Even the government itself admitted in the 70's there was a conspiracy to kill JFK.

[Bfgrn]

Sometimes it isn't searching for facts but searching the history of who wrote the history and trying to see if that person has an interesting history that would give them reason to skew details or simply put out false information.

This is a fascinating take that needs to be explored and expanded.

Who wrote the history of the assassination of the President of the United States in 1963? Who would have the power to write that history?

How about the succeeding president, an all mighty director of the FBI, and the Justice Department? They would certainly have the power to write history in the short term.

That is EXACTLY what they did. And we are still burdened with the disinformation and coverup of facts that decision created.

HOW did they do it?

The Big Lie Begins

It's important to understand that from the very beginning, officials of our government did not want a true investigation and made every attempt to "make the public satisfied that Oswald was the assassin."

There may be no other document that makes it more clear that there was no interest in a true investigation by the highest federal authorities and it was issued just days after the assassination. A memo prepared by Walter Jenkins reflects his conversation with J. Edgar Hoover where Hoover makes this telling 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."

This conversation occurred on November 24, 1963, one day prior to Katzenbach's memo below. Meanwhile, Hoover himself wrote a glaring similar memo on the same day that reads:

"The thing I am most concerned about, and SO IS Mr. Katzenbach, is having something issued so that WE can convince the pubic that Oswald is the real assassin." (HSCA, vol 3, pp 471-473. This memo was apparently prepared by Hoover at 4 pm.)

A third memo written by the FBI's Courtney Evans on November 26th mentions that Hoover himself drafted the Katzenbach memo. (North, "Act of Treason")

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Memo from Nicholas deB. Katzenbach, Deputy Attorney General

November 25, 1963

MEMORANDUM FOR MR. MOYERS

It is important that all of the facts surrounding President Kennedy's Assassination be made public in a way which will satisfy people in the United States and abroad that all the facts have been told and that a statement to this effect be made now.

1. The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial.

2. Speculation about Oswald's motivation ought to be cut off, and we should have some basis for rebutting thought that this was a Communist conspiracy or (as the Iron Curtain press is saying) a right-wing conspiracy to blame it on the Communists. Unfortunately the facts on Oswald seem about too pat-- too obvious (Marxist, Cuba, Russian wife, etc.). The Dallas police have put out statements on the Communist conspiracy theory, and it was they who were in charge when he was shot and thus silenced.

3. The matter has been handled thus far with neither dignity nor conviction. Facts have been mixed with rumour and speculation. We can scarcely let the world see us totally in the image of the Dallas police when our President is murdered.

I think this objective may be satisfied by making public as soon as possible a complete and thorough FBI report on Oswald and the assassination. This may run into the difficulty of pointing to in- consistencies between this report and statements by Dallas police officials. But the reputation of the Bureau is such that it may do the whole job. The only other step would be the appointment of a Presidential Commission of unimpeachable personnel to review and examine the evidence and announce its conclusions. This has both advantages and disadvantages. It think it can await publication of the FBI report and public reaction to it here and abroad.

I think, however, that a statement that all the facts will be made public property in an orderly and responsible way should be made now. We need something to head off public speculation or Congressional hearings of the wrong sort.

Nicholas deB. Katzenbach

Deputy Attorney General

Could you provide a link to the HSCA reference to those memos?
I find only blog conversations.
As you noted, Indofred make a valid point about who writes the history.

Here is a transcript of Nicholas Katzenbach's testimony before the HSCA. If you are questioning if it the memo is real, the first question asked Katzenbach by Congressman Stewart McKinney from Connecticut is about that memo. It is REAL.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol3/pages/HSCA_Vol3_0324a.gif

Here is another good site about the memo...

Katzenbach Memo

BTW, Mr Moyers is Bill Moyers who is now on PBS. During the Kennedy Administration, Moyers was first appointed as associate director of public affairs for the newly created Peace Corps in 1961. He served as Deputy Director from 1962 to 1963. When Lyndon B. Johnson took office after the Kennedy assassination, Moyers became a special assistant to Johnson, serving from 1963 to 1967.

Here is another dynamic to contemplate. LBJ's motivation to demand Oswald and Oswald alone be pinned with the assassination was the fear of WWIII if the Soviets were in any way implicated. A month before the assassination someone visited the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City claiming to be Oswald. It was an imposter.

