The Bullet that Hit Connally

[Robert Harris]

It was not CE399. That fact was confirmed by DA Henry Wade, the head
nurse in the ER at Parkland, the police officer who passed the real
bullet to the DPD, and Governor Connally himself.

http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html





Robert Harris

[lone gunman]

Wade was mistaken, everybody knows this !

[Canuck]

On Sunday, September 9, 2012 6:24:11 PM UTC-7, lone gunman wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 10:24:13 PM UTC+1, Robert Harris wrote: > It was not CE399. That fact was confirmed by DA Henry Wade, the head > > nurse in the ER at Parkland, the police officer who passed the real > > bullet to the DPD, and Governor Connally himself. > > > > http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html > > > > > > > > > > > > Robert Harris Wade was mistaken, everybody knows this !

Please elaborate, lone. -Canuck (prwhitmey)

[lone gunman]

i will present my argument when the time is right. I'm still working on
it.

[Robert Harris]

In article <2f2b5aaa-1981-444b...@googlegroups.com>,

This could not have been a "mistake". His statement was much too
detailed and specific. He said the nurse was holding the bullet in her
hand and that she told him it came off of Connally's "gurney".

If he was wrong, he was either lying or taking heavy drugs.

But that is EXACTLY what the nurse told officer Nolan, using the same
term - "gurney".

As Connally himself confirmed, the bullet fell from his gurney, onto the
floor and was retrieved by a nurse - probably the same nurse who spoke
with Wade and gave the bullet to Nolan.

The FBI tried to cover all this up by claiming that Nolan only received
wrist fragments from nursing supervisor, Audrey Bell, but Bell was
adamant that the FBI misrepresented what she said, and that she gave the
tiny fragments to plain clothed officers. Nolan of course, was in full
uniform.

She also said that she filled out and had the agent sign a receipt for
the fragments. Not surprisingly, that receipt which had to have been
wound up with the FBI, has evaporated.




Robert Harris

[lone gunman]

why whould the FBI try and cover anything up ?

[Anthony Marsh]

Show me the Oswald note where he threatened to kill the President if
they didn't stop bothering his wife. Oh you say you can't because the
FBI destroyed it? Gee, I wonder why they would destroy evidence of their
incompetence at not stopping Oswald and letting him kill the President?

[Robert Harris]

Probably because the bullet from Connally's leg did not come from
Oswald's rifle. If it had, they would have flaunted it rather than
covering it up.

CE399 didn't either, which is why they called Tomlinson at 1:30 in the
morning and told him to keep his mouth shut about it. That call was made
about 90 minutes after fragments arrived at their labs which they could
compare with Tomlinson's bullet.

I'm sure you are aware of Katzenbach's infamous memo in which he urged
that the public must be convinced that Oswald acted alone. What you may
not know is, that the HSCA discovered an earlier memo from Hoover to
Katzenbach, saying almost exactly the same thing. Katenbach was simply
regurgitating what Hoover told him.

If you believe nothing else I tell you, you can believe that Hoover
meant exactly what he said.




Robert Harris

[lone gunman]

Never heard of that before. Is it true ??

[Anthony Marsh]

We simply don't know because they lied about it and destroyed the note.
One of the secretaries said it contained a threat.
But if the note ever survived people would call for Hoover's head for
not stopping Oswald.
What if Bush had a memo from the CIA which said, "al Qaeda plans to fly
planes into the White House, Pentagon, and the Capitol Building this
week" and then Bush did nothing to stop it?

[Ace Kefford]

Re: the "infamous" Katzenberg statement as some conspiracy theorists call it. As many have pointed out, the conspiracy folks focus on "convinced" as having the connotation of "tricked/manipulated into believing" or the like, but couldn't it just as well (and in fact more likely) mean it was necessary for there to be a thorough investigation so that the public will become "certain" that there was no conspiracy? That is, there had to be an investigation to address speculation and wild theorizing.

[Canuck]

On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 7:52:51 PM UTC-7, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 9/11/2012 8:53 PM, lone gunman wrote: > On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 4:29:40 AM UTC+1, Robert Harris wrote: >> In article <2f2b5aaa-1981-444b...@googlegroups.com>, >> >> lone gunman <ThePu...@msn.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 10:24:13 PM UTC+1, Robert Harris wrote: >> >>>> It was not CE399. That fact was confirmed by DA Henry Wade, the head >> >>>> >> >>>> nurse in the ER at Parkland, the police officer who passed the real >> >>>> >> >>>> bullet to the DPD, and Governor Connally himself. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Robert Harris >> >>> >> >>> Wade was mistaken, everybody knows this ! >> >> >> >> This could not have been a "mistake". His statement was much too >> >> detailed and specific. He said the nurse was holding the bullet in her >> >> hand and that she told him it came off of Connally's "gurney". >> >> >> >> If he was wrong, he was either lying or taking heavy drugs. >> >> >> >> But that is EXACTLY what the nurse told officer Nolan, using the same >> >> term - "gurney". >> >> >> >> As Connally himself confirmed, the bullet fell from his gurney, onto the >> >> floor and was retrieved by a nurse - probably the same nurse who spoke >> >> with Wade and gave the bullet to Nolan. >> >> >> >> The FBI tried to cover all this up by claiming that Nolan only received >> >> wrist fragments from nursing supervisor, Audrey Bell, but Bell was >> >> adamant that the FBI misrepresented what she said, and that she gave the >> >> tiny fragments to plain clothed officers. Nolan of course, was in full >> >> uniform. >> >> >> >> She also said that she filled out and had the agent sign a receipt for >> >> the fragments. Not surprisingly, that receipt which had to have been >> >> wound up with the FBI, has evaporated. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Robert Harris > > why whould the FBI try and cover anything up ? > Show me the Oswald note where he threatened to kill the President if they didn't stop bothering his wife. Oh you say you can't because the FBI destroyed it? Gee, I wonder why they would destroy evidence of their incompetence at not stopping Oswald and letting him kill the President?

As I discuss in "The Winnipeg Airport Incident Revisited" at
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/winnipeg.htm, the FBI in Dallas failed to
re-interview Charles R. Isaacs, whose name, place of employment (American
Airlines) and phone number in Dallas were in Jack Ruby's phone book.
They had been informed by the Minneapolis FBI office about the allegations
of Richard Giesbrecht of Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada and reference made in
an airport conversation overheard by Giesbrecht to a man named "Isaacs",
who appeared to have some connedtion to Oswald. One of the two men stated
that he couldn't understand why someone like Isaacs would associate with a
"psycho" like Oswald. Instead of reinterviewing Isaacs, who had been
transferred to American Airlines in San Jose sometime in late 1963, the
Dallas FBI office instead requested that the NYC office reinterview Martin
Isaacs, a social worker who helped the Oswalds when they first arrived in
NYC from Russia. This, of course, was a waste of time. In my opinion,
the FBI was clearly not interested in following up on a possibly important
lead related to Giesbrecht's experience at the Winnipeg Airport. -
prwhitmey

[lone gunman]

i think there was alot of covering up after the event. CIA, FBI, Dallas
Police etc. Nobody wanted the finger pointed at them for incompetance.

Regarding 9/11, I think I read or heard something which suggested they
knew an attack was going to happen. But they didn't know the details. I
may be wrong.

[Robert Harris]

Ace Kefford wrote:

> Re: the "infamous" Katzenberg statement as some conspiracy theorists
> call it. As many have pointed out, the conspiracy folks focus on
> "convinced" as having the connotation of "tricked/manipulated into
> believing" or the like, but couldn't it just as well (and in fact more
> likely) mean it was necessary for there to be a thorough investigation so
> that the public will become "certain" that there was no conspiracy? That
> is, there had to be an investigation to address speculation and wild
> theorizing.

Why would you suggest that it is "far more likely" that Katzenbach said
something entirely different than what he actually said?

But to confirm the actual intentions here, let's go to Edgar himself. This
is from the HSCA reports,


"Mr. CORNWELL. ...it has been reported to us by our research staff that in
the L.B.J. Library in Austin there is a memo prepared by, or reflecting a
conversation between, Mr. Hoover and the White House, Walter Jenkins. The
conversation reflects that Hoover made the following statement:

'The thing I am most concerned about, and Mr. Katzenbach, is having
something issued so that they can convince the public that Oswald is the
real assassin,'

the conversation occurring November 24, 1963, 2 days after the
assassination."

Obviously, they could not have eliminated the possibility of conspiracy,
within 48 hours of the assassination, and there could have been no logical
presumption that no more than one person was involved.

And we know for a fact, that Hoover never for a millisecond, believed the
lone assassin theory. During the following week after giving his
instructions, he suggested to LBJ, that Connally was hit because he came
between JFK and a sniper.

There is really no debate here, so long as we go with what the principles
said, rather than the nutters:-)





Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/13/2012 8:03 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> Ace Kefford wrote:
>
>> Re: the "infamous" Katzenberg statement as some conspiracy theorists
>> call it. As many have pointed out, the conspiracy folks focus on
>> "convinced" as having the connotation of "tricked/manipulated into
>> believing" or the like, but couldn't it just as well (and in fact more
>> likely) mean it was necessary for there to be a thorough investigation
>> so that the public will become "certain" that there was no
>> conspiracy? That is, there had to be an investigation to address
>> speculation and wild theorizing.
>
> Why would you suggest that it is "far more likely" that Katzenbach said
> something entirely different than what he actually said?
>
> But to confirm the actual intentions here, let's go to Edgar himself.
> This is from the HSCA reports,
>
>
> "Mr. CORNWELL. ...it has been reported to us by our research staff that
> in the L.B.J. Library in Austin there is a memo prepared by, or
> reflecting a conversation between, Mr. Hoover and the White House,
> Walter Jenkins. The conversation reflects that Hoover made the following
> statement:
>
> 'The thing I am most concerned about, and Mr. Katzenbach, is having
> something issued so that they can convince the public that Oswald is the
> real assassin,'
>
> the conversation occurring November 24, 1963, 2 days after the
> assassination."
>

Only after Oswald was dead.

