General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJFK Conference: Amazing Day of Information and Connecting with Good People
Thursday at "Passing the Torch: An International Symposium on the 50th Anniversary of the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy" concentrated on the evidence: medical and physical, including photograpic and acoustic information that matches up, despite what cable tee vee etc say. Speakers and their presentations included:
Larry J. Sabato: "Why the Study of the JFK Assassination Continues...and Should"
Josiah Thompson: "Last Second in Dallas: A Micro-Study of the Assassination"
Robert J. Groden: "Absolute Proof: A Photographic Analysis of the JFK Assassination"
Donald Thomas: "Double Talk: Synchronization of teh Acoustical Evidence and the JFK Assassination"
Cyril H. Wecht: "The President's Autopsy: A Forensice Pathological and Medical-Legal Critique"
Robert N. McClelland: "The View from Trauma Room One"
Two I was going to see at concercurrent times as some of the above, but a question from avaistheone reminded me of the importance of the acoustical evidence decided things for me.
Timothy A. Nicholson: "An Acoustic Analysis of Witness Reports in the JFK Assassination (A Gunman Near JFK?)"
Jeffrey Sundberg, "Imaging Properties of the Bell & Howell 414PD Camera and Impolications for Authenticity of the Zapruder Film"
The evening featured a special session at the Heinz History Center: "The JFK Assassination and the Media." Panelists included: Russ Baker, Jefferson Morley, Lisa Pease, Jerry Policoff, Oliver Stone, and David Talbot. Sally Wiggin was host.
I'll report in full when I can. Just want to say that Dr. McClelland spoke to us via computer linkup. He was one of the surgeons on duty at Parkland Memorial Hospital who treated President Kennedy.
Dr. McClelland walked into the ER a few moments after the ER physician had initially received the President. Dr. McClelland and several other surgeons and an anaesthesiologisgt tried to stabilize the President, but the head wounds were so severe -- the rear half of the right hemisphere of the cerebrum was missing. As he watched, part of the cerebullum fell out of the back of the President's skull.
The doctor was asked by a neurologist attending the conference if he had difficulty evaluating the president's wounds, seeing how the patient was facing up and the back of his head was where the worst wounds may have not been visible, or that he may have erred in his recollection based on his attention being elsewhere that day.
Dr. McClelland said: "I was about 18-inches over the President's head for about seven or eight minuts." I paid more attention to that than anything I've paid attention to in my life."
Sorry this is so bare bones. I've been going full-speed since 6 a.m. Thursday. Got to my room at 11:45 p.m. Will provide more details on this and Friday's agenda.
More than a few people I met -- panelists and attendees -- indicated the importance of DU as a Truth Machine.
2naSalit
(86,647 posts)for the update as it is for now. I do hope your are gleaning info you have wanted to know. I am interested in hearing more! My father knew the Kennedy family, grew up down the road from the compound and delivered their mail and milk on Martha's Vineyard when they were all alive... Joe Jr, John, Bobby, Ted...
Just in case you hadn't heard, Caroline Kennedy was confirmed as our ambassador to Japan this week.
Can't wait to hear more.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)They could've all taken the easy road and live lives of luxury, like the Bush men.
Joe, Jr. for example, after completing two tours as a Navy B-24 pilot on anti-submarine patrol volunteered for Project APHRODITE:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1305396
One never hears his heroism mentioned on Corporate McPravda.
PS: Thank you for sharing your story about your family. Please share more memories with us about those dsyd, 2naSalit.
MinM
(2,650 posts)Last edited Sat Oct 19, 2013, 03:03 PM - Edit history (2)
Of course the fact that most people recognized their greatness helps to explain why fascists like the Birchers and their ilk had to stop them. Which is also why today we're stuck with clowns like the Kochs.
More on the Kennedys (plus a poor quality video of a great speech)...
By TIMOTHY EGAN :: The New York Times
DUBLIN Oscar Wilde still lounges, louche-like, on a boulder in Merrion Square. As always, the Liffey, a river crossed by bridges named for playwrights and patriots, lumbers its way to the sea. Grafton Street is packed with moneyed pedestrians. But Irish ayes are missing.
The Gathering, as they call this year, is a campaign backed by the government and the tourism industry to induce the clamorous clans of Erin to pay a visit here. Given that half the world is Irish and the other half wants to be, in Bill Clintons phrase, its an easy sell.
Yet, what should be a year of discovery, a diaspora of 70 million summoned to the home of their not-so-distant ancestors, is clouded by a bittersweet anniversary. Fifty years ago the last king of Ireland, President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, came to the land of his great-grandfather Patrick. A few months later, he was gone, shot by an assassin in Dallas...
Kennedy was mobbed. Over several days, he delighted a lyrical people with his wit and his one-liners. He charmed old ladies, nuns and schoolgirls. He lifted hearts by his very presence: here was the leader of the free world, the descendant of people who fled a famine that killed a million Irish. To see what time and good fortune had done to produce that youthful leader was to believe that anything was possible...
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20557
Famous Kennedy speech in New Ross in 1963 was only 300 words
Keep up the great work Octafish.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)We miss you still, Jack.
MinM
(2,650 posts)on the video.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)in what the Doctor who was actually there, has to say.
How exciting to be there. And how great for DU that you can report on this very important event.
Looking forward to when you have time to give us a full report. Meantime, have as much fun as you can.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)His tone of voice was matter-of-factual. His recollection clear and erudite. A great physician, a great man and a great American - integrity.
I will post details and an image when I get back to my computer.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)dougolat
(716 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Friday Agenda
Mark Lane: "The Secret Service and the Assassination of JFK"
Joan Mellen: "Clay Shaw Unmasked: The Garrison Case Corroborated"
Rex Bradford: "Politcal Assassinations Revealed: The Church Committee"
William E. Kelly, Jr.: "Forensic Analysis of the Air Force One Tapes"
Dan Hardway: "A View from the Trenches: The HSCA and the CIA"
Panel: Mark Lane, Joan Mellen, Rex Bradford, Robert K. Tanenbaum, James H. Lesar, Dan Hardway, moderator: Daniel S. Alcorn.
Oliver Stone: "Untold History"
Two sessions that I did not attend which ran concurrently:
Robert K. Tanenbaum: "An Analysis of Government Misconduct: The House Select Committee on Assassinations"
James H. Lesar: "Reviewing the Assassination Records Review Board: An Uncertain Legacy"
Suich
(10,642 posts)Fascinating!
Thanks, Octafish!
Octafish
(55,745 posts)GOOGLE most any of the speakers and their subject areas and the results are astounding.
Oliver Stone explains how Jim Garrison was on the right trail...
Jim Garrison, the KGB, and the CIA
An open letter to Foreign Affairs magazine
by Oliver Stone
The Nation magazine, August 5 /12, 2002
Last fall, Nation contributing editor Max Holland wrote an article for the ClA publication Studies in Intelligence asserting that former New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison was duped by a KGB disinformation operation that led him, along with most Americans, to believe that the CIA had been involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.
This spring, Foreign Affairs magazine published a generous review of Hollands article. As co-writers of the film JFK, we sent a reply to Foreign Affairs. The editors refused to publish it. We offered to pay for an ad, but Foreign Affairs again refused.
For the record, here is our reply:
Dear Editors of Foreign Affairs,
Philip Zelikow's review of Max Holland's recent article in the CIA publication Studies in Intelligence is a disservice to your readers. Zelikow uncritically accepts Holland's theory that a KGB disinformation operation back in 1967 is at the root of most Americans' current belief that the CIA was involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.
Holland's thesis rests on one unproven premise: that the KGB planted a false story in March 1967 in Paese Sera, an Italian leftwing newspaper. The story reported that Clay Shaw, then recently charged with conspiracy to assassinate the President, was a board member of Centro Mondiale Comerciale (CMC), an organization that had been forced out of Italy amid charges that it was a CIA money-laundering front.
The problem Zelikow ignores is that Holland's only evidence to support his premise is one handwritten note by a KGB defector named Vasili Mitrokhin that "refers to a disinformation scheme in 1967 that involved Paese Sera and resulted in publication of a false story in New York." The note, supposedly summarizing a KGB document that Holland has never seen, does not mention Clay Shaw, Centro Mondiale Comerciale, Jim Garrison, or any specific New York publication.
Holland speculates that the New York publication may have been the National Guardian, which based an article on the Paese Sera series. But one short article in an obscure left-wing weekly that routinely picked up stories from the international press does not seem like much of an accomplishment for a KGB disinformation operation. There is no evidence that the Guardian article was picked up anywhere else in the U.S.
Rather than speculate, Holland might have tried to interview the editors of Paese Sera who were responsible for the articles on Centro Mondiale Comerciale, as scholar Joan Mellen has done for her forthcoming biography of Garrison. They would have told him that the six-part series had nothing to do with the KGB or the JFK assassination, that they had never heard of Jim Garrison when they assigned the story six months before, and that they were astonished to see that Shaw might have any connection to the assassination. The articles were actually assigned in the wake of a right-wing coup in Greece and were intended to prevent such a coup in Italy.
Holland says "everything in the Paese Sera story was a lie." His evidence? A recently released CIA document saying that the Agency itself looked into Paese Sera's allegations. and found that the CIA had no connection to CMC or its parent Permindex. Holland may be willing to accept this as the whole truth, but it is unconvincing to the rest of us who have noticed the Agency's tendency to distance itself from its fronts, to release to the public only documents that serve its interest, to fabricate evidence, and to lie outright even under oath to congressional committees.
Two important facts from the Paese Sera story remain true:1. CMC was forced to leave Italy (for Johannesburg, South Africa) in 1962 under a cloud of suspicion about its CIA connections.
2. Clay Shaw was a member of CMC's board, along with such well-known fascist sympathizers as Gutierrez di Spadaforo, undersecretary of agriculture for Mussolini; Ferenc Nagy, former premier of Hungary, and Giuseppe Zigiotti, president of the Fascist National Association for Militia Arms.
Holland claims that the Paese Sera articles were what led Garrison to believe the CIA was involved in the assassination. This is nonsense. Garrison's book On the Trail of the Assassins describes in detail how his uncovering of various pieces of evidence actually led him to the conclusion that the CIA was involved. This gradual process began two days after the assassination when he questioned David Ferrie, a pilot who flew secret missions to Cuba for the CIA and trained Lee Harvey Oswald in his Civil Air Patrol unit. It included his investigation of a 1961 raid of a munitions cache by CIA operatives in Houma, Louisiana; the discovery that several of Oswald's co-workers at Reily Coffee Company in New Orleans now worked at NASA; the fact that Oswald was working out of an office that was running the CIA's local training camp for Operation Mongoose; many eyewitnesses who saw Clay Shaw, David Ferrie and Oswald together, etc. No doubt the Paese Sera series was another piece of the puzzle for Garrison, but it was not the centerpiece of his thinking that Holland makes it out to be.
From the moment his investigation of the JFK assassination became public, Garrison was pilloried in the press. This treatment was part of an orchestrated effort by the CIA to discredit critics of the Warren Commission. A CIA memo dated April 1, 1967, never mentioned by Holland or Zelikow, outlines the strategy and calls for the Agency's "assets" in the media (writers and editors) to publish stories saying the critics were politically motivated, financially motivated, egomaniacal, sloppy in their research, supported the Soviet Union, etc. This is exactly the inaccurate portrait of Garrison that emerged in the press.
With the publication of Holland's recent article attempting to link Jim Garrison to the KGB, the CIA continues to pursue this misguided strategy of smearing Garrison and other critics of the Warren Commission. Fortunately, the American public has never bought the tired old lie that the CIA's misadventures can be written off as figments of KGB disinformation. Too bad your critic did.