J. Edgar Hoover gave the news to President Johnson early on the morning after the assassination: “We have up here the tape and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet Embassy, using Oswald’s name. That picture and the tape do not correspond to this man’s voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet Embassy down there”

(Johnson to Hoover, White House Telephone Transcripts, 23 November 1963, LBJ Library, Austin, Texas)

Here is another site with a good commentary on the Mexico City problem>

History Matters - The Framing of Oswald

You can LISTEN to this conversation: LBJ-Russell 11-29-63, 2nd call

This fascinating conversation between President Johnson and his old mentor Senator Richard Russell is very revealing. Johnson begins by reading to Russell the announcement of the formation of the President's Commission to study the assassination, to which he has named Russell. Not realizing that it's a done deal, Russell complains that he "couldn't serve on it with Chief Justice Warren--I don't like that man" and pleads with Johnson to reconsider. LBJ tells him that "Dick, it's already been announced and you can serve with anybody for the good of America, and this is a question that has a good many more ramifications than on the surface and we've got to take this out of the arena where they're testifying that Khruschev and Castro did this and did that and kicking us into a war that can kill 40 million Americans in an hour."

Toward the end of the conversation, Johnson re-invokes the image of 40 million Americans killed in a nuclear exchange with the Soviet Union, and then tells Russell how he got Warren to serve on the Commission. After Warren refused several times, Johnson called him to the Oval Office and told him "what Hoover told me about a little incident in Mexico City," whereupon Warren began crying and told Johnson "well I won't turn you down, I'll just do whatever you say."

 

[member]

"What else can we name that could be a possible massive conspiracy?"

​

 

[SAYIT]

This is a fascinating take that needs to be explored and expanded.

Who wrote the history of the assassination of the President of the United States in 1963? Who would have the power to write that history?

How about the succeeding president, an all mighty director of the FBI, and the Justice Department? They would certainly have the power to write history in the short term.

That is EXACTLY what they did. And we are still burdened with the disinformation and coverup of facts that decision created.

HOW did they do it?

The Big Lie Begins

It's important to understand that from the very beginning, officials of our government did not want a true investigation and made every attempt to "make the public satisfied that Oswald was the assassin."

There may be no other document that makes it more clear that there was no interest in a true investigation by the highest federal authorities and it was issued just days after the assassination. A memo prepared by Walter Jenkins reflects his conversation with J. Edgar Hoover where Hoover makes this telling 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."

This conversation occurred on November 24, 1963, one day prior to Katzenbach's memo below. Meanwhile, Hoover himself wrote a glaring similar memo on the same day that reads:

"The thing I am most concerned about, and SO IS Mr. Katzenbach, is having something issued so that WE can convince the pubic that Oswald is the real assassin." (HSCA, vol 3, pp 471-473. This memo was apparently prepared by Hoover at 4 pm.)

A third memo written by the FBI's Courtney Evans on November 26th mentions that Hoover himself drafted the Katzenbach memo. (North, "Act of Treason")

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Memo from Nicholas deB. Katzenbach, Deputy Attorney General

November 25, 1963

MEMORANDUM FOR MR. MOYERS

It is important that all of the facts surrounding President Kennedy's Assassination be made public in a way which will satisfy people in the United States and abroad that all the facts have been told and that a statement to this effect be made now.

1. The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial.

2. Speculation about Oswald's motivation ought to be cut off, and we should have some basis for rebutting thought that this was a Communist conspiracy or (as the Iron Curtain press is saying) a right-wing conspiracy to blame it on the Communists. Unfortunately the facts on Oswald seem about too pat-- too obvious (Marxist, Cuba, Russian wife, etc.). The Dallas police have put out statements on the Communist conspiracy theory, and it was they who were in charge when he was shot and thus silenced.

3. The matter has been handled thus far with neither dignity nor conviction. Facts have been mixed with rumour and speculation. We can scarcely let the world see us totally in the image of the Dallas police when our President is murdered.

