Do the CTs really believe their efforts will amont to anything?
bigdog
known and in the public domain. If the CTs can't make their case against
whatever alleged perpetrators of the JFK assassination they believe were
responsible for it with the information at hand, just what do they think
they can accomplish? While they have managed to convince a majority of
Americans that there were more people involved than just little old Lee
Harvey Oswald, they haven't managed to settle on anyone. Theories are all
over the map. It was the CIA. It was the Mafia. It was anti-Castro Cubans.
It was pro-Castro Cubans. It was right wingers. It was LBJ. Yada, yada,
yada. The CTs can't agree on who was behind it and none of them has been
able to make the case against their bogeymen of choice. So what do they
believe will happen that will put them over the top. What do they believe
is going to come to light that is going to establish from a historical
perspective that anyone other than LHO was behind the assassination of
JFK.
While CTs seem to take some comfort in the fact that they have convinced a
majority of the Americna people that there was a conspiracy, they
certainly haven't managed to make a case against any specific group or
individuals. For the vast majority of Americans, the idea of conspiracy is
rather nebulous. Lots of Americans believe there was more than LHO
involved but they don't really seem to have an idea who that might be. So
if you can't make a solid case against any specific parties with what is
available now, do you really think there is any chance you will be
successful in that effort in the future. Do you really think there is a
smoking gun out there that will prove once and for all that somebody other
than LHO was behind the crime? Of course the term "smoking gun" is used
metaphorically. Obviously, any such gun would long ago have stopped
smoking. So what is there left to be uncovered that will make a case
against any specific individual. History has recorded that LHO was the
assassin. If that history is going to be rewritten, it will be necessary
to produce a compelling case against somebody else. After almost 46 years,
that hasn't happened. Does anyone realistically believe it will?
tomnln
"Opinions are like Assholes"
"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c258b5cd-7a54-4dba...@p9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
mucher1
> The "Personification" of the adage>>>
>
> "Opinions are like Assholes"
Uh-oh. Seems Tom just realized he's even more confused today than he
was 40+ years ago. That's not boding too well for the next 46 years,
eh, Tommy?
> "bigdog" <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
bigdog
> The "Personification" of the adage>>>
>
> "Opinions are like Assholes"
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Brilliant reply, Rossley, and completely unresponsive to the question.
Robert Harris
<c258b5cd-7a54-4dba...@p9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Let's be real. Everything there is to know about the JFK assassination is
> known and in the public domain.
That's quite a discovery!!
Please tell us specifically how you learned that.
> If the CTs can't make their case against
> whatever alleged perpetrators of the JFK assassination they believe were
> responsible for it with the information at hand, just what do they think
> they can accomplish?
ROFLMAO!!
Of course the "case" has been made.
Even the major TV networks are coming around. Look at these two videos
from CNN and Fox News.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exXDcu-yRiw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfWGWcR_J0k&feature=video_response
You need to understand that there is a very large world out there, which
is MUCH different than this antiquated usenet newsgroup which is
controlled by a tiny and very fanatical group of conspiracy deniers.
The rest of the world knows better, and the evidence keeps piling up.
For you guys, it's all over but the crying:-)
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
> Let's be real. Everything there is to know about the JFK assassination is
> known and in the public domain. If the CTs can't make their case against
If that were true, then why is the government, especially the CIA,
refusing to comply with FOIA requests?
WBurg...@aol.com
YES WHEN ALL THE FILES ARE OPENED INCLUDING JACKIE KENNEDY'S LETTER.
WHY ELSE WOULD THEY HAVE LOCKED THIS STUFF UP FOR SO LONG?
BURGUNDY
Thalia
> In article
> <c258b5cd-7a54-4dba-968c-fd4bc1f6f...@p9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
The problem with those youtube videos is that they are about the Mafia
doing it, the mass media will accept that, when in reality it was a
CIA sponsored hit. MOST conspiracy books lean that way, yet the media
will ignore all those well researched books in favour of those pushing
the mafia. It is obviously acceptable that the mafia did it, it is not
acceptable that it could come from within the state
bigdog
> bigdog wrote:
> > Let's be real. Everything there is to know about the JFK assassination is
> > known and in the public domain. If the CTs can't make their case against
>
> If that were true, then why is the government, especially the CIA,
> refusing to comply with FOIA requests?
>
Are you asking me why our agency in charge of international espionage
would want to keep secrets? Gosh, Tony, I have no idea.
MSwanberg
Are you actually willing to listen to the theories and discuss them?
Or are you just looking for another excuse to heap insults at someone
who is putting forth a possible answer to your question?
As for everything being revealed, um, methinks not. Aren't there
still tons of CIA documents that haven't been released? And what
about all the redactions in the documents that have been released?
Nope, there's still tons more to know.
-Mike
Peter Fokes
Do you mean "amount"?
bigdog writes "Lets be real."
This from someone who uses an alias? Lol
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
bigdog
> In article
> <c258b5cd-7a54-4dba-968c-fd4bc1f6f...@p9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > Let's be real. Everything there is to know about the JFK assassination is
> > known and in the public domain.
>
> That's quite a discovery!!
>
> Please tell us specifically how you learned that.
>
> > If the CTs can't make their case against
> > whatever alleged perpetrators of the JFK assassination they believe were
> > responsible for it with the information at hand, just what do they think
> > they can accomplish?
>
> ROFLMAO!!
>
> Of course the "case" has been made.
>
> Even the major TV networks are coming around. Look at these two videos
> from CNN and Fox News.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exXDcu-yRiw
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfWGWcR_J0k&feature=video_response
>
> You need to understand that there is a very large world out there, which
> is MUCH different than this antiquated usenet newsgroup which is
> controlled by a tiny and very fanatical group of conspiracy deniers.
>
> The rest of the world knows better, and the evidence keeps piling up.
>
the last ten years? That would be pertinent to my question as to what
the CTs think they are accomplishing.
> For you guys, it's all over but the crying:-)
>
> Robert Harris
Right, Bob. CTs have been telling us for decades it's all over for us.
Are you telling us this time it really, really, really is over for
us.
Let's ignore the lack of proper journalistic skepticism that should
have been a part of the two clips you cited and get right to the
question they should have addressed. For this story to have any merit,
Marcello would have to have been telling the truth when he allegedly
confessed to being behind the assassination and the informant would
have to have been telling the truth to the FBI. If either was lying,
the story collapses. Why would Marcello lie about killing JFK? A
better question would be why would he tell the truth if he was behind
it? Marcello certainly was smart enough to know there would be no
statute of limitations regarding the murder. He could still have been
prosecuted and sent to prison for life if convicted. So why blab about
it? Can you give us a reason why he would truthfully take credit for
the assassination that would not also exist if he were lying about
such a thing? As for the informant, I have no way of knowing whether
he made up the story about Marcello confessing or not. Marcello had
already been looked at as a possible suspect by the HSCA so he was
telling a story that dovetailed with what already was suspected. It's
easy to make up a story to fit theories that are already out there,
ala Ed Hoffman. The biggest problem with this story is there is simply
no corroboration for it. No compelling evidence. Then there is the
problem all conspiracy theories face. How do the Marcello plotters
know to place Oswald in the TSBD before it is even known that JFK was
going to be anywhere near the TSBD? And what is the significance of
Marcello having met Oswald for those who want to deny Oswald was the
shooter. If Oswald didn't do it, any connection he has to Marcello is
irrelevant. If you want to connect Marcello to the assassination via
Oswald, you need Oswald as your shooter. It has always been my
position that the physical evidence alone is overwhelming that Oswald
was the shooter but have allowed for the theoretical possibility he
could have been acting on behald of someone else. If you have evidence
for such, I would be very interested in seeing it. But it is going to
take something far more compelling than somebody said he heard
somebody say that he did it, especially in light of the problems I
have mentioned. If you want to make a case for a conspiracy with
Oswald as the shooter, have at it. But let's drop the silliness that
somebody else did it. That is not even an open question.
tomnln
"mucher1" <muc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:36851b71-262b-46c1...@f10g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/arrb.htm
"MSwanberg" <mswa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:496ddfcc-dd39-4f26...@33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
markusp
> known and in the public domain.
Respectfully, this must be patently false. There is physical evidence that
is missing, and evidence of possible tampering in the extant AP X- ray
with respect to the 6.5mm artifact. Concerning the opinion of overall
futility of continued scrutiny of this murder, it is remotely possible
that someday some of this missing evidence will be produced. As for
myself, I would certainly like to view the Babushka Lady's film.
~Mark
Robert Harris
<1ae2c87e-d269-4330...@g6g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 28, 12:22?am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <c258b5cd-7a54-4dba-968c-fd4bc1f6f...@p9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > ?bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Let's be real. Everything there is to know about the JFK assassination is
> > > known and in the public domain. ?
> >
> > That's quite a discovery!!
> >
> > Please tell us specifically how you learned that.
> >
> > > If the CTs can't make their case against
> > > whatever alleged perpetrators of the JFK assassination they believe were
> > > responsible for it with the information at hand, just what do they think
> > > they can accomplish?
> >
> > ROFLMAO!!
> >
> > Of course the "case" has been made.
> >
> > Even the major TV networks are coming around. Look at these two videos
> > from CNN and Fox News.
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exXDcu-yRiw
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfWGWcR_J0k&feature=video_response
> >
> > You need to understand that there is a very large world out there, which
> > is MUCH different than this antiquated usenet newsgroup which is
> > controlled by a tiny and very fanatical group of conspiracy deniers.
> >
> > The rest of the world knows better, and the evidence keeps piling up.
> >
> Right, Bob. Why don't you list all the evidence that has piled up in
> the last ten years?
I have posted a great deal of it over the last 14 years.
You can learn much more about by reading the last two of Waldron's books
as well as "Oswald Talked" by Ray and Mary La Fontaine.
> That would be pertinent to my question as to what
> the CTs think they are accomplishing.
"CT's" do not think in tandem with one another. It is incredibly stupid to
think that they do. That's like saying that all blacks are stupid or all
hispanics are lazy.
You make exactly the same terrible error that racists do when you try to
assign negative attributes to all members of a particular group.
This case is about evidence and intelligent analysis. It is NOT about you
or your adversaries.
>
> > For you guys, it's all over but the crying:-)
> >
> > Robert Harris
>
> Right, Bob. CTs have been telling us for decades it's all over for us.
> Are you telling us this time it really, really, really is over for
> us.
>
> Let's ignore the lack of proper journalistic skepticism that should
> have been a part of the two clips you cited and get right to the
> question they should have addressed. For this story to have any merit,
> Marcello would have to have been telling the truth when he allegedly
> confessed to being behind the assassination and the informant would
> have to have been telling the truth to the FBI. If either was lying,
> the story collapses. Why would Marcello lie about killing JFK? A
> better question would be why would he tell the truth if he was behind
> it?
Because they were sharing a cell, were apparently straight, and so had
nothing to do much of the time, except talk. And like most other people,
they talked about their professions. Marcello talked about all kinds of
things he was involved in, from petty crimes to some pretty ugly things.
On one isolated occasion, he talked about his involvement in the JFK case.
A couple days later, apparently realizing his mistake, he told the
informant that he would be killed if he ever told anyone about what he had
said.
It makes no sense that Marcello would lie. He was already considered a
suspect by the HSCA and a lot of other people. He obviously, opened up
about the assassination in a fit of anger, revealing his intense hatred
for the Kennedys.