Katzenbach and Hoover discussed the idea of issuing a preconceived finding
report together on Sunday at 12:30 pm, or just one hour after Oswald had
been shot. Katzenbach had the authority under the Smith Act to order
Hoover to prepare such a report and Hoover agreed to prepare it if given
an order to do so by Justice Department. Katzenbach failed to give Hoover
such an instruction however (He favoring instead that Hoover's reports be
given to an independent commission.). Hoover disagreed with this (Although
he did agree with the need for he report, he wanted to give it to RFK for
RFK to sign off on.).

Both men then immediately made contact with LBJ to lobby for who should
receive Hoover's findings. When LBJ refused Katzenbach's request for an
independent commission, Monday morning LBJ was informed the Washington
Post was calling for a blue ribbon commission. LBJ rightfully concluded
Katzenbach was behind it and called Alsop and they debated Katzenbach's
and Hoover's points of who should write and receive it. Alsop opposed
Hoover writing it. When LBJ asked Alsop if he wanted Katzenbach to write
it, Alsop said it should not go to RFK's AG Office.

Katzenbach was an instigator of this activity, beginning with his Dallas
call on Friday night, his Hoover call on Sunday, his three calls
afterwards on that same day with Eugene Rostow who then called LBJ's aide,
Bill Moyers, to tell him of the need for a commission, his contact with
the Post when LBJ refused him, his famous memo on Monday calling for a
commission (Katzenbach admitted to the HSCA that he also talked with Dean
Rusk and Alexis Johnson.). On November 26, his views were circulated to
the FBI and became the subject of the Evans -Belmont memo. On November 29,
Katzenbach talked with Abe Fortas, suggesting Earl Warren and Allen Dulles
to the commission (both suggestions being accepted.).

In comparison, Hoover called LBJ's aide Walter Jenkins.

Katzenbach is running the show here. He wants Hoover to issue a "lone nut"
report and which Hoover wants to do. But he doesn't want his Justice
Department receiving it. Hoover wants control over the wording of the
report which he feels he won't have if a commission writes it. For this
reason, he wrote his own bogus report and leaked its findings.

> Obviously, they could not have eliminated the possibility of conspiracy,
> within 48 hours of the assassination, and there could have been no
> logical presumption that no more than one person was involved.
>
> And we know for a fact, that Hoover never for a millisecond, believed
> the lone assassin theory. During the following week after giving his
> instructions, he suggested to LBJ, that Connally was hit because he came
> between JFK and a sniper.
>

That means absolutely nothing. Hoover was an idiot. He accepted that
Oswald was the only shooter, but he believed Oswald was paid $6,500 by
Castro to assassinate the President. He had the proof in his hands.

[Anthony Marsh]

Something like that. Just like the breaking of the Purple Code allowed
the US fleet to know about the Japanese plans for the Battle of Midway,
but they did not know what the Admiral ate for breakfast.

[Robert Harris]

In article <50527a95$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

What is your source for all this?





Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

In article
<bobharris77-EBCB...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,

Tony, you seem to have just cut n' pasted Clark Wilkins post to me last
year. But I asked him three times to provide a source for this tale and
he refused to respond.

Do you have a source or not?





Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

Exactly. You need to be pummeled with it again and again.
The source is the documents and the recordings.

>
>
>
> Robert Harris
>

[Robert Harris]

Oh, the documents and the recordings! That certainly clears things up.

You really are better off remaining silent, rather than posting
something this ridiculous.




Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

Fine with me. Continue to refuse to read the documents and/or listen to
the recordings.

>
>
>
> Robert Harris

[John Reagor King]

In article <cb0568c1-6c0f-4064...@googlegroups.com>,

Ace Kefford <bglo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Re: the "infamous" Katzenberg statement as some conspiracy theorists call it.

Did you perhaps mean "Katzenbach"?

[John Reagor King]

In article <50527a95$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

> That means absolutely nothing. Hoover was an idiot. He accepted that
> Oswald was the only shooter, but he believed Oswald was paid $6,500 by
> Castro to assassinate the President. He had the proof in his hands.

Hoover had proof that Oswald was paid $6500 by Castro? Do tell.

[John Reagor King]

In article <50512c72$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

Since you've already admitted that we don't know what the note said,
that would also mean that we don't know whether or not it said anything
that would cause people to call for Hoover's head if the note had
survived.

Just a thought.

> What if Bush had a memo from the CIA which said, "al Qaeda plans to fly
> planes into the White House, Pentagon, and the Capitol Building this
> week" and then Bush did nothing to stop it?

Since, by your own admission, we don't know if the Oswald note said
anything about killing anyone, I am at a loss to understand why that
analogy is applicable.

[Anthony Marsh]

The secretary said it contained a threat.
I am making fun of you pretending that Bush needed a memo detailing
exactly how al Qaeda planned to kill thousands of Americans. Al Qaeda
expected many more people to already be in the Twin Towers. They were
hoping to kill at least 50,000 people that morning.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/19/2012 8:25 PM, John Reagor King wrote:

The Alvarado story. Why do you keep refusing to read the articles on my
Web site? I've posted it hundreds of times.

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/cubahoax.htm


The Cuba Hoaxes
When President Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963 top US
officials thought that it was a conspiracy. Because of Oswald's defection
to Russia and his support of Fidel Castro, the suspicion was that he was
acting on behalf of Castro or the Russians. This was later reinforced by a
series of hoaxes designed to link Oswald to Castro.
On November 25, 1963 a Nicaraguan intelligence officer sympathetic
to the Cuban exiles named Alvarado Ugarte Gilberto claimed that on
September 18, 1963 he saw a Cuban consulate employee give $6,5000 in cash
to Oswald to assassinate the President. Because his story was so elaborate
and because it fit in with the prevailing suspicions in the intelligence
community it was widely believed to be true. But under intense questioning
by the CIA, Alvarado's story began to unravel. Oswald could not have been
at the Cuban Consulate in Mexico on the day that he allegedly received the
cash, because he was known to have been in New Orleans appplying for
unemployment insurance. And there was no red-headed Negro Cuban
intelligence officer working at the Cuban Consulate in Mexico. Alvarado
admitted that he had made up the story in hopes that the US would be
prompted to invade Cuba in retaliation. The assassination of a head of
state is a casus belli. Another false allegation seemed to confirm
Alvarado's story. A Cuban named Fernando Penabaz claimed that Oswald had
been contacted in Nicaragua by a Cuban intelligence officer. But Penabaz
had no direct knowledge. His story came from two Cuban Exile leaders,
Sixto Mesa and Miguel de Leon, associates of the Cuban Exile leader
Manuela Artime. Helping to spread these false rumors were the virulent
anti-Communist journalists Jerry and James Buchanan in Miami. One of their
stories alleged that Oswald had been seen in Miami in contact with a Cuban
intelligence officer. It turned out that the source of their story was CIA
operative Frank Sturgis. None of the facts checked out and Oswald was
never in Miami. It was yet another hoax.
The very possibility that Oswald had been paid to assassinate
President Kennedy is what caused the cover-up of the JFK assassination and
the formation of the Warren Commission. President Johnson was concerned
that rumors of Cuban involvement would get out of hand and force the US to
invade Cuba, thus sparking WWIII. President Johnson was convinced that the
assassination was indeed a conspiracy, but if that fact ever became
public, it might lead to WWIII and a full nuclear exchange with Russia. It
was for reasons of national security that the public had to be convinced
that Oswald had acted alone. Lyndon Johnson told several key people of the
report from Hoover that Oswald had been paid by the Cubans to shoot
President Kennedy. But the decision was made to cover it up rather than
retaliate. LBJ blackmailed Earl Warren and other Warren Commission members
into serving on the commission by telling them about the rumor of Oswald
being paid in Mexico, but if that ever became public it could lead to
WWIII and the death of 40 million Americans. For example, listen to LBJ's
November 29, 1963 phone conversation with Senator Richard Russell .
Just as these rumors were beginning to die down, a new hoax appeared
which could have been even more devastating. A series of letters were
mailed from Havana, Cuba which suggested that Oswald was working for Cuban
intelligence. The first letter was postmarked November 28, 1863 from
Havana, Cuba addressed to Lee Oswald. It was signed by a "Pedro Charles"
and dated November 10, 1963. It appeared to discuss the upcoming
assassination. In addition to personal chit-chat it contained references
to Oswald's great markmanship, the job that he was going to do, the money
he had been paid, and how proud the "Chief" would be. U.S. intelligence
considered the "Chief" to be a reference to Fidel Castro. But there were a
few tip-offs which indicated the letter was not genuine. The letter was
sent to Lee Oswald c/o "Mail Office", Dallas, Texas. And the FBI and CIA
could not find anyone named Pedro Charles in Cuba. A second letter also
postmarked November 28, 1963 was mailed from Havana, Cuba to Attorney
General Robert Kennedy alleging that a Cuban agent named Pedro Charles had
met with Oswald in Miami several months previously and paid him $7,000 to
assassinate the President. This letter was signed by a "Mario del Rosario
Molina." But FBI analysis revealed that both the Molina letter and the
Pedro Charles letter had been typed on the same typewriter, a Remington
Number 10, large Pica type, mailed in envelopes from the same batch,
postmarked at the same place, and signed with the same type of pen and
ink. And again there was no such person as Mario del Rosario Molina. Later
analysis by Cuban intelligence identified the unique characteristics of
the typewriter used for both letters. In particular they noted that the
"a" key had a characteristic wear mark. This was presented at a conference
in Havana in 1995. Two more letters were sent from Havana, postmarked
December 3, 1963 and signed by a "Miguel Galban Lopez." One was addressed
to Voice of America and the other to the Editor of the "Diario del New
York." Both letters announced that it was Pedro Charles who paid Lee
Harvey Oswald to assassinate the President. The FBI examined all four
letters and concluded that they probably represented a hoax by anti-Castro
groups to blame the assassination on Cuba. But the most amazing thing is
that it took Hoover so long to catch onto the fact that these letters were
a hoax. On December 12, 1963 the very day that his lab was informing him
that the Pedro Charles letters were a hoax, he was citing them to his
closest aides as the reason why he felt that the FBI report should not
conclude that there was no conspiracy. Although Hoover was personally
satisfied that Oswald alone had fired all the shots, he still suspected
that Oswald was working on behalf of someone, in particular Castro, based
on those letters.
This was the reason for the cover-up of the JFK assassination, not
because US officials thought that Oswald acted alone, but because they
thought that he was acting on behalf of Castro and if that fact ever
became public, it would lead to WWIII.