I think this objective may be satisfied by making public as soon as possible a complete and thorough FBI report on Oswald and the assassination. This may run into the difficulty of pointing to in- consistencies between this report and statements by Dallas police officials. But the reputation of the Bureau is such that it may do the whole job. The only other step would be the appointment of a Presidential Commission of unimpeachable personnel to review and examine the evidence and announce its conclusions. This has both advantages and disadvantages. It think it can await publication of the FBI report and public reaction to it here and abroad.

I think, however, that a statement that all the facts will be made public property in an orderly and responsible way should be made now. We need something to head off public speculation or Congressional hearings of the wrong sort.

Nicholas deB. Katzenbach

Deputy Attorney General

Could you provide a link to the HSCA reference to those memos?
I find only blog conversations.
As you noted, Indofred make a valid point about who writes the history.

Here is a transcript of Nicholas Katzenbach's testimony before the HSCA. If you are questioning if it the memo is real, the first question asked Katzenbach by Congressman Stewart McKinney from Connecticut is about that memo. It is REAL.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol3/pages/HSCA_Vol3_0324a.gif

Here is another good site about the memo...

Katzenbach Memo

BTW, Mr Moyers is Bill Moyers who is now on PBS. During the Kennedy Administration, Moyers was first appointed as associate director of public affairs for the newly created Peace Corps in 1961. He served as Deputy Director from 1962 to 1963. When Lyndon B. Johnson took office after the Kennedy assassination, Moyers became a special assistant to Johnson, serving from 1963 to 1967.

Here is another dynamic to contemplate. LBJ's motivation to demand Oswald and Oswald alone be pinned with the assassination was the fear of WWIII if the Soviets were in any way implicated. A month before the assassination someone visited the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City claiming to be Oswald. It was an imposter.

J. Edgar Hoover gave the news to President Johnson early on the morning after the assassination: “We have up here the tape and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet Embassy, using Oswald’s name. That picture and the tape do not correspond to this man’s voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet Embassy down there”

(Johnson to Hoover, White House Telephone Transcripts, 23 November 1963, LBJ Library, Austin, Texas)

Here is another site with a good commentary on the Mexico City problem>

History Matters - The Framing of Oswald

You can LISTEN to this conversation: LBJ-Russell 11-29-63, 2nd call

This fascinating conversation between President Johnson and his old mentor Senator Richard Russell is very revealing. Johnson begins by reading to Russell the announcement of the formation of the President's Commission to study the assassination, to which he has named Russell. Not realizing that it's a done deal, Russell complains that he "couldn't serve on it with Chief Justice Warren--I don't like that man" and pleads with Johnson to reconsider. LBJ tells him that "Dick, it's already been announced and you can serve with anybody for the good of America, and this is a question that has a good many more ramifications than on the surface and we've got to take this out of the arena where they're testifying that Khruschev and Castro did this and did that and kicking us into a war that can kill 40 million Americans in an hour."

Toward the end of the conversation, Johnson re-invokes the image of 40 million Americans killed in a nuclear exchange with the Soviet Union, and then tells Russell how he got Warren to serve on the Commission. After Warren refused several times, Johnson called him to the Oval Office and told him "what Hoover told me about a little incident in Mexico City," whereupon Warren began crying and told Johnson "well I won't turn you down, I'll just do whatever you say."

Thanks for the links. I can't get the aarclibrary to open so I can't comment on the memo but the context may have some bearing on it meaning.
The thrust of my post is the nature of "who is writing the history and is there an agenda" part of your post and that of Indofred. Clearly much if not most of what we find on the Internet ranges from biased half-truths to mis or disinformation to outright fabrications. Even your original post about the memos contained no link to your source. Anyone can "blog" anything making it difficult, despite the convenience of search engines, to sort the wheat from the chafe.
For those of us who have lived the last 60 or more years of our history, recent "revelations," at least the credible ones, must be blended with what we learned and saw as events unfolded. Consider the "Sandy Hook Hoax" CTs which some promote.
Anyway I will retry the aarclibrary link later. Thanks again.

 

[Bfgrn]

Could you provide a link to the HSCA reference to those memos?
I find only blog conversations.
As you noted, Indofred make a valid point about who writes the history.

Here is a transcript of Nicholas Katzenbach's testimony before the HSCA. If you are questioning if it the memo is real, the first question asked Katzenbach by Congressman Stewart McKinney from Connecticut is about that memo. It is REAL.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol3/pages/HSCA_Vol3_0324a.gif

Here is another good site about the memo...