In fact, between the two of them, Marcello and Ferrie were on the record
expressing more hatred and motive to assassinate JFK than anyone else on
the planet.
If Marcello had NOT carried out his stated in intention to kill JFK, it
would have been a miracle.
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<43e9d494-be4d-43f9...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Thalia <thali...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Thalia, I have to ask you the same question I did before, when you said
that.
Show me evidence of CIA participation in the attack.
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
Why don't you pay attention for a change and stop asking silly questions
just to be annoying?
>> For you guys, it's all over but the crying:-)
>>
>> Robert Harris
>
> Right, Bob. CTs have been telling us for decades it's all over for us.
> Are you telling us this time it really, really, really is over for
> us.
>
Wow, you've dropped the number of people who believe it was a conspiracy
from 90% to 76%. Aren't you satisfied with that success?
Anthony Marsh
Well then you are admitting that the JFK assassination was a conspiracy
involving international espionage.
Anthony Marsh
Could be because the media are owned by the CIA.
bigdog
There is one possible answer. Oswald did it. If you think you can prove he
did it for somebody else, have at it. But Oswald did it. Any theory that
doesn't accept that isn't worth discussing.
> As for everything being revealed, um, methinks not. Aren't there
> still tons of CIA documents that haven't been released? And what
> about all the redactions in the documents that have been released?
> Nope, there's still tons more to know.
>
Whatever documents the CIA might be hanging onto amount to nothing more
than a CT Hail Mary pass. They haven't been able to score with what they
have available and they are betting/hoping/praying those CIA files will do
what they haven't been able to do after 46 years, prove somebody other
than Oswald was involved. Unfortunately for the CTs, not only are they
down to one last gasp play, they don't even seem to know what direction to
throw that Hail Mary pass.
bigdog
> On Sep 26, 10:03 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Let's be real. Everything there is to know about the JFK assassination is
> > known and in the public domain.
>
> Respectfully, this must be patently false. There is physical evidence that
> is missing,
Such as?
> and evidence of possible tampering in the extant AP X- ray
> with respect to the 6.5mm artifact.
No such evidence exists.
> Concerning the opinion of overall
> futility of continued scrutiny of this murder, it is remotely possible
> that someday some of this missing evidence will be produced. As for
> myself, I would certainly like to view the Babushka Lady's film.
>
> ~Mark
By the Babushka Lady, do you mean Beverly Oliver who was all of 17
years old at the time?
bigdog
But you can't remember any of it so you can post it now?
> You can learn much more about by reading the last two of Waldron's books
> as well as "Oswald Talked" by Ray and Mary La Fontaine.
>
The only thing I have ever learned from reading conspiracy books is that I
should be more careful about what I spend my money and waste my time on.
> > That would be pertinent to my question as to what
> > the CTs think they are accomplishing.
>
> "CT's" do not think in tandem with one another. It is incredibly stupid to
> think that they do. That's like saying that all blacks are stupid or all
> hispanics are lazy.
>
How do you infer from my statement that I take the position that all CTs
think alike. In fact that is one of the indictments against the CTs is
that no theory has ever been put forward that could gain a consensus among
those who want to reject the notion that Oswald did it. I simply asked
what the CTs think they are accomplishing. So far, that seems to be a
stumper.
> You make exactly the same terrible error that racists do when you try to
> assign negative attributes to all members of a particular group.
>
Well since I believe all members of the CT group are wrong, I will have to
plead guilty to that.
> This case is about evidence and intelligent analysis. It is NOT about you
> or your adversaries.
>
If the case were about evidence and intelligent analysis, there would be
near unanimity in the belief that Oswald did it. CT lore is about
speculation and misinterpretation of evidence.
Why is that obvious? Because it works for you?
> In fact, between the two of them, Marcello and Ferrie were on the record
> expressing more hatred and motive to assassinate JFK than anyone else on
> the planet.
>
Lots of people hated JFK and had motive but that doesn't mean they did it.
Tom Lowery apparently hates JFK. Do you suspect him, too?
> If Marcello had NOT carried out his stated in intention to kill JFK, it
> would have been a miracle.
>
Is it a miracle whenever someone gets an urge to kill someone and then
thinks better of it?
bigdog
a bonus.
> >> For you guys, it's all over but the crying:-)
>
> >> Robert Harris
>
> > Right, Bob. CTs have been telling us for decades it's all over for us.
> > Are you telling us this time it really, really, really is over for
> > us.
>
> Wow, you've dropped the number of people who believe it was a conspiracy
> from 90% to 76%. Aren't you satisfied with that success?
>
No, but it does encourage me to keep on keeping on. My question was
what is it that keeps the CTs going?
bigdog
I keep rereading what I wrote and I am trying to figure out from what I
wrote how you concluded that I believe that the JFK assassination had
anything to do with international espionage.
Gerry Simone
The vast majority of the population don't believe in the LAT.
"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c258b5cd-7a54-4dba...@p9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
YOU brought up international espionage as if that is the ONLY reason to
cover up things. You know damn well that agencies cover up to hide their
mistakes and illegal activities.
Anthony Marsh
You have to separate the two things. First is the FACT that there was a
woman there. We don't know if she had a camera and what type it was.
Second we have the Beverly Oliver hoax. None of her story is true so we
don't need to believe any of her version of Babushka Lady.
Thalia
> Let's be real. Everything there is to know about the JFK assassination is
Yes I am afraid I will have to take the bait and reply to this quite silly
post. Firstly, you are mistaken that "everything there is to know about
the JFK assassination is known and in the public domain." In fact, this an
untruth.
There are hundreds, probably thousands, of documents that have yet to be
released, especially CIA related documents. The Ionnides documents is one
example. Secondly, the vast majority of CTers believe it was a group
within the CIA who orchestated the plot, and what detail and information
is trickling out is reinforcing this view. Very few Cters believe it was
Castro, the Mafia (or they may have played a small role, after all, we now
know that some members of the Mafia were working with The CIA to get rid
of Castro,) and very few believe it was James Files, LBJ or Israel
[conspiracy theorist Gadhafi excepted.] There is no valid evidence that
pro-Castro Cubans had anything to do with it. This whole "there are too
many suspects" argument is just straw man material. Secondly, the American
people believe it was a conspiracy because, despite popular opinion, they
are not all stupid and do have some common sense. What the government has
asked them to believe is just plain ludicrous. The assassination is highly
suspicious just on its face - JFK killed by mysterious Marxist [in is
hiding while he does it] living in that crazy, right-wing town Dallas
while the President has been given less to zero security, and then the
suspect, who denies it and tells us he is just a "patsy" is paraded
around the media before being shot while under police protection by
another supposed lone nut with suspicious connections. The "magic bullet"
presents further problems as does Kennedy backward head snap. Anyone with
an open mind, who understands the reality of American politics, and not
the fantasy, can see it was a conspiracy, one perpetuated by hardened
military men used to operating in secrecy. History will be much more open
to the truth as it is, not the truth people such as yourself, want it to
be.
bigdog
> They already have.
>
> The vast majority of the population don't believe in the LAT.
>
That was accomplished decades ago. Since then, the CT movement has been
dead in the water, unable to make a case against anyone but Oswald. So
what have you done for us lately. Say within the last 10 years?
bigdog
>
> Could be because the media are owned by the CIA.
>
Just one question, Tony?
Are you serious?
Thalia
>
> - Show quoted text -
When I say it was the CIA, I want to make it clear that it was is was run
by some CIA agents on a need to know basis. Most people employed by the
CIA would not have been involved. Those in Operation Mongoose are the most
likely culprits. The plot probably had help from some cold warriors in the
military/corporate world and one or more of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I
believe Lee Harvey Oswald was handled by the CIA - George DeM was asked to
look after him, so were the Paines (who might have been FBI informants
rather than the CIA) and Oswald was run as a fake Defector to the Soviet
Union, and then to draw out pro- Castro sympathisers through his work in
New Orleans. He was manipulated cleverly and someon was pulling his
strings - the Mafia doesn't do such things, but the CIA does.
I believe {and I can hear the shrill laughter now, but I am big girl and
can take it} that JFK was hit in the throat by a missile from TUM. We know
that he had a small entrance wound in his throat based on the description
by Parkland Doctors who saw it. This wound happened as JFK passed TUM {the
umbrella tracking Kennedy as he passed} Kennedy reaised his arms to
throat, and appeared incapacipated. He never spoke or made any significant
movment. WE know the CIA had such a weapon in 1963 - ideal time and place
to try it out - backed up by snipers.
The CIA saw Kennedy as a threat to the security of United States against
comminism and felt personally betrayed by him. Kennedy betrayed the CIA
and the anti-Castro Cubans during the Bay of Pigs invasion by not
delivering the promised air support; this resulted in many of the invaders
being killed or captured; and it also resulted in the humiliation of the
CIA. Soon afterward, Kennedy fired Allen Dulles as head of the CIA (he
would later be appointed to the Warren Commission) and his chief deputy
Charles Cabell for the bungling of the Bay of Pigs invasion. Kennedy also
promised to "smash the CIA into a thousand pieces." Kennedy promised
Khruschev that there would be no further attempts to invade Cuba; and,
pursuant to that promise, Kennedy forcibly closed down American
anti-Castro training centers, which had CIA links. Kennedy entered into a
nuclear test-ban treaty with the Soviets, thereby confining his being
"soft on communism." And, just before his assassination, he ordered the
withdrawal of 1,000 troops from Vietnam, thereby threatening to cause the
fall of the Vietnam "domino" to the communists.
It is not difficult to see, then, that, in the mind of the high-level,
paranoid CIA official, Kennedy presented a real threat to "national
security," as the CIA defined that term — and that the nation needed
protection from Kennedy's "irresponsible" acts.
We know that the CIA had the motive and means to plan and executive such
an operation and had access to powerful people within the governmnet to
ensure a cover-up. The Mafia had none of this.
WE know from past deeds that the CIA is a powerful willing to act outside
the confines of the US constitution, ie:
1. At the end of World War II organizers of the CIA conspired to retain
the services of members Of the Nazi SS.
2. CIA officials conspired to overthrow the presidents or prime ministers
of Iran, Guatemala, Indonesia, Cuba, South Vietnam, and Nicaragua.
3. CIA officials conspired to use American citizens, without their
knowledge or consent, for experiments with dangerous, mind-altering drugs.
4. CIA officials conspired to retain the services of Mafia hoodlums and
murderers.
5. CIA officials conspired to assist in the invasion of Cuba, without a
declaration of war from Congress.
6. CIA officials conspired to murder Fidel Castro.
There are lots of "clues" that can be dismissed as coincidences and what
not, and yet when you put them all together the evidence is pointing in
one direction. For example, did you know that the person who got a Visa
for Mexico after LHO was a CIA agent?
I do not have the scope to discuss it all here, there is more specific
information in books such as "JFK and the Unspeakable" have you read it?
He breaks down the intelligence apparatus and how it was manipulated to
frame Oswald.
Who had the motive, means and the power of the "National Security" state
to hide behind - it's not the Mafia.
This is a good overview from the Mary Ferrell website:
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/The_CIA_and_the_JFK_Assassination
Thalia.
Sandy McCroskey
There is absolutely no information indicating a CIA hand in the
assassination.
It's a lot harder for me to imagine a plausible motive for the CIA than it
is for Oswald. (Richard Helms did it because he didn't want to lose his
job? Puh-leeeze! Vietnam? It wasn't yet known how cold warrior Kennedy
would have dealt with Vietnam. And so on.)
