States who had just been assassinated, and you were only interested in the other wound but not interested in the track through his neck, is that what you are telling me?Col. Finck :I was interested in the track and I had observed the conditions of bruising between the point of entry in the back of the neck and the point of exit at the front of the neck, which is entirely compatible with the bullet path.Mr Oser :But you were told not to go into the area of the neck, is that your testimony?Col. Finck :From what I recall, yes, but I don’t remember by whom.(Ibid., pp.114–8)

        • Fearfaxer says:

          Oswald must have been the first Marxist in history to have absolutely no like-minded acquaintances, and to have associated exclusively with right-of-center individuals, many of whom had intelligence connections. People who dispute the Lone Nut Buff version probably had their first doubts surface when they realized that the portrait of Oswald the WC flushed out made no logical sense.

          • Sam says:

            My favorite from the Lone Nut Buff camp is when you ask if it were possible to set a “dangle” program of on-the-ground intelligence gathering behind the Iron Curtain, as people suggest Oswald may have been involved in. Usually you get nothing but silence. Classic!

            Another amusing thing about the Lone Nut Buffs: They don’t like it when you bring up Phillip Agee or his modern day counterpart, Edward Snowden.These guys came out of the intelligence closet and admitted doing some pretty undemocratic, awful things. The Lone Nut Buffs don’t discuss it. They evade it. All I hear is crickets when those names are brought up.

            Selective omissions can be quite revealing. The key to understanding Oswald is to keep an open mind, and don’t buy into the “faith-based” Warren Commission Report. Check the facts, and stay skeptical.

          • anonymous says:

            I’m coming in late on this but Oswald did try to befriend his own kind. According to Oswald himself, he found like minded people in Japan. Or perhaps that was part of the set up? He also tried when back in the US but was unsuccessful. They didn’t encourage him. I don’t really think there were that many who thought like he did here. At least not openly.

        • Steve Stirlen says:

          Bill,

          You have quoted something I never said. I think you meant Sam.

          Having said that, I would not trust LBJ to run my local McDonald’s, let alone the US of A.

          Steve

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Steve Stirlen
            March 12, 2015 at 2:27 pm

            Sorry Steve, I apologize. Believe me that it was caused by a rusty old brain and not a malicious act.

            I probably wouldn’t let Lyndon run my cash register either.

            Again, sorry.

  6. Ramon F Herrera says:

    [Rule of Law:]

    “assuming that conservative = lone nutter/CIA apologist or that progressive = paranoid conspiracy theorist.”

    =================================

    Where did you get that assumption? Are you aware that if that simple model by *you* offered held true, we would be calling:

    – Chris Matthews
    – Rachel Maddow
    – Jay Edward Epstein (*)
    – Jean Davison (*)
    – Millions of Liberals/Progressives

    “paranoid conspiracy theorist”?

    Even worse, we would be calling these folks:

    http://www.infowars.com/

    “lone nutter/CIA apologists” !!!

    As in almost every American issue, there are FOUR clearly defined groups.

    (*) Ms. Davison was the first person to correct me, and volunteer those 2 exceptions, when I offered the super-simplistic chasm model in the McAdams newsgroup, years ago.

  7. Ramon F Herrera says:

    Note for Mr. “Rule of Law”:

    There is a group of people in JFK Facts who have decided that the coming presidential debates would be an excellent podium to bring our cause to the real world, as it were. We are planning to generate social media traffic via Twitter, Facebook and the Web that brings our issue to the fore.

    While I realize that for Conservatives it is harder to face change -I myself would lament extremely if this site morphed into a RFK assassination site! …

    We are very enthusiastic and believe that the founder of JFK Facts deserves recognition and visibility, and the CNN interview was a stepping stone in that direction. Kudos to Jeff, one more time !!

    … and yet, you want us to stop our efforts, to close shop just because you are uncomfortable being reminded of the fact that you are in the same side as Mr. O’Reilly and party as McAdams?

    Sincerely,

    -Ramon F Herrera

  8. Eric Hollingsworth says:

    I’ll stipulate that LHO wasn’t an intelligence asset, but in order to do that I have to believe that the kid had A LOT of moxie. Joins the USMC at a tender age, learns Russian, gets an honorable discharge, takes a one-way, shoestring trip to Moscow, gets a berth in a radio factory, gets married and has a child, gets disillusioned and asks the State Department for (and gets) his fare back home; that kid packed a lot of living into twenty-four years. Yet somehow this cornucopia of rich experiences turned this child into an envious nobody? As if he had just dreamed about this stuff while laying on a couch in his mother’s basement? He sounds more like a Rafael Sabatini hero than an “envious nobody.” Yet here we are, fifty-some-odd years later, trying to make believe that a twenty-four-year-old kid from a dirt-poor family having a hard time finding a job in America is some sort of special, social stigma. I don’t get it.

