Bobby Kennedy Says he Stands by the WC

[John McAdams]

I've long known this, but I didn't know the audio existed.

http://archive.org/download/RobertFKennedyAtSanFernandoValleyStateCollege/RobertFKennedyAtSanFernandoValleyStateCollege_64kb.m3u

Go to about 39:20.

According to David Talbot, Bobby expressed doubts to a lot of people
privately, but all his on the record comments were supportive of the
WC.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Peter Fokes]

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 22:28:08 -0600, John McAdams
<john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:

>I've long known this, but I didn't know the audio existed.
>
>http://archive.org/download/RobertFKennedyAtSanFernandoValleyStateCollege/RobertFKennedyAtSanFernandoValleyStateCollege_64kb.m3u
>
>Go to about 39:20.

I am surprised at the high quality of this audio. Thank you for
posting.

>
>According to David Talbot, Bobby expressed doubts to a lot of people
>privately, but all his on the record comments were supportive of the
>WC.
>
>.John
>--------------
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

PF

[David Von Pein]

Thanks, John. This makes another great addition to my A/V library.

I've actually heard this RFK program before, and I've even linked to
it from some of my other videos, but I hadn't realized the stuff about
JFK's death was in here.

I've culled the "I stand by the Warren Commission" excerpt for this
new video I just added:

http://YouTube.com/watch?v=Z0vZPcRIhdM

[Anthony Marsh]

Yes, you seem to be talking about only his public statements. You don't
ever link to his private statements. Maybe you don't understand that some
politicians will say one thing in public and believe something else in
private. LBJ said in public that The Warren Commission Report was the
truth, but in private he said it was a piece of shit. Hoover said in
public that there was no conspiracy, but in private he told his aides and
the President that Oswald was working for Castro.

Katzebach did not say that there was not a conspiracy. He said that the
public must be convinced that there was not a conspiracy. Everyone in
Washington and most WC defenders thought there was a conspiracy, but for
the good of the country it must be covered up. So in your mind you are
just doing your patriotic duty.

[Anthony Marsh]

So is this the audio that the WC defenders kept saying never existed? Or
is there still an audio that was secretly recorded and still withheld?

[David Von Pein]

>>> "LBJ said in public that The Warren Commission Report was the truth,
but in private he said it was a piece of shit." <<<

Is that why he told Walter Cronkite in 1969 that he thought there
might have been a conspiracy?

Or isn't that '69 Cronkite program considered to be a "public"
appearance in your mind, Tony?

[John McAdams]

On 21 Jan 2013 13:14:03 -0500, Anthony Marsh

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

>On 1/21/2013 11:17 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>>
>> Thanks, John. This makes another great addition to my A/V library.
>>
>> I've actually heard this RFK program before, and I've even linked to
>> it from some of my other videos, but I hadn't realized the stuff about
>> JFK's death was in here.
>>
>> I've culled the "I stand by the Warren Commission" excerpt for this
>> new video I just added:
>>
>> http://YouTube.com/watch?v=Z0vZPcRIhdM
>>
>
>
>Yes, you seem to be talking about only his public statements. You don't
>ever link to his private statements. Maybe you don't understand that some
>politicians will say one thing in public and believe something else in
>private. LBJ said in public that The Warren Commission Report was the
>truth, but in private he said it was a piece of shit.

No, Tony, look at the interview:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/video/lbj_conspiracy.ram

He defended the WC. But that's perfectly consistent with *suspecting*
(not the same as knowing) that there was something hidden that they
failed to find out.

>Hoover said in
>public that there was no conspiracy, but in private he told his aides and
>the President that Oswald was working for Castro.
>

Source?

>Katzebach did not say that there was not a conspiracy. He said that the
>public must be convinced that there was not a conspiracy. Everyone in
>Washington and most WC defenders thought there was a conspiracy, but for
>the good of the country it must be covered up. So in your mind you are
>just doing your patriotic duty.

You keep asserting this, but you have no evidence for it.

.John

--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[David Von Pein]

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

You seem to be talking about only his [RFK's] public statements. You

don't ever link to his private statements. Maybe you don't understand
that some politicians will say one thing in public and believe
something else in private.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I find it kind of funny (and ironic) that just three minutes after RFK
made his "I stand by the Warren Commission Report" remark to a college
crowd in California in March of 1968, Bobby also said this:

"You say tell it like it is and tell you the truth, and that's
what I intend to do in this campaign. You might not like it, you might
not agree with it, but that's what I'm gonna do." -- RFK; 3/25/68

http://Box.com/s/vub915ot78b6czzm35qe

I guess Anthony Marsh must think that Robert F. Kennedy was just lying
through his teeth when he said these things within three minutes of
each other:

"I stand by the Warren Commission Report. .... You say...tell
you the truth, and that's what I intend to do in this campaign. You
might not like it, you might not agree with it, but that's what I'm
gonna do." -- RFK

http://YouTube.com/watch?v=Z0vZPcRIhdM

[John McAdams]

On 21 Jan 2013 14:14:57 -0500, David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com>
wrote:

It's interesting that people who are in thrall of Camelot have to
resort to claiming that all the public statements of RFK about the
assassination (like the public statements of JFK about Vietnam) were
lies.

Actually, I'm inclined to accept David Talbot's claim that RFK
expressed private doubts about the possibility of a conspiracy.

To a large degree, these were probably driven by guilt over the
possibility that THINGS THAT BOBBY DID (go after the Mafia, try to
arrange the assassination of Castro) may have backfired.

But claiming he had any actual *knowledge* of a conspiracy is going
way too far.

Gary Mack told some reporter (in the wake of the RFK, Jr. statements)
that Bobby was much like the rest of the population. He had no
evidence of a conspiracy, but he had doubts.

[Anthony Marsh]

Duh! Isn't that what we conspiracy believers have been saying for 49
years? Maybe you've never been out the real world, but politicians often
say one thing in public and the opposite in private.

[John McAdams]

On 21 Jan 2013 14:22:24 -0500, Anthony Marsh

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

>On 1/20/2013 11:28 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> I've long known this, but I didn't know the audio existed.
>>
>> http://archive.org/download/RobertFKennedyAtSanFernandoValleyStateCollege/RobertFKennedyAtSanFernandoValleyStateCollege_64kb.m3u
>>
>> Go to about 39:20.
>>
>> According to David Talbot, Bobby expressed doubts to a lot of people
>> privately, but all his on the record comments were supportive of the
>> WC.
>>
>
>

>Duh! Isn't that what we conspiracy believers have been saying for 49
>years?

No, conspiracists have been claiming that the statement at San
Fernando State College had RFK saying that "only the powers of the
presidency" would allow him to get to the bottom of the case.

That was a lie, apparently from Mark Lane, and buffs repeated over and
over.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19878&st=15#entry265465

I'm glad you admit it has been debunked.

[David Von Pein]

JOHN McADAMS SAID:

Gary Mack told some reporter (in the wake of the RFK, Jr. statements)
that Bobby was much like the rest of the population. He had no
evidence of a conspiracy, but he had doubts.

DAVID V.P. SAID:

A perfectly reasonable assessment, too.