Katzenbach Memo

BTW, Mr Moyers is Bill Moyers who is now on PBS. During the Kennedy Administration, Moyers was first appointed as associate director of public affairs for the newly created Peace Corps in 1961. He served as Deputy Director from 1962 to 1963. When Lyndon B. Johnson took office after the Kennedy assassination, Moyers became a special assistant to Johnson, serving from 1963 to 1967.

Here is another dynamic to contemplate. LBJ's motivation to demand Oswald and Oswald alone be pinned with the assassination was the fear of WWIII if the Soviets were in any way implicated. A month before the assassination someone visited the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City claiming to be Oswald. It was an imposter.

J. Edgar Hoover gave the news to President Johnson early on the morning after the assassination: “We have up here the tape and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet Embassy, using Oswald’s name. That picture and the tape do not correspond to this man’s voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet Embassy down there”

(Johnson to Hoover, White House Telephone Transcripts, 23 November 1963, LBJ Library, Austin, Texas)

Here is another site with a good commentary on the Mexico City problem>

History Matters - The Framing of Oswald

You can LISTEN to this conversation: LBJ-Russell 11-29-63, 2nd call

This fascinating conversation between President Johnson and his old mentor Senator Richard Russell is very revealing. Johnson begins by reading to Russell the announcement of the formation of the President's Commission to study the assassination, to which he has named Russell. Not realizing that it's a done deal, Russell complains that he "couldn't serve on it with Chief Justice Warren--I don't like that man" and pleads with Johnson to reconsider. LBJ tells him that "Dick, it's already been announced and you can serve with anybody for the good of America, and this is a question that has a good many more ramifications than on the surface and we've got to take this out of the arena where they're testifying that Khruschev and Castro did this and did that and kicking us into a war that can kill 40 million Americans in an hour."

Toward the end of the conversation, Johnson re-invokes the image of 40 million Americans killed in a nuclear exchange with the Soviet Union, and then tells Russell how he got Warren to serve on the Commission. After Warren refused several times, Johnson called him to the Oval Office and told him "what Hoover told me about a little incident in Mexico City," whereupon Warren began crying and told Johnson "well I won't turn you down, I'll just do whatever you say."

Thanks for the links. I can't get the aarclibrary to open so I can't comment on the memo but the context may have some bearing on it meaning.
The thrust of my post is the nature of "who is writing the history and is there an agenda" part of your post and that of Indofred. Clearly much if not most of what we find on the Internet ranges from biased half-truths to mis or disinformation to outright fabrications. Even your original post about the memos contained no link to your source. Anyone can "blog" anything making it difficult, despite the convenience of search engines, to sort the wheat from the chafe.
For those of us who have lived the last 60 or more years of our history, recent "revelations," at least the credible ones, must be blended with what we learned and saw as events unfolded. Consider the "Sandy Hook Hoax" CTs which some promote.
Anyway I will retry the aarclibrary link later. Thanks again.

I linked a page, maybe that's the problem. Here is a link to the AARC Public Library Contents. You can click on "Testimony of Nicholas Katzenbach, Former Attorney General of the United States" yourself...

HSCA Hearings - Volume III

Sept. 22's proceedings included the testimony of three Warren Commissioners and its General Counsel: Former President Gerald Ford, John Sherman Cooper, John J. McCloy, and J. Lee Rankin. They were followed by Nicholas Katzenbach, who was Assistant Attorney General at the time of the assassination and had written the famous "Katzenbach memo."

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/contents/hsca/contents_hsca_vol3.htm

 

[daws101]

the real question question is if there WAS a conspiracy it's half a century old, most all, if not all the participants are dead..
who would you punish?
what would a proof of a conspiracy solve?
the only value that proof would contain would be historical..

 

[numan]

the real question question is if there WAS a conspiracy it's half a century old, most all, if not all the participants are dead..
who would you punish?
what would a proof of a conspiracy solve?
the only value that proof would contain would be historical..

That is a very curious point of view -- one which would make me doubt the sanity of anyone who espoused it, or else make me wonder who they worked for.