Below are the actual letters and documents which you can click on and
view. The original letters were written in Spanish and translated into
English by the FBI.

Pedro Charles letter: Spanish English envelope
Letter to AG Robert Kennedy: Spanish, page 1 Spanish, page 2 English,
page 1 English, page 2 envelope, both sides
Letter to Voice of America: Spanish English envelope
Letter to Diario de New York: English

Dallas agent Heitman report to FBI HQ on December 5, 1963: page 1 page
2 page 3 page 4
Griffith to Conrad memo on December 10, 1963: page 1 page 2
FBI memo to State Department on December 12, 1963: page 1 page 2
Griffith to Conrad memo on December 30, 1963: page 1 page 2
Wannall to Sullivan memo on January 2, 1964: 1 page
Hoover memo to WC's Rankin on January 17, 1964: page 1 page 2

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/19/2012 8:25 PM, John Reagor King wrote:

He's a Newbie.

[Saintly Oswald]

Funny that Robert thinks that the FBI is so capable of falsifying
ballistic evidence, and yet so incapable of falsifying a film.

On Wednesday, September 12, 2012 5:31:21 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:

[Ben Holmes]

In article <505a8d39$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

A clear example that you know how to cut & paste.

Now do it with your citation that you've claimed you gave for Dr. Humes
burning paperwork Saturday morning.

But you won't.


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com

[John Reagor King]

In article <505a8d39$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 9/19/2012 8:25 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> > In article <50527a95$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> That means absolutely nothing. Hoover was an idiot. He accepted that
> >> Oswald was the only shooter, but he believed Oswald was paid $6,500 by
> >> Castro to assassinate the President. He had the proof in his hands.
> >
> > Hoover had proof that Oswald was paid $6500 by Castro? Do tell.
>
> The Alvarado story. Why do you keep refusing to read the articles on my
> Web site?

Why do you keep refusing to make up things about me out of thin air? :D

> I've posted it hundreds of times.

Ah, but is there any time before this present article of yours that
you've posted that link in an article that I then replied to? Unless I
replied to an article, there is no proof I ever saw it; since you are
hardly a newbie here you know that perfectly well. And you also know
perfectly well I had you on killfile for seven years until earlier this
month.

You did not post this link in hundreds of articles that I myself
*replied* to, did you Anthony? In fact, isn't this the *first* time,
ever, that you have posted that link in an article that I *replied* to?
How can I have been, er, what was your term? -- ah yes, "refusing" to go
to a link that I've never seen before today?

Gawd, it is sooo childishly easy to smash your claims to smithereens.

:)))

Wait a minute. I asked you if Hoover had proof that Castro paid Oswald
$6500 to assassinate Kennedy. In response to that you produce an
article that indicates that it was a hoax, and thus not proven at all?

> The very possibility that Oswald had been paid to assassinate
> President Kennedy is what caused the cover-up of the JFK assassination and
> the formation of the Warren Commission. President Johnson was concerned
> that rumors of Cuban involvement would get out of hand and force the US to
> invade Cuba, thus sparking WWIII. President Johnson was convinced that the
> assassination was indeed a conspiracy, but if that fact ever became
> public, it might lead to WWIII and a full nuclear exchange with Russia. It
> was for reasons of national security that the public had to be convinced
> that Oswald had acted alone. Lyndon Johnson told several key people of the
> report from Hoover that Oswald had been paid by the Cubans to shoot
> President Kennedy.

Ah, a report from Hoover that Oswald had been paid by the Cubans to
shoot Kennedy. A report based on a hoax. Not a report based on proof.

Still nothing here about Hoover having proof that Oswald had been paid,
by anyone, to assassinate Kennedy.

> Below are the actual letters and documents which you can click on and
> view. The original letters were written in Spanish and translated into
> English by the FBI.
>
> Pedro Charles letter: Spanish English envelope
> Letter to AG Robert Kennedy: Spanish, page 1 Spanish, page 2 English,
> page 1 English, page 2 envelope, both sides
> Letter to Voice of America: Spanish English envelope
> Letter to Diario de New York: English
>
> Dallas agent Heitman report to FBI HQ on December 5, 1963: page 1 page
> 2 page 3 page 4
> Griffith to Conrad memo on December 10, 1963: page 1 page 2
> FBI memo to State Department on December 12, 1963: page 1 page 2
> Griffith to Conrad memo on December 30, 1963: page 1 page 2
> Wannall to Sullivan memo on January 2, 1964: 1 page
> Hoover memo to WC's Rankin on January 17, 1964: page 1 page 2

I'm going to produce some irrefutable proof, however. I'm going to
irrefutably prove that I am indeed on your webpage right now, Anthony.
Above in your text you do not give the links to those documents, so the
only possible way I can get to those is to go to your webpage and click
on those links. And yes, I do know how to click on a link, which you
falsely claimed in another article that I don't know how to do, rofl.
I'm going to click on the link for the first page of the Hoover memo:

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/105-82555-1413a.jpg

How would I know that's the link, Anthony, unless I am indeed on your
website? Now let's take a look at this:

"Reference is made to my letter dated December 13, 1963, enclosing a
summary of the results of the investigation of several hoaxes and false
reports which had arisen in connection with the Oswald case. The
following information supplements the data previously furnished to you
in this regard.

"The FBI has been furnished four letters written from Cuba indicating or
alleging that the assassination of President Kennedy was undertaken by
Oswald under the direction of a Cuban agent, one Pedro Charles, who
reportedly gave Oswald $7,000 for this mission."

Um, Anthony?

Anthony?

Helloooooooooo?

I asked you if Hoover had *proof*, not allegations, but *proof* that
Castro really *had* given Oswald $6500 to assassinate JFK. But aside
from Hoover saying here, $7000, not $6500, this document shows Hoover
appearing to not accept these letters as anything even remotely like
*proof*. Even he said these were "hoaxes and false reports," his exact
words. And your article in its entirety makes it plain that this was
nothing more than a hoax.

Why did you act as if Hoover had proof, when you already knew long
before I asked my question that he didn't have proof?

Oh well, the topic of this newsgroup is such a serious one that we need
a good laugh once in a while. Thank you so much, Anthony, for posting
this comedy item. ;-)

[John Reagor King]

In article <505a8c88$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

Did the secretary said it was a threat to kill someone?

> I am making fun of you pretending that Bush needed a memo detailing
> exactly how al Qaeda planned to kill thousands of Americans.

When did I pretend that, Anthony? In an imaginary article that I never
posted?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/20/2012 12:39 PM, Saintly Oswald wrote:
> Funny that Robert thinks that the FBI is so capable of falsifying
> ballistic evidence, and yet so incapable of falsifying a film.
>

You have your culprits mixed up. The FBI did not have the Zapruder film.
The SS, LIFE and the CIA did that weekend. Not the FBI. They only got a
copy. I don't know if you know how photography works, but when you make an
alteration to a COPY or a PRINT that alteration is not magically
transferred to the ORIGINAL or the NEGATIVE.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/20/2012 6:56 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> In article <505a8d39$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 9/19/2012 8:25 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
>>> In article <50527a95$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
>>> Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> That means absolutely nothing. Hoover was an idiot. He accepted that
>>>> Oswald was the only shooter, but he believed Oswald was paid $6,500 by
>>>> Castro to assassinate the President. He had the proof in his hands.
>>>
>>> Hoover had proof that Oswald was paid $6500 by Castro? Do tell.
>>
>> The Alvarado story. Why do you keep refusing to read the articles on my
>> Web site?
>
> Why do you keep refusing to make up things about me out of thin air? :D
>

I apologize if I forgot to make up things about you out of thin air, but
I've been very busy. Just bought a new USB 3.0 HD and transferring all
my old files to it.
I try to invent some new things this weekend if I have any time between
all the Sci-Fi shows.

>> I've posted it hundreds of times.
>
> Ah, but is there any time before this present article of yours that
> you've posted that link in an article that I then replied to? Unless I
> replied to an article, there is no proof I ever saw it; since you are

You can't prove that you saw a message here?
Newbie.
I can prove that I have sent messages which never appeared here. But
that is not proof that you read them.

> hardly a newbie here you know that perfectly well. And you also know
> perfectly well I had you on killfile for seven years until earlier this
> month.
>

Hard to tell when you keep changing your name.

> You did not post this link in hundreds of articles that I myself
> *replied* to, did you Anthony? In fact, isn't this the *first* time,
> ever, that you have posted that link in an article that I *replied* to?
> How can I have been, er, what was your term? -- ah yes, "refusing" to go
> to a link that I've never seen before today?
>

Well we had another poster who didn't know how to visit the URLs that
were posted.

> Gawd, it is sooo childishly easy to smash your claims to smithereens.
>

Maybe you didn't know how to find that link that I posted hundreds of
times.

At the time he had the proof in his hands. If you had actually read the
article you would know that it took them several days to figure that
out. Yet he continued to believe that Oswald was working for Castro.

>> The very possibility that Oswald had been paid to assassinate
>> President Kennedy is what caused the cover-up of the JFK assassination and
>> the formation of the Warren Commission. President Johnson was concerned
>> that rumors of Cuban involvement would get out of hand and force the US to
>> invade Cuba, thus sparking WWIII. President Johnson was convinced that the
>> assassination was indeed a conspiracy, but if that fact ever became
>> public, it might lead to WWIII and a full nuclear exchange with Russia. It
>> was for reasons of national security that the public had to be convinced
>> that Oswald had acted alone. Lyndon Johnson told several key people of the
>> report from Hoover that Oswald had been paid by the Cubans to shoot
>> President Kennedy.
>
> Ah, a report from Hoover that Oswald had been paid by the Cubans to
> shoot Kennedy. A report based on a hoax. Not a report based on proof.
>

Which report are you talking about? Hoover was reacting to what he was
hearing from his sources.

I didn't say proof. I said that's what Hoover thought. The proof he had
in his hands turned out to be a hoax.

Someone had to help you.