Oliver Stone and Zachary Sklar co-writers of the film JFK
Seems like even liberal stalwarts aren't all that keen about keeping the facts about investigations into the assassination of President Kennedy straight.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)in General Discussion?
You did get permission to solicit donations to get you there. I saw that. And I also saw that you did not solicit donations, but you did announce that you were going there. All good.
But it seems to me that you are now posting about conspiracy theories in General Discussion, something completely against the SOP of this forum. And I don't see your link to where you got permission from the administrators to do this.
I do invite you to post these reports where they belong here at DU: Creative Speculation. This is not censorship. This is using DU as it was intended, using it according to the Terms of Service you and I and every other member of DU agreed to when we signed up to post at Democratic Underground.
Why not follow the rules, Octafish?
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)You are behaving like a bully. The government's own investigation in 1979 after reviewing the findings of the Warren Commission and after studying additional information stated the Kennedy assassination was likely the result of a conspiracy. This is a historical fact, and not tinfoil hat stuff. You would do better to educate yourself rather than harass others who are trying to have a reasonable discussion about the facts and the most recent expert findings regarding the JFK assassination. This topic belongs in General Discussion, and if you don't like it here please ignore our conversation.
Summary of Findings and Recommendations
2. Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations.
3. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy.
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/summary.html
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)This is not bullying. This is a request to move this topic to the place it belongs here: Creative Speculation.
The Dictabelt evidence has long been shown to be interpreted incorrectly. It's the only thing the HSCA could point to and conclude conspiracy. Since it's bullshit, the HSCA conclusion of conspiracy is bullshit.
And the discussion of this and all other JFK assassination CT belongs in Creative Speculation.
PDittie
(8,322 posts)Didin't Sabato just write a book on that?
http://www.ibtimes.com/jfk-assassination-new-book-reportedly-debunks-conspiracy-theory-proves-lee-harvey-oswald-acted-alone
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)reddread
(6,896 posts)blow any Warren Commission friendly explanations out of the water.
back and to the left.
what a sad spectacle people will make of themselves.
http://www.wf.net/~biles/jfk/delgado.htm
sorry to make your efforts so transparent here in GD.
no noisy "leftists" get into DLIFC before "defecting" to the USSR with
absolute background in the U2 program, and back in again with
NO debriefing alleged?
Who is supposed to be THAT stupid?
really?
who?
thats some threshold of deniability.
http://www.assassinationweb.com/newman1.htm
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...I was 16 at the time and while I was interested in politics, I had no inkling of things like CIA deep cover operations etc. The newspapers reported on Oswald -- among other things, that he had "defected" to Russia, that he had married a Russian woman, and then he was allowed back in the US -- it was all reported in a very flat, ho-hum manner, as if all of this were perfectly normal. Even with my lack of experience or knowledge in such matters, it all sounded very fishy to me at the time. There has never been a satisfactory explanation of Oswald's status and none of the official story vis a vis Oswald ever made sense. Same for Jack Ruby, whose story was of course quite different. One might ask, for instance, how in the hell Ruby ever got close enough to Oswald to shoot him? But then I guess one would be a conspiracy theorist for asking such questions.
reddread
(6,896 posts)I dont care how many people get killed, I just want a higher quality cover-up!
these pathetic measures insult everyone's intelligence.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)1. Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at President John F. Kennedy. The second and third shots he fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President.
a. President Kennedy was struck by two rifle shots fired from behind him.
b. The shots that struck President Kennedy from behind him were fired from the sixth floor window of the southeast corner of the Texas School Book Depository building.
c. Lee Harvey Oswald owned the rifle that was used to fire the shots from the sixth floor window of the southeast comer of the Texas School Book Depository building.
d. Lee Harvey Oswald, shortly before the assassination, had access to and was present on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository building.
e. Lee Harvey Oswald's other actions tend to support the conclusion that he assassinated President Kennedy.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)instead of coming in to leave useless comments.
I know, I know, it's the internet and manners don't come into play, but, really...
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)Furthermore, I don't understand why disagreement on a topic like this is such a sin in a discussion group. It's not advocating for Republicans to be in office. Believing conspiracy theories is not a litmus test for liberalism or progressive politics.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)if you don't believe any of it? That would be like me hosting the Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity group.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)It's where discussions about conspiracy theories go. People who are interested in the subject (like me) can be hosts.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)huge respect here on DU over the years. I don't believe I noticed you until very recently so have zero idea of your opinions on issues.
In this thread you have expressed no opinion on the topic itself, which has generated huge interest around the globe.
You've made your point and it has been rejected by a majority here. DU runs according to standards set by the community. It appears you lost. It happens. Sometimes we just are not in tune with everyone else and when that happens, it's best not to belabor the point.
I asked you a question airc, directly related to the topic of the OP. I'll ask it again, a lot of people are asking btw.
What is your opinion of the ER Doctor, who appears to have an impeccable reputation, who has reported the facts of what he saw that day? This is extremely persuasive testimony to millions of people who have read it. But you have not offered your opinion.
And, btw, this is related to REpublicans, very, very much so.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)Sabrina. We've talked over 9/11 Truth conspiracy threads several times, so please drop this pretense of having just noticed me.
"My opinion on issues"? Is that a cute little way of implying I may not be a liberal Democrat? Sorry to disappoint you on that front - I've been a Democrat all my life. I've supported liberal, progressive, and Democratic issues from the age of reason. I hope that will satisfy you and lead you to drop that particular bit of silliness.
DU does run according to standards agreed to by the community. Allow me to quote from some of them:
Democratic Underground is not intended to be a platform for kooks and crackpots peddling paranoid fantasies with little or no basis in fact. To accommodate our more imaginative members we tolerate some limited discussion of so-called "conspiracy theories" under the following circumstances: First, those discussions are not permitted in our heavily-trafficked Main forums; and second, those discussions cannot stray too far into Crazyland (eg: chemtrails, black helicopters, 9/11 death rays or holograms, the "New World Order," the Bilderbergers, the Illuminati, the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons, alien abduction, Bigfoot, and the like). In addition, please be aware that many conspiracy theories have roots in racism and anti-semitism, and Democratic Underground has zero tolerance for bigoted hate speech. In short, you take your chances.
That's from the Terms of Service. That's something that every member of this community agreed to when signing up for posting privileges here at Democratic Underground. Perhaps you weren't aware of that when you signed up. Perhaps you skipped on down and pressed Agree without reading. But there's a link on the bottom of every page here at DU where you can go and read it now.
Again I quote:
Discuss politics, issues, and current events. No posts about Israel/Palestine, religion, guns, showbiz, or sports unless there is really big news. No conspiracy theories. No whining about DU.
That's the statement of purpose for General Discussion. Do you see the part about "no conspiracy theories"? That's in accordance with the Terms of Service which say, "First, those discussions are not permitted in our heavily-trafficked Main forums." That is precisely why the Creative Speculation group was set up, so that these "limited discussions" can take place here at DU.
If you would like to discuss Dr. McClelland, I would be happy to - in Creative Speculation. Not here in General Discussion.
Because those are the standards of this community. If you do not like the standards of this community, you are free to petition the administrators to change these standards or you are free not to post. Or, quite frankly, you are free to violate them as much as you like. But if the third is your choice or Octafish's or anyone else's, you will find me here challenging you to abide by the community standards and inviting you to take the discussion to Creative Speculation where it belongs.
Choose peace. Choose respect. Choose civility. Choose to have this discussion in Creative Speculation.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)That would be the only reason I would feel the need to go to a fun forum called Creative Speculation to talk about him. Since he is not, I will decline your offer and stay right here. I don't frequent CT forums, I am interested in facts.
This OP belongs right where it is. The Conference if real. The questions people have will NOT go away or be relegated to some basement, not among people who live in the Real World.
I have no doubts about your being a Democrat. My reference to Republicans had to do with the assassination of JFK.
Why are you in a thread that you have no interest in, that was my question. There are literally dozens of threads I have no interest in and I solve the problem by ignoring them.
You can't force anyone to see things your way. It is a futile effort so I don't understand why anyone would put so much effort into trying.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)If he were a figment of the imagination, discussing him would be equivalent to 9/11 death rays and chemtrails. And that level of discussion is not allowed here at all.
The subject of who carried out JFK's assassination is discussed in Creative Speculation. If I were to do a post on how and why Lee Harvey Oswald did it, I would post it in Creative Speculation. In fact, I did. If I posted on why Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone or why there was no conspiracy behind JFK's death (or Oswald's death for that matter), I would post it in Creative Speculation. In fact, I did. That's because the subject of who, how, and why JFK was killed is rife with conspiracy theory. I'm quite certain Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, but I don't see DU standards and terms allowing me to post what I consider to be fact about his death in GD.
So even though you and Octafish and many others believe that a conspiracy killing JKF is reality, posting about it here in GD is against the terms you signed up to honor when you became a member here. The subject is relegated to Creative Speculation. If this sticks in your craw, then don't post here about JFK's death. You are always welcome to do so in Creative Speculation. That's what the group is for.
Considering Creative Speculation a dungeon or a basement is something you project onto it. You could just as easily consider it a stage.
I am in this thread because I am interested in the subject. If that was your question, it's now answered. I'm quite interested in discussing the subject. But I try my utmost to do so only in Creative Speculation, because I respect the terms of service and the statements of purpose for the various forums and groups. But as long as you refuse to discuss JFK's assassination in Creative Speculation, we are at an impasse. All I have outside the group is pointing out your violation of the terms and the SOP.
"You can't force anyone to see things your way. It is a futile effort so I don't understand why anyone would put so much effort into trying."
It's funny. People keep telling me I'm close-minded. And then they keep telling me it's a futile effort to make them see things my way. Who exactly is the closed-minded one here? Fortunately, I'm a little more optimistic than that. I do believe that DU is meant to be a place where liberals and progressives can discuss issues in as far as they agree and work to overcome any disagreement. Why else be here? What finer reason to be here than to make efforts to convince other people of a better way?
Anyway, sabrina 1, Creative Speculation awaits our discussion of Dr. McClelland.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I am not obsessed with this subject, like most Americans I do not believe we have been told the truth.
As I said already, I have commented in this thread and that is all I am interested in doing re this topic.
Octafish is a respected, long time DUer and I always check out his OPs as they are always interesting and factual, backed up by research.
It's not the end of the world when someone posts something you don't like. The Admins have provided so many great tools to make it possible for you to never even see anything that upsets you.
Hamlette
(15,412 posts)and not paying our bills will bring stability to the world market.
you don't help your cause quoting the House of reps.
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)...and when the jury comes back 0-6 to "leave it alone" you will have your answer.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)And it's already been alerted on.
Not by me, BTW.
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)I guess it it wasn't 0-6 then.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)I'm not saying this violates standards of decency. That's what goes to juries. This just belongs in a different forum. If Octafish had posted this in Creative Speculation, it would have been fine. That's the group for people who want to discuss these issues both pro and con.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)before lecturing other DUers about what they should and shouldn't do.
Sid
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)I would keep your comments to yourself, Skippy.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Learn the difference between a Statement of Purpose alert, and a Community Standards alert.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=modsystem
Skippy.
Sid
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)Whatever, man...
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)might as well shut down Creative Speculation, the "no conspiracy theories" section of the General Discussion Statement of Purpose is almost never enforced.
If "who shot JFK" topics aren't conspiracy theories, then nothing is.