Clearly, the most important reason for uncovering a conspiracy is to make sure it doesn't happen again!!!!!!

Those who killed Kennedy got away with their crime!!!

At the very least, this fact would embolden others to follow the same path!!!

To uncover conspiracies, to punish and revile the conspirators and their allies to the maximum extent possible, to undertake steps to prevent such crimes in the future -- that is the best method guarding against such outrages.

I certainly wonder how many great crimes of state might have been prevented if people had known the truth about Kennedy -- and been on the lookout for similar conspracies.

For one thing, 9/11 probably would not have happened.

It is supremely important to reveal the truth about all conspiracies to the maximum extent possible.

It might destroy the childish illusions people have about the societies in which they live, it might make them more suspicious of their rulers, it might undermine the foundations of corrupt governments. That would create problems, but the alternative of great crimes being unpunished and unrevealed -- that, step by step, would lead to greater and greater crimes, as the most vile dregs of society and government discover that they can "get away with it."
.

 

[Bfgrn]

the real question question is if there WAS a conspiracy it's half a century old, most all, if not all the participants are dead..
who would you punish?
what would a proof of a conspiracy solve?
the only value that proof would contain would be historical..

It isn't about punishment, it is about finding out who was behind the assassination. What were their motives? What are the consequences THEY brought about?

What we know now that we didn't know then about President Kennedy is that he planned on pulling all our military personnel out of Vietnam by 1965. The Vietnam war would have never escalated if Kennedy had lived. That cost this nation 58,000 of our sons and daughters and Southeast Asia suffered many more casualties. Children are still being blown apart in countries like Laos by 'bombies' from our carpet bombing.

If you do some research into the reasons for Eisenhower's dire warning about the military/industrial complex in his farewell address, you will discover that elements of our own military and intelligence community have tried to undermine the President of the United States and provoke wars.

 

[georgephillip]

Free people don't exist when a handful of elites control their government.

Fourteen years after JFK's murder William McGonagle won the Medal of Honor defending his ship the USS Liberty from a deliberate attack by the air and naval forces of Israel; every surviving member of Liberty's crew attests to the deliberate nature of that attack.

Great crimes of state depend on the privileged few controlling the flow of information after crises like Kennedy's assassination or Israel's assault on Liberty.

In Kennedy's case the Zapruder film was locked away by a rich elite.
In Liberty's case McGonagle and his crew were threatened with prison if they talked.
Both events would have faced much different historical outcomes if all relevant details had been made available to US taxpayers when memories were fresh.

Which brings us to Wesley:

"In Clark's book, Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003, he describes his conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 regarding a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in five years:

"'As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat.

"'Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.'"

Many Americans including some who have risked their lives for their country are afraid to consider the possibility their government lies about its own criminality whenever issues of national security are at stake.

Revealing the truth about past crimes is the only way to prevent even greater crimes against humanity from happening in the future.

 

[daws101]

the real question question is if there WAS a conspiracy it's half a century old, most all, if not all the participants are dead..
who would you punish?
what would a proof of a conspiracy solve?
the only value that proof would contain would be historical..

That is a very curious point of view -- one which would make me doubt the sanity of anyone who espoused it, or else make me wonder who they worked for.

Clearly, the most important reason for uncovering a conspiracy is to make sure it doesn't happen again!!!!!!

Those who killed Kennedy got away with their crime!!!

At the very least, this fact would embolden others to follow the same path!!!

To uncover conspiracies, to punish and revile the conspirators and their allies to the maximum extent possible, to undertake steps to prevent such crimes in the future -- that is the best method guarding against such outrages.

I certainly wonder how many great crimes of state might have been prevented if people had known the truth about Kennedy -- and been on the lookout for similar conspracies.

For one thing, 9/11 probably would not have happened.

It is supremely important to reveal the truth about all conspiracies to the maximum extent possible.

It might destroy the childish illusions people have about the societies in which they live, it might make them more suspicious of their rulers, it might undermine the foundations of corrupt governments. That would create problems, but the alternative of great crimes being unpunished and unrevealed -- that, step by step, would lead to greater and greater crimes, as the most vile dregs of society and government discover that they can "get away with it."
.

Just the sort of answer I expected... all blow and no go..