> Very few Cters believe it was
> Castro, the Mafia (or they may have played a small role, after all, we now
> know that some members of the Mafia were working with The CIA to get rid
> of Castro,) and very few believe it was James Files, LBJ or Israel
> [conspiracy theorist Gadhafi excepted.] There is no valid evidence that
> pro-Castro Cubans had anything to do with it. This whole "there are too
> many suspects" argument is just straw man material.
The people who think the Mafia was the prime mover or that James Files did
it or that the mastermind was LBJ or even that Israel was involved have
just as much of an argument as you do for the CIA's guilt (that is, a
concatenation of non sequiturs and highly improbable events).
>Secondly, the American
> people believe it was a conspiracy because, despite popular opinion, they
> are not all stupid and do have some common sense. What the government has
> asked them to believe is just plain ludicrous.
There is nothing unbelievable about a lone malcontent venting his
frustration by killing an important public figure.
> The assassination is highly
> suspicious just on its face - JFK killed by mysterious Marxist [in is
> hiding while he does it]
Yeah, living up to his idea of his own importance by "hiding" under a
fatuously transparent alias. Calling Oswald a "Marxist" (or representative
of any ideology) overestimates his intellectual maturity.
> living in that crazy, right-wing town Dallas
> while the President has been given less to zero security,
The security at Dallas was typical for that time and for JFK's crowd-
pleasing style.
>and then the
> suspect, who denies it and tells us he is just a "patsy"
You CTs always take Oswald's "patsy" statement out of context, and it's
easy to see why. I'm not saying you consciously do this but the statement
in its entirety doesn't fit your preconceptions. Oswald didn't say he was
a "patsy" for any conspirators in the assassination, he said he was a
"patsy" for the Dallas Police, who, he claimed, brought him in only
because he lived for a while in the Soviet Union. Do you believe that too?
As we know, he was actually arrested for the murder of a police officer.
Why is it considered so unusual for a guilty man to protest his innocence?
> is paraded
> around the media before being shot while under police protection by
> another supposed lone nut with suspicious connections. The "magic bullet"
> presents further problems as does Kennedy backward head snap.
CTs, generally speaking, seem to have no trouble swallowing the most
fantastic scenarios, accepting for every bit of evidence against Oswald
the most improbable explanation, while finding it somehow impossible to
grasp the solid science revealing that Kennedy was killed by a shot from
the back, and from the sixth floor window of the TSDB. (Anything too
"technical," I'm afraid, is likely to be pooh- poohed as "gobbledy-gook.")
>Anyone with
> an open mind, who understands the reality of American politics, and not
> the fantasy, can see it was a conspiracy, one perpetuated by hardened
> military men used to operating in secrecy.
I thought you believed it was the CIA. Now it's the "military"?
/sandy
Sandy McCroskey
Thalia writes: "the American people believe it was a conspiracy because,
despite popular opinion, they are not all stupid and do have some common
sense."
"Despite popular opinion"...? To paraphrase, then: Most people aren't that
stupid... despite what most people think!
I'd like to add to my previous post that there are many reasons not to
think the CIA killed JFK because of his plans regarding Vietnam, besides
the one I mentioned in passing. I didn't mean to imply that scenario is
less preposterous than it is.
/sandy
Gerry Simone
If I can use a phrase by Anthony Marsh, your question is a strawman
argument.
We don't have to do something new like name or convict the shooters to
conclude that the murder of President Kennedy was a conspiracy.
But there have been many recent good books/investigations.
What about Carlos Marcellos prison yard confession to a credible
informant?
"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4f72e820-3e2a-4416...@a6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
MSwanberg
> Why would Marcello lie about killing JFK? A
> better question would be why would he tell the truth if he was behind
> it? Marcello certainly was smart enough to know there would be no
> statute of limitations regarding the murder. He could still have been
> prosecuted and sent to prison for life if convicted. So why blab about
> it? Can you give us a reason why he would truthfully take credit for
> the assassination that would not also exist if he were lying about
> such a thing?
Seriously? Weren't you the one that started the thread all about "if LHO
didn't do it, then why hasn't anyone credible come forth to claim they
killed JFK?" You really don't know which way to blow your wind, do you?
-Mike
MSwanberg
> By the Babushka Lady, do you mean Beverly Oliver who was all of 17
> years old at the time?
What's your point? Why couldn't a 17-year-old have a camera in 1963?
-Mike
markusp
>
> > On Sep 26, 10:03 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Let's be real. Everything there is to know about the JFK assassination is
> > > known and in the public domain.
>
> > Respectfully, this must be patently false. There is physical evidence that
> > is missing,
>
> Such as?
Harper fragment; brain; tissue slides; LHO's note to Hosty; upholstery &
interior of limo; video/film of Perry's Parkland press conference (we have
the transcript, therefore there was a recording); Babushka film; et. al.
> > and evidence of possible tampering in the extant AP X- ray
> > with respect to the 6.5mm artifact.
>
> No such evidence exists.
Mantik's optical densitometry studies support it convincingly.
> By the Babushka Lady, do you mean Beverly Oliver who was all of 17
> years old at the time?
No. I think Oliver's claim is shameless capitalization. However, the
Babushka Lady is there, and the Z-film shows that she likely was filming
the motorcade.
~Mark
MSwanberg
> YOU brought up international espionage as if that is the ONLY reason to
> cover up things. You know damn well that agencies cover up to hide their
> mistakes and illegal activities.
I've often wondered how bigdog cannot make this connection. If the CIA is
not declassifying documents about the JFK assassination, and (according to
bigdog) the CIA keeps matters of international espionage classified, then
ipso facto the CIA documents pertaining to the JFK assassination must have
to do with international espionage...
Even removing bigdog's mis-speak, the fact still remains. The CIA is not
declassifying certain documents about the JFK assassination. Now, we have
to ask ourselves, what possible reason could there be for this?
Whatever answer anyone posits for the CIA's behavior in this matter, that
inexorably ties that reason to the JFK assassination. Period.
-Mike
MSwanberg
>
> Thalia.
I had trouble getting through "JFK and the Unspeakable." Good book, full
of tons of great information, but seems nearly schizophrenic in how it
jumps around from topic to topic.
I have to ask, what convinces of you of TUM's involvement? I can't get
myself on board with that idea simply because to hit a moving target
moving so quickly across your field of view, you need some sort of sight
mechanism. And how would a sight be mounted on an umbrella? I just don't
see it.
Frankly, I believe (and the belief is just mine) that JFK was hit in the
throat from the GK.
Thanks,
-Mike
Anthony Marsh
Very few conspiracy theorists think that Kennedy was killed by the CIA
because of Vietnam. If Vietnam is the motive, then larger forces such as
the Military Industrial Complex are usually the suspects, not the CIA. The
CIA was not that thrilled with Vietnam either.
One of the other motives for the CIA often cited is anger about the Bay of
Pigs fiasco.
> /sandy
>
Anthony Marsh
You know that I disagree strongly with most of your other points, but they
are just a matter of opinion. In this case, you unfortunately are just
reciting what was CIA fiction. In fact Kennedy did deliver the promised
air support. He DID approve the second bombing raid. But due to a screw-up
at CIA HQ the 4 US Navy jets sent to protect the exiles B-26 bombers
arrived at the wrong time and Castro's planes easily shot down the exiles
bombers, thus ending any chance of air superiority.
> being killed or captured; and it also resulted in the humiliation of the
> CIA. Soon afterward, Kennedy fired Allen Dulles as head of the CIA (he
> would later be appointed to the Warren Commission) and his chief deputy
> Charles Cabell for the bungling of the Bay of Pigs invasion. Kennedy also
Don't forget Bissell, which meant that Helms would take his place. Helms
knew the invasion would fail and intentionally distanced himself from it.
> promised to "smash the CIA into a thousand pieces." Kennedy promised
> Khruschev that there would be no further attempts to invade Cuba; and,
> pursuant to that promise, Kennedy forcibly closed down American
> anti-Castro training centers, which had CIA links. Kennedy entered into a
> nuclear test-ban treaty with the Soviets, thereby confining his being
> "soft on communism." And, just before his assassination, he ordered the
> withdrawal of 1,000 troops from Vietnam, thereby threatening to cause the
> fall of the Vietnam "domino" to the communists.
>
> It is not difficult to see, then, that, in the mind of the high-level,
> paranoid CIA official, Kennedy presented a real threat to "national
> security," as the CIA defined that term ? and that the nation needed
Anthony Marsh
William Colby was serious when he said it.
bigdog
Can you cite a poll that indicates that?
> and what detail and information
> is trickling out is reinforcing this view. Very few Cters believe it was
> Castro, the Mafia (or they may have played a small role, after all, we now
> know that some members of the Mafia were working with The CIA to get rid
> of Castro,) and very few believe it was James Files, LBJ or Israel
> [conspiracy theorist Gadhafi excepted.]
When it comes to popular suspects, LBJ gets a lot of love from the
CTs.
> There is no valid evidence that
> pro-Castro Cubans had anything to do with it. This whole "there are too
> many suspects" argument is just straw man material. Secondly, the American
> people believe it was a conspiracy because, despite popular opinion, they
> are not all stupid and do have some common sense.
A majority of the American people don't believe in conspiracy because they
are stupid. They believe in conspiracy because they are woefully
uninformed? Do you think one American in ten could tell you who Jean Hill,
Roy Truly, Howard Brennan, Ruth Paine, or Helen Markham were, just to name
a few key figures at random. I'm not sure you would even find a majority
who would know who Jack Ruby, Abraham Zapruder, or J. D. Tippit were.
> What the government has
> asked them to believe is just plain ludicrous. The assassination is highly
> suspicious just on its face - JFK killed by mysterious Marxist
Why is that suspiscious?
> [in is
> hiding while he does it] living in that crazy, right-wing town Dallas
> while the President has been given less to zero security, and then the
> suspect, who denies it
Does a suspect's denial indicate innocence?
> and tells us he is just a "patsy"
Does that make it a fact?
> is paraded
> around the media before being shot while under police protection by
> another supposed lone nut with suspicious connections.
Who wasn't even in the garage at the time Oswald was supposed to be
moved.
> The "magic bullet"
> presents further problems as does Kennedy backward head snap.
Problems for whom?
> Anyone with
> an open mind, who understands the reality of American politics, and not
> the fantasy, can see it was a conspiracy, one perpetuated by hardened
> military men used to operating in secrecy.
Who were these mysterious military men? What evidence do you have of
their complicity? Or is a hunch good enough to convince you?
> History will be much more open
> to the truth as it is, not the truth people such as yourself, want it to
> be.
100 years from now, the only name in the history books as the assassin
of JFK will be Lee Harvey Oswald, with thanks to Vincent Bugliosi for
that.
bigdog
I'd like to see you dig that one up.
bigdog
> If I can use a phrase by Anthony Marsh, your question is a strawman
> argument.
>
> We don't have to do something new like name or convict the shooters to
> conclude that the murder of President Kennedy was a conspiracy.
>
No, but it would be a good place to begin. Find the shooter(s) and then
work backward to see who they were working for. If you can't connect your
conspirators to the shooter(s), you have no case.
> But there have been many recent good books/investigations.
>
Conspiracy books have been a dime a dozen for forty years and they all
have a very short shelf life. None has stood the test of time. Have any of
them made it to a second edition?
> What about Carlos Marcellos prison yard confession to a credible
> informant?