Sid
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)Many threads on the following have been allowed to stand in GD:
- "Snowden gave secrets to China / Russia"
- "Prosecutors intended to fail in trial of George Zimmerman"
Currently in GD:
"How the Fast Food Industry Destroyed "Home Ec" to Hook Americans on Processed Crap" with no evidence presented at all.
Should we ban discussion of the Heritage Foundation, the Kochs, Scott Walker, Ted Cruz and the like because they involve speculation of the exact conspiracies these involve?
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)One person's conspiracy is another person's fact. Sinceva majority of Americans don't beleive the official story ofbJFK's assassination, I have no problems readingvthos in GD.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)SamYeager
(309 posts)I learned how to "trash thread" on one earlier about the only medical professional in the room at the time who buys into the cT BS, though.
This thread has been sorta entertaining, though.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)It drives Right Wingers crazy that Dems will never forget the murder of JFK and that a majority of the population here does not believe their official story.
Same way it drives Right Wing extremist SC Justice Scalia crazy when everywhere he goes some Democrat asks him about the theft of the 2000 election.
He hates it and has told them to 'get over it' and called them 'CTs'. Lol, so they keep on asking him.
Anything that annoys right wingers has to be a good thing, in my most humble Democratic opinion.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)Nobody.
I am one of the hosts of Creative Speculation, though, where this topic belongs.
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)So I guess you just can't decide those things. Good college try though.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)and would be welcome in Creative Speculation. I'm glad you think these community standards can be suspended when you think it's OK, but I don't.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)It works fairly well. Or are you trying to save others from things you don't think they want to see (but appearing from the responses here people DO want to see it)?
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)For FSM's sake, I am a host of the Creative Speculation group. It doesn't get much more "I'm interested in reading about the topic" than that.
It's about conspiracy theory discussion not belonging in GD and belonging in CS.
And, once again, it's not about keeping people from seeing things I don't think they want to see or should see or whatever. Asking for something to be posted in the appropriate forum is not hiding it or keeping people from seeing it. I don't think this concept is hard.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)One more thing: To save time, show me where I post anything that's not true -- on this or any other thread.
I've asked you for years and you never do.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=801819
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)Speaking to you here of your errors and mistakes in the JFK assassination narrative would be breaking the rules I am imploring you to honor and follow.
Please stop violating the General Discussion SOP. Creative Speculation stands ready this very minute for you to post these reports and be in harmony with DU Terms of Services as well as the SOP for this forum. You can have this discussion there in the full view of everyone here at DU.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Otherwise you would.
For the record: The only theory discussed at this conference got debunked. It's called the magic bullet theory.
The guy who told me today, Mark Lane, is the lifelong Democratic attorney, former New York state rep, and a personal friend of President Kennedy and Senator Robert Kennedy, has been saying that for nearly five decades.
What's different over the last two days: Almost 20 other people with credentials that establish them as authorities in their own fields presented information supporting that conclusion. Oh, and Duquesne is a top national university, otherwise they wouldn't allow this man to present his conference:
About Cyril H. Wecht
Cyril H. Wecht
Cyril H. Wecht, M.D., J.D., is a forensic pathologist, attorney and medical-legal consultant.
Education
Dr. Wecht received his medical degree from the University of Pittsburgh, and his law degree from the University of Maryland. Dr. Wecht is certified by the American Board of Pathology, in anatomic, clinical, and forensic Pathology, and is also a Fellow of the College of American Pathologists and the American Society of Clinical Pathologists.
Academic Appointments
Cyril H. Wecht is a Clinical Professor at the University of Pittsburgh Schools of Medicine, Dental Medicine, and Graduate School of Public Health, and holds positions as an Adjunct Professor at the Duquesne University School of Law, School of Pharmacy, and School of Health Sciences. He has served as President of the American College of Legal Medicine, the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, and served as Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the American Board of Legal Medicine and the American College of Legal Medicine Foundation. The author of more than 550 professional publications, Dr. Wecht is also an editorial board member of more than 20 national and international medical-legal and forensic scientific publications; editor of the five-volume set, Forensic Sciences (Matthew Bender); co-editor of the two and three-volume sets, Handling Soft Tissue Injury Cases and Preparing and Winning, Medical Negligence Cases (both published by Michie).
Medical-Legal Consultant
Formerly the Chairman of the Department of Pathology at Saint Francis Central Hospital in Pittsburgh, Dr. Wecht is now the President of its medical staff and is actively involved as a medical-legal and forensic science consultant, author, and lecturer. Dr. Wecht has organized and conducted Postgraduate Medical-Legal Seminars in more than fifty countries throughout the world in his capacity as Director of the Pittsburgh Institute of Legal Medicine. He has performed approximately 17,000 autopsies and has supervised, reviewed or has been consulted on approximately 30,000 additional postmortem examinations.
Nationally Acclaimed Forensic Expert
Being an expert in Forensic Medicine, Dr. Wecht has frequently appeared on several nationally syndicated programs discussing various medicolegal and forensic scientific issues, including medical malpractice, drug abuse, the assassinations of both President John F. Kennedy and Senator Robert F. Kennedy, the death of Elvis Presley, the O.J. Simpson case, and the JonBenet Ramsey cases. His expertise has also been utilized in high profile cases involving Mary Jo Kopechne, Sunny von Bulow, Jean Harris, Dr. Jeffrey McDonald, the Waco Branch Davidian fire, and Vincent Foster. A comprehensive study of these cases are discussed from the perspective of Dr. Wecht's own professional involvement in his books, Cause of Death, Grave Secrets, and Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey? (All published by Dutton/Penguin).
What's your resume like, Bolo Boffin?
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)So there's one place you are wrong.
And as one of the hosts, I invite you to post your reports about this conspiracy theory conference in Creative Speculation where they belong. That way you can post and discuss it to your heart's content AND be honoring the rules and standards of Democratic Underground.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Got it. And, no matter what forum you are an authority in, your expertise doesn't stack up to Cyril Wecht. His information belongs in GD.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)Richard Gage is an architect, but his 9/11 CT belongs in Creative Speculation.
Cyril Wecht may be a wonderful person with great stacks of authoritative titles. But if he's talking CT about the JFK assassination, it belongs in CT.
(by the way: others are calling those of us who argue against your CTs the authoritarians. Making an fallacious appeal to authority undermines that attack on us. Get together with your fellow conspiracy theory advocates and get your arguments straight. Thanks!)
Octafish
(55,745 posts)It's because you can't find something wrong with what I did write.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)You are also soaking in an appeal to authority which I also responded to.
I guess it's a sign of the level of respect you have for me that you can pretend with impunity I am not addressing anything you have to say. But for all that, I will continue to address your points, handwave them away though you will.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)If you believe you have some power over me, it is only in your mind.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)Here that subject is some "debunking" of the "magic bullet" theory. You said it happened, I said I was looking forward to your report there, and then you asked why I would bring up something you had not mentioned. The thread is right there for anyone to read and see. How you can deny this is incredible to me, but there it is in black and white.
Of course I have no power over you. I have never implied otherwise. But I do have the power to challenge you when you violate the standards and terms of service here at DU like any member has, and all of your lack of respect of me and all of your insults to me will never, ever change this. For, you see, you have no power over me either.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)And in all that time, you've never shown where I posted something that is not true, Bolo Boffin.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)It shows you are willing to even attack President Obama should he say something that disagrees with your conspiracy talk.
Octafish, I have corrected you several times on things that you post that are not true. You have just provided a link to one of those times: your assertion that Obama contributed to the 9/11 coverup. I am aware that you consider yourself correct. I am aware that you are not persuaded by the things I have to say. But you are wrong nonetheless. Your admission of being wrong is not the standard I need ever judge your rightness or wrongness by.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)If you had found me wrong, you'd have posted it, Bolo Boffin. The fact is you haven't.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)You said he repeated a Bush lie about the Taliban and you then posted a picture of Obama hugging Bush at the inauguration. I do not understand why you feel you can misrepresent something that anyone can go and look at with the link you provided.
Own what you did.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Or you smearing me for something I did not say?
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)you were saying that Obama was the equivalent of Bush. Own what you did. You attacked the President because he said something that offended your 9/11 CT, something about which YOU WERE WRONG. You actually defended the Taliban and attacked President Obama in that thread.
Own what you did. Be proud of it! You did it! Why not admit it?
Octafish
(55,745 posts)So you make shit up about what I wrote. Nice work, Bolo Boffin.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)That's two examples, Octafish.
Own what you did.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)It's sourced, Bolo Boffin, the reason I use links.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)It amazes me that in your view the US government can scarcely be trusted at all, and yet you swallow the Taliban's lies hook, line and sinker.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Why do you believe Bush and his father, who also lied America into war, over what we've since learned, Bolo Boffin?
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)Why do I believe Bush and his father? Because in this case the evidence backs them up. The Taliban would never have handed Osama bin Laden over. It clearly was a stalling effort on their part.
Why do you believe the Taliban, Octafish? You know, the ones that gave Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda safe haven so that they could carry out the 9/11 attacks? Why are you defending them? Answer: because as otherwise heinous as you consider them to be, in this instance you consider them correct. Well, then, Octafish, if you can defend the Taliban on this one point without participating in their many other sins and if you can rightfully decry any attempt to link you with them as a smear, why the hell can't I defend Bush on this one point without you stamping a big BFEE on my forehead?
"over what we've since learned"? Remember, sir, we are speaking about Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda did attack us on 9/11 and the Taliban provided them safe haven. What about Afghanistan have we learned since then to negate that?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Shouldn't you leave that to the hosts of this forum?
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)"Discuss politics, issues, and current events. No posts about Israel/Palestine, religion, guns, showbiz, or sports unless there is really big news. No conspiracy theories. No whining about DU."
Do you see a "big news" exception there for conspiracy theories like there is for I/P, religion, guns, showbiz, or sports? No. It's given the same status as whining about DU. If you go to About this Forum, you'll find a link only - to Creative Speculation.
And while I'm quoting, the Terms of Service we all agreed to when signing up for an account:
Democratic Underground is not intended to be a platform for kooks and crackpots peddling paranoid fantasies with little or no basis in fact. To accommodate our more imaginative members we tolerate some limited discussion of so-called "conspiracy theories" under the following circumstances: First, those discussions are not permitted in our heavily-trafficked Main forums; and second, those discussions cannot stray too far into Crazyland (eg: chemtrails, black helicopters, 9/11 death rays or holograms, the "New World Order," the Bilderbergers, the Illuminati, the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons, alien abduction, Bigfoot, and the like). In addition, please be aware that many conspiracy theories have roots in racism and anti-semitism, and Democratic Underground has zero tolerance for bigoted hate speech. In short, you take your chances.
I don't see how much clearer the administrators could have been. If you'd like to complain about how DU is set up, you'll have to do that somewhere else than General Discussion, I'm afraid.
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)And that still stands. That is why this discussion belongs in GD, and it does Not belong in Creative Speculation.
Just because you can't distinguish the difference between an actual conspiracy and a conspiracy theory doesn't mean a discussion about the Kennedy assassination is Creative Speculation.
Instead of being behaving like a damn broken record, can't you employ some critical thinking here?
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)to be nothing at all. The officer who recorded it was two miles away from the assassination. That recording could not have been the assassination.
Lee Harvey Oswald consulted no one. He shot and killed President Kennedy, wounding Governor Connolly in the process, and then later shot and killed Officer J.D. Tippit all by himself.
And I would be happy to discuss this with you and anyone else in Creative Speculation. Because until you move this discussion to the place where it belongs, a broken record is all you are going to get.
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)Your so called "debunking" has been debunked.
The HSCAs analysis was later called into question by a panel of scientists headed by Norman Ramsey. But that debunking has itself been called into serious question by the re-analysis of scientist D.B. Thomas, described most thoroughly in his book Hear No Evil.
