Chris Matthews tears apart JFK - LBJ author, slams his sources, then tells you to buy the book!

Run time: 07:45 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9w-JTA18fQ   Posted on YouTube: November 21, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: November 21, 2009 By DU Member: spiritual_gunfighter Views on DU: 5079

 
I guess this is classic Chris Matthews, if that is your sort of thing. But Matthews has a valid point.

Were I the author, I would have walked off the set.

Tweety should just give up on interviewing anyone and talk to the camera for an hour. That is what he wants to do anyway.

And the things he must sell if he wants to keep his job are books and the official account of the JFK assassination.

He only wanted to hear what he wanted to believe.
All authors should boycott him.
He doesn't believe in two side.

Horrible, horrific interview.

He was so passionate about this, that it makes me think there is something else going on here.

Matthews has an agenda, he has not made his love for LBJ much of a secret on his program, he didn't like this anecdote of the President told by McHugh and made that known. Like I said he should really just stop interviewing people on his show and shout at the camera for an hour. I think he would be happier.

by being rude, argumentative, etc. (like O'Lielly) to increase his viewer ratings.

No, it wasn't "dumb luck"- you're just plain dumb.

on edit: okay okay it might be a good if not great book and he in turn a great writer and historian. Unfortunately Tweety wouldn't let him speak much except to rebut the whole "LBJ in hysterics" thing.

Sometimes i wish he would just STFU.

He doesn't give interviews he gives ignorant rants and speeches. He is a shill and a dumb shill at that. He is one of the guardians and gatekeepers of the baloney the government is intent on making fact.

Is he left, is he right, is he left, no he's right. AHHH!

When in fact the shot that killed the President came from the front, right side?

46 years later and the major media outlets are still spewing the same lies and obfuscation.

In fact it was the CIA killed JFK. There is no other reasonable conclusion. A team of shooters was set up in Dealey Plaza. The Secret Service had been intimidated and bribed to stand down.

So it was a triangulated hit.

JFK's Limo; An unprecedented move.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/171830/secret_service_jfk/

had actually been assigned to other positions in the motorcade and they were MISTAKENLY assuming places on the rear of the limo. I believe there's a Secret Service log of the day's assignments and activities that attests to this (I believe it's included in the WCR documentation).

What would have been unprecedented would have been to allow SS agents to ride on JFK's limo when they had been assigned other duties in the motorcade.

Also - JFK didn't like being surrounded by security. He never allowed the side running boards to be attached to his limo for SS agents to ride, and he hated the non-bullet-proof bubble top as well.

Don't have time to source that right now (gotta run some errands), but you can look it up in the meantime.

BTW - who said this on the day of the assassination: "It would not be a very difficult job to shoot the president of the United States. All you'd have to do is get up in a high building with a high-powered rifle with a telescopic sight, and there's nothing anybody could do."?

That was JFK himself, speaking at around 10:15 am. His words were heard by both Jackie and Ken O'Donnell.

By JFK CT standards, JFK himself must have been involved in his own assassination. Who else was recorded as saying such a thing only two hours before the shooting? No one.

so many times by the SS agents themselves as to make it moot.
and yes I have read the rosters of that day and the rosters of many more trips to Texas and on none of these others had this ever happened

http://www.jfklancer.com/LNE/limo.html

and there are many more such analysis of the facts on that event

The only person I know who advances this theory is Vincent Palamara. His 1993 book on the subject went only as far as to say that he felt the SS was incompetent. In that book, he advanced the idea that the SS has stripped down their protection of JFK as a test and that the test went horribly wrong. But by 1997, Palamara was reporting that he had had "off the record" chats with SS agents, and that those chats led him to believe that the SS was involved in the assassination. Is there any other JFK CTist who advances that idea? I don't know of any.

Yes - Palamara is cited at many JFK sites like Lancer, but those don't count as "debunking something many times" when every site is quoting the same, single source.

But, I'm game. Let's go ahead and assume that the SS was pulled off the back of JFK's limo to better assist the assassin(s). All that does is strengthen the argument that shots were fired from BEHIND JFK, ie: from where Oswald was positioned. SS agents riding on the rear of the limo would not have been in a position to stop bullets fired from the grassy knoll. The rear of the limo was the only place SS agents could have been stationed because the side runners were not installed on the limo that day.

Furthermore, if the SS agents were stationed on the rear of the limo, they would have effectively ruined Oswald's line of fire, so Oswald probably wouldn't have fired the first two shots that he fired before the kill shot. That means that there wouldn't have been two "warning shots" fired from the rear for the SS agents to react to (one imagines they would have jumped into the back seat of the limo and covered the occupants), so any shooter stationed at the grassy knoll would STILL have a clear shot at JFK.

So how, exactly, does placing SS agents on the rear of the limo stop an assassination that - in the minds of JFK CTists - was in the hands of multiple shooters (with the kill shot fired from the grassy knoll), none of whom was Oswald anyway?

BTW - my argument is only all too convenient because it fits the facts.