>
What about it and how do you determine the informant was credible. Because
he told you what you want to believe.
Thalia
>
> 100 years from now, the only name in the history books as the assassin
> of JFK will be Lee Harvey Oswald, with thanks to Vincent Bugliosi for
It actually doesn't matter who pulled the trigger, it was why Kennedy
was killed that matters, and who had the power to run such an
operation, and who had the power to cover it up.
Thalia
>
> - Show quoted text -
A few points:
1. The CIA is an extension of the military. The CIA has a specific
role to play within the industrial-military complex. A lot of the men
in charge of the CIA were WWII veterans.
2. There is no motive for Oswald. He never confessed, in fact he
claimed he was a "patsy." Seeing he was suspiciously killed before he
could be futher questioned, exactly what he meant by this will never
be known. However his choice of word is interesting. Another thing: He
did not act like other lone assassins who get up close to their
victim, and are arrested at the scene.
3. Motive: The CIA felt betrayed by Kennedy after the failed Bay of
Pigs Operation. The fault was probably on both sides, however these
hardened cold war warriors saw men they had trained and become friends
with cut down on the beach and imprisoned by Castro. By all accounts,
Kennedy became the no 1 enemy of these men. Kennedy also was talking
of nuclear test ban treaties and his American University address
smacked of detente - the opposite view of many in the CIA and other
military capacities who felt that communism must be stopped from
spreading at all costs - even if it involved full scale war and the
loss of American lives, as we would see happen in Vietnam.
4. There was an obvious cover-up of the facts, and manipulation of
evidence. This in itself indicates the plot originated from within the
government, and was not doings of a deranged loner.
5. Kennedy had practically NO security. No army presence in the
streets. No Secret Service riding on his car at the time of the shots.
A limo going way too slow, no reaction by driver during shooting. No
security in the grassy knoll area despite the area being perfect for
snipers (as were the open windows along the parade route) The u-turn
pass the TSBD which was completely unecessary, and was another
security risk. The Secret Service agents who drank the night before,
some until 3am. The lead guy ordering Secret Service agents not to go
to Kennedy's aid. The press vehicle kept in the back of the motorcade
when it was usually up the front. Only 2 motorbike riders at the back
of JFK's limo when there was supposed to be two in front as well. Even
the Warren Commission said they were deficient in their duty!! Kennedy
was a sitting duck.
6. Kennedy was no longer a "cold war warrior." Read "JFK and the
Unspeakable" for more about this. Also, his turning towards detente is
established beyond doubt when your read his American University
address of June, 1963.
7. The CIA was suspected in many quarters after the assassination.
Read Presdient Trumans essay on Dec 22, 1963 in which he pretty much
fingers the CIA, and claims their role must be re-assessed as they had
gotten out of control.
8. Like most Lone Nuts, you do not seem to have any understanding of
the cold war paranoia in America at that time. This paranoia gripped
those far up high in the military as much as the man on the street. It
was so extreme, some were even arguing that a nuclear pre-emptive
strike should be used against the Soviet Union. After the Cuban
Missile Crisis, the Airforce Chief of Staff called Kennedy an appeaser
to his face.
bigdog
Take a look at Babushka lady and tell me if you think that looks like
a 17 year old girl.
bigdog
> On Sep 29, 9:14 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > YOU brought up international espionage as if that is the ONLY reason to
> > cover up things. You know damn well that agencies cover up to hide their
> > mistakes and illegal activities.
>
> I've often wondered how bigdog cannot make this connection. If the CIA is
> not declassifying documents about the JFK assassination, and (according to
> bigdog) the CIA keeps matters of international espionage classified, then
> ipso facto the CIA documents pertaining to the JFK assassination must have
> to do with international espionage...
>
international espionage classified. What was I thinking?
> Even removing bigdog's mis-speak, the fact still remains. The CIA is not
> declassifying certain documents about the JFK assassination. Now, we have
> to ask ourselves, what possible reason could there be for this?
>
I don't suppose they would want to hide information about their
international spy network from our enemies.
> Whatever answer anyone posits for the CIA's behavior in this matter, that
> inexorably ties that reason to the JFK assassination. Period.
>
You don't know the answer but you think the answer proves their
reasons have to do with the JFK assassination. That is the kind of
speculation which CTs think passes for evidence.
bigdog
And you believe that?
Robert
I guess the FACT 90% of Americans BELIEVE a conspiracy happened in the
murder of JFK does NOT equal "amounting to anything" in BigCon's mind!
LOL!!!
The number is closer to 100% in the rest of the world too as NO other
civilized country believes a "lonenut" can kill a national leader with
NO help!
Boy, I guess we should give up as our efforts are NOT "amounting to
anything" according to BigCon, huh?
LOL!!
Coondog
> On Sep 29, 2:37 am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> The CIA saw Kennedy as a threat to the security of United States against
> comminism and felt personally betrayed by him. Kennedy betrayed the CIA
> and the anti-Castro Cubans during the Bay of Pigs invasion by not
> delivering the promised air support; this resulted in many of the invaders
> being killed or captured; and it also resulted in the humiliation of the
> CIA. Soon afterward, Kennedy fired Allen Dulles as head of the CIA (he
> would later be appointed to the Warren Commission) and his chief deputy
> Charles Cabell for the bungling of the Bay of Pigs invasion. Kennedy also
> promised to "smash the CIA into a thousand pieces." Kennedy promised
> Khruschev that there would be no further attempts to invade Cuba; and,
> pursuant to that promise, Kennedy forcibly closed down American
> anti-Castro training centers, which had CIA links. Kennedy entered into a
> nuclear test-ban treaty with the Soviets, thereby confining his being
> "soft on communism." And, just before his assassination, he ordered the
> fall of theVietnam"domino" to the communists.
Not true. The withdrawal of the 1,000 men was not a threat to SVN.
It was done for political reasons, mostly an attempt to move Diem to
reform. McNamara said the 1,000 were simply not needed in country and
should be removed. They were removed as part of the normal rotation
and not en mass.
> WE know from past deeds that the CIA is a powerful willing to act outside
> the confines of the US constitution, ie:
>
> 1. At the end of World War II organizers of the CIA conspired to retain
> the services of members Of the Nazi SS.
>
> 2. CIA officials conspired to overthrow the presidents or prime ministers
> of Iran, Guatemala, Indonesia, Cuba, SouthVietnam, and Nicaragua.
Well, they sure didn’t do all this conspiring alone. They were
working for their president in these operations and I think you should
place the blame on the presidents instead of his subordinates that
carried out his wishes.
Bill Clarke
bigdog
It doesn't matter who pulled the trigger??? Are you serious? If you can't
determine the shooter, how do you connect anyone to the crime. It starts
with finding the shooter, then figuring out if they were working for
someone else or doing it on their own. No wonder you guys have been
wandering aimlessly for the last 45 years. You don't even care who fired
the shots.
Anthony Marsh
Yes. Are you calling Colby a liar?
MSwanberg
My apologies... that was Steve.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/24781555009c1d36/d760e3d491e65c65
Sorry about that.
-Mike
Anthony Marsh
> On Sep 29, 10:21 pm, MSwanberg <mswanb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 29, 9:14 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> YOU brought up international espionage as if that is the ONLY reason to
>>> cover up things. You know damn well that agencies cover up to hide their
>>> mistakes and illegal activities.
>> I've often wondered how bigdog cannot make this connection. If the CIA is
>> not declassifying documents about the JFK assassination, and (according to
>> bigdog) the CIA keeps matters of international espionage classified, then
>> ipso facto the CIA documents pertaining to the JFK assassination must have
>> to do with international espionage...
>>
> Right, Mike. I just made it up that the CIA wants to keep matters of
> international espionage classified. What was I thinking?
>
If you think that is the only thing they cover up then you are naive.
>> Even removing bigdog's mis-speak, the fact still remains. The CIA is not
>> declassifying certain documents about the JFK assassination. Now, we have
>> to ask ourselves, what possible reason could there be for this?
>>
> I don't suppose they would want to hide information about their
> international spy network from our enemies.
>
I don't suppose they would want to hide information about their
illegal activities from the public?
>> Whatever answer anyone posits for the CIA's behavior in this matter, that
>> inexorably ties that reason to the JFK assassination. Period.
>>
> You don't know the answer but you think the answer proves their
> reasons have to do with the JFK assassination. That is the kind of
> speculation which CTs think passes for evidence.
>
No, YOU were the one suggesting WHY the CIA continues the cover-up.
Because they think it involves international espionage.
Anthony Marsh
The CIA is not an extension of the military, but they often work
together. A lot of the founders of the CIA were former OSS officers.
> 2. There is no motive for Oswald. He never confessed, in fact he
> claimed he was a "patsy." Seeing he was suspiciously killed before he
> could be futher questioned, exactly what he meant by this will never
> be known. However his choice of word is interesting. Another thing: He
> did not act like other lone assassins who get up close to their
> victim, and are arrested at the scene.
The FBI had the motive. $6,500 paid by the DGI. But it turned out to be
a hoax.
> 3. Motive: The CIA felt betrayed by Kennedy after the failed Bay of
> Pigs Operation. The fault was probably on both sides, however these
> hardened cold war warriors saw men they had trained and become friends
> with cut down on the beach and imprisoned by Castro. By all accounts,
> Kennedy became the no 1 enemy of these men. Kennedy also was talking
> of nuclear test ban treaties and his American University address
> smacked of detente - the opposite view of many in the CIA and other
> military capacities who felt that communism must be stopped from
> spreading at all costs - even if it involved full scale war and the
> loss of American lives, as we would see happen in Vietnam.
Maybe it was just a case of laziness. They kept failing to kill their
original target, Castro. So, they decided to switch to an easier target,
Kennedy.
> 4. There was an obvious cover-up of the facts, and manipulation of
> evidence. This in itself indicates the plot originated from within the
> government, and was not doings of a deranged loner.
IF, and this is a big if, the CIA was orchestrating the hoaxes to pin it
on Castro. So far we have CIA operatives like Sturgis and Joannides
involved in the hoaxes, but Phillips helped disprove one of the hoaxes.
> 5. Kennedy had practically NO security. No army presence in the
> streets. No Secret Service riding on his car at the time of the shots.
SS agents on the back of the car would not block a shot from the right
front. Which is maybe why they placed the insurance shooter there.
Sandy McCroskey
?!
Oswald said exactly what he meant by being a "patsy" in his very next
sentence!
I just went over this.
I've obviously heard your following arguments about the CIA's supposed
"motive" for decades. and, like I said, I don't buy them.
Despite the CTs' misrepresentations and portentous insinuations, I've
seen no indication that any significant evidence was covered up or
manipulated.
You can compare security at other Kennedy appearances to Dallas and
see that the situation was not unusual for the time and for Kennedy's
style.
Oh, wait, I already pointed that out.
What Kennedy would do in Vietnam was not known for a certainty. In the
AU speech, he says the US will never start a war. Well, the "police
action" in Vietnam was never an officially declared "war." The same
speech features the term "Communist intervention." This is cold-war
lingo.
And I came across so many elementary errors of logic and unwarranted
speculative leaps just leafing through Douglass's The Unspeakable, I
put the galleys back in the bin for the used book store. It was
unspeakably bad.
Ciao.