  9. David Hazan says:

    If I may ask a question to the frequent commenters here in general, and to those who keep butting heads with PhoTony Williams in particular…

    His argumentative technique is typical of two types of people.

    The first one is your run of the mill, professional or semi-professional gatekeeper of official narrative. I don’t believe the words “troll” or “shill” that are commonly used for these characters would do justice to Photony… He is way too old and way too knowledgeable to be that… But it’d be fair to say here’s a god chance he is an agent of the WC storyline at an official capacity…

    The second would be a certain type of personality that is so darn invested in his own conclusions, his own moral, philosophical and political affiliations and convictions that he, consciously or not, engages in full on intellectual dishonesty, while convincing himself that he is always right, he is always smart, and others who argue with him are simply not…

    From what I gather, most people who engage in these arguments with him seem to subscribe to either the first, or the second, or a mix of both…

    So… Here comes my question:

    Why do you even bother?

    Why bother when you know his arguments are not sincere, his so-called “views” are unyielding to even the most sound counter-points made, and when his replies are offensive, evasive, abrasive, and the logic he uses in his replies totally fallacious?

    After all, arguing (or discussing) with Photon is not unlike playing tennis with a wall… The harder you hit, the harder the ball bounces back… So, if you get hit in the face by the ball, you know whom to blame… Because, the wall does not think, the wall does not care, the wall does not fall!!!

    (Please note that my question is sincere, and I would love to hear your thoughts should you choose to humor it)

    • You pose an interesting question here David.

      I offer this partial response:

      The point of countering a disinformationist is not to convince them, but to lay bear their techniques to a candid world.

      The more blatant the disingenuous arguments such propagandists make the more they expose themselves, just by little nudges here and there to provoke them.
      \\][//

    • Vanessa says:

      Hi David

      I can only speak for myself, obviously, but would you prefer that Photon’s comments go uncontested? Whether he is engaging genuinely or not I don’t think his statements should be allowed to stand without being addressed.

      ..and besides it’s tremendous fun.

    • David Hazan says:

      I would like to start by stating that my intentions are by no means to launch a personal attack on Photon. He (I think he is a he, but could be a she) is by far one of the most knowledgeable people on the subject that I have come across. Regardless of his antics, perceived or real, I have a lot of respect for the brain that drives the debunking engine that he is.

      Vanessa… What I was attempting to point out, perhaps not so well, was the existence of a vicious circle that seems to take hold of pretty much all blogs, forums and websites that set out to discover, argue, and exchange ideas about so-called “truth” on any contested historical event.

      The are many on this site who would classify themselves as JFK or History “buffs”, and consider their participation in the discussion more of a hobby, or a guilty pleasure they engage in once they put the kids to bed, walk the dog and make a nice hot cup of tea and sit down in front of a computer. And, as Vanessa states, some consider it fun.

      I attribute this phenomenon mainly to the episodic thought pattern we have been indoctrinated with, over many decades, by television. Which I could summarize as the Love Boat effect…. Three story lines, which we get introduced to during the first segment, which reach their peak during the second, and get all neatly tied together before the last commercial break, to allow captain Stubing and Julie to see the characters off the boat with all their issues resolved. We simply do not care if the couple having marital problems will be happy, or if that new romance that sparked up on the boat will last…

      JFK assassination is simply not an “episode” that had a beginning and an end. It is an incident that was the beginning of a new era, during which the fabric of a nation was stained repeatedly and permanently with a chain of strategic assassinations, covert operations, questionable wars, questionable alliances, which are part of a continuum that we still live in. The current power structure in this nation is still made out of people who have been actively involved in the assassination and the subsequent omission report, and the organizations whose duty was to solve the case who, instead, engaged in active cover up, and are continuing to do so today… And, since it worked once, and subsequently more times than I care to count, we seem to be stuck in a world where we get tricked and lied to on a daily basis with no apparent outrage.

      It is is in this context that I object to the back and forth that goes on between unrelenting parties… And it is in this context that I object to Photon’s arguments and counterpoints which have an unabashed tone of “protecting the official narrative at any cost”. Fifty long years after the fact…

      I am not totally against the idea that the WC report’s blatant omissions and cover up was due to political expediency, and not due to a proof of complicity by the members or their affiliates… At the same time, I am unfortunately all too familiar with the systematic handling of websites (like this one) by less than sincere parties, whose unwillingness to yield to ANY and ALL valid arguments even in the form of a “maybe, but I don’t think so”. Which, to me, is a very clear sign of an “agenda” on their part, and serves as nothing but stalling the discussion by pulling it to the extremes, as far away from the truth, which is usually somewhere in the middle. And I say this both about the Photon level LN/WC advocates, as well as the “every one is a liar, everything is fake” level CT speculators who provide cover for their counterparts.