[David Von Pein]

JOHN McADAMS SAID:

Conspiracists have been claiming that the statement at San Fernando State

College had RFK saying that "only the powers of the presidency" would

allow him to get to the bottom of the case. That was a lie.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

This is just one more reason (among hundreds) why I wouldn't believe a
thing uttered by a JFK conspiracy theorist if my life hung in the balance.

Distortions, lies, misrepresentations, and irrational/unreasonable
evaluation of the evidence are the only things you're likely to get from a
JFK conspiracy theorist. I think it's pretty much always been that way.
And probably always will be. What a shame.

Take the "Secret Service Standdown" garbage that we've had to listen to
and endure for lo these many years now. Even after it has been proven
(beyond a reasonable doubt anyway) that the "shrugging" SS agent at Love
Field was NOT Henry Rybka (it was Donald Lawton instead), there are still
the very same "standdown" arguments being put forth by many conspiracists.
Even though those CTers know (via Lawton's written SS report) that Lawton
was NOT assigned to ride in the motorcade through downtown Dallas on
11/22/63.

But the CTers will just ignore the 11/30/63 SS report written by Don
Lawton, wherein he states that his job on November 22 was "to remain at
the airport to effect security for the President's departure". (Evidently
that's yet another "fake" report, per the conspiracists.)

That's just one of the latest examples of a conspiracy theory being
totally destroyed and debunked. But many conspiracy theorists just don't
care. They'll pretend that the "standdown" at Love Field still existed
anyway.

And now we have the statement about RFK standing by the Warren Commission
Report and also saying, in no uncertain terms whatsoever, that he would
NOT re-open the investigation into President Kennedy's death if he were to
be elected President in the fall of 1968.

I'm sure there will be many conspiracy advocates, even AFTER listening to
that recording of RFK making those statements at San Fernando Valley State
College, who will still insist that Robert Kennedy's remarks at San
Fernando still support the notion that RFK believed in a conspiracy in his
brother's death.

A conspiracy myth is hard to kill. And I think the main reason for that is
because conspiracy theorists just simply don't want the myths to die.

[John Fiorentino]

.John:

" But claiming he had any actual *knowledge* of a conspiracy is going way
too far."

Of course .John is right here. Does anyone honestly believe that if RFK
had real evidence of a conspiracy he wouldn't have done
something??...........Come on ..........get real.

As for questions, I think everybody has at least *some.*

Perhaps even some that are disturbing.

I know I do and I'm a "lone nutter."

Frankly, I still make attempts at tracking down loose ends in this case
and it's been 50 years!

Since I've been using quotes from the movie "A FEW GOOD MEN" lately, I'll
throw another one in as it relates to Ruby killing Oswald..............

"And now we'll never know, will we........................?"

John F.



"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:50fd93e5....@news.supernews.com...

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/21/2013 2:05 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>>>> "LBJ said in public that The Warren Commission Report was the truth,
> but in private he said it was a piece of shit." <<<
>
> Is that why he told Walter Cronkite in 1969 that he thought there
> might have been a conspiracy?
>

Is that why they tried to withhold that comment?

> Or isn't that '69 Cronkite program considered to be a "public"
> appearance in your mind, Tony?
>

You never see what they cut out.

[Anthony Marsh]

Not what we say. We say that all politicians say one thing for public
consumption but say something else in private.

This is the real world. Not some sugar coated Camelot dream world.

> Actually, I'm inclined to accept David Talbot's claim that RFK
> expressed private doubts about the possibility of a conspiracy.
>

Poor phrasing. Private doubts about Hoover and about the Warren
Commission and then suspicions about a possible conspiracy.

> To a large degree, these were probably driven by guilt over the
> possibility that THINGS THAT BOBBY DID (go after the Mafia, try to
> arrange the assassination of Castro) may have backfired.
>

True in part, but it was not RFK who tried to arrange the assassination of
Castro. As a political scientist you are misrepresenting the historical
record to push a political agenda. Not satisfied with the physical
assassinations of the Kennedy brothers, you attempt character
assassination.

That's why you lead a newsgroup named alt.assassination.jfk.character.

> But claiming he had any actual *knowledge* of a conspiracy is going
> way too far.

No one claimed that. Only by becoming President would he have any chance
of finding the evidence. But even Nixon couldn't and when he tried he
was eliminated.

>
> Gary Mack told some reporter (in the wake of the RFK, Jr. statements)
> that Bobby was much like the rest of the population. He had no
> evidence of a conspiracy, but he had doubts.
>

And that's the way you'd like it to stand. Keep all the documents
hidden, destroy all the evidence and never resolve this case.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/21/2013 2:14 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
>
> You seem to be talking about only his [RFK's] public statements. You
> don't ever link to his private statements. Maybe you don't understand
> that some politicians will say one thing in public and believe
> something else in private.
>

Jeez, you think the reader is too stupid to realize that the pronoun his
refers back to RFK?

>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> I find it kind of funny (and ironic) that just three minutes after RFK
> made his "I stand by the Warren Commission Report" remark to a college
> crowd in California in March of 1968, Bobby also said this:
>
> "You say tell it like it is and tell you the truth, and that's
> what I intend to do in this campaign. You might not like it, you might
> not agree with it, but that's what I'm gonna do." -- RFK; 3/25/68
>
> http://Box.com/s/vub915ot78b6czzm35qe
>

I say that he ducked the question. The students asked that the National
Archives release all the files. And he basically avoided saying what he
would do and claimed that they eventually will be released. The same
situation exits now. All the files will be eventually released, in the
year 4045. But first they have millions of files to destroy and tons of
evidence to destroy.

> I guess Anthony Marsh must think that Robert F. Kennedy was just lying
> through his teeth when he said these things within three minutes of
> each other:
>
> "I stand by the Warren Commission Report. .... You say...tell
> you the truth, and that's what I intend to do in this campaign. You
> might not like it, you might not agree with it, but that's what I'm
> gonna do." -- RFK
>

Yes, he did tell the truth. That the files would not be released any
time soon. That the public had no right to the truth.
That the Warren Commission Report was an official cover-up and he
endorsed it for that reason.

> http://YouTube.com/watch?v=Z0vZPcRIhdM
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/21/2013 2:12 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 21 Jan 2013 13:14:03 -0500, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 1/21/2013 11:17 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks, John. This makes another great addition to my A/V library.
>>>
>>> I've actually heard this RFK program before, and I've even linked to
>>> it from some of my other videos, but I hadn't realized the stuff about
>>> JFK's death was in here.
>>>
>>> I've culled the "I stand by the Warren Commission" excerpt for this
>>> new video I just added:
>>>
>>> http://YouTube.com/watch?v=Z0vZPcRIhdM
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, you seem to be talking about only his public statements. You don't
>> ever link to his private statements. Maybe you don't understand that some
>> politicians will say one thing in public and believe something else in
>> private. LBJ said in public that The Warren Commission Report was the
>> truth, but in private he said it was a piece of shit.
>
> No, Tony, look at the interview:
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/video/lbj_conspiracy.ram
>
> He defended the WC. But that's perfectly consistent with *suspecting*
> (not the same as knowing) that there was something hidden that they
> failed to find out.
>

Ok, maybe I missed it, but I did not see the video of his PRIVATE remarks
where he said the Warren Commission Report was a piece of shit. But I have
heard his private phone conversations where he talks about it being a
conspiracy and the need to cover that up. Maybe you haven't.