/sandy
Anthony Marsh
> On Sep 29, 11:03 am, Thalia <thaliac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 29, 2:37 am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> The CIA saw Kennedy as a threat to the security of United States against
>> comminism and felt personally betrayed by him. Kennedy betrayed the CIA
>> and the anti-Castro Cubans during the Bay of Pigs invasion by not
>> delivering the promised air support; this resulted in many of the invaders
>> being killed or captured; and it also resulted in the humiliation of the
>> CIA. Soon afterward, Kennedy fired Allen Dulles as head of the CIA (he
>> would later be appointed to the Warren Commission) and his chief deputy
>> Charles Cabell for the bungling of the Bay of Pigs invasion. Kennedy also
>> promised to "smash the CIA into a thousand pieces." Kennedy promised
>> Khruschev that there would be no further attempts to invade Cuba; and,
>> pursuant to that promise, Kennedy forcibly closed down American
>> anti-Castro training centers, which had CIA links. Kennedy entered into a
>> nuclear test-ban treaty with the Soviets, thereby confining his being
>> "soft on communism." And, just before his assassination, he ordered the
>> withdrawal of 1,000 troops fromVietnam, thereby threatening to cause the
>> fall of theVietnam"domino" to the communists.
>
> Not true. The withdrawal of the 1,000 men was not a threat to SVN.
> It was done for political reasons, mostly an attempt to move Diem to
> reform. McNamara said the 1,000 were simply not needed in country and
> should be removed. They were removed as part of the normal rotation
> and not en mass.
>
Brilliant. So that's why they did it AFTER Diem was dead. To impress
him. Brilliant!
>> WE know from past deeds that the CIA is a powerful willing to act outside
>> the confines of the US constitution, ie:
>>
>> 1. At the end of World War II organizers of the CIA conspired to retain
>> the services of members Of the Nazi SS.
>>
>> 2. CIA officials conspired to overthrow the presidents or prime ministers
>> of Iran, Guatemala, Indonesia, Cuba, SouthVietnam, and Nicaragua.
>
> Well, they sure didn�t do all this conspiring alone. They were
> working for their president in these operations and I think you should
> place the blame on the presidents instead of his subordinates that
> carried out his wishes.
>
But you never put any blame on Eisenhower or Nixon, because they were
Republicans. You put the blame only on Kennedy because he was a Liberal
Democrat, your enemy.
> Bill Clarke
>
>
>
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
You couldn't come up with anything new so you repeated a previous
post. Brilliant, robocrap. ROFLMFAO!!!
bigdog
Having been a GE stock holder for over a decade, I was under the
impression that I owned NBC. So you are telling me that GE has been
cooking the books and claiming an asset (NBC) that they don't really own.
If you are right, I have grounds for a class action lawsuit against GE. Do
you know a lawyer who won't laugh me out of his office?
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm not even suggesting that CIA was engaged in a cover-up of the
assassination much less claiming to know why they did that. I thought that
was your ballgame.
Thalia
>
> > 1. The CIA is an extension of the military. The CIA has a specific
> > role to play within the industrial-military complex. A lot of the men
> > in charge of the CIA were WWII veterans.
>
> The CIA is not an extension of the military, but they often work
> together. A lot of the founders of the CIA were former OSS officers.
>
I disagree. The aim of the CIA is to protect the United States against
foreign enemies. They are the "intelligence gathering" arm of the
military.
Thalia
WE WILL NEVER KNOW WHO THE SHOOTERS ARE. Thats why you are so hung up
on Oswald? You have to know who pulled the trigger. The shooters were
professional hitmen who fled the scene {one used a Secret Service ID
on the grassy knoll} They won't "confess." We have no way of knowing
who they are. They most likely died years ago. Who planned the
assassination, and who was able to manipulate the security of the
motorcade, get the patsy into place, and cover-up the medical
evidence, that is who we want.
Coondog
> Coondog wrote:
>
> > Not true. The withdrawal of the 1,000 men was not a threat to SVN.
> > It was done for political reasons, mostly an attempt to move Diem to
> > reform. McNamara said the 1,000 were simply not needed in country and
> > should be removed. They were removed as part of the normal rotation
> > and not en mass.
>
> Brilliant. So that's why they did it AFTER Diem was dead. To impress
> him. Brilliant!
I got your brilliant right here Marsh. In your brilliance I’m sure you
will note that Diem was alive at least a month after the 1,000 man issue
came up. Are you under the impression Diem was dead before NSAM 263 was
signed? Hee, you was weren’t you! I’m rolling on the floor here
Marsh. You get caught misrepresenting what an official document says and
now this. Are you feeling okay?
2 Oct 1963 - Summary Record of the 519th Meeting of the National Security
Council, White House, Washington, October 2, 1963, 6 p.m.
In this meeting following the return of McNamara and Taylor from Vietnam,
President Kennedy and other participants discussed tactics for dealing
with the Diem regime, as well as the wording of the proposed plan to
implement a 1,000 man withdrawal.
11 Oct 1963 - National Security Action Memorandum No. 263
With NSAM 263, Kennedy approved the McNamara-Taylor recommendations,
including the 1,000 man withdrawal.
2 Nov 1963 - 202-10002-10091
this message from General Harkins in Vietnam to JSC Chief Taylor was
sent in the aftermath of the coup which overthrew Diem and his
brother, and left them dead.
> >> 2. CIA officials conspired to overthrow the presidents or prime ministers
> >> of Iran, Guatemala, Indonesia, Cuba, SouthVietnam, and Nicaragua.
>
> > Well, they sure didn’t do all this conspiring alone. They were
> > working for their president in these operations and I think you should
> > place the blame on the presidents instead of his subordinates that
> > carried out his wishes.
>
> But you never put any blame on Eisenhower or Nixon, because they were
> Republicans. You put the blame only on Kennedy because he was a Liberal
> Democrat, your enemy.
Maybe because the group is about JFK and not about Ike and Nixon.
I consider LBJ one of the most liberal presidents we have had since
FDR, certainly more liberal than JFK. Despite Vietnam I still admire
Johnson for his domestic policies and achievements. He is my favorite
president since FDR. Now that sound like a right wing Republican to
you? Only in your “brilliance” I suppose.
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
Not surprising when you don't even know the evidence in this case.
> You can compare security at other Kennedy appearances to Dallas and
> see that the situation was not unusual for the time and for Kennedy's
> style.
> Oh, wait, I already pointed that out.
>
You have cited other examples of the Secret Service going out for drinks
the night before at 2 AM? I missed that. Can you find that message on a
Google Groups Search?
> What Kennedy would do in Vietnam was not known for a certainty. In the
> AU speech, he says the US will never start a war. Well, the "police
> action" in Vietnam was never an officially declared "war." The same
> speech features the term "Communist intervention." This is cold-war
> lingo.
>
Kennedy did not start the Vietnam War. He inherited it. The North
invaded the South, frustrated by the South not holding the elections
mandated by the Treaty and the US doing nothing about it.
Thalia
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sandy, could you be so kind as to tell us what leaps of logic and
unwarranted speculation Douglass makes?
Coondog
No they are not. The military has its own intelligence gathering people.
The CIA is the intelligence gathering arm of the president. The two are
not the same. They do coordinate and work together on occasion and often
the CIA will run programs alongside the military. Operation Phoenix in
Vietnam is one example.
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
> On Oct 1, 4:09 am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 30, 10:38 am, Thalia <thaliac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> 100 years from now, the only name in the history books as the assassin
>>>> of JFK will be Lee Harvey Oswald, with thanks to Vincent Bugliosi for
>>>> that.- Hide quoted text -
>>> It actually doesn't matter who pulled the trigger, it was why Kennedy
>>> was killed that matters, and who had the power to run such an
>>> operation, and who had the power to cover it up.
>> It doesn't matter who pulled the trigger??? Are you serious? If you can't
>> determine the shooter, how do you connect anyone to the crime. It starts
>> with finding the shooter, then figuring out if they were working for
>> someone else or doing it on their own. No wonder you guys have been
>> wandering aimlessly for the last 45 years. You don't even care who fired
>> the shots.
>
> WE WILL NEVER KNOW WHO THE SHOOTERS ARE. Thats why you are so hung up
> on Oswald? You have to know who pulled the trigger. The shooters were
Most WC defenders have two reasons to need it to be Oswald. One is to be
able to blame it on the Communists. Another is to claim there could be
no political motive because it was done by a nut.
> professional hitmen who fled the scene {one used a Secret Service ID
> on the grassy knoll} They won't "confess." We have no way of knowing
> who they are. They most likely died years ago. Who planned the
> assassination, and who was able to manipulate the security of the
> motorcade, get the patsy into place, and cover-up the medical
> evidence, that is who we want.
>
In many Mafia hits it is not so important to know who the trigger man
was, but rather to know who ordered the hit. Most people remember that
King Henry ordered the assassination of Becket, but who remembers the
names of the 4 knights?
Gerry Simone
"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7a3d6736-e40e-4db3...@o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 29, 10:08 pm, "Gerry Simone" <newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> If I can use a phrase by Anthony Marsh, your question is a strawman
> argument.
>
> We don't have to do something new like name or convict the shooters to
> conclude that the murder of President Kennedy was a conspiracy.
>
No, but it would be a good place to begin. Find the shooter(s) and then
work backward to see who they were working for. If you can't connect your
conspirators to the shooter(s), you have no case.
********************
Wrong.
All you need for a conspiracy is circumstantial evidence of more than one
shooter.
The shooters don't have to be convicted let alone caught.
********************************************
> But there have been many recent good books/investigations.
>
Conspiracy books have been a dime a dozen for forty years and they all
have a very short shelf life. None has stood the test of time. Have any of
them made it to a second edition?
*************************************************
Many have been been re-printed and have seen second editions like Best
Evidence, High Treason, Conspiracy aka Not In Your Lifetime, and The
Assassination Chronicles (formerly Inquest and 2 other books by J.Edward
Epstein).
> What about Carlos Marcellos prison yard confession to a credible
> informant?
>
What about it and how do you determine the informant was credible. Because
he told you what you want to believe.
*************************************************************
No.
If I personally knew the informant, I wouldn't be in a position to tell you.
According to the authors of Ultimate Sacrifice and Legacy of Secrecy, that
informant was deemed credible by a Judge. Also, why would the FBI bother
having such a report previously classified if it wasn't from a credible
source?
*******************************************************************
Coondog
> >>> would have dealt withVietnam. And so on.)
> > AU speech, he says the US will never start a war. Well, the "police
> > speech features the term "Communist intervention." This is cold-war
> > lingo.
>
> Kennedy did not start theVietnamWar. He inherited it.
You can say the same for Johnson and LBJ inherited a much bigger mess
in SVN than JFK did. Dr. Moise says JFK took us to the war in a small
but significant way. I agree.
>The North invaded the South, frustrated by the South not holding the elections
> mandated by the Treaty and the US doing nothing about it.
North Vietnam came south because it was their long range plan to do so.
It had little to do with the elections which Diem told them he wasn’t
messing with even while the talks were going on in Geneva. I know this
won’t satisfy your blame America mindset but the U.S. tried to convince
Diem to hold the elections. How much pressure they applied I don’t know
but some effort was made.
Bill Clarke
Sandy McCroskey
It's been a while, and like I said, I don't own the book. One detail I
remember clearly enough to repeat is that he says that if it could be
determined that a certain model of car was on the road that runs by
Walker's house it would be proof positive that Oswald had an accomplice in
that shooting. It would, of course, be no such thing. Someone else has
pointed out here that Douglass covers a lot of ground but does very little
to tie his various plot lines together and make them converge meaningfully
on the physical evidence.