> "Reference is made to my letter dated December 13, 1963, enclosing a
> summary of the results of the investigation of several hoaxes and false
> reports which had arisen in connection with the Oswald case. The
> following information supplements the data previously furnished to you
> in this regard.
>
> "The FBI has been furnished four letters written from Cuba indicating or
> alleging that the assassination of President Kennedy was undertaken by
> Oswald under the direction of a Cuban agent, one Pedro Charles, who
> reportedly gave Oswald $7,000 for this mission."
>
> Um, Anthony?
>
> Anthony?
>
> Helloooooooooo?
>
> I asked you if Hoover had *proof*, not allegations, but *proof* that
> Castro really *had* given Oswald $6500 to assassinate JFK. But aside
> from Hoover saying here, $7000, not $6500, this document shows Hoover
> appearing to not accept these letters as anything even remotely like
> *proof*. Even he said these were "hoaxes and false reports," his exact
> words. And your article in its entirety makes it plain that this was
> nothing more than a hoax.
>

That document is not factual. The Pedro Charles letters are not the
source of the $6,500 rumor.
The author was conflating events.

> Why did you act as if Hoover had proof, when you already knew long
> before I asked my question that he didn't have proof?
>

Because he thought he did. And that was the reason for the cover-up.

[Anthony Marsh]

Maybe.

>> I am making fun of you pretending that Bush needed a memo detailing
>> exactly how al Qaeda planned to kill thousands of Americans.
>
> When did I pretend that, Anthony? In an imaginary article that I never
> posted?
>

When you said that the analogy had to also involve murder.

[Saintly Oswald]

Somebody said,

"You have your culprits mixed up. The FBI did not have the Zapruder film.
The SS, LIFE and the CIA did that weekend. Not the FBI. They only got a
copy. I don't know if you know how photography works, but when you make an
alteration to a COPY or a PRINT that alteration is not magically
transferred to the ORIGINAL or the NEGATIVE."

Now, now. A conspiracy is all about people helping people. If the FBI had
the film editor dude, they would have lent his services out to their
friends. That's what friends are for. And, since the friends controlled
the original and all copies, they don't need your magic. It's only the
Magic Bullet Theory that needs that. This is just a matter of improving
the original and making more copies. And since Zapruder is a friend, and
Henry Luce is a friend, and the Secret Service is a friend...well, friends
can get thins done. That's what this assassination was all about: friends
helping friends.

[John Reagor King]

In article <505b...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

> I didn't say proof. I said that's what Hoover thought. The proof he had
> in his hands turned out to be a hoax.

Ah, but I was obviously asking if he had *actual* proof. Here are the
exact words of my question again:

"Hoover had proof that Oswald was paid $6500 by Castro?"

I didn't say "Hoover had what appeared to be proof at the time," or
anything like that. I simply asked if he had proof, period.

Your answer was:

"The Alvarado story. Why do you keep refusing to read the articles on my

Web site? I've posted it hundreds of times."

But nowhere there did you say it wasn't *actual* proof, which was quite
obviously what I was asking for.

Oh how you do try to wriggle out of things, Anthony. Notice how it
almost never fools me? Why do you even try anymore? ;-)

[John Reagor King]

In article <505c0446$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

I said a great deal more than that, Anthony. You badly need to learn
how to follow discussions. ;-)

[ocu...@gmail.com]

Anthony

I'd been puzzling over the Katzenbach memo and your explanation above
about commission discussions the weekend of the assassination was very
helpful. Thanks. I'd like your opinion on the "no conspiracy" lines from
McGeorge Bundy and Katzenbach. Is there any innocent explanation for this
line of thought? If these people were patriots, wouldn't they want to
know if Castro or the Russians had a hand in the assassination? Or if
Hoover or Johnson knew that Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City,
wouldn't they want to know why? I don't buy that they were afraid of
nuclear war; if the Russians had done this, wouldn't Johnson and Hoover
want to know? I can't come up with any explanation other than they knew
who did it and wanted to cover it up. What's your opinion?

thanks

Ollie

[John Reagor King]

In article <7dba54a1-e5f6-4c1f...@googlegroups.com>,

ocu...@gmail.com wrote:

> Anthony
>
> I'd been puzzling over the Katzenbach memo and your explanation above
> about commission discussions the weekend of the assassination was very
> helpful. Thanks. I'd like your opinion on the "no conspiracy" lines from
> McGeorge Bundy and Katzenbach. Is there any innocent explanation for this
> line of thought? If these people were patriots, wouldn't they want to
> know if Castro or the Russians had a hand in the assassination? Or if
> Hoover or Johnson knew that Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City,
> wouldn't they want to know why? I don't buy that they were afraid of
> nuclear war;

I know that you didn't address this to me, but I find your statement that
you don't buy that they were afraid of nuclear war to be rather
remarkable. Did you forget that the assassination occurred only 13 months
after the Cuban Missile Crisis, the closest the world ever came to all-out
nuclear war?

> if the Russians had done this, wouldn't Johnson and Hoover
> want to know?

They might have wanted to know *privately*, but they might have still been
very concerned that the *public* didn't get the idea that the Soviet Union
and/or Cuba were behind the assassination, as then there would obviously
have been a huge public outcry to go to war against one or both of those
nations.

> I can't come up with any explanation other than they knew
> who did it and wanted to cover it up.

I just came up with another explanation, given above, without thinking
about it for more than a few seconds.

[Saintly Oswald]

On Monday, September 24, 2012 4:11:05 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
> if the Russians had done this, wouldn't Johnson and Hoover
> want to know?

They might have wanted to know *privately*, but they might have still been
very concerned that the *public* didn't get the idea that the Soviet Union
and/or Cuba were behind the assassination, as then there would obviously
have been a huge public outcry to go to war against one or both of those
nations.

But, if they had found out "privately," we would know by now. The official
documents are such that they didn't find out anything but that Oswald did
it. Of course, in 1969 LBJ told Walter Cronkite that he hadn't completely
discounted the possibility of foreign involvement. Can that be anything
but a lie, the original lie used to convince relatively honest men to join
in the cover up? If LBJ really thought there had been foreign involvement
it would have been revealed in the released documents. And, by 1969, he
would certainly have known anything there was to know of foreign
involvement. And if it was so damned sensitive, he wouldn't have blabbered
it to Walter Cronkite. But, it was safe to lie to Uncle Walter, the same
lie that he told to Earl Warren and Senator Russell. "There might be
foreign involvement. Gotta cover up everything."

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/23/2012 6:28 PM, ocu...@gmail.com wrote:
> Anthony
>
> I'd been puzzling over the Katzenbach memo and your explanation above
> about commission discussions the weekend of the assassination was very
> helpful. Thanks. I'd like your opinion on the "no conspiracy" lines from
> McGeorge Bundy and Katzenbach. Is there any innocent explanation for this
> line of thought? If these people were patriots, wouldn't they want to

It depends on how you define innocent. Honest it not the same thing as
innocent.

> know if Castro or the Russians had a hand in the assassination? Or if

You are conflating things. The memo was not about what THEY should know.
Of course they would want to know if it was a conspiracy or not. They
already KNEW it was a conspiracy. But they wanted the public to think it
was not a conspiracy. They had been advised by the experts that if it ever
got out that it was a conspiracy that might spark WWIII. LBJ said as much
over the phone. For more background on the conspiracy angle, read my
article.

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/cubahoax.htm

> Hoover or Johnson knew that Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City,

No, they wouldn't. The FBI did not trust the CIA and vice versa.

> wouldn't they want to know why? I don't buy that they were afraid of
> nuclear war; if the Russians had done this, wouldn't Johnson and Hoover
> want to know? I can't come up with any explanation other than they knew
> who did it and wanted to cover it up. What's your opinion?
>

You have to understand the historical background. The country had just
been through the Cuban Missile Crisis. We almost had a nuclear war. The
US declared that any nuclear missiles launched by Cuban would be
considered an attack by the Soviet Union and we would counter-attack
against the Soviet Union. That is what WWIII means.
LBJ immediately thought the assassination was the beginning of an attack
by the Communists. That is why he ordered the cover-up. He was a little
squeamish about the death of 40 million Americans.

> thanks
>
> Ollie
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/24/2012 10:50 PM, Saintly Oswald wrote:
> On Monday, September 24, 2012 4:11:05 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
>> if the Russians had done this, wouldn't Johnson and Hoover
>> want to know?
>
> They might have wanted to know *privately*, but they might have still been
> very concerned that the *public* didn't get the idea that the Soviet Union
> and/or Cuba were behind the assassination, as then there would obviously
> have been a huge public outcry to go to war against one or both of those
> nations.
>
> But, if they had found out "privately," we would know by now. The official

No.

> documents are such that they didn't find out anything but that Oswald did
> it. Of course, in 1969 LBJ told Walter Cronkite that he hadn't completely
> discounted the possibility of foreign involvement. Can that be anything
> but a lie, the original lie used to convince relatively honest men to join
> in the cover up? If LBJ really thought there had been foreign involvement
> it would have been revealed in the released documents. And, by 1969, he

So you like total nuclear annihilation?

> would certainly have known anything there was to know of foreign
> involvement. And if it was so damned sensitive, he wouldn't have blabbered
> it to Walter Cronkite. But, it was safe to lie to Uncle Walter, the same

He did not show Cronkite the evidence.

[John Reagor King]

In article <9638a8c6-ad71-43fc...@googlegroups.com>,

Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, September 24, 2012 4:11:05 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
> > if the Russians had done this, wouldn't Johnson and Hoover
> > want to know?
>
> They might have wanted to know *privately*, but they might have still been
> very concerned that the *public* didn't get the idea that the Soviet Union
> and/or Cuba were behind the assassination, as then there would obviously
> have been a huge public outcry to go to war against one or both of those
> nations.

You posted the paragraph above as if it was your text, not mine.

> But, if they had found out "privately," we would know by now.

I didn't say they actually *did* find out privately that the Russians
had done it, I said they might have *wanted* to know privately *if* the
Russians had done it.

> The official
> documents are such that they didn't find out anything but that Oswald did
> it. Of course, in 1969 LBJ told Walter Cronkite that he hadn't completely
> discounted the possibility of foreign involvement. Can that be anything
> but a lie, the original lie used to convince relatively honest men to join
> in the cover up?

Why can't it instead be simply that he suspected that he had never
learned the full truth about whether there was or was not foreign
involvement in the assassination of JFK? I don't agree with you that
that statement of his cannot possibly be anything but a lie, as if there
is no other even remotely plausible explanation whatsoever. And you
yourself said that if they *had* found out privately that the Russians
were involved we would *know* by now.

> If LBJ really thought there had been foreign involvement
> it would have been revealed in the released documents.