>> Hoover said in
>> public that there was no conspiracy, but in private he told his aides and
>> the President that Oswald was working for Castro.
>>
>
> Source?
>

White House tapes.
Memos to his aides. I have posted the documents on MY web site, but you
refuse to post them on YOUR web site.

[John McAdams]

On 21 Jan 2013 19:57:47 -0500, Anthony Marsh

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

>On 1/21/2013 2:12 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 21 Jan 2013 13:14:03 -0500, Anthony Marsh
>> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Yes, you seem to be talking about only his public statements. You don't
>>> ever link to his private statements. Maybe you don't understand that some
>>> politicians will say one thing in public and believe something else in
>>> private. LBJ said in public that The Warren Commission Report was the
>>> truth, but in private he said it was a piece of shit.
>>
>> No, Tony, look at the interview:
>>
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/video/lbj_conspiracy.ram
>>
>> He defended the WC. But that's perfectly consistent with *suspecting*
>> (not the same as knowing) that there was something hidden that they
>> failed to find out.
>>
>
>Ok, maybe I missed it, but I did not see the video of his PRIVATE remarks
>where he said the Warren Commission Report was a piece of shit. But I have
>heard his private phone conversations where he talks about it being a
>conspiracy and the need to cover that up. Maybe you haven't.
>

Show us the evidence.

>>> Hoover said in
>>> public that there was no conspiracy, but in private he told his aides and
>>> the President that Oswald was working for Castro.
>>>
>>
>> Source?
>>
>
>White House tapes.
>Memos to his aides. I have posted the documents on MY web site, but you
>refuse to post them on YOUR web site.
>

Post the links here.

I know from experience that you make claims about what documents show,
and the documents don't show that.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/21/2013 2:29 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 21 Jan 2013 14:22:24 -0500, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 1/20/2013 11:28 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>>> I've long known this, but I didn't know the audio existed.
>>>
>>> http://archive.org/download/RobertFKennedyAtSanFernandoValleyStateCollege/RobertFKennedyAtSanFernandoValleyStateCollege_64kb.m3u
>>>
>>> Go to about 39:20.
>>>
>>> According to David Talbot, Bobby expressed doubts to a lot of people
>>> privately, but all his on the record comments were supportive of the
>>> WC.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Duh! Isn't that what we conspiracy believers have been saying for 49
>> years?
>
> No, conspiracists have been claiming that the statement at San
> Fernando State College had RFK saying that "only the powers of the
> presidency" would allow him to get to the bottom of the case.
>

Sure some have been using the phrasing and claiming it as an exact quote.
But is it possible that he made such a statement in private conversations
with he student beyond the public remarks which were recorded?

> That was a lie, apparently from Mark Lane, and buffs repeated over and
> over.
>

Apparently you can't cite and quote to support your allegation.
You just seize on any chance to bash Mark Lane.

> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19878&st=15#entry265465
>
> I'm glad you admit it has been debunked.
>

I'm glad that you have been debunked.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/21/2013 5:58 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> .John:
>
> " But claiming he had any actual *knowledge* of a conspiracy is going
> way too far."
>
> Of course .John is right here. Does anyone honestly believe that if RFK
> had real evidence of a conspiracy he wouldn't have done
> something??...........Come on ..........get real.
>

Yes, if he wanted to love a few more years.

> As for questions, I think everybody has at least *some.*
>

Not the die-hard WC defenders.

> Perhaps even some that are disturbing.
>
> I know I do and I'm a "lone nutter."
>

Or so you claim. But secretly you may think Oswald was working for someone.

> Frankly, I still make attempts at tracking down loose ends in this case
> and it's been 50 years!
>

Not much.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/21/2013 5:57 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> JOHN McADAMS SAID:
>
> Conspiracists have been claiming that the statement at San Fernando State
> College had RFK saying that "only the powers of the presidency" would
> allow him to get to the bottom of the case. That was a lie.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>

Do you always quote yourself in the third person proper?

> This is just one more reason (among hundreds) why I wouldn't believe a
> thing uttered by a JFK conspiracy theorist if my life hung in the balance.
>
> Distortions, lies, misrepresentations, and irrational/unreasonable
> evaluation of the evidence are the only things you're likely to get from a
> JFK conspiracy theorist. I think it's pretty much always been that way.
> And probably always will be. What a shame.
>
> Take the "Secret Service Standdown" garbage that we've had to listen to
> and endure for lo these many years now. Even after it has been proven
> (beyond a reasonable doubt anyway) that the "shrugging" SS agent at Love
> Field was NOT Henry Rybka (it was Donald Lawton instead), there are still
> the very same "standdown" arguments being put forth by many conspiracists.
> Even though those CTers know (via Lawton's written SS report) that Lawton
> was NOT assigned to ride in the motorcade through downtown Dallas on
> 11/22/63.
>

And yet you constantly vilify me when I say exactly the same things as
you do and attack those conspiracy theorists who repeat the the "Secret
Service Standdown" garbage. You really need to pick your enemies more
carefully.

> But the CTers will just ignore the 11/30/63 SS report written by Don
> Lawton, wherein he states that his job on November 22 was "to remain at
> the airport to effect security for the President's departure". (Evidently
> that's yet another "fake" report, per the conspiracists.)
>

And none of them proved that Rybka was supposed to supposed to be riding
in the SS car. The problem that no one ever wants to talk about is that
someone screwed up and changed the seating assignments. In all the
previous motorcades the seating assignment has two SS agents in the first
seat, then one SS agent on a jump seat and the official WH photographer on
the other jump seat then 2 SS agents on the back seat and 4 SS agents on
the running boards. 6 SS agents in the car and 4 riding on the running
boards adds up to the normal contingent of 10 SS agents plus the 2 from
the limo.

Then for the first time the official WH photographer Cecil Stoughton was
kicked out of the SS car on the Dallas leg of the trip to make room for
Kennedy aides Dave Powers and Kenny O'Donnell. So one of the SS agents
would have to sit on the rear seat, George Hickey. But one SS agent didn't
understand that and he was standing on the running board. When the fourth
SS walking next to the limo went back to the SS car there was no spot left
for him to get on, so the agent on the running board realized his mistake
and climbed into the back seat.

> That's just one of the latest examples of a conspiracy theory being
> totally destroyed and debunked. But many conspiracy theorists just don't
> care. They'll pretend that the "standdown" at Love Field still existed
> anyway.
>

And no WC defender cares about Cecil Stoughton being kicked out of the
limo just so that Dave Powers could film the motorcade from up close.
Mainly because Knudsen did not make the trip due to his eye injury so
Stoughton had to take photos instead of film.

> And now we have the statement about RFK standing by the Warren Commission
> Report and also saying, in no uncertain terms whatsoever, that he would
> NOT re-open the investigation into President Kennedy's death if he were to
> be elected President in the fall of 1968.
>

That's what he said for public consumption so that he could live a few
months more.

> I'm sure there will be many conspiracy advocates, even AFTER listening to
> that recording of RFK making those statements at San Fernando Valley State
> College, who will still insist that Robert Kennedy's remarks at San
> Fernando still support the notion that RFK believed in a conspiracy in his
> brother's death.
>

Did you record his private remarks? Have you listened to his secret oral
history at the Kennedy Museum?