/sandy
bigdog
>
> Most WC defenders have two reasons to need it to be Oswald. One is to be
> able to blame it on the Communists. Another is to claim there could be
> no political motive because it was done by a nut.
>
I don't need it to be anyone. It was Oswald. That's what the evidence
convincingly shows. If there was the same amount of evidence that Billy
Graham did it, I would believe that Billy Graham did it. It is folks like
you, Tony, who have an agenda. Your bogeymen are the right wingers and the
CIA so you have convinced yourself they did and then bend and twist the
evidence to make it fit your chosen belief. You couldn't be more wrong if
you tried. Wait what am I saying? You are trying to be wrong. You have
succeeded.
> > professional hitmen who fled the scene {one used a Secret Service ID
> > on the grassy knoll} They won't "confess." We have no way of knowing
> > who they are. They most likely died years ago. Who planned the
> > assassination, and who was able to manipulate the security of the
> > motorcade, get the patsy into place, and cover-up the medical
> > evidence, that is who we want.
>
> In many Mafia hits it is not so important to know who the trigger man
> was, but rather to know who ordered the hit. Most people remember that
> King Henry ordered the assassination of Becket, but who remembers the
> names of the 4 knights?- Hide quoted text -
>
Here we go again. If you can't identify the shooter, how do you connect
the masterminds to the crime? You can't make a case against anyone if you
don't know who the shooter is.
bigdog
> "bigdog" <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7a3d6736-e40e-4db3...@o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 29, 10:08 pm, "Gerry Simone" <newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If I can use a phrase by Anthony Marsh, your question is a strawman
> > argument.
>
> > We don't have to do something new like name or convict the shooters to
> > conclude that the murder of President Kennedy was a conspiracy.
>
> No, but it would be a good place to begin. Find the shooter(s) and then
> work backward to see who they were working for. If you can't connect your
> conspirators to the shooter(s), you have no case.
>
> ********************
> Wrong.
>
> All you need for a conspiracy is circumstantial evidence of more than one
> shooter.
>
Which you don't have. You also could not connect anyone to the crime if
you can't identify the shooters. Without knowing the shooters, the chain
is broken.
> The shooters don't have to be convicted let alone caught.
> ********************************************
>
> > But there have been many recent good books/investigations.
>
> Conspiracy books have been a dime a dozen for forty years and they all
> have a very short shelf life. None has stood the test of time. Have any of
> them made it to a second edition?
>
> *************************************************
>
> Many have been been re-printed and have seen second editions like Best
> Evidence, High Treason, Conspiracy aka Not In Your Lifetime, and The
> Assassination Chronicles (formerly Inquest and 2 other books by J.Edward
> Epstein).
>
> > What about Carlos Marcellos prison yard confession to a credible
> > informant?
>
> What about it and how do you determine the informant was credible. Because
> he told you what you want to believe.
>
> *************************************************************
>
> No.
>
> If I personally knew the informant, I wouldn't be in a position to tell you.
>
> According to the authors of Ultimate Sacrifice and Legacy of Secrecy, that
> informant was deemed credible by a Judge. Also, why would the FBI bother
> having such a report previously classified if it wasn't from a credible
> source?
>
And apparently you'll believe anything. Just how did a judge deem this
informant credible. Because he allowed him to testify. A judge is not
passing judgement on a witnesses credibility when he allows him to
testify. That is the job of the jury. A judge simply rules that what the
witness is going to testify to is relevant to the case being tried. And
here we go again with the red herring argument that because the FBI (or
CIA) decides something needs to be classified, the CTs leap to the
conclusion that it is because it is relevant to the JFK assassination.
There are any number of reasons why documents get classified. You can't
logically make assumptions as to why.
Sandy McCroskey
I meant to write "if a certain model of car was on the road that runs
by Walker's house *on the night he was shot*...
/sm
Anthony Marsh
> On Oct 1, 6:32 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Most WC defenders have two reasons to need it to be Oswald. One is to be
>> able to blame it on the Communists. Another is to claim there could be
>> no political motive because it was done by a nut.
>>
>
> I don't need it to be anyone. It was Oswald. That's what the evidence
> convincingly shows. If there was the same amount of evidence that Billy
> Graham did it, I would believe that Billy Graham did it. It is folks like
> you, Tony, who have an agenda. Your bogeymen are the right wingers and the
> CIA so you have convinced yourself they did and then bend and twist the
Again you misrepresent. I never said the right wing did it. Others have.
What I said was that many right-wingers such as yourself enjoying
covering it up to protect the conspirators.
I originally suspected the military and stumbled onto the CIA plot.
And I had always hated the CIA before that.
> evidence to make it fit your chosen belief. You couldn't be more wrong if
> you tried. Wait what am I saying? You are trying to be wrong. You have
> succeeded.
>
>>> professional hitmen who fled the scene {one used a Secret Service ID
>>> on the grassy knoll} They won't "confess." We have no way of knowing
>>> who they are. They most likely died years ago. Who planned the
>>> assassination, and who was able to manipulate the security of the
>>> motorcade, get the patsy into place, and cover-up the medical
>>> evidence, that is who we want.
>> In many Mafia hits it is not so important to know who the trigger man
>> was, but rather to know who ordered the hit. Most people remember that
>> King Henry ordered the assassination of Becket, but who remembers the
>> names of the 4 knights?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
> Here we go again. If you can't identify the shooter, how do you connect
> the masterminds to the crime? You can't make a case against anyone if you
> don't know who the shooter is.
>
You don't have to identify the killer to know who the mastermind was.
Gerry Simone
"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2c0ccf75-0ce1-4b65...@r36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 1, 6:35 pm, "Gerry Simone" <newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "bigdog" <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7a3d6736-e40e-4db3...@o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 29, 10:08 pm, "Gerry Simone" <newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If I can use a phrase by Anthony Marsh, your question is a strawman
> > argument.
>
> > We don't have to do something new like name or convict the shooters to
> > conclude that the murder of President Kennedy was a conspiracy.
>
> No, but it would be a good place to begin. Find the shooter(s) and then
> work backward to see who they were working for. If you can't connect your
> conspirators to the shooter(s), you have no case.
>
> ********************
> Wrong.
>
> All you need for a conspiracy is circumstantial evidence of more than one
> shooter.
>
Which you don't have. You also could not connect anyone to the crime if
you can't identify the shooters. Without knowing the shooters, the chain
is broken.
=> Where have you been? There's a plethora of circumstantial evidence
including the same evidence that the WC uses to defend it's position that
calls into question the LAT. That's why this case is so debatable and a
bottomless pit. As for knowing the shooters, even criminal definitions of
conspiracy do not require identification of the conspirators. Example,
someone on video is robbed at gun point by two thugs wearing hoods over
their faces and take off never to be found again.
=> Oh god, now you are second guessing judges who's decisions are
diametrically opposed to your position. It is an undercover FBI
informant, not just some passerby. Judges decide on the admissability of
evidence or the credibility/suitability of witnesses all of the time, with
or without juries. If you prefer the judgement of ordinary citizens that
can be jurors, how about all the DP witnesses that said there were more
than 3 shots or shots that came from the GK? Why would the FBI go thru
the trouble of recording that info if it was creditworthy? They never
discounted it on that point. Also, it takes NO leap of faith to conclude
that THIS particular document is relevant to the JFK assassination, lol.
Coondog
> bigdog wrote:
> > On Oct 1, 6:32 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Most WC defenders have two reasons to need it to be Oswald. One is to be
> >> able to blame it on the Communists. Another is to claim there could be
> >> no political motive because it was done by a nut.
>
> > I don't need it to be anyone. It was Oswald. That's what the evidence
> > convincingly shows. If there was the same amount of evidence that Billy
> > Graham did it, I would believe that Billy Graham did it. It is folks like
> > you, Tony, who have an agenda. Your bogeymen are the right wingers and the
> > CIA so you have convinced yourself they did and then bend and twist the
>
> Again you misrepresent. I never said the right wing did it. Others have.
> What I said was that many right-wingers such as yourself enjoying
> covering it up to protect the conspirators.
> I originally suspected the military and stumbled onto the CIA plot.
> And I had always hated the CIA before that.
Stumbled! Good choice of word Marsh. Brilliant, just simply
brilliant.
May I enquire as to why you hate the CIA? So your writing about the
CIA can be dismissed as that of a”CIA hater” same as a “Kennedy hater”
can be dismissed?
Bill Clarke
Robert Harris
<1ae2c87e-d269-4330...@g6g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 28, 12:22?am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <c258b5cd-7a54-4dba-968c-fd4bc1f6f...@p9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > ?bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Let's be real. Everything there is to know about the JFK assassination is
> > > known and in the public domain. ?
> >
> > That's quite a discovery!!
> >
> > Please tell us specifically how you learned that.
> >
> > > If the CTs can't make their case against
> > > whatever alleged perpetrators of the JFK assassination they believe were
> > > responsible for it with the information at hand, just what do they think
> > > they can accomplish?
> >
> > ROFLMAO!!
> >
> > Of course the "case" has been made.
> >
> > Even the major TV networks are coming around. Look at these two videos
> > from CNN and Fox News.
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exXDcu-yRiw
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfWGWcR_J0k&feature=video_response
> >
> > You need to understand that there is a very large world out there, which
> > is MUCH different than this antiquated usenet newsgroup which is
> > controlled by a tiny and very fanatical group of conspiracy deniers.
> >
> > The rest of the world knows better, and the evidence keeps piling up.
> >
> Right, Bob. Why don't you list all the evidence that has piled up in
> the last ten years? That would be pertinent to my question as to what
> the CTs think they are accomplishing.
>
> > For you guys, it's all over but the crying:-)
> >
> > Robert Harris
>
> Right, Bob. CTs have been telling us for decades it's all over for us.
> Are you telling us this time it really, really, really is over for
> us.
I'm not sure what you mean by "over". You have been proven wrong, beyond
any conceivable doubt.
But I did ask you to explain to us how you discovered that..
"Everything there is to know about the JFK assassination is known and in
the public domain."
Please be specific.
Robert Harris
Sandy McCroskey
It's a reasonable conclusion.
What we do know beyond a shadow of any doubt pins Oswald unmistakably
as the killer.
That in itself means a larger conspiracy is highly unlikely.
Add to that the fact that there is simply no evidence of conspiracy.
What else do you want to know about the assassination of JFK?
Sandy
bigdog
> bigdog wrote:
>
> > I don't need it to be anyone. It was Oswald. That's what the evidence
> > convincingly shows. If there was the same amount of evidence that Billy
> > Graham did it, I would believe that Billy Graham did it. It is folks like
> > you, Tony, who have an agenda. Your bogeymen are the right wingers and the
> > CIA so you have convinced yourself they did and then bend and twist the
>
> Again you misrepresent. I never said the right wing did it. Others have.
> What I said was that many right-wingers such as yourself enjoying
> covering it up to protect the conspirators.
> I originally suspected the military and stumbled onto the CIA plot.
> And I had always hated the CIA before that.
>
Wow, I would never have guessed you hated the CIA. and I'm sure that
hasn't colored your objectivity about this case. And why would I want
to protect the conspirators, Tony, even if I was the right winger you
claim I am?
>
> > Here we go again. If you can't identify the shooter, how do you connect
> > the masterminds to the crime? You can't make a case against anyone if you
> > don't know who the shooter is.