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Acoustics_Evidence
The interview is a general introduction to Thomas' work on the acoustics evidence, and discusses the sequence of the shots in Dealey Plaza as laid down on the police dictabelt.
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Unredacted_-_Episode_4
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)Pay attention and do your homework: The Kennedy assassination was a conspiracy. It is NOT a conspiracy theory.
Read the findings of the 1979 House Select Committee on Assassinations and get back to me.
Hence this topic does not belong in Creative Speculation no matter how much you pout about it.
Can you stop playing little Napoleon now?
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)You, poor little Napoleon. I'll send you a Hallmark. Hope you feel better soon.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)mattclearing
(10,091 posts)Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)Despite the poster's assertion otherwise, the HSCA conclusion of conspiracy is based on a single piece of evidence - the Dictabelt - that has had serious questions raised about its applicability. This is the only reason the HSCA went for conspiracy, something the Department of Justice rebuked them for after their own review of the HSCA's procedures.
Without the Dictabelt, the HSCA conclusion falls. And the Dictabelt isn't credible. A discussion of this topic belongs in Creative Speculation.
mattclearing
(10,091 posts)Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)mattclearing
(10,091 posts)Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
mattclearing
(10,091 posts)Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)mattclearing
(10,091 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)In any case of murder, there will be supporting evidence and other somewhat questionable evidence but when it's all put together if there is enough evidence to point to a reasonable conclusion, that is what matters. And that is the case here. That is why a majority of the people still do not believe the 'official story'. It's just a fact and I don't understand why it matters so much to some people what or why the majority believes what they believe, to be honest.
But it sure isn't a CT when a doctor who was actually there offers this kind of testimony, and has never wavered over the years. The question I have, is why was he ignored??
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)of the ER Doctor who has apparently never wavered from his original testimony from 50 years ago.
There's an old saying 'The truth never changes'. We have seen 'changes' in much of the official story, but this Doctor has been completely consistent for 50 years now.
H2O Man
(73,559 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)You belong in Uncreative Specialization.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3886737
REASON FOR ALERT:
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS:
Personal attack.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Oct 19, 2013, 08:05 PM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: This is not worth reporting. It is a bit short, a bit crisp, but then it is in response to a DUer who was going on and on off topic.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Y
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)Nice to know I can be openly insulted without fear of reprisal here at a community I've been part of since 2002.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)And, you know all about keeping the crazy out of posts, cause you pointed it out to everyone several times.
Now, if you can dish it out, then you ought to not be insulted when someone points out rightfully what you also do here.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)That's not paranoia. That's what happened.
People can describe my actions here without being insulting, MrMickeysMom. You should try it sometime.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Really... you should not be so paranoid.
When I fuck up, I've admitted it (I don't like to, but, really, who does?)
When you fuck up and someone calls you out on it, you cry.
Don't cry about it.... Learn about it, BB... Unless you don't WANT to learn about it. ... Learn?
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Goodness knows, conspiracy might be creative, but crying and insisting over and over, repeating the same thing over and over might better fall underneath something uncreative, and.... well... "special".
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)If it doesn't belong here, alert and leave it up to "how DU is set up" to decide.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)I'm reminded of the Douglas Adams quote where someone proves black is white and then gets killed at the next pedestrian crosswalk. Be careful out there.
leftstreet
(36,109 posts)This event isn't just newsworthy for its content - a longtime member here is part of it and willing to describe his experience
If the OP starts making outlandish claims or drawing bizarre conclusions, the members here will handle it
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)leftstreet
(36,109 posts)and when/if a majority agree with you, this will likely be moved to the 9/11 forum
Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #5)
Post removed
zabet
(6,793 posts)posting a conspiracy theory but simply an OP about a conference and who the speakers were.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)States' rights to do what?
A conference about what?
Nevertheless, I've apologized below after Skinner clarified his initial permission to Octafish included this thread.
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)It is so incredible that you are getting all this information firsthand from these experts. (I am familiar with and have read a lot about these folks and as well as their work over the years.)
I appreciate your efforts to provide us updates during the whirlwind of the symposium.
Looking forward to hearing all the details when you have a chance to unwind. Most important now is to pace yourself so you can gather as much info as possible.
for the DU Truth Machine.
K&R
Octafish
(55,745 posts)The evidence has not been debunked, no matter what Corporate McPravda spew over the next couple months.
Many of the authors and speakers -- important ones -- very much appreciate the Internet and the people who appreciate their work.
No matter what CIA says, the authors are not doing it for the money. One guy has spent years -- and the associated lawyer fees -- suing under FOIA. Others reported, Josiah Thompson being one, reported new findings which upended previously held -- and repeated by supporters of the magic bullet, finding that the President moved slightly forward a fraction of a second represented by a single frame of Zapruder film. The more accurate study reveals that properties of photographic film -- specifically the various effects of light, brightness and movement -- cause the film to dilate the appearance of some objects, causing initial measurements to be innaccurate. The new information this reveals is even more remarkable, I don't want to misrepresent that, so I have to go over some of the information when transcripts are available.
What I can report for certain: Unlike what the likes of Bill O'Reilly and MOCKINGBIRD's supporters purport, the analysis of Thompson and the rest of the presents -- bar none -- withstands examination. When one considers who Cyril Wecht is, that is saying something.
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)JFK assassination. My understanding is that nothing has been debunked.
Hey octafish, it's exciting that one of DU's finest is reporting live from the conference. The volume of information at the symposium must be overwhelming.
I can't even imagine how you are going to wade through all of it. Just looking forward to your continued reports.
Are there going to be DVDs and tapes available of the symposium? If so, in your own good time could you please share how we may access them?
Thanks for keeping us in the loop.
mattclearing
(10,091 posts)I look forward to more info.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Thanks to William E. Kelly, Jr. and Ed Primeau, the audio expert who analyzed the phone recording of the Zimmerman-Martin confrontation:
http://vimeo.com/76173546
IkeRepublican
(406 posts)I am curious why the cabinet was out of the country during Dallas. What was the stated reason in the Warren?
dflprincess
(28,079 posts)similar conferences had taken place in '61 and '62. Pierre Salinger, the White House press secretary was also on the flight. Salinger was usually the go to guy for motorcade planning and security.
The cabinet members not on the plane were Robert Kennedy (AG), Robert McNamara (Defense), Anthony Celebrezze (HEW), and John Gronouski (Postmaster General).
steve2470
(37,457 posts)I kept wondering who Wayside, 972, and Crown were.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)When in law school, he was asked to serve as an investigator for the House Select Committee on Assassinations. He did and investigated CIA documents pertaining to the CIA-Mafia-Castro assassination program. Turns out the CIA wasn't all that happy with Congress wanting to investigate "unexpurgated" documents. Thankfully, Robert Blakey got them to commit in writing. Didn't matter after George Joannides was called out of retirement to serve as liaison with the HSCA.
Going from memory: Mr. Hardway said today's events make clear that the nation needs to control the national security state before it completely snuffs out democracy. He said it's clear that the ability of secret spying and secret beneficiaries of power use their privilege and positions of power to maximize power and minimize control by Congress, the House of the People.
Please remind me in a couple of weeks, once time and transcripts are available, and I'll fill in the important jazz Mr. Hardway laid out and made clear, from New Orleans to Johnny Roselli. The information is remarkable and demands action by Congress and the Department of Justice.
rusty fender
(3,428 posts)that the gunshots entered the President's body from the front. The shot to the throat was a small hole and was made bigger by the tracheotomy. The exit wound was described as being in the mid-back.
The bullet that caused this wound was called "the magic bullet" because its trajectory, according to the Warren Commission, entered through the back of JFK's neck, made a right turn and entered Gov. Connally's right shoulder, traveled down his right arm and exited through the Gov.'s right hand and managed to stay pristine throughout its journey.
If the Dallas Police were allowed to interview Parkland's doctors, they would have concluded that the bullets came from the front.
I look forward to your next report, Octafish.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Trailrider1951
(3,414 posts)I am looking forward to your future reports. Your detractors upthread can bite me.
NRaleighLiberal
(60,015 posts)ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)In a word: Relevance. What happened 50 years ago next month affects us to this very day: Through secret government machinations, the rich get richer off wars for profit and the poor get poorer and die in the secret process -- a period in world history only briefly halted by two Roosevelts and JFK.
You might also be amazed and proud of DU, where we discussed a lot of what was brought up at the conference. Each year, more mainstream, accredited historians are using these documents to re-write history and to advance plaintiffs in court. Hopefully enough people also use the data to act and preserve democracy. Otherwise, it's more socialized sacrifice through austerity for the benefit of the Have-Mores by law.
deutsey
(20,166 posts)Didja know, it's a museum called "The Assassination Museum"? I believe named that after the assassination. I can't be sure of the chronology here but they have the window set up to look exactly like it did on that day. And it's really accurate, you know, because Oswald's not in it.
-Bill Hicks
northoftheborder
(7,572 posts)I never read the conspiracy board. This is important information that the nation needs to know. I've always known there was much more to this story, and, (this is my speculation) there are people still alive who know the truth.
madamesilverspurs
(15,805 posts)It's still germane, and still important to our present considerations.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Mc Mike
(9,114 posts)in general.
pacalo
(24,721 posts)It was a traumatic event & it's particularly disturbing to me that some people here believe it should be banished from general discussion. It's a part of our history, like it or not.
Thanks so much for sharing this with us, Octafish. I'm looking forward to reading more of your posts about the convention.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)SamYeager
(309 posts)Now I know several names who, when I see their name attributed to any article, book, or speech, I can completly ignore with impunity.
Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
librechik
(30,674 posts)HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)Did they forget to invite you?
SamYeager
(309 posts)All conspiracy theorists laugh at me.
I wear it as a badge of rationality.
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)As if Octafish is not a rational person. Enjoy DU. I'm sure you will make many friends and have a great time here.
SamYeager
(309 posts)CT is a mark of irrationality.
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)I could give 2 figs what you care about. Why don't you call someone who does? Bye now, I have adult things to discuss with other DUers.
SamYeager
(309 posts)What's the difference between a moon landing denier, an Area 51 theorist, and a JFK assassination theorist?
Nothing.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)We're really through the looking glass now!
Rex
(65,616 posts)that there are secrets in this world! People lack the ability to make and keep secrets! I know...sounds unbelievably stupid, but that is the conclusion one comes to.
dflprincess
(28,079 posts)-- until Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Mitchell, Colson and others were indicted and convicted for conspiracy.
SamYeager
(309 posts)I lived through Watergate. I never once heard it called a CT.
IT was real from day one. The guy leading the damned burglary was ex-CIA for myth's sake!
dflprincess
(28,079 posts)and Nixon's supporters did try to right it off as the left's hatred of Nixon running amok with theories.
SamYeager
(309 posts)And it was debunked from day one.
Don't play that with me. You are comparing wicker baskets to elephant tusks. There has not been a single piece of credible evidence to alter the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin of JFK. Not one.
former9thward
(32,025 posts)If you don't agree then of course it is not credible. Nice living in a world like that.
SamYeager
(309 posts)Not a single shred of evidence.
former9thward
(32,025 posts)But to people like you who willfully blind themselves it is not there. People like to put their heads in the sand. I guess its comfortable.
SamYeager
(309 posts)no evidence, though.
BTW, you are saying nothing that the birthers, truthers, bildeberger conspiracists, tri-lateral-commission conspiracists, moon landing deniers and holocaust deniers haven't said before you.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)who did it and how did they do it?