 

[daws101]

the real question question is if there WAS a conspiracy it's half a century old, most all, if not all the participants are dead..
who would you punish?
what would a proof of a conspiracy solve?
the only value that proof would contain would be historical..

It isn't about punishment, it is about finding out who was behind the assassination. What were their motives? What are the consequences THEY brought about?

What we know now that we didn't know then about President Kennedy is that he planned on pulling all our military personnel out of Vietnam by 1965. The Vietnam war would have never escalated if Kennedy had lived. That cost this nation 58,000 of our sons and daughters and Southeast Asia suffered many more casualties. Children are still being blown apart in countries like Laos by 'bombies' from our carpet bombing.

If you do some research into the reasons for Eisenhower's dire warning about the military/industrial complex in his farewell address, you will discover that elements of our own military and intelligence community have tried to undermine the President of the United States and provoke wars.

could you sing to the choir some more?
none of what you've mentioned is breaking news.
all of it is history and cannot be repaired or redone ..
in another 50 years or so all of this will be seen from the same pov we have of the 19th century..

 

[numan]

the real question question is if there WAS a conspiracy it's half a century old, most all, if not all the participants are dead..
who would you punish?
what would a proof of a conspiracy solve?
the only value that proof would contain would be historical..

That is a very curious point of view -- one which would make me doubt the sanity of anyone who espoused it, or else make me wonder who they worked for.

Clearly, the most important reason for uncovering a conspiracy is to make sure it doesn't happen again!!!!!!

Those who killed Kennedy got away with their crime!!!

At the very least, this fact would embolden others to follow the same path!!!

To uncover conspiracies, to punish and revile the conspirators and their allies to the maximum extent possible, to undertake steps to prevent such crimes in the future -- that is the best method guarding against such outrages.

I certainly wonder how many great crimes of state might have been prevented if people had known the truth about Kennedy -- and been on the lookout for similar conspracies.

For one thing, 9/11 probably would not have happened.

It is supremely important to reveal the truth about all conspiracies to the maximum extent possible.

It might destroy the childish illusions people have about the societies in which they live, it might make them more suspicious of their rulers, it might undermine the foundations of corrupt governments. That would create problems, but the alternative of great crimes being unpunished and unrevealed -- that, step by step, would lead to greater and greater crimes, as the most vile dregs of society and government discover that they can "get away with it."

Just the sort of answer I expected... all blow and no go..

And, sadly, just the sort of answer I have come to expect from you and the other trolls swarming about this topic.

No facts, no rational arguments or rebuttals, not even logic -- just insults, and fluff, and non sequiturs.

One is led to wonder why it is so important to you that no truth about this assassination be revealed.
.

 

[daws101]

That is a very curious point of view -- one which would make me doubt the sanity of anyone who espoused it, or else make me wonder who they worked for.

Clearly, the most important reason for uncovering a conspiracy is to make sure it doesn't happen again!!!!!!

Those who killed Kennedy got away with their crime!!!

At the very least, this fact would embolden others to follow the same path!!!

To uncover conspiracies, to punish and revile the conspirators and their allies to the maximum extent possible, to undertake steps to prevent such crimes in the future -- that is the best method guarding against such outrages.

I certainly wonder how many great crimes of state might have been prevented if people had known the truth about Kennedy -- and been on the lookout for similar conspracies.

For one thing, 9/11 probably would not have happened.

It is supremely important to reveal the truth about all conspiracies to the maximum extent possible.

It might destroy the childish illusions people have about the societies in which they live, it might make them more suspicious of their rulers, it might undermine the foundations of corrupt governments. That would create problems, but the alternative of great crimes being unpunished and unrevealed -- that, step by step, would lead to greater and greater crimes, as the most vile dregs of society and government discover that they can "get away with it."

Just the sort of answer I expected... all blow and no go..

And, sadly, just the sort of answer I have come to expect from you and the other trolls swarming about this topic.

No facts, no rational arguments or rebuttals, not even logic -- just insults, and fluff, and non sequiturs.

One is led to wonder why it is so important to you that no truth about this assassination be revealed.
.

the truth about the jfk assassination is simple, on the other hand the conspiracy legend that has grown around it is complicated.

