gipper
Diamond Member
- Jan 8, 2011
- 73,152
- 39,715
- 2,605
No I do not. I do know that big centralized government always lies...and you should too. History shouts it to you...are you listening?
Did a right winger kill Kennedy???
- Thread starter healthmyths
- Start date
No I do not. I do know that big centralized government always lies...and you should too. History shouts it to you...are you listening?
Soupnazi630
Gold Member
- Dec 9, 2013
- 19,251
- 5,663
- 265
No government can always lie anymore than a government can always tell the truth.
The government proved throuhg evidence that OSwald killed Kennedy no evidence proves a conspiracy it is that simple.
Yes corruption and lies byt the government in some cases are irrefutable such as Watergate.
But one has nothing to do with the other
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
You clearly don't know anything about the Kennedy assassination do you?
The Warren Commission was a ruse set up by Johnson and FBI Director J Edgar Hoover to prevent Congressional investigations into the assassination. The Warren Commission did no investigating of the assassination. They relied totally of the FBI for 'evidence'.
Johnson, Hoover and the Justice Dept decided the outcome of the Warren Commission the moment Oswald was silenced.
Oswald did not act alone (the physical, ballistic and forensic evidence proves more than one gunman), but the government decided 3 days after the assassination of President Kennedy and one day after the killing of Oswald that Oswald MUST be the lone assassin.
Memo from the Attorney General's office to the White House:
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
Mad_Cabbie
Gold Member
- Banned
- #125
No, it isn't. What's overwhelming is that an endless supply of inane humans will not let it go.
It has been debunked at every turn.
Mad_Cabbie
Gold Member
- Banned
- #126
I remember how Vietnam started ramping up when Kennedy took office. Going from 400 'military advisors' to 16,000 is quite an increase in 3 years.
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
Read the Katzenbach memo in post 123. three days after Kennedy's assassination the highest levels of government are telling you how the official government version was going to turn out...'Oswald acting alone'
If you are a cognizant adult, you could probably figure out that 'Oswald acting alone' is the only version the government could endorse. To say otherwise would:
A) Reign criticism on J Edgar Hoover's beloved FBI for not knowing about Oswald, especially since a month and a half before the assassination two Lee Harvey Oswald's showed up at the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City, one real and one an imposter.
B) Mean that assassins were still at large and our government has no idea who they are, how many there are and where to find them.
C) America would be the laughing stock of the world. We couldn't even prevent a coup d'état at high noon on a busy urban street.
gipper
Diamond Member
- Jan 8, 2011
- 73,152
- 39,715
- 2,605
Our government decided who killed Kennedy, before investigating the event.
One would think this little bit of factual information would clue in those who blindly accept the government's conclusion. But...no.
Last edited:
Soupnazi630
Gold Member
- Dec 9, 2013
- 19,251
- 5,663
- 265
You have it quote vackwards the evidence of a conspiracy is non existent.
No one has yet to produce evidnece proving anything dishonest about the Warren Commission report.
Soupnazi630
Gold Member
- Dec 9, 2013
- 19,251
- 5,663
- 265
Actually I would state that I know far more about the Warren Commission report than you do.
The Warren Commission report conducted one of the most exhaustive and comprehensive investigations in criminal history.
They relied on far more than the FBI as you claim that is proven by looking at their evidence.
The physical, ballistic, and forensic evidence all proves Oswald shot Kennedy. The vast majority of the eyewitnesses supports all of that evidence.
The Commission followed the evidence to a logical conclusion they did not start out or set out to determine Oswald was the lone shootetr they actually pursued all leads even those which at first implicated an accomplice. Only to find no evidence of one.
The Memo clearly proves what I am stating it does not prove a conspiracy nor does it prove a government effort to decieve anyone/ The author was giving advice based on what was known wand what was known was that Oswald shot Kennedy. Katzenbach was not in charge and gave no orders. Others did and they prove you wrong.
It is obvious you have never read the warren Commission reprot and have no idea what is contained in it.
Your assertions are only beliefs and facts prove you wrong
gipper
Diamond Member
- Jan 8, 2011
- 73,152
- 39,715
- 2,605
I did not state the WC report was dishonest. It was however incomplete at best and a cover up at worst.
Why did the docs at Parkland initially say JFK had an exit wound in the back of of his head only to recant later? How exactly does an ER doctor misdiagnose an exit wound in the president's head?
daws101
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #135
hey cabbie I and everyone else that is not mentally damaged have used that piece of conclusive evidence ,but as you will find facts and evidence have no meaning to CTers..you could try this ... [ame=http://youtu.be/SjrupSwqrAs]JFK Inside The Target Car Part 4 - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://youtu.be/EoMY0eR3eEs]JFK Inside The Target Car Part 3 - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://youtu.be/8MNj8S0A_T4]JFK Inside The Target Car Part 2 - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://youtu.be/e246B581jHo]JFK Inside The Target Car Part 1 - YouTube[/ame]
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
The Warren Commission apparently did not have the sort of cooperative relationship with the FBI one might have wished for in so important an investigation. The evidence, the House Select Committee on Assassinations discovered, indicates that Hoover viewed the Warren Commission more as an adversary than a partner in a search for the facts of the assassination. The HSCAs chief counsel, Robert Blakey, an experienced criminal investigator and prosecutor himself, was impressed with neither the Commissions vigor nor its independence from the FBI. What was significant, Blakey has written, was the ability of the FBI to intimidate the Commission, in light of the bureaus predisposition on the questions of Oswalds guilt and whether there had been a conspiracy.