So apparently even you admit that he never knew for certain whether
there was or wasn't foreign involvement. So why did you say above that
it *cannot* have been *anything* but a lie?

> And, by 1969, he
> would certainly have known anything there was to know of foreign
> involvement.

So you admit that it could indeed have been something else besides a lie.

> And if it was so damned sensitive, he wouldn't have blabbered
> it to Walter Cronkite.

He merely said to Cronkite that he had never been entirely convinced
that there was no foreign involvement whatsoever. He didn't say that he
actually *knew* of foreign involvement. And you yourself are saying
here that if he had *known* there really *was* foreign involvement, we
also would *know* it today.

> But, it was safe to lie to Uncle Walter, the same
> lie that he told to Earl Warren and Senator Russell. "There might be
> foreign involvement. Gotta cover up everything."

And there you yourself say it. There *might* be foreign in involvement.
Not that there *was* foreign involvement. Rather obviously, only a week
after the assassination, LBJ would not yet know what would eventually be
uncovered.

Btw, I'll thank you to stop implying to me on Youtube that I am
responding to your comments there in the manner of a child, with your
"go run along and play" nonsense. I am doing no such thing, there, or
here.

[Saintly Oswald]

On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 5:59:06 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
> In article <9638a8c6-ad71-43fc...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Why can't it instead be simply that he suspected that he had never
>
> learned the full truth about whether there was or was not foreign
>
> involvement in the assassination of JFK? I don't agree with you that
>
> that statement of his cannot possibly be anything but a lie, as if there
>
> is no other even remotely plausible explanation whatsoever. And you
>
> yourself said that if they *had* found out privately that the Russians
>
> were involved we would *know* by now.

Of course he didn't find out that the Russians were involved. They weren't
involved. But, if they had been involved, he would have found out and we
would know by now. So, I'm saying that means the Russians were not
involved and that LBJ was lying.

> So apparently even you admit that he never knew for certain whether
>
> there was or wasn't foreign involvement. So why did you say above that
>
> it *cannot* have been *anything* but a lie?

I'm saying that it is not credible that by 1969 that he did not know.
Therefore, what he told Cronkite was a lie.

>
> Btw, I'll thank you to stop implying to me on Youtube that I am
>
> responding to your comments there in the manner of a child, with your
>
> "go run along and play" nonsense. I am doing no such thing, there, or
>
> here.

You've convinced me. I think it may be the other extreme. Are you pushing
100 or so?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/25/2012 7:50 PM, Saintly Oswald wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 5:59:06 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
>> In article <9638a8c6-ad71-43fc...@googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Why can't it instead be simply that he suspected that he had never
>>
>> learned the full truth about whether there was or was not foreign
>>
>> involvement in the assassination of JFK? I don't agree with you that
>>
>> that statement of his cannot possibly be anything but a lie, as if there
>>
>> is no other even remotely plausible explanation whatsoever. And you
>>
>> yourself said that if they *had* found out privately that the Russians
>>
>> were involved we would *know* by now.
>
> Of course he didn't find out that the Russians were involved. They weren't
> involved. But, if they had been involved, he would have found out and we
> would know by now. So, I'm saying that means the Russians were not
> involved and that LBJ was lying.
>

LBJ was not lying. He was getting bad information. Of course the
Russians were not involved. That is what LBJ feared the moment he heard
the shots. Then as the evidence started coming in it pointed to Castro.
That is what LBJ believed. Turned out to be hoaxes.

>> So apparently even you admit that he never knew for certain whether
>>
>> there was or wasn't foreign involvement. So why did you say above that
>>
>> it *cannot* have been *anything* but a lie?
>
> I'm saying that it is not credible that by 1969 that he did not know.
> Therefore, what he told Cronkite was a lie.

For reasons of National Security.

[John Reagor King]

In article <e5d6a4ea-2e20-417d...@googlegroups.com>,

Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 5:59:06 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
> > In article <9638a8c6-ad71-43fc...@googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Why can't it instead be simply that he suspected that he had never
> > learned the full truth about whether there was or was not foreign
> > involvement in the assassination of JFK? I don't agree with you that
> > that statement of his cannot possibly be anything but a lie, as if there
> > is no other even remotely plausible explanation whatsoever. And you
> > yourself said that if they *had* found out privately that the Russians
> > were involved we would *know* by now.
>
> Of course he didn't find out that the Russians were involved. They weren't
> involved. But, if they had been involved, he would have found out and we
> would know by now. So, I'm saying that means the Russians were not
> involved and that LBJ was lying.

He would only be lying, or mistaken, if he told Cronkite the Russians
definitely *were* involved. But merely to say that he was never
absolutely certain that they weren't? How is that a "lie," Jay? A "lie"
is when you believe the statement is false at the time you're making it.
How do you know he was not expressing *honest* doubts to Cronkite? Just
because, just as you say, LBJ had no proof the Russians were involved,
doesn't automatically mean that one can't still have some honest doubts
about the possibility.

> > So apparently even you admit that he never knew for certain whether
> > there was or wasn't foreign involvement. So why did you say above that
> > it *cannot* have been *anything* but a lie?
>
> I'm saying that it is not credible that by 1969 that he did not know.
> Therefore, what he told Cronkite was a lie.

I still do not follow your logic. If Johnson simply was expressing doubts
as to whether or not the Russians were involved, that is not what most
English-speakers worldwide would call a "lie." Yes, yes, yes, he didn't
have absolute *proof* that the Russians were involved, but that's not
quite the same thing as proof that they *weren't* involved either. He was
simply expressing doubts to Cronkite. He did not specifically say that
the Russians definitely *were* involved. THAT would be a lie, I agree, if
he did not honestly believe what he was saying. But it's also possible
for a person to be wrong about something without realizing they're wrong
-- it happens every day -- and most people wouldn't call that a lie, they
would call that an honest and unintentional mistake.

> > Btw, I'll thank you to stop implying to me on Youtube that I am
> > responding to your comments there in the manner of a child, with your
> > "go run along and play" nonsense. I am doing no such thing, there, or
> > here.
>
> You've convinced me. I think it may be the other extreme. Are you pushing
> 100 or so?

Oh, so now you're going to insult me again, and imply that I am senile?
Are you claiming that most people would not view my arguments above as
being at least fairly reasonable? As I told you on Youtube, you are the
one behaving very childishly, not me, by using puerile insults against
me when I did not do such a thing to you first. You're the one acting
as if you are either no older than 13, or no younger than 100, not me.
Please prove me wrong by limiting yourself from here on to rational
discussion of this assassination without resorting to immature and
obviously misplaced insults.

[fatol...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 5:04:02 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 9/25/2012 7:50 PM, Saintly Oswald wrote:

> > I'm saying that it is not credible that by 1969 that he did not know.
>
> > Therefore, what he told Cronkite was a lie.
>
>
>
> For reasons of National Security.

If LBJ was guarding national security, he could have simply reaffirmed the
conclusions of the Warren Report. How does it enhance national security to
say he's not sure there was foreign involvement? Why does he need to lie
to Cronkite at all if he thinks it's a lone nut? If Castro had really been
behind it, LBJ would have known soon enough. But he knew that there was no
foreign involvement. Lying about foreign involvement doesn't help him
unless it's a domestic conspiracy that he does not want discovered.

[fatol...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 5:06:47 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:

> Oh, so now you're going to insult me again, and imply that I am senile?

That wasn't very nice of me, but I really think that, for whatever reason,
you actually do not understand what I say. Your replies show an inability
to follow what I say. Perhaps I do not express myself very well. But, I do
the best I know how, and you come back at me with misunderstandings that
would take twice as many words to straighten out, and then it just keeps
getting worse.

[Anthony Marsh]

LBJ did not name the Russians in that interview.
What he said was:

"I can't honestly say that I've ever been completely relieved of the
fact that there might have been international connections".

May 2nd 1970,
on this day a national television network broadcast a three-hour film of
a recorded Walter Cronkite interview in which Lyndon Baines Johnson
expressed misgivings about the finding that Lee Harvey Oswald had acted
alone in Dallas.

He originally requested that section of the interview to be censored on
the grounds of "national security", but later agreed to the whole
session to be broadcast. Of course YOU never actually QUOTE what he said
in that interview. And God forbid you would actually let anyone SEE and
HEAR exactly what he said. Then you wouldn't be able to make up your own
version. So I will post the link to YouTube so that everyone can see
what you are trying to hide:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfFMUWg39WU

In addition:

In July of 1973, six months after the death of Lyndon Baines Johnson,
The Atlantic published an article by a journalist and former Johnson
speechwriter named Leo Janos. "The Last Days of the President," about
LBJ in retirement, was elegiac in tone and fact, save for one dissonant
paragraph—in which Johnson volunteered his opinion that President John
F. Kennedy's assassination had been the result of a conspiracy organized
from Cuba. "I never believed that [Lee Harvey] Oswald acted alone,
although I can accept that he pulled the trigger," he explained to
Janos. Johnson thought such a conspiracy had formed in retaliation for
U.S. plots to assassinate Fidel Castro; he had found after taking office
that the government "had been operating a damned Murder Inc. in the
Caribbean." LBJ had been kept out of the loop concerning the Castro
plots when he was Vice-President, unlike Nixon who was the action
officer for the plots when he was Vice President.

>>> Btw, I'll thank you to stop implying to me on Youtube that I am
>>> responding to your comments there in the manner of a child, with your
>>> "go run along and play" nonsense. I am doing no such thing, there, or
>>> here.
>>
>> You've convinced me. I think it may be the other extreme. Are you pushing
>> 100 or so?
>
> Oh, so now you're going to insult me again, and imply that I am senile?
> Are you claiming that most people would not view my arguments above as
> being at least fairly reasonable? As I told you on Youtube, you are the
> one behaving very childishly, not me, by using puerile insults against
> me when I did not do such a thing to you first. You're the one acting
> as if you are either no older than 13, or no younger than 100, not me.
> Please prove me wrong by limiting yourself from here on to rational
> discussion of this assassination without resorting to immature and
> obviously misplaced insults.
>

Yes Peewee Herman, I know you are, but what am I?