> A conspiracy myth is hard to kill. And I think the main reason for that is
> because conspiracy theorists just simply don't want the myths to die.
>

We don't want our heroes to be killed.

[Bud]

On Jan 21, 7:57 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 1/21/2013 2:14 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>
>
> > ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
>
> > You seem to be talking about only his [RFK's] public statements. You
> > don't ever link to his private statements. Maybe you don't understand
> > that some politicians will say one thing in public and believe
> > something else in private.
>
> Jeez, you think the reader is too stupid to realize that the pronoun his
> refers back to RFK?
>
>
>
> > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> > I find it kind of funny (and ironic) that just three minutes after RFK
> > made his "I stand by the Warren Commission Report" remark to a college
> > crowd in California in March of 1968, Bobby also said this:
>
> >        "You say tell it like it is and tell you the truth, and that's
> > what I intend to do in this campaign. You might not like it, you might
> > not agree with it, but that's what I'm gonna do." -- RFK; 3/25/68
>
> >http://Box.com/s/vub915ot78b6czzm35qe
>
> I say that he ducked the question. The students asked that the National
> Archives release all the files. And he basically avoided saying what he
> would do and claimed that they eventually will be released.

He actually said that he looked at them and there was nothing there.
Another cover-up artist!

>The same
> situation exits now. All the files will be eventually released, in the
> year 4045. But first they have millions of files to destroy and tons of
> evidence to destroy.
>
> > I guess Anthony Marsh must think that Robert F. Kennedy was just lying
> > through his teeth when he said these things within three minutes of
> > each other:
>
> >        "I stand by the Warren Commission Report. .... You say...tell
> > you the truth, and that's what I intend to do in this campaign. You
> > might not like it, you might not agree with it, but that's what I'm
> > gonna do." -- RFK
>
> Yes, he did tell the truth.

That he stood by the WCR. He also told the crowd when MLK was killed
that he also had a family member killed by a white man. Maybe you are
right, and the Kennedys are just good liars but I think Bobby looked
sincere. I suspect that if JFK came back from the grave and said that
Oswald killed him the conspiracy mongers would call him a liar also.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/21/2013 8:01 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 21 Jan 2013 19:57:47 -0500, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 1/21/2013 2:12 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 21 Jan 2013 13:14:03 -0500, Anthony Marsh
>>> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you seem to be talking about only his public statements. You don't
>>>> ever link to his private statements. Maybe you don't understand that some
>>>> politicians will say one thing in public and believe something else in
>>>> private. LBJ said in public that The Warren Commission Report was the
>>>> truth, but in private he said it was a piece of shit.
>>>
>>> No, Tony, look at the interview:
>>>
>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/video/lbj_conspiracy.ram
>>>
>>> He defended the WC. But that's perfectly consistent with *suspecting*
>>> (not the same as knowing) that there was something hidden that they
>>> failed to find out.
>>>
>>
>> Ok, maybe I missed it, but I did not see the video of his PRIVATE remarks
>> where he said the Warren Commission Report was a piece of shit. But I have
>> heard his private phone conversations where he talks about it being a
>> conspiracy and the need to cover that up. Maybe you haven't.
>>
>
> Show us the evidence.
>

Listen to the WH tapes.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/lbjlib/phone_calls/Nov_1963/audio/LBJ-Russell_11-29-63_2nd.htm

>>>> Hoover said in
>>>> public that there was no conspiracy, but in private he told his aides and
>>>> the President that Oswald was working for Castro.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Source?
>>>
>>
>> White House tapes.
>> Memos to his aides. I have posted the documents on MY web site, but you
>> refuse to post them on YOUR web site.
>>
>
> Post the links here.
>

I have many times.







11:35 a.m. December 12, 1963


MEMORANDUM FOR: MR. TOLSON
MR. BELMONT
MR. MOHR
MR. CONRAD
MR. DELOACH
MR. EVANS
MR. ROSEN
MR. SULLIVAN


Mr. Lee Rankin called from New York to check in with me on the
matter of the Commission. He wanted to work out an arrangement with me
which he thought might be satisfactory. He said he understood Mr. Belmont
handled the investigation.

I told Mr. Rankin that Mr. Belmont, Mr. Rosen and I handled the
preparation of the report and will handle additional leads as they come
in.

Mr. Rankin asked how he should handle anything that comes up,
things the Commission will want developed further, in regard to the FBI -
whether they should be handled directly with me or somebody I would
designate.

I replied that I will designate someone. I explained that I
sent Mr. Malley down to Dallas to handle all of our angles down there;
that he was on the ground there; and that I think he probably would be the
man who would be more familiar with things Mr. Rankin should further
explore. I stated Mr. Malley is in Dallas at the present time but will be
ordered back tomorrow; that he will be available; and that we will be glad
to run out any additional men as he may want.

Mr. Rankin of the difficulty about the Department's desire
to issue certain conclusions; that they wanted to issue a statement before
the report went to the Commission with the conclusion Oswald was the
assassin, no foreign or subversive elements involved, and Rubenstein and
Oswald had no connection; that I flatly disagreed;they took



RETYPE by Carrolton Press due to deterioration of original
______________________________________________________________________






Memorandum for Messers. Tolson, Belmont, Mohr, December 12, 1963
Conrad, Deloach, Evans, Rosen, Sullivan


it up with the White House and the President agreed with me that we should
reach no conclusion; nevertheless the report does reach two conclusions in
substance.

I said I personally believe Oswald was the assassin; that the
second aspect as to whether he was the only man gives me great concern;
that we have several letters, not in the report because we were not able
to prove it, written to him from Cuba referring to the job he was going to
do, his good marksmanship, and stating when it was all over he would be
brought back to Cuba and presented to the chief; but we do not know if the
chief was Castro and cannot make an investigation because we have no
intelligence operation in Cuba; that I did not put this into the report
because we did not have proof of it and didn't want to put speculation in
the report; that this was the reason I urged strongly that we not reach
conclusion Oswald was the only man.

As to Rubenstein, I said I did not want a statement about
Rubenstein and Oswald; that we have no proof they were ever together. I
stated Rubenstein is a shady character from the hoodlum element of
Chicago, has a poor background, runs a nightclub in Dallas, and is what
would be called a police buff; that the police officers in the precinct
have been able to get food and liquor from him at any time they drop in;
that while I think there was no connection between him and Oswald, I did
not want the report to be 100% sure on that.

Fourth, I stated I did not believe any conclusions concerning
Rubenstein should be reached at this time because he has not been tried;
that was why I suggested to the Attorney General of Texas - and understand
the Chief Justice did too- that his court of special inquiry be held in
abeyance until after the Commission makes its findings. I said I thought
they would go ahead with the Rubenstein trial in February; that was why I
felt our report should name merely the facts we have established.

I further stated there may be some aspects Mr. Rankin will want
to have run out farther; that there may be letters written to members of
the Commission; that we have letters from people who claim to have seen
Oswald; that up to the time we submitted the report we had cleared up all
these angles except the Cuban thing which I discussed generally and
explained that the informer recanted and blew that angle out of the
window; that sort of thing may be popping up all the time. I advised Mr.
Rankin if he wanted any leads followed out or any implementation of what
we have already done we will give him 100% cooperation.