>
> You don't have to identify the killer to know who the mastermind was.- Hide quoted text -
>
You do if you want to make a case against the mastermind.
bigdog
That's not what I said at all as any can see who can read what I
wrote. I simply questioned how you determined a judge thought this
witness was credible and you haven't addressed the question I raised.
> It is an undercover FBI
> informant, not just some passerby. Judges decide on the admissability of
> evidence or the credibility/suitability of witnesses all of the time, with
> or without juries. If you prefer the judgement of ordinary citizens that
> can be jurors, how about all the DP witnesses that said there were more
> than 3 shots or shots that came from the GK?
There was a general consensus that there were three shots and there
was a substantial group of witnesses who said three shots came from
the direction of the TSBD. It is impossible that all the witnesses can
be correct so the intelligent thing to do is look at corroborating
evidence to determine which group was correct. There is physical
evidence for shots being fired from the 6th floor of the TSBD and
there are several EYEwitnesses who either saw the gun being fired or
saw it being pulled back inside by the shooter following the last
shot. There is nothing to corroborate witnesses who thought the shots
came from the GK.
> Why would the FBI go thru
> the trouble of recording that info if it was creditworthy? They never
> discounted it on that point. Also, it takes NO leap of faith to conclude
> that THIS particular document is relevant to the JFK assassination,
The document may well have been relevant to the assassination of JFK
but that doesn't mean that was the reason the document was classified.
Could it be the FBI decided it should be classified because THEY
DIDN'T WANT THE PEOPLE UNDER SURVEILLANCE TO KNOW WHAT THEY WERE
DOING?
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
Right Bob. The assassination of JFK has been the most investigated
crime in the history of the world and has been disected for over 45
years and we are supposed to believe there is still something
significant to be found that we just haven't come across yet. That is
why I asked you are anybody else to list even a few of the significant
discoveries of the past 10 years and not one CT seems to be able to
come up with anything except references to a slew of silly YouTube
videos. YouTube videos are not discoveries, they are inventions born
of the active imaginations of their producers.
Robert Harris
<6e9370f1-60a1-4a8f...@e18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
Sandy McCroskey <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Really?
I'm sure there's a good reason why you can't be specific either. Perhaps
you will be kind enough to share with us, your reasoning and evidence.
> What we do know beyond a shadow of any doubt pins Oswald unmistakably
> as the killer.
By "the killer", you seem to be implying that you know there was only
one. Would you mind sharing the evidence with us, which proves that??
And while I suspect that you may be right, that Oswald was involved in
the attack, "beyond a shadow of a doubt" is a bit ludicrous, especially
since the DPD chief Currey stated that they could not, beyond reasonable
doubt, even place Oswald in the snipers nest.
But perhaps you have found evidence that the police didn't know about???
> That in itself means a larger conspiracy is highly unlikely.
Let me see if I have this right.
You believe Oswald was involved in the attack on JFK, therefore, you
conclude that he acted alone.
That is your "reasoning", correct?
> Add to that the fact that there is simply no evidence of conspiracy.
Wow!!
You must get tired, carrying around that 10 foot wide brush:-)
Does it bother you just a tad, that nearly every sentence in your post
contained an unsupported assertion??
BTW, would you like to see very clear proof that Oswald could not have
been responsible for all the shots that were fired that day??
I knew you would! Check this out, if you have the courage:-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<43e9d494-be4d-43f9...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Thalia <thali...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 28, 12:22�pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <c258b5cd-7a54-4dba-968c-fd4bc1f6f...@p9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > �bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Let's be real. Everything there is to know about the JFK assassination is
> > > known and in the public domain. �
> >
> > That's quite a discovery!!
> >
> > Please tell us specifically how you learned that.
> >
> > > If the CTs can't make their case against
> > > whatever alleged perpetrators of the JFK assassination they believe were
> > > responsible for it with the information at hand, just what do they think
> > > they can accomplish?
> >
> > ROFLMAO!!
> >
> > Of course the "case" has been made.
> >
> > Even the major TV networks are coming around. Look at these two videos
> > from CNN and Fox News.
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exXDcu-yRiw
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfWGWcR_J0k&feature=video_response
> >
> > You need to understand that there is a very large world out there, which
> > is MUCH different than this antiquated usenet newsgroup which is
> > controlled by a tiny and very fanatical group of conspiracy deniers.
> >
> > The rest of the world knows better, and the evidence keeps piling up.
> >
> > For you guys, it's all over but the crying:-)
> >
> > Robert Harris
>
> The problem with those youtube videos is that they are about the Mafia
> doing it, the mass media will accept that, when in reality it was a
> CIA sponsored hit. MOST conspiracy books lean that way, yet the media
> will ignore all those well researched books in favour of those pushing
> the mafia. It is obviously acceptable that the mafia did it, it is not
> acceptable that it could come from within the state
Thalia, this is not about selecting who we want to blame. It is about
EVIDENCE, something that Waldron seems to be pretty fanatical about.
In "Legacy of Secrecy", Waldron takes plenty of potshots at govt
agencies and particularly, the FBI. For example, he points out that the
informant who ratted on Marcello became extremely frustrated because
after literally risking his life to get that information, the FBI never
acted on it. He also talked about the FBI making those recordings and
reports secret and hiding them away from the public for over 10 years.
But when it comes to proving direct involvement in the assassination by
govt employees, he has the same problem you and I have. There just
hasn't been any clear evidence of it - at least not so far.
OTOH, there is plenty of evidence that Hoover knew about the
assassination beforehand, but looked the other way. But how do you
actually PROVE that he didn't just fail to take it seriously, as his
apologists will surely tell us.
Thalia, I would not be even slightly surprised if tomorrow, someone
found solid evidence of Helms or Hoover being involved in planning the
murder. But until we have something solid on that, we have to go with
what we can really prove.
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
> On Oct 2, 1:26 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> bigdog wrote:
>
>>> I don't need it to be anyone. It was Oswald. That's what the evidence
>>> convincingly shows. If there was the same amount of evidence that Billy
>>> Graham did it, I would believe that Billy Graham did it. It is folks like
>>> you, Tony, who have an agenda. Your bogeymen are the right wingers and the
>>> CIA so you have convinced yourself they did and then bend and twist the
>> Again you misrepresent. I never said the right wing did it. Others have.
>> What I said was that many right-wingers such as yourself enjoying
>> covering it up to protect the conspirators.
>> I originally suspected the military and stumbled onto the CIA plot.
>> And I had always hated the CIA before that.
>>
> Wow, I would never have guessed you hated the CIA. and I'm sure that
> hasn't colored your objectivity about this case. And why would I want
> to protect the conspirators, Tony, even if I was the right winger you
> claim I am?
I can't answer your last question. I am not a psychotherapist.
>>> Here we go again. If you can't identify the shooter, how do you connect
>>> the masterminds to the crime? You can't make a case against anyone if you
>>> don't know who the shooter is.
>> You don't have to identify the killer to know who the mastermind was.- Hide quoted text -
>>
> You do if you want to make a case against the mastermind.
>
No, you don't.
Anthony Marsh
> =>See below big dog.
>
> "bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:2c0ccf75-0ce1-4b65...@r36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 1, 6:35 pm, "Gerry Simone" <newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "bigdog" <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:7a3d6736-e40e-4db3...@o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>> On Sep 29, 10:08 pm, "Gerry Simone" <newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If I can use a phrase by Anthony Marsh, your question is a strawman
>>> argument.
>>> We don't have to do something new like name or convict the shooters to
>>> conclude that the murder of President Kennedy was a conspiracy.
>> No, but it would be a good place to begin. Find the shooter(s) and then
>> work backward to see who they were working for. If you can't connect your
>> conspirators to the shooter(s), you have no case.
>>
>> ********************
>> Wrong.
>>
>> All you need for a conspiracy is circumstantial evidence of more than one
>> shooter.
>>
>
> Which you don't have. You also could not connect anyone to the crime if
> you can't identify the shooters. Without knowing the shooters, the chain
> is broken.
There is no need for a chain if you can prove who the mastermind is.
bigdog
Is Waldron the CT folk hero du juor?
> But when it comes to proving direct involvement in the assassination by
> govt employees, he has the same problem you and I have. There just
> hasn't been any clear evidence of it - at least not so far.
>
Oh boy, I can't wait.
> OTOH, there is plenty of evidence that Hoover knew about the
> assassination beforehand, but looked the other way. But how do you
> actually PROVE that he didn't just fail to take it seriously, as his
> apologists will surely tell us.
>
Right, Bob. Please do list that "plenty of evidence". We would all
appreciate it so much?
> Thalia, I would not be even slightly surprised if tomorrow, someone
> found solid evidence of Helms or Hoover being involved in planning the
> murder. But until we have something solid on that, we have to go with
> what we can really prove.
>
> Robert Harris- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You might be the only one who wouldn't be surprised by that.
Thalia
>
> - Show quoted text -
I find David Morales confession of getting JFK and RFK just as compelling,
in fact more so, I just do not believe that the Mafia were the main
plotters. The mafia killing the President in broad daylight? They would
not have had the guts and they would have known, if they were caught, life
as they know it would be all over. I can't exactly see mafia dons
approaching the CIA or FBI with their little "idea" and asking for
official help with setting JFK up - and that is what happened, his
security was stripped and the cover-up quite vigorous. More likely, the
plot originated within the Operation Mongoose people, or they were
utilised by "higher-ups" and the Mafia was drafted to play a small role
[tasked with getting Oswald I suspect] Apart from those "confessions'
there is very little evidence to finger the mafia. I think we need to face
that apart from a deathbed confession or letter from the "plotters" we
will never be able to PROVE who killed JFK - the evidence will just
accummulating until there is acceptance in the public that a particular
suspect is the likely culprit.
Robert Harris
<fe2aebb8-a911-4204...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
No, the value of "Youtube videos" is measured by the content of each
individual one.
Your claim is an horrendous fallacy. It's like saying that paper is
worthless because you think what some people wrote down is incorrect. This
is just a pathetic and very transparent way of attacking arguments that
you cannot deal with through honest analysis and evidence.
But to mention a few relatively recent discoveries, there is Waldron's
discovery of FBI documents which proved that Carlos Marcello confessed to
ordering the assassination, and that David Ferrie introduced him to
Oswald. And in fact, there are hundreds of hours of recordings from
Marcello that they will not release to the public.
Waldron also discovered that the mafia tried to setup assassinations of
JFK in Chicago and Tampa, during the weeks prior to the murder.
Then, there is solid proof, presented by Ray and Mary La Fontaine, that
Oswald was an informant for the FBI. There are also discoveries I have
made, which clearly prove that shots were fired which could not have come
from Oswald, though the above were discovered more than ten years ago.
I'm sure there are other forms of proof that have been developed, but I
admit that I have not read every article and every book on the subject.
But even if we hadn't learned anything in recent years, why would you want
everyone to throw in the towel??
We still have a responsibility to get the message across to the academics
and media people who have been conned into thinking Oswald acted alone.
This is really NOT ABOUT OSWALD. It is about the people who didn't get
caught and its about the people who covered up the crime.
You would think that after watching televised documentaries attempting to
prove that one bullet passed through two victims and that one struck the
head from the rear, they would be bright enough to scratch their heads a
bit and think, "Hows does this prove Oswald acted alone???"
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<2f104e06-b824-4aec...@13g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
Thalia <thali...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 3, 10:22?pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <43e9d494-be4d-43f9-a1eb-3ee1b36e8...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ?Thalia <thaliac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sep 28, 12:22?pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <c258b5cd-7a54-4dba-968c-fd4bc1f6f...@p9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > ?bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > Let's be real. Everything there is to know about the JFK
> > > > > assassination is
> > > > > known and in the public domain. ?