[fatol...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 10:13:30 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 9/26/2012 5:06 PM, John Reagor King wrote:

> LBJ did not name the Russians in that interview.
>
> What he said was:
>
>
>
> "I can't honestly say that I've ever been completely relieved of the
>
> fact that there might have been international connections".
>
>

Of course YOU never actually QUOTE what he said
>
> in that interview. And God forbid you would actually let anyone SEE and
>
> HEAR exactly what he said. Then you wouldn't be able to make up your own
>
> version. So I will post the link to YouTube so that everyone can see
>
> what you are trying to hide:
>
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfFMUWg39WU

No, I didn't quote LBJ in my comment here, but I do encourage everybody to
go watch LBJ mention the "motivations of Oswald and others who might have
been involved." Note the snarl, the darting eyes and the blinking at the
end just before he despairingly closes his eyes. It is spectacular
theater. But, the point of my comment is that I do not think that it is
credible that LBJ did not know by 1969 that there were no international
connections. The FBI and CIA are quite effective in finding out stuff, if
they try. I know he's quoted saying something different in the Atlantic,
and that also must be a lie. LBJ lied a lot.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/26/2012 9:53 PM, fatol...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 5:04:02 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 9/25/2012 7:50 PM, Saintly Oswald wrote:
>
>>> I'm saying that it is not credible that by 1969 that he did not know.
>>
>>> Therefore, what he told Cronkite was a lie.
>>
>>
>>
>> For reasons of National Security.
>
> If LBJ was guarding national security, he could have simply reaffirmed the
> conclusions of the Warren Report. How does it enhance national security to
> say he's not sure there was foreign involvement? Why does he need to lie

Because that part of the interview was withheld for Reasons of National
Security.

> to Cronkite at all if he thinks it's a lone nut? If Castro had really been

LBJ never thought it was a lone nut. He thought it was a contract hit
paid for by Castro.

> behind it, LBJ would have known soon enough. But he knew that there was no
> foreign involvement. Lying about foreign involvement doesn't help him
> unless it's a domestic conspiracy that he does not want discovered.
>

Foreign involvement might be a cover for a domestic conspiracy.

[John Reagor King]

In article <f2ef326b-2220-45be...@googlegroups.com>,

fatol...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 5:06:47 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
>
> > Oh, so now you're going to insult me again, and imply that I am senile?
>
> That wasn't very nice of me, but I really think that, for whatever reason,
> you actually do not understand what I say. Your replies show an inability
> to follow what I say.

How on earth do you work that out? You said, very specifically, that LBJ
lied to Cronkite. I indeed did interpret you correctly on that. You said
that there was no other possible explanation but that he lied. I did
indeed interpret you correctly on that as well. I have simply pointed
out, correctly, and quite clearly, that no, that is not the only possible
explanation. LBJ could have instead have been voicing a mere suspicion,
that maybe they had never quite been made aware of all of the possible
evidence. Again, that is not a "lie" unless he did not honestly believe
what he was saying at the moment he said it.

> Perhaps I do not express myself very well. But, I do
> the best I know how, and you come back at me with misunderstandings that
> would take twice as many words to straighten out, and then it just keeps
> getting worse.

And it seems to me that you're the one who is having difficulty following
my arguments. I don't have the slightest difficulty following yours.
You post this, instead of even addressing what I've brought up in any
detail at all, as if you have no clear understanding of what I meant.

How could you possibly not understand the idea of LBJ merely voicing a
suspicion of a possibility only? He did not state it as a fact to
Cronkite. He simply said that he was never entirely convinced that there
wasn't a foreign connection to the assassination. That isn't the same
thing as "lying," Jay. Which part of that don't you understand?

The argument seems quite clear to me. Why doesn't it to you?

[John Reagor King]

In article <006124bc-f86a-4f3f...@googlegroups.com>,

fatol...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 5:04:02 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > On 9/25/2012 7:50 PM, Saintly Oswald wrote:
>
> > > I'm saying that it is not credible that by 1969 that he did not know.
> >
> > > Therefore, what he told Cronkite was a lie.
> >
> > For reasons of National Security.
>
> If LBJ was guarding national security, he could have simply reaffirmed the
> conclusions of the Warren Report.

Anthony has already told us that LBJ asked that that portion of the
interview not be broadcast on the grounds of national security. Even
Cronkite says it in the lead-in to that portion of the interview, and the
link Anthony has posted shows that this portion of the interview was not
broadcast until April 24, 1975, well after LBJ's death.

> How does it enhance national security to
> say he's not sure there was foreign involvement?

Did it ever occur to you that LBJ was being candid with Cronkite and
voicing his private suspicions? Again, LBJ asked for it not to be
broadcast, and it wasn't until more than 2 years after his death.

> Why does he need to lie
> to Cronkite at all if he thinks it's a lone nut?

There's that "lie" business again, and even Anthony has corrected you on
this, as in his previous reply to you he said, "LBJ was not lying." You
need to listen to the interview more carefully. LBJ did NOT say to
Cronkite that he was CERTAIN that Oswald was a lone nut. I can plainly
hear him saying that no one could be absolutely sure of "what might have
motivated Oswald.

> If Castro had really been
> behind it, LBJ would have known soon enough. But he knew that there was no
> foreign involvement.

How on earth do you know that? Just because there was no *proof* of
foreign involvement doesn't automatically mean that someone can't still
have a *suspicion* of foreign involvement. Not every event that ever
happens can be proven to happen. How do you know that LBJ wasn't thinking
that perhaps there might have been some additional evidence that just
hadn't come to light yet?

> Lying about foreign involvement doesn't help him
> unless it's a domestic conspiracy that he does not want discovered.

Again, you act as if that's the only possible explanation for what he
said, rather than exploring the possibility of other alternatives. It
seems plain to me that LBJ simply suspected that there might have been
evidence of a foreign connection that the Warren Commission and all the
government agencies had failed to uncover. *Might* have been. Not *was*.
When Cronkite asked him about the credibility of the Warren Commission,
LBJ said that "they did the best they could, but I don't think they or me
or anyone else is always absolutely sure of the thing that might have
motivated Oswald or others that could have been involved."

It's obvious to me that he was simply voicing a POSSIBILITY ONLY that
there MIGHT have been evidence of foreign involvement. He would only be
"lying" if he did not believe what he was saying at the time. And LBJ did
not have the benefit of all the information we now have today. Just to
name one example, he died close to two decades before the collapse of the
Soviet Union, after which many Soviet documents became available to the
West for the first time. And he didn't give this interview to Cronkite in
the year of his death, he gave it in 1969. How could LBJ or anyone else
in the United States possibly know that early that they yet had all of the
possible evidence relating to the assassination?

[John Reagor King]

In article <50637f53$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 9/26/2012 5:06 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> > In article <e5d6a4ea-2e20-417d...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 5:59:06 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
> >>> In article <9638a8c6-ad71-43fc...@googlegroups.com>,
> >>>
> >>> Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> So apparently even you admit that he never knew for certain whether
> >>> there was or wasn't foreign involvement. So why did you say above that
> >>> it *cannot* have been *anything* but a lie?
> >>
> >> I'm saying that it is not credible that by 1969 that he did not know.
> >> Therefore, what he told Cronkite was a lie.
> >
> > I still do not follow your logic. If Johnson simply was expressing doubts
> > as to whether or not the Russians were involved, that is not what most
> > English-speakers worldwide would call a "lie." Yes, yes, yes, he didn't
> > have absolute *proof* that the Russians were involved, but that's not
> > quite the same thing as proof that they *weren't* involved either. He was
> > simply expressing doubts to Cronkite. He did not specifically say that
> > the Russians definitely *were* involved. THAT would be a lie, I agree, if
> > he did not honestly believe what he was saying. But it's also possible
> > for a person to be wrong about something without realizing they're wrong
> > -- it happens every day -- and most people wouldn't call that a lie, they
> > would call that an honest and unintentional mistake.
>
> LBJ did not name the Russians in that interview.

You're addressing that to the wrong person. On 9-23, ocu...@gmail.com,

addressing you, said:

"If these people were patriots, wouldn't they want to know if Castro or
the Russians had a hand in the assassination?"

You've already forgotten that that person asked you this only four days
ago? I was merely addressing that person's argument about "Russians,"
to which Jay then responded. I never once claimed that LBJ spoke the
exact words "Russians" in his interview with Cronkite.

> Of course YOU never actually QUOTE what he said
> in that interview.

Neither did ocu...@gmail.com, so why did you fail to point that out to
her/him in your reply directly to her/his article the following day?

> And God forbid you would actually let anyone SEE and
> HEAR exactly what he said.

Oh, I don't have a bit of a problem letting people hear what he actually
said, and I'm quite glad you posted it. ;-)

> Then you wouldn't be able to make up your own
> version.

I didn't. ocu...@gmail.com did. ;-)

> So I will post the link to YouTube so that everyone can see
> what you are trying to hide:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfFMUWg39WU

I'm not trying to hide anything, lol. What incredibly silly claims you
make, Anthony. He said "international connections." Well, Russians
would be international connections, correct? And of course, as you so
often do, you're ignoring the fact that I did not only say Russians in
my replies. You yourself quoted me above from one of my previous
articles saying,

"So apparently even you admit that he never knew for certain whether
there was or wasn't foreign involvement."

Now you act as if I only said "Russians" and never said anything else.
But "foreign involvement" is essentially the same meaning as
"international connections." The Russians being involved would also be
a type of international connection to the assassination. I never once
said, not even once, that LBJ spoke the exact word "Russians" in that
interview, nor did I ever say he spoke the exact words "foreign
involvement." I was merely responding to previous posters using the
word "Russians."

As you so often do, several times a day, Anthony, you are wasting space
harping on mere trivialities. ;-)

[Anthony Marsh]

LBJ was sure by 12:32 PM CST November 22, 1963 that there WERE
international connections. But he decided to keep it from the public in
order to prevent WWIII.

You also have to remember that as Vice-President LBJ had been kept out of
the loop so he didn't realize how desperately weak the Soviets were. He
believed the hype that they had more missiles than we did. And he was told
that if the Soviets struck first we would have 40 million Americans dead
within an hour.

Remember a little thing called the Cuban Missile Crisis? Why did
Khrushchev put those missiles in Cuba? Because they did not have enough
range to hit the United States from any bases on Soviet territory, but the
could hit critical targets in the US from Cuba. This was like a chess
gambit to counter the US missiles in Turkey aimed at Russia.