      What frustrates me personally, is the way these “conspiracies” get treated more as board games, or nightly pastimes. And how people manage to remove themselves from the horrible repercussions of these incidents that cause tremendous pain and suffering to billions, death and destruction to millions, and result in a severely corrupt world where we the people are stripped off our very basic right to our own reality, and are offered an alternate one on which we seem to base our very existence, our ideologies, our past, present and future.

      • Vanessa says:

        Hi David

        Okay, perhaps I shouldn’t have been so glib. In no way do I regard the JFK assassination and its consequences as fun. Debating with Photon who, as you say, is intelligent and informed is interesting to me because it tests my ideas in a way debating with someone who agrees with me doesn’t. And as Willy says, Photon often reveals bits of the shadowplay that help undermine his own argument.

        Of course, the assassination was a terrible event for America and for the world. Its consequences are still being felt today. And the implications for America and the world if Oswald was not the lone gunman are absolutely appalling. This is a continuing, relevant story that goes right to the heart of American democracy and America’s role in the world. I would not be on here if I did not think that this is something that we all should care deeply about.

        • David Hazan says:

          Hi Vanessa,

          I appreciate your replies and your sincerity. Thank you.

          Please know that I am by no means immune to my own criticism above. I was simply trying to hold a mirror to our condition.

          As they say, I am not stuck in traffic, I am the traffic…

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi David

            I’m sorry, I’ve only just seen your response and have already sent my irate rant. Again apologies!

      • Vanessa says:

        Hi David

        Apologies in advance as you are probably going to find this email offensive. You seem like a nice intelligent man but I hope you realise the irony of your comments about the ‘Love Boat’ generation as being equally as offensive as anything Photon has said to us.

        I’m not sure what it is that you want from those that engage with Photon. If we stop debating him he will simply continue on his merry way without scrutiny. If you think he should be banned from JFKFacts then that is not something I would support. There are other forums that don’t allow LNer’s so you have a choice to be here or there.

        If you would simply prefer that I not enjoy engaging with Photon then I’m not really sure what to make of that. I take the assassination and its ramifications absolutely seriously – it is not an after dinner parlour game. But I refuse to take myself (or Photon) that seriously. It’s possible to distinguish between the two.

        If I could make the point that the generation that failed JFK was the one that voted for him as their President and then did nothing to follow up on the circumstances of his death.

        One could argue that modern day leftist Presidents such as Clinton and Obama have had to be ‘taken out’ politically precisely because the current generations would not cop the JFK ‘option’. ‘They’ simply could not get away with it again.

        Again apologies for any offence caused.

        • David Hazan says:

          Hi Vanessa,

          Once again, I truly appreciate your sincerity, as well as the fact that you have indeed read, digested, and reacted to my comments. And, absolutely no need for apologies on your part. I did stick my hand in a beehive, so a few stings are expected. No offense taken.

          To answer your Photon question(s)… No, I do not think anyone should be banned from anywhere, and that does include Photon. All I wanted from “those that engage with Photon”, was increased awareness of the paradigm that he creates with who he is, what he does, why he does it, and how he does it (which he does so masterfully). Otherwise, I feel Photon is an invaluable presence at this site.

          As for my Love Boat comment that you seem to find offensive… I don’t know that I would blame that generation for failing anything. Those were not only innocent times for the American public at large, but also extremely ignorant times. The perception of the US was still the beacon of freedom and liberty, and the perception of its government was still “by the people, for the people”.

          In fact, on quite the contrary, I feel it is the current generation that is the one failing miserably against an onslaught of almost daily conspiracies and propaganda, in spite of the fact that we are armed with access to a tremendous amount of factual knowledge that even a professional researcher could only dream of back in the 60s. And, this was the greater (intended) point of my commentary.

          As I try to say repeatedly, the same mechanism that successfully assassinated the president and got away with it for half a century has now evolved in to a 21st century institutionalized monstrosity, and is conducting its business worldwide, killing at will, warring at will, performing countless false flag events, domestically and internationally, at will… With absolute impunity!!!

          Although I can come up with a million valid excuses for how that generation fell for the deception, with all that we know now, I am failing to come up with much for ours… So, respectfully, I do accuse… Not you, but all of us, for letting it happen by focusing on past mysteries and turning a blind eye to our current condition and how we are falling for the same deception in 2015.