Good luck with that, you'll need it, since we already know who did it, Oswald, and there are actually mountains of evidence to prove it.
former9thward
(32,025 posts)You have your mind made up and nothing is going to change it. Hmmm what type of person does that sound like?
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)along with anyone else that accepts the fact that Oswald did it. CT'ers can't, and never will be able to give a plausible explanation on how the assassination went down. That's why there are so many mutually contradictory theories: CT'ers can't find one that works.
Plus, JFK CT's are kept alive by folks interested in making a profit off of their books more theories equals more profits for more writers.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Here's the document, from the National Archives:
CIA Instructions to Media Assets
CIA Document #1035-960
RE: Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report
1. Our Concern. From the day of President Kennedy's assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder. Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report, (which appeared at the end of September 1964), various writers have now had time to scan the Commission's published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission's findings. In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy, and often they have implied that the Commission itself was involved. Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission's report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse results.
2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization. The members of the Warren Commission were naturally chosen for their integrity, experience and prominence. They represented both major parties, and they and their staff were deliberately drawn from all sections of the country. Just because of the standing of the Commissioners, efforts to impugn their rectitude and wisdom tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society. Moreover, there seems to be an increasing tendency to hint that President Johnson himself, as the one person who might be said to have benefited, was in some way responsible for the assassination. Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.
3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active addresses are requested:
a. To discuss the publicity problem with (?)and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.
b. To employ propaganda assets to and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (II) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories. In the course of discussions of the whole phenomenon of criticism, a useful strategy may be to single out Epstein's theory for attack, using the attached Fletcher article and Spectator piece for background. (Although Mark Lane's book is much less convincing that Epstein's and comes off badly where confronted by knowledgeable critics, it is also much more difficult to answer as a whole, as one becomes lost in a morass of unrelated details.)
4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:
a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider. The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim Joesten and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case; however, unlike that case, the attack on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence, no new culprits have been convincingly identified, and there is no agreement among the critics. (A better parallel, though an imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire of 1933, which some competent historians (Fritz Tobias, AJ.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt) now believe was set by Vander Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for either Nazis or Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists, but the latter have been more successful in convincing the world that the Nazis were to blame.)
b. Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual witnesses (which are less reliable and more divergent--and hence offer more hand-holds for criticism) and less on ballistics, autopsy, and photographic evidence. A close examination of the Commission's records will usually show that the conflicting eyewitness accounts are quoted out of context, or were discarded by the Commission for good and sufficient reason.
c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc. Note that Robert Kennedy, Attorney General at the time and John F. Kennedy's brother, would be the last man to overlook or conceal any conspiracy. And as one reviewer pointed out, Congressman Gerald R. Ford would hardly have held his tongue for the sake of the Democratic administration, and Senator Russell would have had every political interest in exposing any misdeeds on the part of Chief Justice Warren. A conspirator moreover would hardly choose a location for a shooting where so much depended on conditions beyond his control: the route, the speed of the cars, the moving target, the risk that the assassin would be discovered. A group of wealthy conspirators could have arranged much more secure conditions.
d. Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or the other. Actually, the make-up of the Commission and its staff was an excellent safeguard against over-commitment to any one theory, or against the illicit transformation of probabilities into certainties.
e. Oswald would not have been any sensible person's choice for a co-conspirator. He was a "loner," mixed up, of questionable reliability and an unknown quantity to any professional intelligence service. (Archivist's note: This claim is demonstrably untrue with the latest file releases. The CIA had an operational interest in Oswald less than a month before the assassination. Source: Oswald and the CIA, John Newman and newly released files from the National Archives.)
f. As to charges that the Commission's report was a rush job, it emerged three months after the deadline originally set. But to the degree that the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was largely due to the pressure of irresponsible speculation already appearing, in some cases coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit their errors, are now putting out new criticisms.
g. Such vague accusations as that "more than ten people have died mysteriously" can always be explained in some natural way e.g.: the individuals concerned have for the most part died of natural causes; the Commission staff questioned 418 witnesses (the FBI interviewed far more people, conduction 25,000 interviews and re interviews), and in such a large group, a certain number of deaths are to be expected. (When Penn Jones, one of the originators of the "ten mysterious deaths" line, appeared on television, it emerged that two of the deaths on his list were from heart attacks, one from cancer, one was from a head-on collision on a bridge, and one occurred when a driver drifted into a bridge abutment.)
5. Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to the Commission's Report itself. Open-minded foreign readers should still be impressed by the care, thoroughness, objectivity and speed with which the Commission worked. Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to add to their account the idea that, checking back with the report itself, they found it far superior to the work of its critics.
SOURCE: http://mtracy9.tripod.com/cia_instructions.htm
PS: Someone at the conference reported the memo was accidentally de-classified. Reading it, I can see why.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Oh. And welcome to DU.
SamYeager
(309 posts)It's absolutely no different from moon landing deniers, 9/11 truthers, birthers, Bildeberger bilge, tri-lateral commission crap, mason BS, or Holocaust deniers
It is a load of crap designed to separate people from their money.
It is proof that P.T. Barnum knew how to separate fools from their money.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Amazing what's been learned since the Warren Commission.
Here's a good place for LNTs to get caught up what can be admissible in court:
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/
The new knowledge you will pick up there can be used to advance Justice.
Among new evidence that the Warren Commission did not disclose to the American public are the CIA-Mafia conspiracy to assassinate Fidel Castro, something that they had done previously to Patrice Lumumba and other world leaders before JFK was elected. Oh, and they never told President Kennedy that they were still working together to murder Castro, even though ordered to stop when President Kennedy learned of them. Of course, the American public might've objected when the disgraced director of that agency had been appointed to the Warren Commission, Allen Dulles. His brother, John Foster Dulles was Secretary if State for Ike and Tricky Dick, the nuclear bomber of Vietnam.
That is, if the press had bothered to ask about it.
Thank heavens for DU.
Oh, yeah. Welcome to DU. You remind me of someone, Dude.
SamYeager
(309 posts)I'm not wasting my time on your bilge links.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)It also shows what you know and are like.
Ghost in the Machine
(14,912 posts)Sounds just like some Dude who got banned... right down to the "bullshit"s and all! Keep a sharp eye on how many times that word is used, as well as "Jesus Christ!"
Thanks for the thread, Octafish, and keep up the good work....
I smell zombies!
Peace,
Ghost
Octafish
(55,745 posts)At least in the present incarnation, the poster's only been here a week, so may've missed these:
Among new evidence that the Warren Commission did not disclose to the American public are the CIA-Mafia conspiracy to assassinate Fidel Castro, something that they had done previously to Patrice Lumumba and other world leaders before JFK was elected. Oh, and they never told President Kennedy that they were still working together to murder Castro, even though ordered to stop when President Kennedy learned of them. Of course, the American public might've objected when the disgraced director of that agency had been appointed to the Warren Commission, Allen Dulles. His brother, John Foster Dulles was Secretary if State for Ike and Tricky Dick, the nuclear bomber of Vietnam.
Thank you for grokking, Ghost in the Machine! There were dozens of instances where the presenters at the conference were documenting what we have long discussed on DU.
librechik
(30,674 posts)if i weren't just a tiny bit fearful that by attending I'd wind up on somebody's list
Octafish
(55,745 posts)...we may yet stop Turnkey Tyranny, thanks to DUers and more than a few million of our good friends:
http://www.alternet.org/world/snowden-honored-intelligence-veterans
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)for something you've assured people for years was George Bush's doing?
Octafish
(55,745 posts)...but never was asked to explain "why" to the American people by anyone in the corporate media.
As for what I've written, please show where I wrote what you said. Otherwise, don't make stuff up.
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Read more and learn.
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/
Then, get back to me.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)Sorry to see someone crapped in the middle of it. Seems truth seekers are anathema to a very small but loud bunch here.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)Both talk about the same doctor, from the same place, and the same details.
Sure hope the hosts don't have a bias when it comes to their buddies...just sayin.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)The other OP says this:
"Dr. McClelland, now 83 and professor emeritus at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, said that because it was an exit wound, it logically followed that it had been fired from in front of the president's limousine. And, in turn, that meant a second gunman was involved in the assassination, contradicting the Warren Commission's finding that there was but one assassin."
Your accusations of the character of the GD hosts is uncalled for and basically childish.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Truth hurts sometimes.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)Was referencing your ability to ignore the SOP when it suits you as a host.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)on the veracity of the GD hosts is uncalled for, rude, and childish.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Guess they forgot to pay this guy, eh?
stopbush
(24,396 posts)Sad that DU has to suffer the embarrassment that is the JFK CTists every October and November.
former9thward
(32,025 posts)Must of been a big O.R.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)The obsessive desires to hide, lock and ridicule, dont seem like the behaviors of "politically liberal" people. They need to "lighten up."
zappaman
(20,606 posts)how about present some actual evidence instead of rehashing the same bullshit year after year?
are we to believe the entire hospital staff was part of the conspiracy with the exception of this "hero" whom the conspirators forgot to pay and somehow were unable to silence?
Sad to see that the hosts of GD ignore the SOP when it fits their own personal, obsessive CTs.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)It doesnt present any arguments or any conspiracies.
Seems that some here are obsessed with being able to determine what gets locked or hidden. I believe we should error on the side of openness and not censorship.
And when a poster resorts to ridicule they lose creditability.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)they lose credibility.
Still waiting for you to tell me why the conspirators forgot to pay off this guy or get rid of him.
Take your time.
reddread
(6,896 posts)absolutely the correct term, correctly applied.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)But nice try.
reddread
(6,896 posts)actually, it is.
the usage, not your "rebuttal"
"zappa"man
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)It blocks any contrary information. I believe it is programmed and intentional by "the powers that be" who require subservience of thought.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)are we to believe the entire hospital staff was part of the conspiracy with the exception of this "hero" whom the conspirators forgot to pay and somehow were unable to silence?
they can kill JFK but not this old man?
deutsey
(20,166 posts)This is from a 1994 article by Gary L. Aguilar, MD, found here: http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm
With the exception of Adolph Giesecke, MD, the Parkland witnesses were unanimous in placing the skull wound rearward on the right side. No Parkland observer placed the wound solely anteriorly on the right side. (Adolph Giesecke, MD felt the wound extended from occiput to the front, but on the left side.) Given Mrs. Kennedy's recollection of "holding the top of his head down" it may well be that the wound did extend more anteriorly than was apparent to Parkland witnesses. This might be explained by a blood clot forming en route from Dealey Plaza to Parkland while Mrs. Kennedy held "the top" of JFK's "head down" causing the more anterior extent of the wound to be unappreciated by the emergency personnel. It is clear, however, that the Parkland witnesses described a wound in the rear of the skull on the right side. The background and qualifications of the Parkland observers make their repeated, corroborating observations compelling: there was a very obvious defect in the back of the head which was much more than a bullet entrance wound.
I haven't read this article in its entirety yet (I just found it as a result of googling other Parkland staff), but I plan to later. It seems to recap the various testimony (some of it Warren Commission) and recollections of Parkland medical staff and compares them to those of medical staff at Bethesda Naval Medical Center.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)button things up and not leave questions. Authoritarians (conservatives) desire to have their leaders tell them what's what so they dont have to do any individual thinking. When James Clapper tells them that the NSA isnt spying on Americans, they want to believe soooo badly. To believe otherwise takes effort.
Some people want badly to believe that Oswald was the lone assassin and that there was no conspiracy. I for one, dont believe that something like assassination happens without conspiracy except maybe in a rare occasion. I believe that the possibility of Oswald acting alone is remote.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)They want to put their firewall on the entire community. I'd be fine with them having a personal firewall, we all have them on various issues.