[fatol...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, September 27, 2012 11:10:20 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
> In article <006124bc-f86a-4f3f...@googlegroups.com>,
>
It is not credible to say that LBJ did not know what had happened by 1969. It is preposterous to assert that he was honestly speculating about foreign involvement. It is downright silly.

[fatol...@gmail.com]

Well, which is it? Did he put missiles in Cuba because home-based Soviet missiles didn't have the range, or was it to counter US missiles in Turkey and Italy? Our missiles had the range. So, why did we put missiles in Turkey and Italy? And more importantly, was Khrushchev the only commie wearing black gloves? Give me the facts, man!

[John Reagor King]

In article <e1dc8d1a-17e5-4b93...@googlegroups.com>,

fatol...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 10:13:30 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > On 9/26/2012 5:06 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
>
> > LBJ did not name the Russians in that interview.
> > What he said was:
> >
> > "I can't honestly say that I've ever been completely relieved of the
> >
> > fact that there might have been international connections".
>
> Of course YOU never actually QUOTE what he said

Uh, didn't Anthony just do that? He also gave the URL for the interview
itself.

> > in that interview. And God forbid you would actually let anyone SEE and
> > HEAR exactly what he said. Then you wouldn't be able to make up your own
> > version. So I will post the link to YouTube so that everyone can see
> > what you are trying to hide:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfFMUWg39WU
>
> No, I didn't quote LBJ in my comment here, but I do encourage everybody to
> go watch LBJ mention the "motivations of Oswald and others who might have
> been involved." Note the snarl,

"Snarl"? You must see this very differently from me, because no word of
even remotely similar meaning came to my mind any of the multiple times
I watched it.

> the darting eyes and the blinking at the
> end just before he despairingly closes his eyes. It is spectacular
> theater.

Which is simply your interpretation, and it seems to me that you are
operating on an extreme bias.

> But, the point of my comment is that I do not think that it is
> credible that LBJ did not know by 1969 that there were no international
> connections. The FBI and CIA are quite effective in finding out stuff, if
> they try.

But did they try hard enough? It sure seems to me that they deliberately
underplayed many things that might have seemed to be evidence of more
people than Oswald involved. And I don't see how on earth LBJ, or anyone
else, could possibly know for certain that all the possible evidence had
yet been gathered. Again, as I reminded you yesterday, we already know
for certain that there were a good many Soviet documents that did not
become known to anyone in the U.S. until after the collapse of the Soviet
Union in 1991, and not only was that long after 1969, that was also long
after LBJ's death.

[John Reagor King]

In article <930127d9-29fa-4d4c...@googlegroups.com>,

fatol...@gmail.com wrote:

> Well, which is it? Did he put missiles in Cuba because home-based Soviet
> missiles didn't have the range, or was it to counter US missiles in Turkey
> and Italy? Our missiles had the range. So, why did we put missiles in Turkey
> and Italy? And more importantly, was Khrushchev the only commie wearing black
> gloves?

What on earth do you mean by "the only commie wearing black gloves"?

[Anthony Marsh]

Both. If he could have found a closer base anywhere other than Cuba, he
would have placed them there. But Cuba said yes. And only 90 miles from
the US.

[John Reagor King]

In article <3e1f7a48-8e61-4eaf...@googlegroups.com>,

And yet you never, ever, ever explain precisely *why* it's "silly."
Your entire argument seems to consist of nothing more than, "It's silly
because I say it's silly, period, no further explanation." And I see
you completely ignored me saying this:

"Just to name one example, he died close to two decades before the
collapse of the Soviet Union, after which many Soviet documents became
available to the West for the first time."

That proves beyond all possible doubt that no one in the U.S. government
would have had any possible way of knowing before 1991 whether or not
there might be Soviet documents relating to this matter. So I ask you
again to explain how LBJ, or anyone else, could have possibly known in
1969 whether or not all of the evidence of foreign involvement, or lack
of it, had yet come to light?

It is not even slightly "silly" to remind you that many Soviet documents
were completely unknown to the West until after 1991, and that until
they became known, no one in the U.S. government would have any possible
way of knowing their contents.

[Saintly Oswald]

This was a joke. And it had nothing to do with you.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/28/2012 9:15 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> In article <3e1f7a48-8e61-4eaf...@googlegroups.com>,
> fatol...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, September 27, 2012 11:10:20 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
>>> In article <006124bc-f86a-4f3f...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>
>> It is not credible to say that LBJ did not know what had happened by 1969. It
>> is preposterous to assert that he was honestly speculating about foreign
>> involvement. It is downright silly.
>
> And yet you never, ever, ever explain precisely *why* it's "silly."
> Your entire argument seems to consist of nothing more than, "It's silly
> because I say it's silly, period, no further explanation." And I see
> you completely ignored me saying this:
>
> "Just to name one example, he died close to two decades before the
> collapse of the Soviet Union, after which many Soviet documents became
> available to the West for the first time."
>
> That proves beyond all possible doubt that no one in the U.S. government
> would have had any possible way of knowing before 1991 whether or not
> there might be Soviet documents relating to this matter. So I ask you

Silly. Nosenko was tricked into defecting to the US for the sole purpose
of reassuring the CIA that the KGB had nothing to do with Oswald.

> again to explain how LBJ, or anyone else, could have possibly known in
> 1969 whether or not all of the evidence of foreign involvement, or lack
> of it, had yet come to light?
>

Why do you assume that foreign involvement has to mean the Soviets?
Haven't you heard of any other theories? What about the theory that it was
retaliation for the Diem assassination? How about Icelandic Terrorists?

> It is not even slightly "silly" to remind you that many Soviet documents
> were completely unknown to the West until after 1991, and that until
> they became known, no one in the U.S. government would have any possible
> way of knowing their contents.
>

Not true. We had a mole high up in Soviet intelligence and then we had
Nosenko to boot.

[Anthony Marsh]

He's mixing and matching different thread elements to make a sick joke.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/28/2012 5:04 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> In article <e1dc8d1a-17e5-4b93...@googlegroups.com>,
> fatol...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 10:13:30 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>> On 9/26/2012 5:06 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
>>
>>> LBJ did not name the Russians in that interview.
>>> What he said was:
>>>
>>> "I can't honestly say that I've ever been completely relieved of the
>>>
>>> fact that there might have been international connections".
>>
>> Of course YOU never actually QUOTE what he said
>
> Uh, didn't Anthony just do that? He also gave the URL for the interview
> itself.
>

Are you talking about me in the fourth person?

Technical issue here. Just because documents were not released does not
mean that we didn't already have them.

[Saintly Oswald]

Just putting myself in LBJ's big ol' shoes, if I were president of these
here United States, and I didn't already know who did it, it would be one
of my top priorities to find out who did murder my predecessor. I would
find out, and so would LBJ. And that is my opinion.

[John Reagor King]

In article <d98b5675-65b3-4699...@googlegroups.com>,

I can reply to any article that I please, as can you.

[Saintly Oswald]

LOL! You sure can! But once again, you didn't get the meaning of what I
said. I'm getting used to it.

[Anthony Marsh]

But you may not have understood the style of humor. Would you even know
the difference between a slapstick comedy and a black comedy?

[Saintly Oswald]

Black comedy? I'm sure he is well acquainted with the work of Al Jolson.
Uh-oh. This might be over the line. Steerrike two!

[John Reagor King]

In article <5066...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 9/28/2012 5:04 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> > In article <e1dc8d1a-17e5-4b93...@googlegroups.com>,
> > fatol...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 10:13:30 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >>> On 9/26/2012 5:06 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> >>
> >>> LBJ did not name the Russians in that interview.
> >>> What he said was:
> >>>
> >>> "I can't honestly say that I've ever been completely relieved of the
> >>>
> >>> fact that there might have been international connections".
> >>
> >> Of course YOU never actually QUOTE what he said
> >
> > Uh, didn't Anthony just do that? He also gave the URL for the interview
> > itself.
>
> Are you talking about me in the fourth person?

Dunno. What would the fourth-person verb forms be, and the
fourth-person pronouns? ;-)

> >> But, the point of my comment is that I do not think that it is
> >> credible that LBJ did not know by 1969 that there were no international
> >> connections. The FBI and CIA are quite effective in finding out stuff, if
> >> they try.
> >
> > But did they try hard enough? It sure seems to me that they deliberately
> > underplayed many things that might have seemed to be evidence of more
> > people than Oswald involved. And I don't see how on earth LBJ, or anyone
> > else, could possibly know for certain that all the possible evidence had
> > yet been gathered. Again, as I reminded you yesterday, we already know
> > for certain that there were a good many Soviet documents that did not
> > become known to anyone in the U.S. until after the collapse of the Soviet
> > Union in 1991, and not only was that long after 1969, that was also long
> > after LBJ's death.
>
> Technical issue here. Just because documents were not released does not
> mean that we didn't already have them.

Of course, but there were still plenty that our government clearly
didn't have until 1991 or later, and in 1969 there would still be no
possible way for our government to be absolutely certain they had
everything yet.

[John Reagor King]

In article <d1cb4cdd-c287-40cd...@googlegroups.com>,

Just like I'm getting used to you not getting the meaning of what I've
said? For several days in a row you continuously ignored me when I
reminded you that the Soviet Union didn't collapse until 1991, long after
1969 and long after LBJ's death, and that our government was totally
unaware of the contents of many Soviet documents until after the collapse.
This proves beyond all possible doubt that no one in our government, no
one, would have had any possible way of knowing in 1969 whether or not all
evidence had yet come to light regarding the possibility of foreign
involvement in the assassination of JFK. Without even admitting that I
had brought up the collapse of the S.U. several times over several days,
and acting instead as if I had not even mentioned it (even though you
replied directly to those same articles, *proving* that you saw them), you
just said my arguments were "silly."

That's tantamount to saying the Soviet Union never collapsed.

You're the one who seems to have much greater trouble understanding me
than I have of understanding you. And it isn't because my arguments are
hard to follow either.

Or are you going to claim that you "still don't understand" that many
Soviet documents were completely unknown to the U.S. government until
after 1991? If so, which part of that do you not understand?

[John Reagor King]

In article <745d427e-67ab-4ab5...@googlegroups.com>,

Yes, you would find out if you were *able* to. But no matter how hard you
try, no matter what methods you use, you can never, ever, ever be certain
in an absolute sense that every detail of possible evidence has come to
light.