          I might be opening another can of worms with my following comment, but…

          I categorically disagree with your comment about Clinton and Obama, or any of the presidents since JFK… Regardless of their party affiliations I do not believe we have had a president who was not compromised, and therefore notcontrolled by the “powers that shouldn’t be” since November of 1963. But, perhaps that is a subject better left for another day, another thread, perhaps even another website.

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi David

            Thanks for your response. I must have misunderstood you. I thought you were referring to the current generation as the ‘Loveboat generation’ – unable to truly appreciate the dire consequences of what we seem to be so nimble at debating (??).

            I appreciate your concern about Photon’s role here but unless people are completely new to the site then I think we all know what Photon’s game is and most of us make pointed comments to that effect. So I’m a bit puzzled by your comment. If you are specifically objecting to my lighthearted approach to Photon then I will attempt to be tone it down but, sheesh, does it all have to be sturm und drang on here?

            I also appreciate what you are saying about the different times that existed at the time of the assassination. But the 60’s generation was about to be out on the streets over Vietnam, it was already out on the streets over civil rights. In my view it should have been out on the streets (or the political equivalent) over JFK and for that I do blame them. If they had called their government to account for the inadequate investigation that was the WC then there might have been some chance of determining the actual truth at a time when the perpetrators could have been held to account and the course of history changed.

            I believe that it is possible to draw a direct line from the forces aligned against JFK and what happened to Clinton and what is happening to Obama. The point of difference between a GWB and the current President I think is actually vast.

            Perhaps the current generation are still fighting the last war and don’t realise that they have been robbed just as much as JFK’s generation. Personally, I have been aghast at the strange ‘they are both as bad as each other’ public response to what (from this distance) seems to be a completely partisan attempt to take down this administration. The only benefit from the current political stalemate, that I see, is that these forces have now exposed themselves as prepared to trash America’s economy, reputation and world standing to the point where one has to ask “Are they for democracy?” and even…”Are they for America?” Some would argue that we are now seeing the true face of the beast at the heart of American democracy.

            Sorry to be so melodramatic.

          • David Hazan says:

            Hi Vanessa,

            I see that our perceptions of the political machinery and its true power structure are vastly different. I don’t feel it is possible for me to reconcile most of my comments about the aftermath of the assassination when they are seen through the prism of left-right sensibilities.

            As for the “Photon Dynamics” conundrum, I feel that I have already said enough. I apologize if I have failed to explain myself, or make a solid argument in my replies. But, not sure what else I can say to clarify further. So I won’t.

            But, yes… I was saying today’s generation is the love boat generation… :-}]

            “Love Boat
            Soon will be making another run
            The Love Boat
            Promises something for everyone”

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi David

            Thanks for your response. I’m happy to hear your explanation of the true power structure if you want to go there. I take it your views are more along Willy’s lines than the traditional left versus right divide?

            Ah, I wish you had not put that terrible tune into my head. 🙂

          • David, Have you read enough of the commentary here on JFKfacts to be familiar with my explanation of the true power structure?
            The architecture of modern political power?
            \\][//

          • David Hazan says:

            Hi Willy,

            I apologize for having left your question hanging there for days. I was pondering (genuinely) on whether or not I want to bite on Vanessa’s power structure question. The longer I thought about it, the more I was convinced that it was simply an impossible quest to attempt much a thing on this venue. Where would I even start?

            And I also apologize to Vanessa for not biting, as tempting her invitation to a discussion was…

            As for your question… Well, I feel I know about your general outlook, perhaps not enough to know what it exactly is, but sufficient bits and pieces to know what it is not.

            To say the least, I know for a fact that neither of us believes these high and mighty posts and organizations like the presidency of United States, or CIA or FBI are the top of the food chain of power. They all act at the pleasure of the people who sign their paychecks, and sadly enough, that ain’t us, the people and our tax dollars as we are indoctrinated to believe.

            I feel we also have similar enough views on the fact that all opinion is based on knowledge and observations, which, since our knowledge is based on lies and deception that go back at least a few thousand years, do not usually have much validity.

            I will not venture out any further than this unless Mr Morley sees fit to start a thread for this type of discussion. As unrelated as it may seem to the declared core mission of JFKfacts, I would argue that it is an extremely important subject which would define and widen the perspective in which we place the players of the assassination saga, some of whom (like JFK, LBJ and CIA), more often than not, get erroneously assigned infallible power and omnipotent control over events when their words and deeds are being examined and discussed.

            —————

            On a side note, Vanessa seems to be convinced that you are no longer talking to her… Please tell me it ain’t true, Willy. ;-}]

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi David

            Thanks for your considered gentlemanly response. I agree it’s a bit off topic and we are probably stretching the lovely moderator’s, and Jeff’s, patience way too far as it is.