As said upthread, this OP advocates no conspiracy theory, it reports on an inquiry.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)at 11:53am, exactly ten minutes before you made the remark above:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3880063
I'm not making any accusations and I accept that you had your reasons, but qu'est-ce que c'est? If this is how you feel, can you explain a bit more fully why you locked that thread?
Rex
(65,616 posts)nt.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)Some would say it's because the hosts of GD are not doing a good job enforcing the SOP like they are tasked to do and instead follow their own personal biases while comparing DUers who alert on on thread that doesn't meet the SOP as "teabggers"...but who knows?
Rex
(65,616 posts)Why lock the exact same post? That doesn't make any sense to me at all, but hey I am now...wait for it...part of the Gang! Yay!
Fooken CTers!
Now off to say something GOOD about the POTUS...so I can be called an Obama-bot!
zappaman
(20,606 posts)I never get anything write. Think I will go down to the local watering hole now and whet my whistle. No doubt this OP will be 600 posts long by the time I get back.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Curious, isn't it.
Sid
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Except written by a different DUer....which I guess makes all the difference!
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)in this OP.
Do you harass all hosts or just GD hosts?
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Nah. But I do think blatant inconsistency and disregard for the SOP should be noted, when it occurs.
Sid
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)explanation.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)by a credible witness to a major event? The article doesn't endorse the remarks and the paper isn't to my knowledge a conspiracy rag. So I'm not sure I see how the lock doesn't demonstrate just the "authoritarian" mentality you claim to despise.
Also, I think it's a good story, because it sets out the autopsy issue clearly for those who might not have followed it closely hitherto, including me. A bombshell in other words. Here's the link again:
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/neighborhoods-city/surgeon-in-er-insists-2-gunmen-shot-jfk-708042/#ixzz2i5bmeGxY
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Archae
(46,337 posts)To get through all the bullshit spread around.
reddread
(6,896 posts)in the face of righteous truth tellers who align with the WCR.
Archae
(46,337 posts)That Jim Garrison was a grandstanding liar.
That Oliver Stone wouldn't know a fact if it hit him in the ass, and he blames it on "the Jews."
That the "magic bullet" theorists use a diagram that is false, of the Presidentlial limosine seating.
That all the credible evidence shows Oswald was the shooter, and he shot a cop over nothing.
And isn't it just SOOOOO terrible that 100% of the people pushing all these conspiracy theories are willing suckers, certified crazies, or grandstanding con artists.
Let me know when your copy of the "Clinton Chronicles" (has the same credibility as 100% of the Kennedy killing CT's,) comes in.
I'll save you the trouble.
reddread
(6,896 posts)yeah.
Not exactly six degrees of Kevin Bacon with Bush, of the CIA (cant be the same guy who got the top spot, he was "never"
in there)
Really, you want to talk about lies and misinformation?
Rather charitable.
SO, their lies good,
Research "flaws" bad.
DLIFLC, your last stop en route to defecting.
Welcome back Oswald, how was the weather?
You stay out of trouble, now, ya hear?
So, was he a radical leftist?
mad about Cuba?
Killing JFK for mother russia?
USSR didnt want JFK dead.
why would Oswald?
Magic bullet is the least of your worries.
and not the only hole in your story.
Archae
(46,337 posts)Once in Russia, he became just another working-class prole.
He wanted glory and notice.
Russia wasn't the "leftist paradise" Oswald had convinced himself that it was, so he applied to return to the US during the Eisenhower-Khrushchev "mini-detente."
Took a while due to bureaucracy, but it was approved.
And Oswald was furious upon his arrival in the US, there was nobody who gave a shit that he was back.
John Hinckley was convinced actress Jodie Foster would fall in love with him if he shot and killed Reagan.
He nearly succeeded.
reddread
(6,896 posts)Do you really believe everything you are told by a bunch of confirmed liars?
Archae
(46,337 posts)"Hinckleys father was a financial supporter of George H.W. Bush's 1980 presidential primary campaign. Hinckleys older brother, Scott, had a dinner date scheduled at the home of Neil Bush the day after the Reagan assassination attempt.[24][25] Neil's wife, Sharon, indicated in a newspaper interview the day after the shooting that Scott was coming to their house as a date of a girlfriend of hers, and that she didn't know "the brother [John]" but understood "that he was the renegade brother in the family." Sharon described the Hinckleys as "a very nice family" and that they had "given a lot of money to the Bush campaign."[26] This also led to various conspiracy theorists speculating that the Bush family had something to do with the assassination attempt.[27]"
They can specualte until they are blue in the face.
Without confirmable evidence, that's all it is, speculation.
I can speculate that JFK was shot from a flying saucer piloted by the CIA and the Illuminati.
reddread
(6,896 posts)I suppose gravity is just a theory?
it certainly appears that up is down with some folks.
Rex
(65,616 posts)The world turns on good intentions donchaknow!
reddread
(6,896 posts)He said it, I believe it, that settles it!
reddread
(6,896 posts)perhaps the hidden rationale of pro-Oswald lone sharp-shooter fantasies is that
he was a very stealthy fellow who fooled all while pursuing a pro-commie agenda?
Well, that isnt completely impossible, especially if you factor some stealthy marksmanship
scores.
or is it that he was the sole participant in a fascist Bay of Pigs counter-measure?
I'd ask for some of that pipe stuffing, if the effects werent so obviously
harmful.
Judi Lynn
(160,545 posts)greytdemocrat
(3,299 posts)I just can't wait.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)of so many to get these 'secrets' released, a vast majority of people want to hear more, because as polls show, a majority of the population does not believe the WCR. Not that many ever did, considering who was on it. But it's exciting that generations not born at the time, are so interested, perhaps because there never were any rational answers to the questions people kept asking and continue to ask.
I take it your comment was sincere, or did I misunderstand?
Logical
(22,457 posts)Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)Look forward to your posts!
tillikum
(105 posts)it's tempting.
Logical
(22,457 posts)SamYeager
(309 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)SamYeager
(309 posts)Might as well cover all the bases of CT wackiness.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)"Groden can be found on many days of the week in Dealey Plaza up on its north grassy knoll, where he freely discusses his research and thoughts about the assassination and sells his books and videos!"
zappaman
(20,606 posts)He and the other vultures just can't stop.
Poor Groden...no one buys his "badgeman" bullshit anymore or the puff of smoke that indicates someone fired a musket from behind the fence on the grassy knoll...
Rex
(65,616 posts)People cannot stand it that conspiracies are real and happen all the time! What tiny little worlds they must live in...and to watch so many try and deflect the JFK CT with stupid crap like the faking of the moon landing tells me they are incredibly desperate for you to shut up about JFK!
Keep swinging that big hammer Octafish...I love watching deniers foam at the mouth...it made my day and weekend!
Logical
(22,457 posts)"conspiracies".
Conspiracies are fun, the truth is boring. Once you figure that out you will see the truth!
Rex
(65,616 posts)I guess you don't know what a conspiracy is. Shame really.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Moon Landing?
9/11?
Chemtrails?
Roswell?
Rex
(65,616 posts)Awww...look at you now...try again. This is too funny.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)http://archive.org/details/Enron_TheSmartestGuysInTheRoom
The picture that emerges of Enron is that of an out-of-control corporate culture that ignored the basic principles of business, allowing it to be manipulated by greedy incompetents for their own personal gain. The focus on reporting profits rather than actually making money created a situation that both encouraged and enabled a small group of insider criminals to "game the system". Enron's business losses were masked by accounting tricks, while the insiders raked off huge "profits" and bonuses for themselves.
dflprincess
(28,079 posts)Jeb Stuart Magruder, Head of Committee to Re-elect the President, pleaded guilty to 1 count of conspiracy, August 1973
H. R. Haldeman, Chief of Staff for Nixon, convicted of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury.
John Ehrlichman, Counsel to Nixon, convicted of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury.
James W. McCord Jr., convicted of six charges of burglary, conspiracy and wiretapping.
John Mitchell was indicted for conspiracy but convicted of perjury - so I suppose some on this thread will take that as "proof" that no conspiracty existed.
The Grand Jury named Nixon an "unidicted co-conspirator".
solarhydrocan
(551 posts)including me when we talked about the CIA pulling a Coup on Iran in '53
Then the CIA admitted it.
So put TPAjax on your list
reddread
(6,896 posts)we have all lived through some horrific conspiracies.
the 2000 Selection was hardly an accident of law.
A bunch of Saudi hijackers didnt lead us into Iraq on their own.
Most people have surely conspired with others in their own lives.
the honest explanation has to be a little more complicated.
and less honorable than innocence, by a long shot.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Yeah I understand, but some people might lack the ability to grasp the concept.
reddread
(6,896 posts)and liars will try to deceive.
I wonder why so many want to post the ten commandments outside,
when the major breakers are right inside?
tillikum
(105 posts)i could unload a ton of misprinted t-shirts on folks who don't want anyone to know where they were but want others that KNOW (wink wink) where they were to extend the secret handshake.
thirty two boxes of reject shirts that cost a buck apiece and say "In and Out Burgher" would go in an hour at $20 a popto those in the "know" (wink wink)
oh think of the "My Little Peony" buttons I could move!
make a trekkie look like a piker.
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)nt.
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)What about you?
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Much like the tango, it takes at least two...
Rex
(65,616 posts)that nobody else was involved in the planning? Lone gunman just means one shooter...unless you know of a different meaning.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)but now I have a headache.
Rex
(65,616 posts)themselves critical thinking skills. Lone gunman + planner + financier = conspiracy! It can be headache level inducing, I will admit.
EDIT - awww an Iggy just wrote to me...someone tell me what it says!
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)I'd welcome your input on that thread in CS.
reddread
(6,896 posts)Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)There it is. Undeniably there it is. Right there.
reddread
(6,896 posts)commendable
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)Help yourself.
Rex
(65,616 posts)nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)You're absolutely right. They babble on and on about how "conspiracies happen all the time." Then, when asked to put forward an actual theory of how the crime occurred, they run and hide.
Who killed JFK, Rex? Or are you only pretending to know the truth?
Rex
(65,616 posts)My how you project yourself into your posts...it is so sadz.
Go learn what a conspiracy is and get back with me...
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)Is it that ridiculous?
Rex
(65,616 posts)I find it funny that you identified with my Sadz post...that must have really pissed you off to no end.
Enjoy your sadz.
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)It's entertaining.
Rex
(65,616 posts)That goes without saying. Have a great sadz! I love it when I am spot on with certain people.
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)Rex has a belief.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Oh what a world people with that viewpoint must live in...
zappaman
(20,606 posts)CTers have had 50 years to prove one re:JFK's assassination and still...nothing.
Unless you believe there is evidence the mob did it or
Unless you believe there is evidence Cuba did it or
Unless you believe there is evidence the MIC did it or
Unless you believe there is evidence the CIA did it or
Unless you believe there is evidence the secret service did it or
Unless you believe there is evidence LBJ did it or
Unless you believe there is evidence Texas oil did it or
Unless you believe there is evidence space aliens did it...
but, they can't all be right, can they?
None of those scenarios can explain all the evidence, but one scenario can.
Rex
(65,616 posts)So you DO admit that there are conspiracies and that CTs are real and factual. Thanks! It is the OTHER people here that are LOL funny in their insane claim that CTs don't exist.
Uncle Joe
(58,366 posts)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus_affair
The affair began in November 1894 with the conviction for treason of Captain Alfred Dreyfus, a young French artillery officer of Alsatian Jewish descent. Sentenced to life imprisonment for allegedly having communicated French military secrets to the German Embassy in Paris, Dreyfus was sent to the penal colony at Devil's Island in French Guiana, where he spent almost five years.