And I see you are *still* ignoring my repeated reminders to you that that
country, which was called the SOVIET UNION, did NOT collapse until 1991,
and it was not until AFTER the collapse that many Soviet documents became
known to any branch of our government for the first time ever. So what if
you're President? If you're President before the collapse, and even your
best intelligence efforts fail to get all the evidence from a government
that is even more secretive than yours and is also very powerful, your
hands are tied. You can't ever be sure you've got all the relevant
evidence. Even now that the Soviet Union HAS collapsed, we still have no
possible way of knowing whether or not they've released everything yet,
and simple common sense would indicate that they probably haven't.

[John Reagor King]

In article <50668b16$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 9/28/2012 9:15 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> > In article <3e1f7a48-8e61-4eaf...@googlegroups.com>,
> > fatol...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> On Thursday, September 27, 2012 11:10:20 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
> >>> In article <006124bc-f86a-4f3f...@googlegroups.com>,
> >>>
> >> It is not credible to say that LBJ did not know what had happened by 1969.
> >> It
> >> is preposterous to assert that he was honestly speculating about foreign
> >> involvement. It is downright silly.
> >
> > And yet you never, ever, ever explain precisely *why* it's "silly."
> > Your entire argument seems to consist of nothing more than, "It's silly
> > because I say it's silly, period, no further explanation." And I see
> > you completely ignored me saying this:
> >
> > "Just to name one example, he died close to two decades before the
> > collapse of the Soviet Union, after which many Soviet documents became
> > available to the West for the first time."
> >
> > That proves beyond all possible doubt that no one in the U.S. government
> > would have had any possible way of knowing before 1991 whether or not
> > there might be Soviet documents relating to this matter. So I ask you
>
> Silly. Nosenko was tricked into defecting to the US for the sole purpose
> of reassuring the CIA that the KGB had nothing to do with Oswald.

So? The U.S. government would *still* have no possible way of knowing, no
possible way, that Nosenko's information was 100% valid, or that he
himself had anywhere near all of the information that might be relevant.

> > again to explain how LBJ, or anyone else, could have possibly known in
> > 1969 whether or not all of the evidence of foreign involvement, or lack
> > of it, had yet come to light?
>
> Why do you assume that foreign involvement has to mean the Soviets?

Quite obviously the two governments that would be most under suspicion
would be those of Cuba and the Soviet Union, and since they were
closely-tied, the involvement of one might very likely mean at least some
foreknowledge of the other, if not more than that.

> Haven't you heard of any other theories? What about the theory that it was
> retaliation for the Diem assassination? How about Icelandic Terrorists?

And you think there's any significant likelihood that that's what LBJ
would have suspected? ;-)

> > It is not even slightly "silly" to remind you that many Soviet documents
> > were completely unknown to the West until after 1991, and that until
> > they became known, no one in the U.S. government would have any possible
> > way of knowing their contents.
>
> Not true. We had a mole high up in Soviet intelligence and then we had
> Nosenko to boot.

So? Even a mole high up isn't necessarily going to be able to acquire
all possible evidence, nor is Nosenko.

[Saintly Oswald]

On Sunday, September 30, 2012 4:53:57 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
> In article <d1cb4cdd-c287-40cd...@googlegroups.com>,

> Just like I'm getting used to you not getting the meaning of what I've
>
> said? For several days in a row you continuously ignored me when I
>
> reminded you that the Soviet Union didn't collapse until 1991, long after
>
> 1969 and long after LBJ's death, and that our government was totally
>
> unaware of the contents of many Soviet documents until after the collapse.
>
> This proves beyond all possible doubt that no one in our government, no
>
> one, would have had any possible way of knowing in 1969 whether or not all
>
> evidence had yet come to light regarding the possibility of foreign
>
> involvement in the assassination of JFK. Without even admitting that I
>
> had brought up the collapse of the S.U. several times over several days,
>
> and acting instead as if I had not even mentioned it (even though you
>
> replied directly to those same articles, *proving* that you saw them), you
>
> just said my arguments were "silly."
>
>
>
> That's tantamount to saying the Soviet Union never collapsed.
>
>
>
> You're the one who seems to have much greater trouble understanding me
>
> than I have of understanding you. And it isn't because my arguments are
>
> hard to follow either.
>
>
>
> Or are you going to claim that you "still don't understand" that many
>
> Soviet documents were completely unknown to the U.S. government until
>
> after 1991? If so, which part of that do you not understand?

I did not say that LBJ knew everything in the Soviet files. I said it is
not credible that he did not know who killed JFK by 1969. This event did
not happen in the Soviet Union. It happened in Dallas, Texas. If LBJ
didn't already know, he would have found out real quick.

[Anthony Marsh]

Yes, that was the problem. Several people high up in the CIA thought
that the KGB had sent him to us with a false story.

>>> again to explain how LBJ, or anyone else, could have possibly known in
>>> 1969 whether or not all of the evidence of foreign involvement, or lack
>>> of it, had yet come to light?
>>
>> Why do you assume that foreign involvement has to mean the Soviets?
>
> Quite obviously the two governments that would be most under suspicion
> would be those of Cuba and the Soviet Union, and since they were
> closely-tied, the involvement of one might very likely mean at least some
> foreknowledge of the other, if not more than that.
>

Certain people in the CIA were convinced that if Castro did it the KGB
must be involved.
Similar to the KGB using the Bulgarians in assassination plots.

>> Haven't you heard of any other theories? What about the theory that it was
>> retaliation for the Diem assassination? How about Icelandic Terrorists?
>
> And you think there's any significant likelihood that that's what LBJ
> would have suspected? ;-)
>

I said nothing like that. I was just curious to know if you had heard of
other possible foreign conspiracies beyond Cuba and the Soviets.
Apparently not.

>>> It is not even slightly "silly" to remind you that many Soviet documents
>>> were completely unknown to the West until after 1991, and that until
>>> they became known, no one in the U.S. government would have any possible
>>> way of knowing their contents.
>>
>> Not true. We had a mole high up in Soviet intelligence and then we had
>> Nosenko to boot.
>
> So? Even a mole high up isn't necessarily going to be able to acquire
> all possible evidence, nor is Nosenko.
>

Irrelevant.

[Anthony Marsh]

How can we ever be absolutely certain about anything?

[Anthony Marsh]

As predicted you don't know what a black comedy is. It has nothing to do
with black actors. You probably don't even know what Film Noire is.

[John Reagor King]

In article <5068e7e3$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

EXACTLY!!! So indeed, you and I *agree* that Jay is misguided to claim
that LBJ would have had any possible way of knowing for *certain* in
1969 that all *possible* evidence of foreign involvement in the
assassination had yet come to his attention, correct?

[John Reagor King]

In article <f86b4b62-2ba7-494a...@googlegroups.com>,

Oh lordy...

"A black comedy, or dark comedy, is a comic work that employs black
humor or gallows humor."

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

The typical use of that term has nothing to do with race, Jay.

[John Reagor King]

In article <5068e764$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

Rather obviously it *isn't* irrelevant. Even today we have no possible
way of knowing if all possible evidence regarding the assassination has
come to light yet, nor does a single person who ever worked in any
capacity in the U.S. government have any possible way of knowing that
for certain.

[John Reagor King]

In article <cfe74fdf-496e-4a78...@googlegroups.com>,

Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, September 30, 2012 4:53:57 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
> > In article <d1cb4cdd-c287-40cd...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> > Just like I'm getting used to you not getting the meaning of what I've
> > said? For several days in a row you continuously ignored me when I
> > reminded you that the Soviet Union didn't collapse until 1991, long after
> > 1969 and long after LBJ's death, and that our government was totally
> > unaware of the contents of many Soviet documents until after the collapse.
> > This proves beyond all possible doubt that no one in our government, no
> > one, would have had any possible way of knowing in 1969 whether or not all
> > evidence had yet come to light regarding the possibility of foreign
> > involvement in the assassination of JFK. Without even admitting that I
> > had brought up the collapse of the S.U. several times over several days,
> > and acting instead as if I had not even mentioned it (even though you
> > replied directly to those same articles, *proving* that you saw them), you
> > just said my arguments were "silly."
> >
> > That's tantamount to saying the Soviet Union never collapsed.
> >
> > You're the one who seems to have much greater trouble understanding me
> > than I have of understanding you. And it isn't because my arguments are
> > hard to follow either.
> >
> > Or are you going to claim that you "still don't understand" that many
> > Soviet documents were completely unknown to the U.S. government until
> > after 1991? If so, which part of that do you not understand?
>
> I did not say that LBJ knew everything in the Soviet files.

But you *did* say that by 1969 he would have known with absolute
certainty, without the slightest possibility of being even slightly
mistaken, whether or not there had been foreign involvement in the
assassination. And I keep telling you and telling you and telling you
that there is no possible way he or anyone else in the U.S. government
could know with absolute certainty that all the possible evidence of
that had come to light yet.

> I said it is
> not credible that he did not know who killed JFK by 1969.

And yet you never give an even remotely plausible argument to sustain
that idea.

> This event did
> not happen in the Soviet Union. It happened in Dallas, Texas.

But *you* originally said that by 1969 he would have known *for*
*certain* that there had been no *foreign* involvement in the
assassination. *Foreign* involvement would mean something outside of
Dallas, outside of Texas, and outside of the United States.

> If LBJ
> didn't already know, he would have found out real quick.

How? How could LBJ guarantee to absolute perfection that he would be
able to acquire all possible evidence? No human can do that, not even
the President. You never once give any plausible explanation which
proves that LBJ could have found out literally *everything*. He'd not
only be the only President in all of U.S. history to have such an
ability, he'd be the only human who ever lived in the entire history of
our species to possess such an ability. The CIA and FBI have withheld
things from *every* President, not *almost* every President. LBJ had no
possible way of knowing that they were giving him everything, even if
they gave him more than they gave JFK. And the CIA and FBI themselves
would have no possible way of knowing for certain that they had gathered
ALL of the possible evidence and hadn't missed a single detail. You
seem to think all these people were superhuman, and that not a single
shred of evidence could be hidden from them, as if they were absolutely
perfect in gathering evidence, which we all know they weren't, and they
didn't even share all the evidence they *did* gather, not with each
other and not with the President.

[Sandy McCroskey]

Film noir.