> >
> > > > That's quite a discovery!!
> >
> > > > Please tell us specifically how you learned that.
> >
> > > > > If the CTs can't make their case against
> > > > > whatever alleged perpetrators of the JFK assassination they believe
> > > > > were
> > > > > responsible for it with the information at hand, just what do they
> > > > > think
> > > > > they can accomplish?
> >
> > > > ROFLMAO!!
> >
> > > > Of course the "case" has been made.
> >
> > > > Even the major TV networks are coming around. Look at these two videos
> > > > from CNN and Fox News.
> >
> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exXDcu-yRiw
> >
> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfWGWcR_J0k&feature=video_response
> >
> > > > You need to understand that there is a very large world out there,
> > > > which
> > > > is MUCH different than this antiquated usenet newsgroup which is
> > > > controlled by a tiny and very fanatical group of conspiracy deniers.
> >
> > > > The rest of the world knows better, and the evidence keeps piling up.
> >
> > > > For you guys, it's all over but the crying:-)
> >
> > > > Robert Harris
> >
> > > The problem with those youtube videos is that they are about the Mafia
> > > doing it, the mass media will accept that, when in reality it was a
> > > CIA sponsored hit. MOST conspiracy books lean that ?way, yet the media
Marales may very well have been involved. It is clear that Ferrie was
helping Marcello with recruiting and he was very tight with the Cuban
exiles.
> The mafia killing the President in broad daylight? They would
> not have had the guts and they would have known, if they were caught, life
> as they know it would be all over.
Oh, come on Thalia. That argument would apply to WHOEVER killed JFK.
But turn it around. Wouldn't people INSIDE the government have had a
much better chance to get close to JFK to kill him in a more private
manner??
Doesn't the public, broad daylight nature of the attack, suggest it was
done by people who could never get close to JFK??
> I can't exactly see mafia dons
> approaching the CIA or FBI with their little "idea" and asking for
> official help with setting JFK up
And they didn't. Why would Marcello have needed any help from them? He
could have had 50 hitmen in DP that day if he wanted to.
> - and that is what happened, his
> security was stripped and the cover-up quite vigorous.
No, his security was not "stripped". I hope you don't buy the moronic
"Secret Service stand down" crap. Or, the equally stupid assertion that
the Secret Service was supposed to inspect every building that they passed
in Dallas that day, to make sure the windows were locked (from the INSIDE
of course:-).
Kennedy's security was NOT stripped or in any way reduced.
> More likely, the
> plot originated within the Operation Mongoose people,
You mean people like Johnny Roselli and Trafficante, who headed up the
mafia part of Mongoose, and were very tight with Marcello??
> or they were
> utilised by "higher-ups" and the Mafia was drafted to play a small role
> [tasked with getting Oswald I suspect] Apart from those "confessions'
> there is very little evidence to finger the mafia.
Nonsense!
Marcello swore he would kill Kennedy before the assassination and his
buddy, Ferrie who he said, was helping him on the JFK assassination, was
Garrison's PRIMARY target. He would never have gone after Shaw if it
weren't for Ferrie's very convenient death.
Marcello's other buddies, Roselli and Traficante both told their attornies
that they AND Marcello were in on it and Roselli told mafia godfather Joe
Bonanno that he was personally involved in the attack.
Read what Tosh Plumlee had to say, Thalia. He flew Roselli, who had been
working with the CIA in Mongoose, to Dallas that day, which matches
perfectly with the fact that Roselli disappeared from FBI surveillance in
Chicago, the day that JFK was killed.
Plumlee believed Roselli, who told him he was there to "protect" JFK and
keep an eye out for potential assassins. Sadly, Plumlee bought his story.
There are other solid confirmations as well. Whether you agree with him or
not, you should read Waldron's book, Thalia. It contains a wealth of well
documented evidence.
Robert Harris
Thalia
> > I find David Morales confession of getting JFK and RFK just as compelling,
> > in fact more so, I just do not believe that the Mafia were the main
> > plotters.
>
> Marales may very well have been involved. It is clear that Ferrie was
> helping Marcello with recruiting and he was very tight with the Cuban
> exiles.
>
> > The mafia killing the President in broad daylight? They would
> > not have had the guts and they would have known, if they were caught, life
> > as they know it would be all over.
>
> Oh, come on Thalia. That argument would apply to WHOEVER killed JFK.
>
> But turn it around. Wouldn't people INSIDE the government have had a
> much better chance to get close to JFK to kill him in a more private
> manner??
>
> Doesn't the public, broad daylight nature of the attack, suggest it was
> done by people who could never get close to JFK??
No, because the killing had to be blamed on a malconent loner,
preferably one with communist connections. I also believe that it was
meant to be a violent public killing, a kind of warning to others who
may want to pursue policies not acceptable to the military elite.
>
> > I can't exactly see mafia dons
> > approaching the CIA or FBI with their little "idea" and asking for
> > official help with setting JFK up
>
> And they didn't. Why would Marcello have needed any help from them? He
> could have had 50 hitmen in DP that day if he wanted to.
>
> > - and that is what happened, his
> > security was stripped and the cover-up quite vigorous.
>
> No, his security was not "stripped". I hope you don't buy the moronic
> "Secret Service stand down" crap. Or, the equally stupid assertion that
> the Secret Service was supposed to inspect every building that they passed
> in Dallas that day, to make sure the windows were locked (from the INSIDE
> of course:-).
>
> Kennedy's security was NOT stripped or in any way reduced.
Sorry we will have to agree to disagree on this. I find the evidence
that his security was limited extremely convincing, Dallas was a known
hostile city for crying out loud, in Miami the army lined the streets
for his motorcade. In Dallas, there was none of this despite the
"Wanted" posters. The grassy knoll was perfect for snipers and there
was not a single policemen, Secret Service officer etc there. Even the
WC said his security was deficient. Why is the "Secret Service Stand
Down" video crap? At the very least, it shows thta the Secret Service
was disorganised and not communicvating clearly what each person was
meant to be doing.
I have read this book. A lot of hearsay confessions. I do think it is
sigificant that there were several killings of mafia members around
the time of the HSCA. I think it is possible, in fact likely, that the
Mafia was involved, but on a lower level. They were not in a position
to manipulate the investigation or the cover-up. I also have problems
with their motive. It was an incredibly risky move, and from what I
understand about the Mafia, they only take calculated risks. They have
a modus operandi, and they are quite disciplined in this. I see
"military ambush" all over Kennedy's killing.
Robert
The head of the Miami SS disagrees with you!
Anthony Marsh
It shows that, but it does not show that agents who were supposed to be
riding on the back of the limo were ordered off. It shows that one of the
agents who was supposed to be inside the SS car was stupidly still on the
running board.
Anthony Marsh
We are talking about Dallas. Was he in Dallas that day?
bigdog
> > > I find David Morales confession of getting JFK and RFK just as compelling,
> > > in fact more so, I just do not believe that the Mafia were the main
> > > plotters.
>
> > Marales may very well have been involved. It is clear that Ferrie was
> > helping Marcello with recruiting and he was very tight with the Cuban
> > exiles.
>
> > > The mafia killing the President in broad daylight? They would
> > > not have had the guts and they would have known, if they were caught, life
> > > as they know it would be all over.
>
> > Oh, come on Thalia. That argument would apply to WHOEVER killed JFK.
>
> > But turn it around. Wouldn't people INSIDE the government have had a
> > much better chance to get close to JFK to kill him in a more private
> > manner??
>
> > Doesn't the public, broad daylight nature of the attack, suggest it was
> > done by people who could never get close to JFK??
>
> No, because the killing had to be blamed on a malconent loner,
> preferably one with communist connections.
The killing had to be blamed on a malcontent loner because it was done by
a malcontent loner.
> I also believe that it was
> meant to be a violent public killing, a kind of warning to others who
> may want to pursue policies not acceptable to the military elite.
>
Any reason why you believe that other than it makes for a more
interesting story?
>
>
> > Kennedy's security was NOT stripped or in any way reduced.
>
> Sorry we will have to agree to disagree on this. I find the evidence
> that his security was limited extremely convincing, Dallas was a known
> hostile city for crying out loud, in Miami the army lined the streets
> for his motorcade. In Dallas, there was none of this despite the
> "Wanted" posters. The grassy knoll was perfect for snipers and there
> was not a single policemen, Secret Service officer etc there.
The grassy knoll was a lousy place to place a shooter. The shooter would
have been exposed on three sides and would have had a very difficult cross
shot at a moving target.
> Even the
> WC said his security was deficient. Why is the "Secret Service Stand
> Down" video crap? At the very least, it shows thta the Secret Service
> was disorganised and not communicvating clearly what each person was
> meant to be doing.
>
This is a classic case of hindsight being 20-20. We have become used to
the extraordinary security precautions that are now standard procedure
following the assassination of JFK, two failed attempts on Gerald Ford,
and a near successful attempt on Reagan. With each, the Secret Service
learned some lessons the hard way and each caused increased security
measures to be adopted. Prior to the JFK assassination, there had not been
a successful Presidential assassination attempt in over 60 years and there
had been unsuccessful attempts on both FDR and Truman. Had the Secret
Service become complacent. Perhaps, but that does not constitute a
conspiracy.
>
>
> > There are other solid confirmations as well. Whether you agree with him or
> > not, you should read Waldron's book, Thalia. It contains a wealth of well
> > documented evidence.
>
> I have read this book. A lot of hearsay confessions. I do think it is
> sigificant that there were several killings of mafia members around
> the time of the HSCA. I think it is possible, in fact likely, that the
> Mafia was involved, but on a lower level. They were not in a position
> to manipulate the investigation or the cover-up. I also have problems
> with their motive. It was an incredibly risky move, and from what I
> understand about the Mafia, they only take calculated risks. They have
> a modus operandi, and they are quite disciplined in this. I see
> "military ambush" all over Kennedy's killing.
>
Why do you see this?
col...@bigpond.net.au
>
> The head of the Miami SS disagrees with you!
Gee, I'm wondering if Secret Service men might stand up for each
other.... Kennedy's motorcade in Dallas did not follow procedures. Why
do you not comment on the fact that the police motorcycles were not in
proper formation (that is my opinion is key) and the press bus was
kept well back? All I ever hear is vague pronounciations like "The
head of the Miami SS disgrees with you!" I expect better than that.
Here is a link to previous Kenney motorcades where the security is
much more obvious and correct:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/palamara/photos.html
col...@bigpond.net.au
> > > Kennedy's security was NOT stripped or in any way reduced.
>
> > Sorry we will have to agree to disagree on this. I find the evidence
> > that his security was limited extremely convincing, Dallas was a known
> > hostile city for crying out loud, in Miami the army lined the streets
> > for his motorcade. In Dallas, there was none of this despite the
> > "Wanted" posters. The grassy knoll was perfect for snipers and there
> > was not a single policemen, Secret Service officer etc there.
>
> The grassy knoll was a lousy place to place a shooter. The shooter would
> have been exposed on three sides and would have had a very difficult cross
> shot at a moving target.
Not if he was needed as security in case the other hidden snipers
missed {after all they were shooting at a small, moving target}
Besides the shooters had secret service ID, a get out of jail free
card if questioned by police at the scene.
bigdog
Can you document any security measures that were in place in 1963 that
were not followed?