Two years later in 1896 evidence came to light identifying a French Army major named Ferdinand Walsin Esterhazy as the real culprit. After high-ranking military officials suppressed the new evidence a military court unanimously acquitted Esterhazy after the second day of his trial. The Army accused Dreyfus of additional charges based on false documents. Word of the military court's framing of Dreyfus and of an attendant cover-up began to spread, chiefly owing to J'accuse, a vehement open letter published in a Paris newspaper in January 1898 by the notable writer Émile Zola. Activists put pressure on the government to reopen the case.
In 1899, Dreyfus was returned to France for another trial. The intense political and judicial scandal that ensued divided French society between those who supported Dreyfus (now called "Dreyfusards" , such as Anatole France, Henri Poincaré and Georges Clemenceau, and those who condemned him (the anti-Dreyfusards), such as Edouard Drumont, the director and publisher of the antisemitic newspaper La Libre Parole. The new trial resulted in another conviction and a 10-year sentence but Dreyfus was given a pardon and set free.
Eventually all the accusations against Alfred Dreyfus were demonstrated to be baseless. In 1906 Dreyfus was exonerated and reinstated as a major in the French Army. He served during the whole of World War I ending his service with the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel.
questionseverything
(9,656 posts)many injustices are just ct until they are rectified....look at seigleman,every part of that conspiracy is out in the open and yet he rots in prison
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Only when Dreyfus was exonerated was France's honor restored.
Our government needs do the same regarding Dallas.
I concur: Opening up the records to the light of day is what democracy requires. For if it was just a lone nut, there is no need for the state to keep its information on him and the Kennedy assassination secret.
Uncle Joe
(58,366 posts)I concur: Opening up the records to the light of day is what democracy requires. For if it was just a lone nut, there is no need for the state to keep its information on him and the Kennedy assassination secret.
No reason at all.
PCIntern
(25,556 posts)despite the angry naysayers.
Note that they are always so ANGRY. They get mad - use words like 'fuck' and 'shit' a lot, and generally flip out. Wow...it is just so...so...important to them. You would think that you had declared unnecessary war on Iraq or something. Come to think of it, they did not get that mad when THAT occurred.
Hmmm....wonder why.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Big
Uncle Joe
(58,366 posts)Thanks for the thread, Octafish.
Yes thanks for the thread!
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)She was one of the earliest, and IMHO, one of the best, investigators of the JFK assassination, and died under very mysterious circumstances on Oct. 3 of 1988.....25 years ago, the Thurs. before last. May she R.I.P.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)I really enjoyed her work and her show.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)And lemme tell you, some rather mind-boggling info can indeed be found on there.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Paging Bob Boulderlag(?).
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)I'm fine with this being in GC, but it would be a shame if this or future update threads got locked on that account. You might want to clear things with Admin or whatever, if only to quiet the screamers who have taken up so much of the bandwidth on this one. If it has to be in the CS forum, so be it; that might in fact facilitate discussion for those of us who want to focus on the topic rather than its specific location in DU or engage in a pissing match with those who buy into all the "official" stories.
Trailrider1951
(3,414 posts)I guess that by now you know to fast-forward through the commercials...
7wo7rees
(5,128 posts)No shame in the "bare bones" delivery. There will be meat.
We look forward to your account of their accounts.
RIP JFK
gopiscrap
(23,761 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)...I realized he had been gone for the last five minutes.
In all seriousness: This conference has been amazing. And it gets better and better.
While I'm not on the A-list, closer to B-Avoided, I did meet more than a couple of people I admire and whose work I've read. Made friends with people from Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey. Lots of professional people and students, too.
You'd be surprised at what a difference DU makes for spreading Truth. That GOOGLE can really be something. Let THEM know you know.
gopiscrap
(23,761 posts)Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)malaise
(269,054 posts)Rec
madokie
(51,076 posts)I remember when Kennedy was assassinated, the horror of seeing Ruby murder Oswald on live tv. It all seems so far away, yet only yesterday.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)a youtube documentary of the event
I would love to see it.
thanks my friend.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Last edited Mon Oct 21, 2013, 07:54 AM - Edit history (1)
...but, for some reason, the topic of the assassination of a liberal, peace and justice loving, wealth-sharing, Democratic president must not be all that interesting to its board of directors or Brian Lamb.
An example from DU 2005:
Brian Lamb was VERY Pissed with the NYT's report on US Spying on Americans
Benton D Struckcheon
(2,347 posts)The facts are as follows:
1 - Oswald served three years in the Marines, and got a less than honorable discharge.
2 - Oswald, after returning from Russia, wrote to Connally to ask him to make it an honorable discharge. Connally was Sec'y of the Navy, to which the Marines are attached.
3 - Connally rejects this request.
4 - Marina Oswald's first response on being told about the assassination was to blurt out that he shot Connally. ("Marina Oswald, Lee Harveys wife, testified three times that Connally was her husbands target. Several important members of the Dallas Russian émigré community also spoke of the grudge.")
This is by far the most likely explanation. Oswald had an actual, concrete grudge against Connally. If he was aiming for him and missed, that explains the stunning accuracy of his firing at Kennedy: he wasn't aiming for Kennedy. He shot at Connally, and missed. Furthermore, and this is a new one I hadn't considered before, Kennedy wore a back brace, and that kept him sitting upright after he'd already been shot, while Connally, wounded, fell into his wife's lap.
Kennedy was collateral damage.
See the link on the Marina quote above for the new book on this. The theory's been around a long time.
I've always liked this theory, because it solves all of the missing pieces, accounts for Oswald's motive, and perfectly explains his alleged marksmanship. It's easy to hit something you're not aiming at, after all.
It's a perfect fit for Occam's Razor.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)It happened. In Texas. The results were devastating for the rest of the US and the world and we're still reeling from that catastrophe. But there's no point denying that is what went down on Nov. 22 1963.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)The founder of Salon.com and author of "Brothers," is working on a volume that includes all the nefarious links from Wall Street to Versailles to Hitler to Vietnam. Many of which we've discussed on DU, including the NAZI ties to the Warren Commission.
I am so proud of DU, you wouldn't believe, ucrdem! We haven't just kept the story alive, we're helping keep democracy alive.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Loved Brothers! When it came out I bought the hardback at an airport kiosk after visiting one brother, read it on the plane with jaw agape, then gave that copy to another brother, lol.
Now here's a funny thing: a book about the Dulles brothers named "The Brothers" is just out by Steven Kinzer of the NYT. Heard an NPR interview with him last week that tiptoed ever so gently around Bay of Pigs and didn't even mention JFK assassination. Good ol' NYT-NPR-Fresh Air. Jere's the link:
http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=234752747&m=235345305
Kinzer want us to think Dulles was suffering from "dementia" during Bay of Pigs. Gotta love that whitewash.
Anyway Octa keep up the great work!
Benton D Struckcheon
(2,347 posts)but if Dulles or anyone else at all besides Oswald had something to do with this crime, it would have come out ages ago. For there to be this conspiracy that actually got away with not just one, but two murders (since one has to assume that Ruby's murder of Oswald was part of it) done in broad daylight, one of them televised to the world as it happened (it's the part I remember best, myself), the other one likely the most investigated crime evah in the history of the planet, there would have to be a metric crapload of truly superhuman people involved, none of whom ever blabbed undeniable evidence of same to any intrepid reporter (Dan Rather was there, fer cryin out loud. It's what made him famous) in all these many years, and despite their ironclad silence and alleged ruthlessness about keeping that silence (as evidenced, in the first place, by the fates of both Oswald and Ruby) they still let folks like Octafish and the people who attended this conference live, and leave them alone to blab all over the intertubes.
Riiight. Improbable to the point of utter absurdity.
Nope, my theory fits Occam's Razor a lot better. Oswald acted alone. The most likely motive was he was after Connally, given the simple fact he had actual reason, in his twisted little mind, to kill him.
Simple, stupid. Most stuff winds up down to just plain simple and stupid stuff. Makes life a lot more boring.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)It's a great little theory but unfortunately it wouldn't explain much. I will say though that if that if there's anything to it, it's an intriguing angle, but then this crime has an abundance of intriguing angles.
Benton D Struckcheon
(2,347 posts)For real?
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Let's leave it at that, since that's the theory you proposed.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)To accomplish some bursting.
The Us House Committee actually ruled the Kennedy assassination to be a conspiracy.
Whereas the Warren commission left out important witnesses, substituting inferior witnesses time and time again. And when the more pertinent witnesses were interviewed, they ended up being mis-quoted.
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)Facts matter. History matters.
k&r
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Kennedy died on Nov 22 1963, of a naturally occurring brain hemorrhage.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)But it's there and they were.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)meanit
(455 posts)than the Warren Commission was.
reddread
(6,896 posts)and the WCR for reference.
The very fact that assassinations as policy were banned after the HSCA
is only as troublesome as its subsequent repeal and adoption by the Party
most brutally impacted by assassins bullets.
Benton D Struckcheon
(2,347 posts)no one's been caught. As I said, this is probably the most investigated crime ever. If it really was any sort of conspiracy, given how much it's been looked at, there would by now be enough evidence to convict someone of something. I'm sure if you take a poll the majority of people with an opinion would think it was a conspiracy, just because the folks promoting it never give up. Doesn't make them right.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Other than Oswald, and Ruby, doesn't mean that it wasn't a master plan by an insider group of people.
The one person in America with not only the will to do the right thing but also with with enough power to do something about exposing and indicting people for this conspiracy was New Orleans' D.A. Jim Garrison. And we all know what happened to him:
(From Garrison's notes and remarks) "Then former CIA Victor Marchetti revealed that high level CIA conferences in early 1969 had determined the need to give help in the trial. Said Marchetti, in referring to that "help," "I sure as hell didn't mean Jim Garrison."
So the one person who did make the conspiracy a legal matter was hamstrung by the fact that the CIA, far more powerful that the N.O. District Attorney office, saw to it that witnesses were not allowed to testify. Some were killed; others intimidated into silence rather than going on the witness stand by the fact that so many others had been 'heart attack," victims of single car accident, etc.
This goes on all the time - not only with killing off public officials, but with master minding the "bubbling and collapse" of our society's economic gravy train.
Look at what happened to the game plan pf the economics of our system. If Geithner had not not been so protected by the One Percent, he would have been indicted back in 2008 for economic crimes involving RICO. But Spitzer got taken out to see Geithner was not prosecuted, and then Geithner got to spend the following autumn manipulating the Wall Street winners and losers. Then he became part of the Paulson/Geithner/Bernanke trio.
A criminal doesn't necessarily get exposed for their wrong doing if they are close enough to those who are the Puppet Masters.
Benton D Struckcheon
(2,347 posts)Boogie men don't exist. Either in the dark or anywhere else. Real life has to be dealt with on its terms. Deal with it.
The Midway Rebel
(2,191 posts)Hotel have a nice pool?
Octafish
(55,745 posts)The young couple next door made a lot of noise.
H2O Man
(73,559 posts)Thanks!
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Which was the point of the Conference, this thread and our years on DU.
Many of the things we've discussed long ago here are now, just, becoming mainstream.
Don't stop. The pro-BFEE sonsofbitches are running scared.
JohnyCanuck
(9,922 posts)just like NIST won't release the data needed for independent scientists to submit NIST's supposed computer model of the WTC 7 free fall collapse to peer review and confirm its scientific validity. And it's all for "national security reasons" of course.
Here's another deadly conspiracy that they got away with for 25 years before it was finally outed in the 1990s. (And I would bet 99% of the US public has still never even heard about it.)