At a January 27 [1964] Commission meeting, there was another dialogue [among Warren Commissioners]:
John McCloy: the time is almost overdue for us to have a better perspective of the FBI investigation than we now have We are so dependent on them for our facts .
Commission counsel J. Lee Rankin: Part of our difficulty in regard to it is that they have no problem. They have decided that no one else is involved .
Senator Richard Russell: They have tried the case and reached a verdict on every aspect.
Senator Hale Boggs: You have put your finger on it. (Closed Warren Commission meeting.)
FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover
(LBJ Library Photo)
Hoover may have succeeded in intimidating the Commission by employing one of his favorite dirty tricks. [D]erogatory information pertaining to both Commission members and staff was brought to Mr. Hoovers attention, the Church Committee discovered. During an appearance before the HSCA in 1977, no less than Warren Commission chief counsel J. Lee Rankin sheepishly conceded, Who could protest against what Mr. Hoover did back in those days? Apparently not even presidential appointees.
Thus, with the exposes of the Church and Select Committees, the government has itself granted one of the more potent criticisms of Warren Commission skeptics: that its final conclusions had been determined even before work had commenced. Looked at this way, the reasons for the Commissions inattention to clear conflicts in the medical and autopsy evidence can be seen as of a piece with the Commissions general disinterest in anyone other than Oswald, an orientation that is well explored in the works of skeptics such as Sylvia Meagher, Harold Weisberg, Josiah Thompson, Henry Hurt, Peter Dale Scott, Robert Blakey, etc.
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
If the shot came from the 6th floor of the TSDB, struck the back of President Kennedy's head at a downward angle, where is the exit wound that would be in his face???
He was shot in the temple (just like Asst. Press Secretary Malcolm Kilduff shows after talking to the Parkland doctors)
And the back of his head was blown out, just like Dr. McClelland shows in the sketch he drew and the picture, along with about 20 other Parkland doctors, nurses and medical assistants saw.
ROBERT McCLELLAND, MD: "...I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered...so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out...." (WC--V6:33)
He was shot in the temple (just like Asst. Press Secretary Malcolm Kilduff shows after talking to the Parkland doctors)
And the back of his head was blown out, just like Dr. McClelland shows in the sketch he drew and the picture, along with about 20 other Parkland doctors, nurses and medical assistants saw.
ROBERT McCLELLAND, MD: "...I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered...so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out...." (WC--V6:33)
Soupnazi630
Gold Member
- Dec 9, 2013
- 19,251
- 5,663
- 265
The Warren Commission apparently did not have the sort of cooperative relationship with the FBI one might have wished for in so important an investigation. The evidence, the House Select Committee on Assassinations discovered, indicates that Hoover viewed the Warren Commission more as an adversary than a partner in a search for the facts of the assassination. The HSCAs chief counsel, Robert Blakey, an experienced criminal investigator and prosecutor himself, was impressed with neither the Commissions vigor nor its independence from the FBI. What was significant, Blakey has written, was the ability of the FBI to intimidate the Commission, in light of the bureaus predisposition on the questions of Oswalds guilt and whether there had been a conspiracy.
At a January 27 [1964] Commission meeting, there was another dialogue [among Warren Commissioners]:
John McCloy: the time is almost overdue for us to have a better perspective of the FBI investigation than we now have We are so dependent on them for our facts .
Commission counsel J. Lee Rankin: Part of our difficulty in regard to it is that they have no problem. They have decided that no one else is involved .
Senator Richard Russell: They have tried the case and reached a verdict on every aspect.
Senator Hale Boggs: You have put your finger on it. (Closed Warren Commission meeting.)
FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover
(LBJ Library Photo)
Hoover may have succeeded in intimidating the Commission by employing one of his favorite dirty tricks. [D]erogatory information pertaining to both Commission members and staff was brought to Mr. Hoovers attention, the Church Committee discovered. During an appearance before the HSCA in 1977, no less than Warren Commission chief counsel J. Lee Rankin sheepishly conceded, Who could protest against what Mr. Hoover did back in those days? Apparently not even presidential appointees.
Thus, with the exposes of the Church and Select Committees, the government has itself granted one of the more potent criticisms of Warren Commission skeptics: that its final conclusions had been determined even before work had commenced. Looked at this way, the reasons for the Commissions inattention to clear conflicts in the medical and autopsy evidence can be seen as of a piece with the Commissions general disinterest in anyone other than Oswald, an orientation that is well explored in the works of skeptics such as Sylvia Meagher, Harold Weisberg, Josiah Thompson, Henry Hurt, Peter Dale Scott, Robert Blakey, etc.
What you have here is an opinion of how Hoover was uncooperative with the WC not evidence that the WC was wrong.
Hoover had an empire to defrend and yes he was embarressed by the fact that the FBI dropped the ball and failed to identify Oswald as a threat when they had the chance.
Hoover was well known for defending the FBI ( his little kingdom ) above all else. This does not however prove the Warren Commission wrong or prove a conspiracy.
Even the House select Committee on Assasinations tried to have it both ways by defending the Warren Commision in their conclusion and claiming a probable conspiracy.
The probable conspiracy was based on one and only one piece of evidence which was then proven false thus also proving their conclusion wrong.
Once again many people have opinions about the Warren Commission but noone has yet to offer any evidence proving them wrong
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Pete Rose banned from baseball for a second time after dying- Started by Votto
- Replies: 0
-
Majority of US companies say they have to raise prices due to Trump tariffs- Started by Tommy Tainant
- Replies: 11
-
-