Final BTW - care to comment on the JFK comment made the day of the assassination?

Your gossipy analogy that "some folks said" is not more believable than those of the SS agents themselves. It is not just one mans word about those conversations; And one might equally be concerned that side boards were not being used that day as JFK had been warned Texas was hostile territory and was advised not even to make the trip. A very odd time to be testing theories on reducing the presidents safety.

Who are the other people who spoke with the SS agents besides Palamara? I don't know, I'm asking. There has to be someone other than Palamara or else these conversations definitely qualify as "one man's word."

It is no secret that Texas was considered hostile territory. Everyone knows he was advised not to take the trip, but JFK made a political decision to go there.

You haven't commented on JFK's prophetic words about someone trying to kill the POTUS. Why not?

from a presidents point of view someone is always conspiring to kill him and many plots and conspiracies to kill the president have been discovered and thwarted. If the president made such thoughts known, you would think the SS would take extraordinary precautions and be especially alert to such an event.

threats made by mobsters and everyone else who made "threats" against JFK.

eye on, is made up of what is in the doing and what has been done and who is responsible for that doing and on this we must, must thread the needle or all else becomes a dead end in the evolution of failed states. It is the difference in whether the faults are corrected so we still have a chance at democracy, the ephemeral glimmer of a once great nation, which, sad to say, is now fleeting at best, or we just put rose colored blinders on and accept our fate which is not looking rosy at the moment, even with the rose colored blinders; Whose fault lines can be traced to that seminal event; A seed that was pure evil for which no stone must be left unturned, rather than a glossing over and what has turned out to be an "oh well, what can ya do" fatal hiccup, in the history of the world.

- as proven beyond any doubt whatsoever by every shred of evidence - that JFK was killed by Oswald who acted alone. there was no conspiracy, grand or small. there was no involvement from people within our government. No involvement of the mob, the Cubans etc.

Our inability as a people to accept reality is one of our greatest weaknesses. Our inability to accept that coincidences are just that, and not the planned evil of some ill-meaning agency keeps us back as a species and as a nation. Whether it's believing in supernatural beings (gods) or super-powerful dark forces (government agencies), the majority of people in our country refuse to deal with facts as facts. Our country sees beliefs and opinions as facts, facts as opinions.

Indeed, the "oh well, what can ya do" attitude stems directly from the kind of wishful and fanciful thinking that sees sinister and powerful motives and forces behind the simplest things in life. We need to get beyond such naivety - no matter how soothing we find it to be in an "I know something you don't know" way - and allow ourselves to accept that which our power to reason make perfectly clear.

convenient and colorful renderings of the truth does not produce facts. There are far too many inconsistencies for a logical mind to accept the official story; The ginned up "reality" we are invited to swallow, to me is as far out of whack as some of the more inane conspiracy theories that are just as impossible. If a brilliant mind like Gore Vidal has misgivings about the official story, as well as many other brilliant minds, I do not consider those on a parallel track with mine any less viable. To say the official story has been proven beyond any doubt tells me of who and what I am dealing; Or you might have just said, for me it is proven beyond all doubt, which I can readily accept and have no argument.

JFK assassination know few of the facts and evidence in the case. That goes for as great a mind as Gore Vidal.

How many who criticize the WCR have actually read the thing? How many who follow the conspiracy theory fables have bothered to read the evidence-based arguments put forward by Bugliosi and Posner? Very, very few, that's who.

What's ginned up and inconsistent are the crazed conspiracy theories, all of which are dependent on the same official evidence as was the WCR. Every single JFK CT demands leaps of illogic that make one's head spin. Every one of them demands cherry picking evidence and ignoring other evidence and logic.

Tell me, have you read Bugliosi? Have you read the WCR? I'm going to guess "no."

Answer one simple question: if the bullet that hit JFK in the head was fired from the grassy knoll, why wasn't Jackie killed as well?

Bugliosi V/reality. A Well written book with Bugliosi for the state and straw men for the defense of the truth. For those who want to be separated from their minds and drug around by a nose ring, with facts mixed with fallacy this is the book for them. Bugliosi speaks for the state to debunk the conspiracy theories even though the Warren commission in the end came to the conclusion that from the evidence that Oswald killed JFK but was involved in a plot or conspiracy for JFK's assassination. All one need do is go to youtube and type in JFK assassination to find incontrovertible evidence as to who exactly did kill JFK; The research there is exhaustive and worthy of the greatest detectives. And it ain't the simpleton one lone gunman idiocy. Bugliosi has lived too long on the laurels of convicting the mad man Charles Manson whose conviction was a forgone conclusion and one in which inspector Clouseau or the village idiot could have convicted. I will give him this; he is a compelling writer as any good prosecuting attorney must be, but here he only gives the states bizarre side of the story with its obvious truthyness.

or are you relying on reviews written by pro-conspiracy types?

Please try to be honest.

Thanks.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=490878&mesg_id=491708

Now, look at the angle from Kennedy's head, neck, shoulders, and back and draw a line back through the SS agent standing on the rear wearing the dark glasses.