            I think Willy thinks I’m a cross between Lady MacBeth and some Tool of the National Security State. But I’m not really. 🙂

  10. Larry Schnapf says:

    @David abd Vanessa- while i enjoyed the reference to the Love Boat, i think what really happened to the Boomer Generation who largely now control the media and levers of government was the movie-The Big Chill. When one reads about the political campaigns of 68 and 72, its amazing how much fear there was about this large of young voters who were coming of age. they thought we were going to change the political calculus. B

    But my paradigm change never happened. My generation morphed from idealists inspired by JFK and RFK to perhaps the most capitalist generation of all time. Instead of pursuing the truth, my generation pursued wealth without the restraints or traditions of their fathers’ generations, much less the wisdom gained from the searing experiences of the World War and the Cold War.

    So like the lead character in The Big Chill, my generation (the “Me Generation) became invested in the current power structure and institutions. Indeed we even dismantled the protections established by our grandfatheers

    Occasionally a Jeff Morley appears against the grain but more often than not we get a Bill O’Reilly and Chris Matthews, a Bill Clinton and a George Bush. JFK’s death was in vain.

    • Vanessa says:

      Thanks for explaining that Larry (and at least we are on to better music with ‘The Big Chill’). 🙂

      Personally, I’m not lamenting what happened to the 60’s generation now – they haven’t done too badly in my view. The western democracies are the most liberal they have ever been in my view.

      My ‘beef’ is with the actual generation that voted for JFK and was inspired by him and then did not insist on an adequate investigation. They were active about civil rights and were about to be out on the streets for Vietnam.

      I am one of those who believe that LBJ’s civil rights bill was passed precisely because of the change in mood after JFK’s death.

      Some might look at this current battle with Obama and say that the reason why the right has become so deranged is that they know that they have become outnumbered at last. It’s why they aren’t so keen on making the voting process easy.

      • Bill Clarke says:

        Vanessa
        March 16, 2015 at 1:12 pm

        “I am one of those who believe that LBJ’s civil rights bill was passed precisely because of the change in mood after JFK’s death.”

        I think Johnson believed the same thing and I certainly agree. Johnson told his people they had only a limited amount of time to get the bills passed before this mood would dissipate.

        • Vanessa says:

          Thanks Bill. It’s nice when some of us agree isn’t it? But I guess the question is can the Civil Rights Bill be marked up as a legacy of JFK rather than LBJ?

          PS I am still following up on that coup information. I’m exchanging polite emails with the academics about their data.

      • Vanessa says:

        Hi David

        Glad to see that President Obama has been reading JFKFacts and has noted my point about voting. 🙂

        http://www.smh.com.au/world/mandatory-voting-barack-obama-floats-the-idea-of-australianstyle-system-in-the-united-states-20150319-1m3h65.html

        Although I’m sorry to say that I have to correct the President on this issue and note that technically voting is not compulsory. It is compulsory to turn up at a voting station and have your name marked off the electoral roll. Once you are in the booth you can put whatever you want on the ballot paper – something foul, something poetic.

        So even the American libertarians should be happy with that. They have to turn up to a polling booth but they are not forced to cast a vote.

        We have been putting up with this TYRANNY since 1924 and it doesn’t seem to have done us any harm.

        • David Hazan says:

          Hmmm… A law that will force us to go in to a booth and pretend to vote in an election between Joe Evil and Tom Lesserevil, both of whom are bought and paid for by the time they get to the white house???

          That sounds fantastic.

          • Vanessa says:

            Sheesh David, where’s your American optimism?

            It’s a start that’s all and would at least make your representatives elected by the numerical majority of the electorate. Rather than just those who are rich, educated and not discouraged
            by weird registration rules from voting.

            Or are you sayin’ you want a Revolution?

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Instead of fining people for not voting why not reward them for doing so? No matter which way they vote? A small financial incentive to Participate in Democracy.
            A Tax deduction for doing so? Goofy huh?

          • David Hazan says:

            “Sheesh David, where’s your American optimism?” – Vanessa

            Ain’t got none…

            You can chain all 200 million voters together and March them through a voting booth, and still it won’t matter.

            There is really no point discussing how full or empty the glass might be, either. Because there is NO GLASS! It is nothing but a figment of your imagination, which has been planted there as a false memory of something that used to exist, and therefore must be possible to achieve once again as long as you keep “hoping”.

            Western democracies have long been turned in to a spectator sport. We have no say in team selection, coach selection, team owner’s politics and business deals, fixed games, individual plays, ticket sales or ad revenue.