Mr. Rankin stated he knew we would; that he just wanted to



retype RETYPE
__________________________________________________________________________


Memorandum for Messers. Tolson, Belmont, Mohr, December 12, 1963
Conrad, Deloach, Evans, Rosen, Sullivan



establishing it as a matter I should know. I told him not to hesitate to
call me; that I will designate Mr. Malley and he will advise me at once of
anything. Mr. Rankin then said he would get in touch with me if he thinks
there is anything which should be taken up on that level.

I mentioned to him the actions of the Soviet Embassy, the
Communist Party in New York, and John Abt is making available to us their
information on Oswald.

I also discussed the operations of the Dallas Police Department
in the case which led to the murder of Oswald.

I told Mr. Rankin the Department held the report about five
days and then began to leak items from the Department on it, items such as
the shooting of General Walker, things not known in Dallas; that I kept
pressing them to get the report to the Commission; that a debate was going
on between the Department and me; that I did not want any conclusion drawn
but I thought a conclusion had been made in the letter of transmission to
the Commission; that there would have been no purpose in appointing a
Presidential Commission except to evaluate the facts; that it was the duty
of the FBI to get the facts and let the Commission reach a conclusion.

I told Mr. Rankin we would want to do anything we can here to
make his job easier. He said he has always had complete confidence in
that and in me.

Mr. Rankin inquired if anything had been done about seeing that
the films would be preserved and available for the Commission. I answered
that we have them ourselves; that we have films taken by private
individuals; that the President was not being covered by a car with
television people as they do here in Washington; that there was not a
professional photographer where this took place; that the Secret Service
car immediately in back had already passed the building, which was at an
angle, with the result they couldn't tell where the shots were coming
from. I mentioned the comment by former Chief of Secret Service Baughman
that he could not understand why the Secret Service men did not open fire
with machine guns at the window. I said the Secret Service men did not
see where the shots came from and would have killed a lot of innocent
people if they had done so.

In connection with stories indicating that Oswald could not
have done this alone, I stated he was a marksman and it wasn't anything he



-3-


retype RETYPE
_______________________________________________________________________________






Memorandum for Messrs. Tolson, Belmont, Mohr December 12, 1963
Conrad, DeLoach, Evans Rosenm Sullivan


could not do; that we have tested it on our rifle range and were able to
get shots off even faster than he did; that there is no question in my
mind about it; that we also found the fingerprints and the bullets so
conclusively fired from the gun; that we have all this and we have all the
photographs.

Mr. Rankin inquired if we also have the television film run off
of the shooting of Oswald, and I told him we have this.

Mr. Rankin said Mr. Malone delivered to him a copy of the
report and also offered to help in any way possible; this was very kind of
Malone; but he will not deal with Malone in anything unless it is some
emergency and he has to handle it locally. I told Mr. Rankin this was all
right and, if he should need to call upon Malone, Malone would be
available.

I also told Mr. Rankin there is a direct wire between the New
York Office and here; that he can always place any calls to here over our
wire; and that I will arrange for this.

I told Mr. Rankin to let us know if there is anything we can
do.

Very truly yours,


J.E.H.

John Edgar Hoover
Director



RETYPE RETYPE
_______________________________________________________________________________

> I know from experience that you make claims about what documents show,
> and the documents don't show that.
>

I show you the damn documents and then you claim they don't exist. We're
wise to your tactics.

> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[John McAdams]

On 21 Jan 2013 22:07:57 -0500, Anthony Marsh

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

>On 1/21/2013 8:01 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 21 Jan 2013 19:57:47 -0500, Anthony Marsh
>> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/21/2013 2:12 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>>>> On 21 Jan 2013 13:14:03 -0500, Anthony Marsh
>>>> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, you seem to be talking about only his public statements. You don't
>>>>> ever link to his private statements. Maybe you don't understand that some
>>>>> politicians will say one thing in public and believe something else in
>>>>> private. LBJ said in public that The Warren Commission Report was the
>>>>> truth, but in private he said it was a piece of shit.
>>>>
>>>> No, Tony, look at the interview:
>>>>
>>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/video/lbj_conspiracy.ram
>>>>
>>>> He defended the WC. But that's perfectly consistent with *suspecting*
>>>> (not the same as knowing) that there was something hidden that they
>>>> failed to find out.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ok, maybe I missed it, but I did not see the video of his PRIVATE remarks
>>> where he said the Warren Commission Report was a piece of shit. But I have
>>> heard his private phone conversations where he talks about it being a
>>> conspiracy and the need to cover that up. Maybe you haven't.
>>>
>>
>> Show us the evidence.
>>
>
>Listen to the WH tapes.
>http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/lbjlib/phone_calls/Nov_1963/audio/LBJ-Russell_11-29-63_2nd.htm
>

How could he be saying that the WC is a "piece of shit" when it
doesn't even exist yet??!!

Look at the date.

This is also before the WC even met. The FBI has concluded that
Oswald did it alone, and the White House doesn't want to put out any
conclusion yet.

> I said I personally believe Oswald was the assassin; that the
>second aspect as to whether he was the only man gives me great concern;
>that we have several letters, not in the report because we were not able
>to prove it, written to him from Cuba referring to the job he was going to
>do, his good marksmanship, and stating when it was all over he would be
>brought back to Cuba and presented to the chief; but we do not know if the
>chief was Castro and cannot make an investigation because we have no
>intelligence operation in Cuba; that I did not put this into the report
>because we did not have proof of it and didn't want to put speculation in
>the report; that this was the reason I urged strongly that we not reach
>conclusion Oswald was the only man.
>

So Hoover is not sure about this, and could not prove it.

> As to Rubenstein, I said I did not want a statement about
>Rubenstein and Oswald; that we have no proof they were ever together.

And it turned out that, even after the WC, there was *still* no proof.

> I
>stated Rubenstein is a shady character from the hoodlum element of
>Chicago, has a poor background, runs a nightclub in Dallas, and is what
>would be called a police buff; that the police officers in the precinct
>have been able to get food and liquor from him at any time they drop in;
>that while I think there was no connection between him and Oswald, I did
>not want the report to be 100% sure on that.
>
> Fourth, I stated I did not believe any conclusions concerning
>Rubenstein should be reached at this time because he has not been tried;
>that was why I suggested to the Attorney General of Texas - and understand
>the Chief Justice did too- that his court of special inquiry be held in
>abeyance until after the Commission makes its findings. I said I thought
>they would go ahead with the Rubenstein trial in February; that was why I
>felt our report should name merely the facts we have established.
>

Prudent on Hoover's part. Does not want to poison the atmosphere,
since Ruby has to be tried.

Doesn't *begin* to show what you claim it does, Tony.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[David Von Pein]

TONY MARSH SAID:

Jeez, you think the reader is too stupid to realize that the pronoun
his refers back to RFK?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

When reading my archived "individual message" that I save to my
website--yes. Duh.

I need to fill in the blanks when a word like "his" or "he" or "it" is
used. I know a person looking at my archived post in the year 2018
isn't going to have the slightest idea who Tony Marsh meant when he
said "his" in a January 2013 post. So, I fill in the blanks.