NATOs Secret Armies published in 2004 by Swiss historian Daniele Ganser is arguably the most shocking book ever to be ignored by the mainstream consensus.
It describes in meticulously footnoted detail the existence of the so-called Gladio stay-behind networks which had been NATOs best kept secret for forty or more years, and which briefly emerged into the daylight through a series of scandalous disclosures in Italy.
snip
Not only were these armies kept secret from the official governmental structures of the host countries falling instead under the auspices of the CIA and MI6 but compelling evidence emerged in the 90s to show that they went a long way beyond this original remit and participated in anti-democratic agitation and even terrorist atrocities.
The name Gladio, (or Sword in Italian) was technically the name given to their operations in Italy, but has since come by extension to stand for the phenomenon as a whole. Evidence of such arrangements, which had been kept secret from both public and politicians democratically elected governments in the host countries for a quarter of a century was revealed through a series of scandalous revelations in Italy and other NATO countries during the 90s, and meticulously documented by Ganser.
The evidence contained in Gansers book, of terrorism directed against the people by secret armies funded and organised by NATO and answerable to NATO, MI6 and the CIA rather than the respective governments is so shocking that the initial reaction of most people would be to reject it. And yet the claims have been substantiated by juridical inquiries in Italy, Switzerland and Belgium and have been debated (and condemned) in the European Parliament.
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Operation_Gladio
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)I should PM you on this...
The only reason I found out you were there was when thanking Lisa Pease and mentioning DU, so apparently she saw you there.
So, at least one fine historian, author visits here, eh?
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Last edited Sun Oct 20, 2013, 02:59 PM - Edit history (1)
...although Larry Sabato didn't see fit to hang around to hear the latest, but found time to pop up on Fox News last night with Judge Jeannie or somebody to say that the Dictabelt recording was from motorcycle cop "two and a half miles" from Dealey Plaza.
Where were you? I was sitting far stage-left, in front of the guy who kept coughing up phlegm.
You know I think the world of you. Really do wish I'd known you were there. I met lots of the presenters -- many of whom knew about DU. Met some truly remarkable people -- from the neurologist to some crazy high school kids who happen to still believe in Democracy. Imagine that?
We gotta talk, and not at cross-purposes, my Friend. Too much for my head to fathom what happened in that last week -- there and here at home.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)I also asked a question near the end of Saturday, mentioning "The Fifth Estate" film that was just released.
I was able to bump gums for a LONG time with my favorite radio host - Len Osanic (Black Op Radio). Man, what a great but short time. Next year, I'm gonna be able to attend the full conference.
My take home message from Lisa was that other forms of social media (whereas DU is a little like singing to the choir) should be considered. I've really never used facebook much and definitely not Twitter... but, perhaps that format should become part of my network.
Hey, I'm gonna take you up on that, Octafish...
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Even the tiniest detail of a lurid murder case is publicized by the local media, but major news regarding the assassination of President Kennedy is, effectively, censored.
There is no statute of limitation on murder. Democracy demands Justice, even in a cold case.
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)particularly at this conference would in any way be a good idea?!
And yes, your insight is right on imo. I have been marveling about this same thing in the last few days thinking about the assassination.
Even the tiniest detail of a lurid murder case is publicized by the local media, but major news regarding the assassination of President Kennedy is, effectively, censored.
-Octafish
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Wecht was expressing contempt for the national media, while he moderated the symposium's last panel.
Several good reporters were there, including one who moderated a panel discussion Thursday night, Sally Wiggin of WTAE TV-4 Pittsburgh. She acknowledged the shortcomings of the press corps and her own support for Dr. Wecht and the research presented at the Duquesne symposium.
ETA: Most of the press, though, are sadly MIA, AWOL and on the other Side. Thank you for caring about democracy, Ava!
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)Asking for a friend.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)(yes, I heard him, and he has reason to feel that way)
I'm in line getting soy milk on the way home and what do I see? A fucking National Enquire with a picture of the motorcade side bar of grassy knoll ... "After 50 years! New evidence of 2nd shooter!!!"
You see every attempt to make it sound like tin foilers will only buy in... every attempt to make it less than what it is...
Agreed... democracy demands justice upon 50 years, as you say, my friend.
MinM
(2,650 posts)Joan Mellen's talk at the Wecht Conference
http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t471-wecht-conference
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)I quickly scanned them. I hope to read them in earnest later today.
Thank you.
MinM
(2,650 posts)Michael Kelley, provided by
Published 10:35 am, Wednesday, October 23, 2013
It's not just crackpots who question the conventional wisdom that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone when he killed President John F. Kennedy on Nov. 22, 1963.
University of Virginia professor Larry Sabato, author of "The Kennedy Half-Century: The Presidency, Assassination, and Lasting Legacy of John F. Kennedy" argues that "the chance of some sort of conspiracy involving Oswald is not insubstantial."
Sabato reached this conclusion after considering 50 years of evidence, even while also debunking a conspiracy theory put forth by a House committee in 1979.
"For all attempts to close the case as 'just Oswald,' fair-minded observers continue to be troubled by many aspects of eyewitness testimony and paper trails," he writes...
http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/UVA-PROFESSOR-We-Cannot-Rule-Out-A-Conspiracy-To-4920614.php
gopiscrap
(23,761 posts)was there any talk about what Bush and Nixon were doing that day?
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)blm
(113,065 posts); )
Octafish
(55,745 posts)DU is a Truth Machine:
The Waters of Knowledge
versus
The Waters of Uncertainty
Mass Denial in the Assassination of President Kennedy
by E. Martin Schotz
INTRODUCTION
My task this afternoon is to explore with you the reasons the American people do not know who killed President Kennedy and why. In order to do this we will have to deal with three interdependent conspiracies which developed in the course of the assassination and its aftermath. These are (1) the criminal conspiracy to murder the President by a cabal of militarists at the highest echelons of power in the United States; (2) the conspiracy which aided and abetted these murderers after the fact, by covering for the assassins, also a true criminal conspiracy involving an extremely wide circle of government officials across the entire political spectrum and at all levels of government; and (3) a conspiracy of ignorance, denial, confusion, and silence which has pervaded our entire public.
The major focus of my talk today is this third conspiracy on the part of the public, which includes our so-called "critical community". I want to show you that our failure to know is not based on any lack of data or because the data is ambiguous. It is all extremely simple and obvious. Rather we don't know because we are deeply emotionally resistant to what such knowledge tells us about ourselves and our society. Furthermore the powers-that-be do not reward people for such knowledge. Indeed if a person is willing to acknowledge the truth, is in a position to share such knowledge with the public, and wishes to do so, then the organized institutions of our society will turn sharply against such a person.
Now this is not a new problem in the history of society. In fact, I want to read to you a Sufi tale from the Ninth Century which can help to orient us to the problem. The tale is entitled "When the Waters Were Changed." It goes as follows:
When the Waters Were Changed
Once upon a time Khidr, the Teacher of Moses, called upon mankind with a warning. At a certain date, he said, all the water in the world which had not been specially hoarded, would disappear. It would then be renewed with dfferent water, which would drive men mad.
Only one man listened to the meaning of this advice. He collected water, went to a secure place where he stored it, and waited for the water to change its character.
On the appointed date the streams stopped running, the wells went dry, and the man who had listened, seeing this happening, went to his rdtreat and drank his preserved water.
When he saw, from his security, the waterfalls again beginning to flow, this man descended among the other sons of men. He found that they were thinking and talking in an entirely different way from before; yet they had no memory of what had happened, nor of having been warned. When he tried to talk to them, he realized that they thought that he was mad, and they showed hostility or compassion, not understanding.
At first he drank none of the new water, but went back to his concealment, to draw on his supplies, every day. Finally, however, he took the decision to drink the new water because he could not bear the loneliness of living, behaving and thinking in a different way from everyone else. He drank the new water, and became like the rest. Then he forgot all about his own store of special water, and his fellows began to look upon him as a madman who had miraculously been restored to sanity.
The struggle for truth in the assassination of President Kennedy confronts us with the problem of the "waters of knowledge" versus "the waters of uncertainty." Let me give you an example involving two important individuals who attempted to bring the truth before the American people. I am speaking of New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison and filmmaker Oliver Stone.
CONTINUED...
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/27th_Issue/schotz.html
From DU 2010, but I seem to remember reading it before. I gotta go to work now, but please remind me, my Dear Friend.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)Because when I argued before that Robert Kennedy should be considered an accessory to his brother's assassination for not pursuing a conspiracy he suspected of killing his brother, I meant it to show the absurdity of suggesting RFK suspected a conspiracy in his brother's death. I really did think that no one could really argue for that point.
And yet in this article, I read this:
There is no depth to which a JFK conspiracy theorist will not sink in order to protect their fantasies from reality. Shame on you for advocating that Robert Kennedy had any hand in covering up for his brother's murderers. Shame on you.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Out of context is your friend, Bolo Boffin. Not mine.
BelgianMadCow
(5,379 posts)ALL speculation to be allowed in GD? I find the distinction made now absurd and it bothers me greatly.
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)In other words, facts and events can be substantiated or discredited, and that is something the DU community does well.
Some speculation bypasses the confirmation and goes right to theory, working backward to grab "facts" that fit.
I'm glad to see this report from the conference allowed to stand in GD. It establishes more dots thereby reducing the range of responsible speculation.
And it's the 50th anniversary so there is going to be a lot of interest through Novemeber.
ReasonableToo
(505 posts)...there are unfounded conspiracy theories and well founded conspiracy theories. This JFK discussion is welcome truth telling and I'm happy to see it in GD.
when someone claims 2+2=10 it's unfounded and should go the conspiracy forum.
when someone shares 2+2+2+2+2 and the logical conclusion is "=10" then it's well founded.
Seems to me, Nixon & supporters tried to pass Watergate off as CT but actual journalists did their jobs.
I think people who still dismiss JFK discussions have not bothered to look at all the "2's" It deserves to be here just as much as a discussion about Deepwater Horizon or Enron or any number of fact finding efforts.
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)bobduca
(1,763 posts)when someone is acting out every single one of the directives in that internal CIA memo posted upthread on how to stifle discussion of JFK conspiracy then one must draw one's own conclusions about those poster's motivations.
Little Star
(17,055 posts)Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)I asked the administrators to clarify the point and Skinner replied that he didn't see the harm in one thread reporting on the conference.
He also said "Aren't JFK conspiracy theories mainstream?" So take that as you will.
reddread
(6,896 posts)I doubt that many folks were dissuaded by your attempts at bullying and censorship, but maybe?
I do know there arent any surprises in the list of posters who recced this fundamental concern
of Democrats who know how easily democracy can be shot through the head without reprisal.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)i'm always taken aback when I see it in our own ranks.
...and what a nice turn of phrase, "how easily democracy can be shot through the head..."
reddread
(6,896 posts)Id rather it were nonsense.
and Id prefer mass outrage at
assassination, rather than complacency.
the 21st century has been heavily disappointing.
thanks again, I do appreciate the nod!
Peace.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)And it's not bullying to stick to your point.
But Skinner clarified that he did mean to give Octafish permission for this thread in GD and I've apologized.
JFK conspiracy theories are not a fundamental concern of Democrats. Social Security is. Immigration reform is. Women's reproductive rights are. JFK CT is a hobby.
reddread
(6,896 posts)all the same. you ONLY NEEDED TO MAKE YOUR MISTAKEN POINT ONCE.
that wasnt enough, though, and you were compounding your bad behavior every time.
one belated "apology" hardly does the trick, does it?
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)Autumn
(45,107 posts)This man was a well loved President who was murdered before his time. It was a traumatic time and some of us will always remember .