            You can cheer… Or, you can boo… But, that is all you are allowed to do.

          • “A recent scientific study by Princeton and Northwestern universities, which has gone somewhat under reported in the mainstream media, concludes that the US is now a fully fledged oligarchy.

            The paper, entitled Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups and Average Citizens, notes that America is no longer even a Democracy, which begs the question, how far removed is the country from being the Republic envisioned and painstakingly established by Benjamin Franklin and the founding fathers.
            “The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence,” the study notes.

            The study points toward the conclusion that the US is nothing more than an illusion of democracy.

            The authors of the study, Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page concur that the will or opinion of the majority in the US has no effect on the way government is run.
            “The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.”
            \\][//

          • Vanessa says:

            Oh David – so your position is everything is hopeless and the only thing left to us to do is do have a bit of a wail about it?

            I would invite you to get off your virtual behind and do something about it.

            I would argue that there have never been, in the history of mankind, as many tools and opportunities for political activism for the average person as there are today. Join ‘Get Up’ or ‘Anonymous’ or whoever is currently fighting the status quo over there or even start your own group but please just do something.

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi Ronnie – given the dire state of things I would even agree with a tax deduction or payment to get people to vote. Appalling as that is to contemplate.

            The enforcement isn’t that rigorous here I have to say. I couldn’t vote at the last federal election because I was sick. No doctor’s certificate required, no nothing and I wasn’t fined. I think it’s more the idea that it’s your obligation as a citizen to vote that compels people to do it rather than the prospective punishment.

          • David Hazan says:

            Oh David – so your position is everything is hopeless and the only thing left to us to do is do have a bit of a wail about it?” – Vanessa

            Wow, Vanessa… I’m telling you the food is poisoned, you’re saying “don’t stay hungry, try the leeks?”

            And, your wail comment, I must say, somewhat presumptuous. How would you even know what I do and don’t?

            You can not fight artificial reality by joining artificial dissent. Anonymous, much like Al Qaeda, ISIS, Snowden, wikileaks, are creations of western powers, with Pentagon and CIA to manipulate our perception of reality… The deception system, since the raw days of JFK assasination, has been weaponized, institutionalized, scientifically improved and refined, and by means of telecommunications, including the Internet, has directly tapped into the human minds, controlling what they know, and as a direct result, inducing the desired reaction to advance an agenda they are simply not sharing with the masses.

            Did not know much about Get Up, but briefly looked in to it a little since you mentioned it. All I can say for the moment, is that it walks like duck, it talks like a duck….

            There are no (under 500) words I can share with you here that would explain what you laid out in front of me better than the movie Truman Show… In essence, you are suggesting, in order to fight the system, he should first keep voting, and then join a group of activists, whose members are also actors.

            How about finding that damn door and walking out? What is it? Reality too scary????? The shadows on the wall too mesmerizing to look away????

          • Vanessa says:

            Dear David

            I’m sorry, please accept my apologies for being so directive and obnoxious. Now you can see why Willy and others (the list gets longer by the day) won’t speak to me.

            Okay, let’s say I’ve opened that door and walked out into that grimy, crappy looking reality. Can I not start sweeping the streets? Even if it makes little difference in the long run – can‘t I just keep my own street clean while it’s my responsibility?

            What do you propose?

            And, again apologies. I really am sorry for being so rude.

          • David Hazan says:

            Hi Vanessa,

            Please do not interpret my late reply as a sign of discontent about you or your comments. The river of life gets deep and choppy at times, and I did not have much time for online activities while trying to keep swimming and stay afloat.

            ”…… apologies. I really am sorry for being so rude.” – Vanessa

            Rude, you are certainly not…. Nor obnoxious, nor directive. And there is certainly no need for apologies.

            To be frank, I think the P word I used was pretty accurate (:-}]) as you seem to have an urge to try to classify and define things (in this instance it was me) based on ambiguous and very limiting notions like right and wrong, good and bad, left and right…

            As for your desire to start cleaning as soon as you walk out that door…. That is quite admirable in a sweet kinda way…. I suppose everyone has a different way of dealing with things.

            But, since you are asking,….

            I’d propose that you first walk around a little, scout the place out, get to know the people outside that door, have a chat, smell the air… You might notice that reality is “grimy” only when it hides in the shadows, and it is “creepy” only when it is unknown.

            In fact, it is kinda fun out there. Because, outside that door, it is not just the emperor who does not have clothes.

            Until then, we can finish solving the JFK assasination… We seem to be this close to cracking that case! Should be any day now….. ;-}]

          • Vanessa says:

            Dear David

            No need to apologise for the delayed reply – we all have a lot going on. Hope you are okay. (Phew, that means that there are only 3 people on here who won’t talk to me).