 

[numan]

And, sadly, just the sort of answer I have come to expect from you and the other trolls swarming about this topic.

No facts, no rational arguments or rebuttals, not even logic -- just insults, and fluff, and non sequiturs.

the truth about the jfk assassination is simple, on the other hand the conspiracy legend that has grown around it is complicated.

How quickly you have justified my complaint, Daws !!

What kind of silly statement is that?

Mythology is simple -- science is complex.

Lies are often simple, and truth is usually complicated.

As so often, you have written something which makes no sense.

.

 

[daws101]

And, sadly, just the sort of answer I have come to expect from you and the other trolls swarming about this topic.

No facts, no rational arguments or rebuttals, not even logic -- just insults, and fluff, and non sequiturs.

the truth about the jfk assassination is simple, on the other hand the conspiracy legend that has grown around it is complicated.

How quickly you have justified my complaint, Daws !!

What kind of silly statement is that?

Mythology is simple -- science is complex.

Lies are often simple, and truth is usually complicated.

As so often, you have written something which makes no sense.

.

and you've just proven what I said to be fact.

 

[Bfgrn]

Just the sort of answer I expected... all blow and no go..

And, sadly, just the sort of answer I have come to expect from you and the other trolls swarming about this topic.

No facts, no rational arguments or rebuttals, not even logic -- just insults, and fluff, and non sequiturs.

One is led to wonder why it is so important to you that no truth about this assassination be revealed.
.

the truth about the jfk assassination is simple, on the other hand the conspiracy legend that has grown around it is complicated.

If it is simple then give us the answer. Who did it?

 

[daws101]

And, sadly, just the sort of answer I have come to expect from you and the other trolls swarming about this topic.

No facts, no rational arguments or rebuttals, not even logic -- just insults, and fluff, and non sequiturs.

One is led to wonder why it is so important to you that no truth about this assassination be revealed.
.

the truth about the jfk assassination is simple, on the other hand the conspiracy legend that has grown around it is complicated.

If it is simple then give us the answer. Who did it?

you already know who did it.. accepting it as fact, seems to be beyond your comprehension...

 

[Bfgrn]

the truth about the jfk assassination is simple, on the other hand the conspiracy legend that has grown around it is complicated.

If it is simple then give us the answer. Who did it?

you already know who did it.. accepting it as fact, seems to be beyond your comprehension...

Are you too afraid to give us a name?

 

[editec]

Amazing how there are so many american sheople here STILL in denial about this all these years later that there was at least one other shooter involved in the assassination of JFK.

It was no surprise to see the usual trolls Whitehall,Predfan,rightwinger and other lone nut theorist trolls play dodgeball and dodge all the facts and evidence that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK on this thread here

http://www.usmessageboard.com/conspiracy-theories/285978-kennedy-assassination-question.html

and as usual,it got highjacked by the paid trolls i have listed in my sig and this thread will as well by them as well no doubt.

Its pretty clear cut that posters like whitehall, predfan,and rightwinger who never watch videos or read links that shread to pieces the warren commission,have ever done any research into this and everything they know about this event is what they got from the CIA controlled mainstream media and their textbooks in our corrupt school system which STILL to this day tells the official lie that oswald was the lone assassin.

Whats really funny about that is even the house select committe on investigations in the 1970's concluded the warren commission was wrong,that there was a second shooter and a probable conspiracy and yet there are so many idiots here like those I mentioned, who STILL say oswald was the lone assassin even though they THEMSELVES admitted they were wrong.

Truthseeker tried to spell it out to them dummies style with this post below but they ignored it of course.no surprise.

What do you mean hard evidence? The United States House Select Committee on Assassinations ruled President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. And chastised the Warren Commission for it's inept investigation and only looking at the lone gunman theory.

well MAYBE they will take it seriosuly if they hear it from wikipedia then.I wouldnt hold my breath or bet on it though.It would be a miracle if they actutally read the link.

United States House Select Committee on Assassinations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

With the benefit of 50 years worth of hindsight I think it was a coup de etat.

 

[Bfgrn]

the real question question is if there WAS a conspiracy it's half a century old, most all, if not all the participants are dead..
who would you punish?
what would a proof of a conspiracy solve?
the only value that proof would contain would be historical..