Makes sense, doesn't it, Anthony?

(Let's see how Tony manages to make an argument out of my last
statement about pronouns. Rest assured, he'll find a way to fight me
on it.)

:-)


TONY MARSH ASKED:

Do you always quote yourself in the third person proper?

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Sure. Haven't you noticed the other 4,508 times I've done it?

TONY MARSH SAID:

Then for the first time the official WH photographer Cecil Stoughton
was kicked out of the SS car on the Dallas leg of the trip to make
room for Kennedy aides Dave Powers and Kenny O'Donnell. So one of the
SS agents would have to sit on the rear seat, George Hickey. But one
SS agent didn't understand that and he was standing on the running

board. When the fourth SS [agent] walking next to the limo went back

to the SS car there was no spot left for him to get on, so the agent
on the running board realized his mistake and climbed into the back
seat.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

In addition to merely making up your own unsubstantiated version for
the apparent confusion surrounding the Secret Service car at Love
Field (which you just did above), none of that stuff makes a bit of
difference anyway (even if it were true).

Why?

Because we know what the Shrugging Man's (Don Lawton's) assignment was
on 11/22/63. He was ALWAYS supposed to remain at Love Field.
Therefore, WHATEVER the reason was for his "shrugging", we KNOW it
wasn't due to him being "left behind" at the airport (as many
conspiracy theorists seem to believe).

Plus -- During Lawton's shrugging episode at Love Field, he doesn't
make any move toward the SS car -- that is, he doesn't start to get in
(or on) the Queen Mary car at all. He just stands there, shrugging and
smiling.

If he had really been a part of the team to ride in the Queen Mary
vehicle, why didn't move toward the car and try to hop aboard? But he
didn't do that at all. Why? Because he already knew what his
assignment was that day, as proven by his November 30th SS report
(seen in CE2554) -- he was going to stay at Love Field.

Why do CTers want to totally ignore that fact?


TONY MARSH SAID:

Ok, maybe I missed it, but I did not see the video of his [Lyndon B.
Johnson's] PRIVATE remarks where he said the Warren Commission Report

was a piece of shit. But I have heard his private phone conversations
where he talks about it being a conspiracy and the need to cover that

up. Maybe you [John McAdams] haven't.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Of course John has never heard any such phone conversation which has
President Johnson says that the JFK assassination was "a conspiracy"
with a "need to cover that up". And that's because no such telephone
conversation with LBJ exists and never did. Not even these phone calls
serve the "conspiracy" and "cover up" purposes you seem to think they
serve:

http://DVP-Video-Audio-Archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/lyndon-johnson-phone-calls.html

You think Johnson would have RECORDED such talk about there being a
need to "cover up" stuff relating to the Kennedy murder case, Tony?
You must be dreaming.

[Anthony Marsh]

Fine. I'm willing to stipulate the none of the shooters who killed JFK
were black. Does that make you happy? That's why I think Amos Euins was
wrong. I know a certain conspiracy believer who claims that everything a
witness says must be the absolute truth.

> right, and the Kennedys are just good liars but I think Bobby looked
> sincere. I suspect that if JFK came back from the grave and said that
> Oswald killed him the conspiracy mongers would call him a liar also.
>

You are not thinking big enough.

by GLENN GARVIN / McClatchy Newspapers

A bus full of Kennedy assassination buffs touring Dallas is hit by a
car, and several of the conspiratorialists are killed. Their souls are
whisked straight to Heaven, where like all newcomers, they get a brief
welcome from God himself.

After explaining where the bathrooms are and what time dinner is served,
God throws the floor open to questions. "Ask me anything," he urges
them. "In the Hereafter, we have no secrets."

One of the conspiracy buffs immediately asks: "Can you tell us who
really killed President Kennedy?" God, nodding solemnly, replies: "Sure.
It was Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone."

The conspiracy buffs turn to one another, wide-eyed. "Holy smokes!"
exclaims one. "This thing goes higher than we thought."

[John McAdams]

On 21 Jan 2013 22:25:20 -0500, Anthony Marsh

Alternate punchline: God says, "you know, I have a theory about

[mainframetech]

On Jan 21, 10:22 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> On 21 Jan 2013 22:07:57 -0500, Anthony Marsh
>

> <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >On 1/21/2013 8:01 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> >> On 21 Jan 2013 19:57:47 -0500, Anthony Marsh

> >> <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>> On 1/21/2013 2:12 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> >>>> On 21 Jan 2013 13:14:03 -0500, Anthony Marsh

> >>>> <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Yes, you seem to be talking about only his public statements. You don't
> >>>>> ever link to his private statements. Maybe you don't understand that some
> >>>>> politicians will say one thing in public and believe something else in
> >>>>> private. LBJ said in public that The Warren Commission Report was the
> >>>>> truth, but in private he said it was a piece of shit.
>
> >>>> No, Tony, look at the interview:
>
> >>>>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/video/lbj_conspiracy.ram
>
> >>>> He defended the WC.  But that's perfectly consistent with *suspecting*
> >>>> (not the same as knowing) that there was something hidden that they
> >>>> failed to find out.
>
> >>> Ok, maybe I missed it, but I did not see the video of his PRIVATE remarks
> >>> where he said the Warren Commission Report was a piece of shit. But I have
> >>> heard his private phone conversations where he talks about it being a
> >>> conspiracy and the need to cover that up. Maybe you haven't.
>
> >> Show us the evidence.
>
> >Listen to the WH tapes.

> >http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/lbjlib/phone_calls/Nov_1963/au...

> >__________________________________________________________________________­_____

> >__________________________________________________________________________­_____

>
> Doesn't *begin* to show what you claim it does, Tony.
>
> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
>

Interesting. At a time after the Cuban Bay of Pigs failure, I would
expect the Cubans to be looking at mail to the US, and open anything
they felt needed to be looked or that they didn't understand. They
couldn't have opened the mail to Oswald from Cuba or they would learn
of a pending operation. Seems odd they wouldn't be paranoid about the
US and check everything. Castro was no fool. I wonder what he made
of the phony Oswald that turned up in Mexico City.

Chris

[Bud]

We`re not talking about your beliefs, try to focus.

RFK didn`t pluralize, he said a singular white man killed a family
member of his. I`m thinking the family member was his brother Jack,
and the white man he was referring to that killed him was Oswald.

> Does that make you happy? That's why I think Amos Euins was
> wrong. I know a certain conspiracy believer who claims that everything a
> witness says must be the absolute truth.
>
> > right, and the Kennedys are just good liars but I think Bobby looked
> > sincere. I suspect that if JFK came back from the grave and said that
> > Oswald killed him the conspiracy mongers would call him a liar also.
>
> You are not thinking big enough.
>
> by GLENN GARVIN / McClatchy Newspapers
>
> A bus full of Kennedy assassination buffs touring Dallas is hit by a
> car, and several of the conspiratorialists are killed. Their souls are
> whisked straight to Heaven, where like all newcomers, they get a brief
> welcome from God himself.
>
> After explaining where the bathrooms are and what time dinner is served,
> God throws the floor open to questions. "Ask me anything," he urges
> them. "In the Hereafter, we have no secrets."
>
> One of the conspiracy buffs immediately asks: "Can you tell us who
> really killed President Kennedy?" God, nodding solemnly, replies: "Sure.
> It was Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone."
>
> The conspiracy buffs turn to one another, wide-eyed. "Holy smokes!"
> exclaims one. "This thing goes higher than we thought."