The presence of SS agents on the bumper would have made an Oswald shot very difficult.

and JFK would have escaped being killed that day.

What's your point?

Oh, wait. Your point is that the Secret Service was deeply involved in making sure JFK was killed in Dallas, correct?

Paranoid BS. Make-believe shit.

But, wait - Oswald was a patsy who didn't shoot anyone, and the shot that killed JFK came from the grassy knoll, so SS agents standing on the rear bumper wouldn't have stopped the killing anyway.

Stupid JFK CTists never think anything through past their first step into bizarro world.

conclusion was that Oswald shot JFK, however was involved in a conspiracy to do so. Your reasoning powers are failing you.
If there was a conspiracy and the SS men had not been removed from the back of the limo and therefore not in the line of fire; The patsy Oswald would not have had a clear shot and could therefore not be an alibi as he has been all these years. Do some research before you spout nonsense. Go to youtube and type in JFK Assassination, where you will find incontrovertible evidence of exactly who shot JFK, or do you not trust your lying eyes. My guess is you read states attorney Bugliosi's argument for the state and handed over your mind to be filled with fact mixed with fallacy as any good states attorney knows full well how to manipulate to bring the conclusion he is looking for.

concerning possible conspiracies to kill JFK.

What they found was that they could not rule out a conspiracy, not that there was a conspiracy. That finding was explained by saying that at that time and with the evidence they had, they could not confirm that there was a conspiracy. They said that one can't prove a negative. They held open the door that evidence could be presented in the future to prove a conspiracy, but that such evidence had not been presented at the time the report was issued:

"Because of the difficulty of proving negatives to a certainty the possibility of others being involved with either Oswald or Ruby cannot be established categorically, but if there is any such evidence it has been beyond the reach of all the investigative agencies and resources of the United States and has not come to the attention of this Commission. In its entire investigation the Commission has found no evidence of conspiracy, subversion, or disloyalty to the U.S. Government by any Federal, State, or local official. On the basis of the evidence before the Commission it concludes that Oswald acted alone. Therefore, to determine the motives for the assassination of President Kennedy, one must look to the assassin himself." - Source: Warren Commission Report, Chapter One, Page 22 "Summary and Conclusions" ( http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-1.html )

Where do you get your wrong-headed info on the JFK killing? Oliver Stone?

Doesn't it embarrass you to spout such lies when the entire world is just a mouse click away from info that proves you're lying? You JFK CTists throw out these logic bombs all day long, and when your lie is shot down you don't even have the guts to defend it. You just post the next lie sitting in Oliver Stone's little mind, hoping to tie up the fact-reliant in an endless game of chasing phantoms.

Rummy? Is that you, Rummy, with your "absence of evidence" argument?

instead of "was"with the qualifier that after considering the evidence, conspiracy could not be ruled out.
Tell me how does Madeleine Brown fit into your scenario of absolutes.

Get owned on one lie you told, so toss out another one-sentence CT and laugh away as the truth squad spends the better part of a morning sourcing a rebuttal. When that one gets rebutted, there's always another one ready to go. In fact, there always will be another one ready to go because making shit up is easy while fact checking takes time.

And the WCR definitely ruled out a conspiracy based on the lack of evidence. They said that they couldn't prove a negative, seeing in advance what CTists would be asking the sane to do for decades to come. They only admitted the OBVIOUS, that at a later date, evidence might arise that gave credence to a conspiracy happening. That is worlds away from saying it "could not be ruled out."

You haven't answered my questions to you as to 1) why the grassy knoll bullet didn't kill Jackie, and 2) have you actually read Bugliosi's Reclaiming History? Until you answer those questions, and as you've already proved yourself to be - in your words - "ignorant of the facts" on everything so far, I see no reason for me to engage in a one-sided dialogue by commenting on M Brown. I've played this game with you CTists and it's a complete waste of time and intelligence.

Sad to see posts like yours at DU.

Tweety could have let the guest talk more, because the guest basically confirmed Tweety's POV. But Tweety never lets anyone talk.

And Tweets has a very valid point - you don't go with single-sourced hearsay as a talking point for your argument. His points on LBJ's actions on that day are spot on and well-taken.

And I'm glad that Tweet's brought up the idiocy of the grassy knoll crowd. There's no evidence whatsoever to support those ludicrous claims.

Oswald acted alone. Case closed. Get over it.

Tweety's point was valid, all of LBJ's actions on that day were right on. McHugh's account have been disputed, he harbored a grudge against LBJ, he hated him. The author believed McHugh's story and only had him as a source. Tweety should have let him prove his case but he didn't and it ended up making Tweety look bad when it would have been easy to let the author hang himself with his own rope.

Then why no exit wound on the left side of JFK's head? Why wasn't Jackie killed by the same bullet - her head was directly behind JFK's head at the time of the fatal shot. The bullet trajectory from any grassy knoll shot at ZF 313 would have had to have killed Jackie as well.

There is no "fact" that the CIA killed JFK. That's pure BS.