It isn't about punishment, it is about finding out who was behind the assassination. What were their motives? What are the consequences THEY brought about?

What we know now that we didn't know then about President Kennedy is that he planned on pulling all our military personnel out of Vietnam by 1965. The Vietnam war would have never escalated if Kennedy had lived. That cost this nation 58,000 of our sons and daughters and Southeast Asia suffered many more casualties. Children are still being blown apart in countries like Laos by 'bombies' from our carpet bombing.

If you do some research into the reasons for Eisenhower's dire warning about the military/industrial complex in his farewell address, you will discover that elements of our own military and intelligence community have tried to undermine the President of the United States and provoke wars.

Did anyone consider why after a very successful 8 years as President, Ike felt compelled to make this speech?

Eisenhower was close to Détente with Khrushchev and the Russians in 1960 until his efforts for peace were undermined and subverted, not by the Russians, but by our own CIA. A U-2 was 'mysteriously was sent into Soviet air space and shot down on May Day, just before the most important summit conference. The pilot, Francis Gary Powers was captured wearing a US Air Force flight suit carrying his Air Force ID. That violated U-2 program protocol. The CIA and the Department of Defense (DOD) had spent millions of dollars sterilizing aircraft and equipment used in clandestine operations, so that anyone who might uncover an operation would be unable, under reasonable circumstances, to trace it positively to its true origin.

When CIA chief Allen Dulles was questioned during hearings held before the Committee on Foreign Relations, he was asked:

Gore: You [Dulles] have told this Committee that you received this approval [for the Powers flight] or authority after April ninth. [There had been a previous successful U-2 flight over the USSR on April 9, 1960.]

Dulles: That is my recollection.

Gore: . . . from whom did you receive this authorization, who were the parties, and was the President one of them?

Dulles: Well, we had a group.

The incident so enraged and incensed Ike that it prompted him to make the most provocative speech that any President had ever made. It was a thinly veiled damning of his own country...his final farewell address where he warned:

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

That same mission for peace with the Soviet Union, an order to withdraw 1,000 military personnel from Vietnam by the end of 1963, plans to end our military involvement in Vietnam after securing a second term and secret talks to normalize relations with Cuba cost Ike's successor, John F. Kennedy his life.

Link

Link

 

[numan]

Did anyone consider why after a very successful 8 years as President, Ike felt compelled to make this speech?

Eisenhower was close to Détente with Khrushchev and the Russians in 1960 until his efforts for peace were undermined and subverted, not by the Russians, but by our own CIA. A U-2 was 'mysteriously was sent into Soviet air space and shot down on May Day, just before the most important summit conference.

I was in high school when the U-2 Incident happened. It was my first introduction to American Totalitarianism.

All through the 50's, American military planes "strayed" into Soviet territory, and the government always proclaimed that these events were "accidents" -- how barbarous the Soviets were to claim otherwise -- since it would be Un-American deliberately to fly into another country's airspace without permission (and people back then were so naive that they actually believed such guff). When Powers was shot down, the mass media vociferated the same line -- it was a "flight error" not an incursion, as those lying Russkies were saying. Then Krushchev produced unequivocal proof that it was a deliberate over-flight spy mission.

I will never forget how the mass media all turned on a dime, almost from one hour to the next. Now it was Un-American not to invade the Soviet Union and spy on them. All the blame was on the Russians, for being so secretive and hiding their affairs, so that the virtuous USA was compelled to break international law!!

It was obvious to me, even as a student, that there was a master control over our "free press" that enabled propaganda to be co-ordinated instantly and speak with one Totalitarian Voice.

I had already read George Orwell's 1984, and the spectacle of the media and the "talking heads" turning from one extreme to the other, instantly, with no dissenting voices, made a great impression on me.

It was for all the world like the great scene in 1984 where a Hate Rally is being held again their Enemy, Eurasia -- and praising their ally, East Asia.

A note is brought to the screaming orator; he reads it, and without breaking the stride of his speech, now the name East Asia is that of their enemy, and Eurasia is their ally!!

Such is a totalitarian state, and I have seen the Brainwashing Machine of the USA do it over and over in the succeeding decades, but never with the speed, unanimity and total flip-floping from one extreme to the other as happened with the U-2 Incident.
.