I`ve been around these newsgroups long enough to have heard that one
a few times.

[James K. Olmstead]

"John Fiorentino" <jefior...@optimum.net> wrote in message
news:50fda6a8$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

> .John:
>
> " But claiming he had any actual *knowledge* of a conspiracy is going way
> too far."
>
> Of course .John is right here. Does anyone honestly believe that if RFK
> had real evidence of a conspiracy he wouldn't have done
> something??...........Come on ..........get real.
>

John: I'll let the elephant in...asking the question "what if" the "real
evidence of conspiracy" was facts and documenation that his (RFK's)
actions directly led to the death of his brother?

Are there "loose ends" directly associated with the above? In my opinion
yes....will I ever be establish the links beyond reasonable doubt and tie
up these "loose ends" ...perhaps not but the search keeps me going.

jko

[Anthony Marsh]

>>> __________________________________________________________________________?_____

>>> __________________________________________________________________________?_____

>>
>> Doesn't *begin* to show what you claim it does, Tony.
>>
>> .John
>> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>>
>>
>
> Interesting. At a time after the Cuban Bay of Pigs failure, I would
> expect the Cubans to be looking at mail to the US, and open anything
> they felt needed to be looked or that they didn't understand. They
> couldn't have opened the mail to Oswald from Cuba or they would learn
> of a pending operation. Seems odd they wouldn't be paranoid about the
> US and check everything. Castro was no fool. I wonder what he made
> of the phony Oswald that turned up in Mexico City.
>
> Chris
>
>

Naughty boy. You bring up a question that should not be discussed in
public. It took the FBI several days to figure out that the Pedro Charles
letters were a hoax. No one tried to discover WHO was behind the hoax. I
seriously doubt it was Castro.

Castro was scared shitless about what Oswald said while in Mexico.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/22/2013 5:48 PM, James K. Olmstead wrote:
> "John Fiorentino" <jefior...@optimum.net> wrote in message
> news:50fda6a8$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>> .John:
>>
>> " But claiming he had any actual *knowledge* of a conspiracy is going way
>> too far."
>>
>> Of course .John is right here. Does anyone honestly believe that if RFK
>> had real evidence of a conspiracy he wouldn't have done
>> something??...........Come on ..........get real.
>>
>
> John: I'll let the elephant in...asking the question "what if" the "real
> evidence of conspiracy" was facts and documenation that his (RFK's)
> actions directly led to the death of his brother?
>

RFK did not order the assassination of Fidel Castro. That started under
Eisenhower. RFK oversaw Operation Mongoose, which was only sabotage and
propaganda.

> Are there "loose ends" directly associated with the above? In my opinion
> yes....will I ever be establish the links beyond reasonable doubt and tie
> up these "loose ends" ...perhaps not but the search keeps me going.
>

So you appear to be the perfect example when I talk about WC defenders
who secretly think it was a conspiracy and probably Castro was behind it.

[Anthony Marsh]

What are you babbling about? "None" is singular not plural. RFK would not
talk about a group killing his brother. He meant Oswald alone.

[John Fiorentino]

Hello James:

I can think of a few reasons other than "truth" that RFK would publicly
state that he would not re-open the Warren Report if he were elected
President.

So, just based on those public comments alone, his remarks are not
particularly reassuring to me.

I was always under the impression he had *many* questions re: his
brother's death and of course was also subject to paranoia at times.

In any event, what might we find *new* after 50 years?

It's a strange case, with an even stranger cast of characters.

John F.



"James K. Olmstead" <jolm...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:50ff...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[John Canal]

In article <50ff...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>
>On 1/22/2013 5:48 PM, James K. Olmstead wrote:
>> "John Fiorentino" <jefior...@optimum.net> wrote in message
>> news:50fda6a8$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>>> .John:
>>>
>>> " But claiming he had any actual *knowledge* of a conspiracy is going way
>>> too far."
>>>
>>> Of course .John is right here. Does anyone honestly believe that if RFK
>>> had real evidence of a conspiracy he wouldn't have done
>>> something??...........Come on ..........get real.
>>>
>>
>> John: I'll let the elephant in...asking the question "what if" the "real
>> evidence of conspiracy" was facts and documenation that his (RFK's)
>> actions directly led to the death of his brother?
>>
>
>RFK did not order the assassination of Fidel Castro. That started under
>Eisenhower.

Reportedly, not only did Hoover inform RFK about the plots on May 22,
1961, but, on May 7, 1962, RFK met with CIA officers, Lawrence Houston and
Sheffield Edwards who fully informed him about the collusion between the
CIA and Mafia (to assassinate Castro).

RFK supposedly told Houston and Edwards that it would be difficult to
prosecute Robert Mahue (Ex-FBI agent who contacted Roselli about
assassinating Castro near the end of the Eisenhower term), or Giancana or
Trafficante (the later had anti-Castro connections in Cuba) re. the plots.

Anyway, at that time RFK probably would have not touched Giancana with a
10 foot pole because he [Giancana] knew all about Jack's affairs with
Judith Campell and Marilyn Monroe...not to mention RFK's own alleged trist
with Marilyn....can you spell b-l-a-c-k-m-a-i-l?

Don't ask me for the proof or direct citations for any of this...pretty
much all my books and referrences, except for those pertaining to the
medical evidence were lost when our home was flooded out in 2004.

Maybe someone else can get them...I don't have the time to do it now.

Without the proof, we can just call the above "food for thought" and/or
"interesting speculation"...which it definately is.


--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

[Bud]

You said "shooters", Tony. Thats plural, ask anyone.

[David Von Pein]

JOHN FIORENTINO SAID:

I can think of a few reasons other than "truth" that RFK would
publicly state that he would not re-open the Warren Report if he were
elected President.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

If RFK had really wanted to re-open the JFK investigation, don't you
think that would have been a great way to garner some additional votes
during his 1968 campaign for the Presidency (particularly among the
young skeptical voters, like those he spoke to at San Fernando Valley
State College)?

During his San Fernando talk, it seems to me that RFK shot himself in
the foot (from a strategic and political POV) when he said multiple
things that didn't set too well with a lot of people in March of '68
-- e.g., saying he would not re-open the investigation into his
brother's death and the very unpopular stuff he said about the Vietnam
war as it relates to young men who refused to go to Vietnam when
drafted.