            You are right I shouldn’t have presumed so much. All I am saying is that no matter how compromised the system, in the little space that each individual has to move there is still an opportunity to act.

            I was referring to that grimy, crappy (not creepy) reality that Truman steps out into. It isn’t nice like his ‘Pleasantville’ existence on the Truman Show but it is real.

            Yes, let us go back to solving the JFK dilemma. I know you will tell me it can’t be solved but I think it can….. 🙂

        • David Hazan says:

          “That’s not the way the world really works anymore. We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

          Karl Rove – 2004

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi David

            He said that in 2004 before he resigned rather than face the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2007. Do you think he would have said that after 2007?

            Are you familiar with Solzhenitsyn’s Oak and the Calf analogy about the Soviet Union? When I read that book, back in the day, I thought he was completely unrealistic and naïve. But look what happened. No system is that monolithic – you just have to keep butting at it like the calf did.

          • David Hazan says:

            I don’t know if whether he would have said it or not after 2007 is a relevant question. He did say it in 2004, at the height of his gig (and cockiness) as the propaganda czar of GWB.

            What is relevant is that he said it, he meant it, and it seems to be the naked truth as proven time and time again by all of the outrageous things the government and their paymasters do. Not to mention the obvious fact that the JFK discussion, 50 years later, is a clear example to what he is talking about. Hence my post with this specific quote as a reply to your comment: “I know you will tell me it can’t be solved but I think it can”.

            If I am interpreting your Solzhenitsyn comment correctly, you seem to say that to “keep butting at it” works… I don’t know what your criteria would be to lead you to think that. If anything, I would argue that Solzhenitsyn’s calf has long been slaughtered, cooked and served. In fact, I feel yours is an almost perfect example for what the weasel Karl Rove is talking about. Because we no longer discuss the reality Solzhenytsin was writing about, since it has long been buried under layers and layers of “other new realities” since 1975…

            I have a question for you Vanessa… (If I may). Is the JFK assassination the only conspiracy you believe in? Anything more recent that has piqued your interest? (don’t worry, it’ll be our LITTLE secret… No one else seems to be commenting on this thread anymore ;-})

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi David

            The point I’m making is that one day he is evil Master of the Universe and the next day he is out on his ar*e. These people aren’t invincible.

            I am not disagreeing with you on how things really get done in the USA all I am saying is that people should seek to do whatever can be done to change that.

            I think the JFK case is eminently solvable. If you don’t believe me have a look at the Ed Forum thread on ‘Oswald Leaving the TSBD’.

            I must be some sort of subversive, David because I have been banned from that forum until I mend my ways – which seems to be associating with a group they don’t like.

            As for other conspiracies, if you mean 9/11 then I’d say I see some unanswered questions but not what the Truthers claim. I see a lot of unanswered questions about a lot of major happenings. Does that mean they are conspiracies? Not necessarily.

          • David Hazan says:

            Hi Vanessa,

            The fact tat you go straight to 9/11 is quite telling in and of itself. After all, it is the only one that is en par with the JFK assassination in scope, execution, impact on history, and the size of its cover up… Just like the assassination, this “conspiracy” also stands right in the middle and knows, while we dance around it and suppose.

            But, I doubt that the subject of 9/11 is welcome here, and we don’t really have to go that big just to explore other conspiracies. They are everywhere, and they happen everyday. Take this still developing Germanwings story for example, which is being woven in to a veil of lone, mentally unstable, troubled nut faster than you can say “Hey, hold on a second”…

            Once one starts recognizing the songs of the mockingbirds, it is very difficult not to notice the little operetta they are staging about this crash. Within hours after the crash, the media starts flashing the neon arrow signs pointing to this co-pilot, and flooding the news cycle with “reports” 99.9% of which are based on “sources” “an official who heard the recording” level of pure speculation.

            From the very first hours, we are made to believe that the co-pilot (Oswald) locked the pilot out (he is alone) of the cockpit depository building, but was still alive (so, not an accident!) because someone who listened to the tape said you could hear him breathing. Case closed… Before it is even opened. Blast resistant flight recorder chip is “lost”, pictures of the co-pilot in his backyard holding an A320 manual and a bottle of pills are found in his home (he is a nut)… This case is so tightly closed, that if you dare question it, you might as we’ll admit you wear a tin foil fedora!