In short -- Robert Kennedy, in my opinion, was very likely speaking
TRUTHFULLY at San Fernando State College. If he had truly wanted to re-
open the JFK case, it would have been an excellent political move to
say so during Campaign '68, especially given the "conspiracy" climate
that was blanketing the country at that time, which was shortly after
Mark Lane's "Rush To Judgment" book and film came out and also right
smack in the middle of Jim Garrison's New Orleans investigation.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/23/2013 6:18 PM, John Canal wrote:
> In article <50ff...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> On 1/22/2013 5:48 PM, James K. Olmstead wrote:
>>> "John Fiorentino" <jefior...@optimum.net> wrote in message
>>> news:50fda6a8$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>>>> .John:
>>>>
>>>> " But claiming he had any actual *knowledge* of a conspiracy is going way
>>>> too far."
>>>>
>>>> Of course .John is right here. Does anyone honestly believe that if RFK
>>>> had real evidence of a conspiracy he wouldn't have done
>>>> something??...........Come on ..........get real.
>>>>
>>>
>>> John: I'll let the elephant in...asking the question "what if" the "real
>>> evidence of conspiracy" was facts and documenation that his (RFK's)
>>> actions directly led to the death of his brother?
>>>
>>
>> RFK did not order the assassination of Fidel Castro. That started under
>> Eisenhower.
>
> Reportedly, not only did Hoover inform RFK about the plots on May 22,
> 1961, but, on May 7, 1962, RFK met with CIA officers, Lawrence Houston and
> Sheffield Edwards who fully informed him about the collusion between the
> CIA and Mafia (to assassinate Castro).
>

Yes, and RFK first learned about them by reading about it in the
newspapers. No one voluntary went to him and briefed him. When he did
talk to them he told them to knock it off.

> RFK supposedly told Houston and Edwards that it would be difficult to
> prosecute Robert Mahue (Ex-FBI agent who contacted Roselli about
> assassinating Castro near the end of the Eisenhower term), or Giancana or
> Trafficante (the later had anti-Castro connections in Cuba) re. the plots.
>
> Anyway, at that time RFK probably would have not touched Giancana with a
> 10 foot pole because he [Giancana] knew all about Jack's affairs with
> Judith Campell and Marilyn Monroe...not to mention RFK's own alleged trist
> with Marilyn....can you spell b-l-a-c-k-m-a-i-l?
>
> Don't ask me for the proof or direct citations for any of this...pretty
> much all my books and referrences, except for those pertaining to the
> medical evidence were lost when our home was flooded out in 2004.
>

That's ok, we'll take your word on it. Some people are able to read
about this stuff on the InterNet.

> Maybe someone else can get them...I don't have the time to do it now.
>

Now where would you find someone obsessed enough to have all those books?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/23/2013 8:28 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> JOHN FIORENTINO SAID:
>
> I can think of a few reasons other than "truth" that RFK would
> publicly state that he would not re-open the Warren Report if he were
> elected President.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>

I see you still have't learned to use the InterNet thing and refused to
obey the Usenet rules.

> If RFK had really wanted to re-open the JFK investigation, don't you
> think that would have been a great way to garner some additional votes
> during his 1968 campaign for the Presidency (particularly among the
> young skeptical voters, like those he spoke to at San Fernando Valley
> State College)?
>

Sure, maybe pick up 10 votes and lose 100.

> During his San Fernando talk, it seems to me that RFK shot himself in
> the foot (from a strategic and political POV) when he said multiple
> things that didn't set too well with a lot of people in March of '68
> -- e.g., saying he would not re-open the investigation into his
> brother's death and the very unpopular stuff he said about the Vietnam
> war as it relates to young men who refused to go to Vietnam when
> drafted.
>

Not that it makes any difference to you, but there is a subtle but
important difference between not announcing to do something and
announcing that you will refuse to do something.

> In short -- Robert Kennedy, in my opinion, was very likely speaking
> TRUTHFULLY at San Fernando State College. If he had truly wanted to re-
> open the JFK case, it would have been an excellent political move to

He couldn't do it until he got elected. This is very similar to JFK not
announcing his plans to pull out of Vietnam. As he told his closest
aides he could not announce it then or he might not get reelect so he'd
have to wait until he got reelected.

[Anthony Marsh]

You are uneducated. "None" is a singular pronoun.

[Sandy McCroskey]

http://afterdeadline.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/24/hobgoblins/
<quote on>
None: Singular or Plural?

Many readers of The Times and After Deadline insist that ?none? should be
used only with a singular verb. They argue that ?none? means ?not one,?
and so is inherently singular.

But most authorities, including The Times?s stylebook, disagree. Here?s
our entry:

none. Despite a widespread assumption that it stands for not one, the word
has been construed as a plural (not any) in most contexts for centuries.
H. W. Fowler?s Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1926) endorsed the
plural use. Make none plural except when emphasizing the idea of not one
or no one ? and then consider using those phrases instead.

</quote off>

[John Fiorentino]

David:

First of all I'm conjecturing, it's just my opinion. Second I don't think
his statement had anything to do with "votes."

He needed to get elected, but he also needed to live long enough to do
that. Unfortunately, he didn't.

John F.



"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eaeaf62a-40e4-48d2...@r10g2000pbd.googlegroups.com...

[John McAdams]

On 22 Jan 2013 12:46:37 -0500, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Jan 21, 10:22=A0pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> On 21 Jan 2013 22:07:57 -0500, Anthony Marsh
>>
>>
>

> Interesting. At a time after the Cuban Bay of Pigs failure, I would
>expect the Cubans to be looking at mail to the US, and open anything
>they felt needed to be looked or that they didn't understand. They
>couldn't have opened the mail to Oswald from Cuba or they would learn
>of a pending operation. Seems odd they wouldn't be paranoid about the
>US and check everything. Castro was no fool. I wonder what he made
>of the phony Oswald that turned up in Mexico City.
>

Castro insisted that the real Oswald turned up in Mexico City, and
even gave the HSCA a copy of Oswald's visa application.

He even told a high-level CPUSA official that Oswald threatened to
kill Kennedy. Castro was almost certainly mistaken about this.

So go ahead. Claim that Castro was trafficing in forged documents at
the behest of the CIA.

That's no worse than other things you have claimed.

[Anthony Marsh]

Sophistry. None means zero. Is zero a plural number?
You FAIL.
I thought I was making a generous concession for you and then you call
in the Grammar Nazis!

[Sandy McCroskey]

How silly.
You're wrong, Marsh. Suck it up and move on.
/sm

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/24/2013 1:54 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 22 Jan 2013 12:46:37 -0500, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 21, 10:22=A0pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>>> On 21 Jan 2013 22:07:57 -0500, Anthony Marsh
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Interesting. At a time after the Cuban Bay of Pigs failure, I would
>> expect the Cubans to be looking at mail to the US, and open anything
>> they felt needed to be looked or that they didn't understand. They
>> couldn't have opened the mail to Oswald from Cuba or they would learn
>> of a pending operation. Seems odd they wouldn't be paranoid about the
>> US and check everything. Castro was no fool. I wonder what he made
>> of the phony Oswald that turned up in Mexico City.
>>
>
> Castro insisted that the real Oswald turned up in Mexico City, and
> even gave the HSCA a copy of Oswald's visa application.
>
> He even told a high-level CPUSA official that Oswald threatened to
> kill Kennedy. Castro was almost certainly mistaken about this.
>

Jean cited it as proof.

> So go ahead. Claim that Castro was trafficing in forged documents at
> the behest of the CIA.
>
> That's no worse than other things you have claimed.
>

Jeez, giving him a chance. He's just getting started.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/24/2013 1:38 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> David:
>
> First of all I'm conjecturing, it's just my opinion. Second I don't
> think his statement had anything to do with "votes."
>
> He needed to get elected, but he also needed to live long enough to do
> that. Unfortunately, he didn't.
>

Something like that. How many Presidents have been assassinated before
they could be sworn into office?