            Is this a big conspiracy? No! Does it change the course of history? No! Is there a cover up? Oh yes! Will some people eventually figure out what was really going on and what wasn’t? Yes… Will the “authorities” acknowledge and/or act on the new findings. No they will not. Will the total truth ever come out? I think you know the answer to that…

            The reason for this cover up might just be financial, where many billions and many jobs can be lost if it were found to be a malfunction of some sort. But the point is, if major news outlets, including BBC, New York Times and the whole cast of mockingbirds go to this extent to mislead and fool people for this and do not see it as unethical (to say the least), just imagine the lies they tell us on the important stuff.

            So, you can solve the JFK assassination down to every single trivial detail if you want… As satisfying as it would be to know the whole truth about it, this would mean we have 50 more years of outrageous, institutionalized conspiracies and extrajudicial activity to catch up with… I just feel that this is not only physically impossible, but it is also irrelevant… Unless we, the deceived, start recognizing the deception and speak up and act up against it as it is happening (or even better, before it happens), and not dwell in almost archeological minutae of an otherwise blatant conspiracy like the JFK assassination, deception will continue to frame our reality, and we will be forever vulnerable to future conspiracies that do change the course of history… Our history… (Yes, like 9/11.)

  11. Vanessa says:

    Dear David

    … ‘Unless we, the deceived, start recognizing the deception and speak up and act up against it as it is happening (or even better, before it happens)…’

    I think we’re in agreement on this – all I ask is that individuals should do something.

    Did you read that thread over on Ed Forum? I’d be interested in your views, if so.

    I have been suspended over there again. I only lasted 10 minutes this time. My post was about free speech, the right to offend and Charlie Hebdo and complaining about my first suspension. So they banned me. 🙂

    Complaining is not allowed apparently.

    Maybe you’re right after all David……

    • Vanessa says:

      Hi David

      So you are on a JFK site about the assassination but ultimately you don’t it’s important because there have been so many other conspiracies in the meantime that we will never catch up?

      I think it’s vitally important for a whole host of reasons that the JFK assassination gets solved. At the very least a man was murdered and his murder was not adequately investigated. Like every other cold case this should be pursued to the utmost limit as far as I’m concerned.

      At the other end of the spectrum, if Oswald wasn’t the lone gunman then that has implications for American democracy and American institutions that are profound. And perhaps by solving and dealing with the ramifications of this particular crime a great deal of other murky issues will be made clearer.

    • David Hazan says:

      ”So you are on a JFK site about the assassination but ultimately you don’t it’s important because there have been so many other conspiracies in the meantime that we will never catch up?” – Vanessa

      Yes, exactly! I am here to observe and learn from the investigative process and procedure, to benefit from some pretty sharp minds hanging out here, and to hone my pattern recognition skills when it comes to the gatekeepers’ and bullcrap artists’ argumentative techniques. (Have you ever witnessed anyone in these forums who changed his/her mandate the end of an argument?)

      Otherwise, as I had said before, I consider the”conspiracy” side of the assassination already cracked in more ways than one, but both the knowledge and the people are heavily fragmented (by design), and therefore the “total” ends up being much much lesser than the sum of its parts. What is miserably lacking is not facts or data or analysis, but a certain unity, and a comprehensive plan of action.

      I would normally take objection with your usage of “IF” about Oswald being a lone nut, but feel you are saying it just for the sake of argument. You surely don’t believe that, do you?

      By the way, I am truly flattered that you’d be interested in my views about the thread you mention, or about anything else for that matter. But, it is a whopping 118 pages long… I flipped through it hoping I would come across your name… but no luck. Sorry. If you point towards the right page, I’d be happy to look again.

      The right to offend… You are for or against?
      Charlie Hebdo…. Real??? Or Gladio?
      Port Arthur… Lindt hostage crisis… Real??? Or Psyops???

      • Vanessa says:

        Oh David. It’s probably the most productive 118 pages you will read on the JFK assassination (apart from a few somewhat ‘eccentric’ contributions). That’s very kind of you to say that but I’ve contributed nothing to that thread – it is the genuine researchers on there who have made ground-breaking discoveries. I just think it would be good if as many people as possible could read it. But I’m afraid you do have to read the whole thing to follow the reasoning. And (just to be cheeky 🙂 if you do read it then you’ll get the answer to your question about whether I believe Oswald was a lone nut.

        I have seen nothing in either the Port Arthur massacre or the Lindt café siege to suggest anything other than what they appeared to be.

        Psyops? For what purpose? Port Arthur led to the banning of assault weapons in Australia – the destruction of about 640,000 of those weapons and national registration for gun owners. We haven’t had a massacre since and gun deaths have also dropped dramatically. Please don’t tell me you think that is a bad thing.

        We are probably already pushing the limits of the moderator’s patience with this discussion. But I what I will say about ‘the right to offend’, is that as a good liberal, I believe absolutely 100% in both sides of the argument. 🙂 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.